Downloading music from YouTube

[TSF]

42 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You are right. But it's always amazing how many people insist on 320kbps.

I remember this guy with his huge collection - he insisted it was all 320kbps.

And he also insisted that was the necessary quality - for playing background music in a pool hall ?

My music collection is massive and I have albums at 64kbps right through to 320kbps. My understanding is that albums ripped at 320 are better than being ripped at 128, at least that's what all the audiophiles on the music blogs claim. But if that's false then please clarify.

[kekalot]

5 minutes ago, TSF said:

Yes, I have thought about that, even though I have limited knowledge of these matters. So what do you suggest when d/l music from UT, what's the optimum way to d/l the music as an mp3 file?

I think you said you were using 4K Downloader earlier so you can use the "original" quality when you click extract audio at the top left when you paste the link in.

clicking the high quality makes no difference in quality, just bigger files.

 

I have tested to make sure downloaded some 4K big production video file and the Vorbis audio file in there was 128kbps

 

that program is well worth paying for to be honest, you can download whole playlists or channels with one click. 15$ that's it

 

now regarding the quality question, a CD ripped at 320kbps would be better quality than a say 128kbps or 192kbps rip yes but if you rip your CD at 128kbps and then CONVERT it to 320kbps it actually degrades the quality.

to be honest 99% of the people don't have the ears or gear to be able to hear the difference between 128 and 320.. 192 would be a better choice if you really think you can

[TSF]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why?

Personally I am willing to pay for good software a reasonable price.

It is a lot of work to develop good software and additional work to update it and give customer support. I think we should support developers who do a good job.

 

"Why?" short answer is I got other things to spend my money on. I made a post here asking for recommendations for a good UT downloader. Digitalbanana recommended 4K YouTube to MP3, it does what I want and is free, so why the hell would I get  out my credit card and pay someone 50 bucks for some other app, when I already got a free app that does the job?

[jvs]

6 minutes ago, TSF said:

My music collection is massive and I have albums at 64kbps right through to 320kbps. My understanding is that albums ripped at 320 are better than being ripped at 128, at least that's what all the audiophiles on the music blogs claim. But if that's false then please clarify.

What audio equipment do you use to listen?That will make a very big diference.

[TSF]

3 minutes ago, kekalot said:

I think you said you were using 4K Downloader earlier so you can use the "original" quality when you click extract audio at the top left when you paste the link in.

clicking the high quality makes no difference in quality, just bigger files.

 

I have tested to make sure downloaded some 4K big production video file and the Vorbis audio file in there was 128kbps

 

that program is well worth paying for to be honest, you can download whole playlists or channels with one click. 15$ that's it

 

now regarding the quality question, a CD ripped at 320kbps would be better quality than a say 128kbps or 192kbps rip yes but if you rip your CD at 128kbps and then CONVERT it to 320kbps it actually degrades the quality.

to be honest 99% of the people don't have the ears or gear to be able to hear the difference between 128 and 320.. 192 would be a better choice if you really think you can

OK, good answer. I knew that converting lower bitrate to higher bitrate doesn't improve quality. So d/l at "original quality" is way to go. Thanks, I'll do that. 

 

Most of the albums I d/l from music sharing blogs are LPs and CDs that collectors rip themselves, most are done at 320, but many others come at various bitrates. Many in recent times have moved over to flac, but the much larger files means more HDD space and more time spent d/l. As you point out, I don't have the ears or gear to tell the diff, so remain with MP3.

[kekalot]

1 minute ago, TSF said:

OK, good answer. I knew that converting lower bitrate to higher bitrate doesn't improve quality. So d/l at "original quality" is way to go. Thanks, I'll do that. 

 

Most of the albums I d/l from music sharing blogs are LPs and CDs that collectors rip themselves, most are done at 320, but many others come at various bitrates. Many in recent times have moved over to flac, but the much larger files means more HDD space and more time spent d/l. As you point out, I don't have the ears or gear to tell the diff, so remain with MP3.

nothing wrong with MP3. if size is an issue I would likely even convert most of those to 192kbps myself.. I don't have the $1000 headphones to be able to hear the 0.5% difference that those audiophiles claim to hear

I don't know if we were talking about the same software tho, mine is called "4k Video Downloader" so if you don't find what I meant in there (you said 4K YouTube to MP3 to previous poster) then that's why

 

technically speaking Youtube is not the best place to get the music from (quality wise) but it's more than fine most of the time, depends on the source etc.

I convert 320kbps MP3s back to 192 myself all the time..

[TSF]

7 minutes ago, jvs said:

What audio equipment do you use to listen?That will make a very big diference.

Yep, that's the big thing, I have 3 ways I listen to my music: on my laptop with extension USB speakers, on a flash drive in my car's Sony CD/radio player, or on my little iPod Shuffle. Another factor is very little of the music I listen to is current, I'm a big blues/R&B/jazz fan so most of the stuff I listen to was recorded in the 1940s/50s/60s/70s.

[OneMoreFarang]

10 minutes ago, TSF said:

57 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You are right. But it's always amazing how many people insist on 320kbps.

I remember this guy with his huge collection - he insisted it was all 320kbps.

And he also insisted that was the necessary quality - for playing background music in a pool hall ?

My music collection is massive and I have albums at 64kbps right through to 320kbps. My understanding is that albums ripped at 320 are better than being ripped at 128, at least that's what all the audiophiles on the music blogs claim. But if that's false then please clarify.

Sure, if it was created initially in a high bitrate then keep it because it is probably in better quality.

My point is that some people would take the 64kbps and "convert" it to 320 and then pretend it will be better like before. But obviously it will never be better than the lowest bitrate it ever was.

 

Now it almost does not matter if an audio file has 5MB or 20MB, disk space is cheap.

But some time ago it mattered. At that time I compared different audio tracks. With a high quality headphone I couldn't hear any difference after 192kbps. And with "normal speakers" in a room with some background noise I couldn't hear any difference after 128kbps.

For me that means 128 or max 192 is perfectly fine.

I guess there will be people who hear a difference i.e. between 192 and 320. But I am pretty sure not many people will hear that difference and will have the high quality equipment which makes it possible to hear it at all.

 

[TSF]

4 minutes ago, kekalot said:

nothing wrong with MP3. if size is an issue I would likely even convert most of those to 192kbps myself.. I don't have the $1000 headphones to be able to hear the 0.5% difference that those audiophiles claim to hear

I don't know if we were talking about the same software tho, mine is called "4k Video Downloader" so if you don't find what I meant in there (you said 4K YouTube to MP3 to previous poster) then that's why

 

technically speaking Youtube is not the best place to get the music from (quality wise) but it's more than fine most of the time, depends on the source etc.

I convert 320kbps MP3s back to 192 myself all the time..

It's called 4K You Tube to MP3. In preferences can d/l in 3 formats: MP3, M4A, and OGG. MP3 has 4 settings: original, 320, 256, 128. I've currently got it on 320, but will follow your advice and put it on "original". There's also a setting for Intensity: 4 settings - safe 1 thread, stable 3 threads, optimal 5 threads, and risky 7 threads. I don't really know what this is about but have it currently on optimal 5 threads.

[jvs]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Sure, if it was created initially in a high bitrate then keep it because it is probably in better quality.

My point is that some people would take the 64kbps and "convert" it to 320 and then pretend it will be better like before. But obviously it will never be better than the lowest bitrate it ever was.

 

Now it almost does not matter if an audio file has 5MB or 20MB, disk space is cheap.

But some time ago it mattered. At that time I compared different audio tracks. With a high quality headphone I couldn't hear any difference after 192kbps. And with "normal speakers" in a room with some background noise I couldn't hear any difference after 128kbps.

For me that means 128 or max 192 is perfectly fine.

I guess there will be people who hear a difference i.e. between 192 and 320. But I am pretty sure not many people will hear that difference and will have the high quality equipment which makes it possible to hear it at all.

 

I think you are totally right about this,i still listen to stereo but many people will listen to 5.1.I have a decent setup but realize getting older takes the edge of your hearing.I have known audiophiles who could never enjoy listening to music,it always had to be just right.

I can enjoy music from many different sources,mostly use my old headphones these days playing music directly from my pc.

 

[TSF]

12 minutes ago, kekalot said:

nothing wrong with MP3. if size is an issue I would likely even convert most of those to 192kbps myself.. I don't have the $1000 headphones to be able to hear the 0.5% difference that those audiophiles claim to hear

I don't know if we were talking about the same software tho, mine is called "4k Video Downloader" so if you don't find what I meant in there (you said 4K YouTube to MP3 to previous poster) then that's why

 

technically speaking Youtube is not the best place to get the music from (quality wise) but it's more than fine most of the time, depends on the source etc.

I convert 320kbps MP3s back to 192 myself all the time..

Yeah, 99.9% of my music comes from collectors' sharing blogs, very little from UT, it's just sometimes people post rare songs on UT and it's good to grab a copy when I come across them.

[TSF]

3 minutes ago, jvs said:

I think you are totally right about this,i still listen to stereo but many people will listen to 5.1.I have a decent setup but realize getting older takes the edge of your hearing.I have known audiophiles who could never enjoy listening to music,it always had to be just right.

I can enjoy music from many different sources,mostly use my old headphones these days playing music directly from my pc.

 

You're not wrong there, I got to tell my wife to speak up all the time...lol

[kekalot]

12 minutes ago, TSF said:

It's called 4K You Tube to MP3. In preferences can d/l in 3 formats: MP3, M4A, and OGG. MP3 has 4 settings: original, 320, 256, 128. I've currently got it on 320, but will follow your advice and put it on "original". There's also a setting for Intensity: 4 settings - safe 1 thread, stable 3 threads, optimal 5 threads, and risky 7 threads. I don't really know what this is about but have it currently on optimal 5 threads.

 

those are almost word per word the exact settings I have on mine but different name for app. the thread things is how many videos/songs you can download at the same time, if you put it to 7 it will download too many at a time youtube might temporarily block you from accessing

 

not going to hear the difference without some real expensive headphones and a much better player like a Cowon Plenue D (my particular choice) but certainly not over a laptop, car speakers or ipods

if storage space is not an issue, keep the proper 320 albums. if storage is an issue you can convert to 192 (from 320 only).

 

I get the odd singles off youtube sometimes, not very easy to get a single song off something like tpb

 

[1FinickyOne]

Does any of this work for youtube to itunes? 

[Digitalbanana]

3 hours ago, kekalot said:

I don't know if we were talking about the same software tho, mine is called "4k Video Downloader"

If you go to their web site they have several free products with some overlap of features. Even tho the name is Youtube downloader I find the mp3 saving also works for other music web sites and its the only free down loader I have found that saves audio in original format and with added extra tag features such as album cover.

[stud858]

For those wanting phone android YouTube downloading

 

[balo]

I have been using Keepvid free online tool for years and never have any problems , but suddenly it was shut down a few months ago . I think they had to close because of copyright issues   

 

Still looking for something as simple as that. 

 

 

 

[Speedo1968]

To download I use Opera browser which has a Turbo Download Manager ( see Opera info about its use ).   

I also use 4K video downloader.

Both of these will advise you in advance if files cannot be downloaded.

Bulk files are also possible to download.

You may be able to reformat via these downloaders.

For reformatting downloaded I use Format Factory, fast, simple, efficient.

As with any downloads it is safer ( although I have had no problems so far ) to download to a specific file on an external drive where you can scan for safety.