Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#141

Post by richrichardsson »

gallexme wrote: post #47
erinnh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-m...

1000 annual listens? That's likely less than 1$/mo revenue the artists get no? Even small time musicians I know have about 1000 listens a month Seems to me just like yt monetization partner program which required like 50€ revenue for payout and 1000 subs+approval for even enabling monetization (some time ago unsure if it's still limited for new accounts ) Unless I'm missing something it mainly just trims out mass pro…

> Even small time musicians I know have about 1000 listens a month

On every single one of their tracks?

Let's say they have 20 tracks on Spotify.

1000 plays/month across 20 tracks gives 50 plays/track/month.

50 plays/month gives 600 plays/year, less than the threshold.

ARTIST GETS NOTHING FROM SPOTIFY.

Fuck Spotify.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#142

Post by anotheryou »

bayindirh wrote: post #114
anotheryou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, I think so. And youtube is mixed quality, especially for older uploads. Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard). - Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent" I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't f…

Lossless still beats MP3@320CBR audibly, but you need a pipeline which can render that difference. I’ll not rewrite details here, one can search my comment history if more details are required.

Yes, at least for my setup it makes a difference, but for me not in quality.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#143

Post by anotheryou »

Thorrez wrote: post #136
anotheryou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, I think so. And youtube is mixed quality, especially for older uploads. Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard). - Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent" I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't f…

I don't think that imgur link is a good example. The only opus 128 there is heavily optimized for low latency (5ms frame size). If you remove that optimization, and instead optimize for quality, opus does better than mp3 at the same bitrate. https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg

too bad that diagram stops at 128, as I want to compare to 320 mp3

no question opus is the more efficient codec

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#144

Post by ufocia »

jstummbillig wrote: post #84
drewdevault wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; a lifetime of spotify listening will make less money for an artist you…

> a lifetime of spotify listening will make less money for an artist you like than buying a single album from them on Bandcamp. This is false. And I mean, dramatically. > Even if you only listen to one artist, 8 hours per day, 365 days a year, they will earn a whopping... 100 bucks from Spotify. It's roughly 200$. Number of songs per hour: 60 minutes / 3 minutes per song = 20 songs Total listening hours per year: 8 h…

Interesting to know. What are the comparative figures for youtube and TikTok videos?

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#145

Post by carlosjobim »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #46

For something that uses this approach (metadata from spotify, music from yt) but with downloads, take a look at spotdl[1]. Very useful for mpd. Disclaimer: not my project, but I've had some success with it. 1. https://github.com/spotDL/spotify-downloader

I've been relying for years on Mediahuman's downloader: https://www.mediahuman.com/youtube-to-mp3/31/

It will download any Spotify playlist or YouTube playlist as a bunch of individual MP3s, and do it fast. You can also paste individual song links to download them. Great quality and UI.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#146

Post by jasode »

drewdevault wrote: post #26
Reubend wrote: post #3

While it's nice to have an open source client, please think twice about bypassing the premium subscription/ads to listen for free. Musician deserve to be paid for their work, and it's not fair to them to bypass all of the mechanisms to do that. Spotify doesn't pay musicians well, but there are still indie artists making a living from it nonetheless. I hear a lot of people these days complaining about ads, and that's…

Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; a lifetime of spotify listening will make less money for an artist you…

>You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists;

Often, the "listening to music however you please" will contradict "buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists" ... because the particular artists the listener wants to listen to are on a big label and thus, their albums are not on Bandcamp.

The "buy on Bandcamp" advice only works if one likes to listen to the type of artists (typically indie) that happen to release on Bandcamp.

On the other hand, if music listeners want the mainstream stuff (Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Rolling Stones, etc)... they're only on the big tech music streamers like Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, etc.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#147

Post by NekkoDroid »

devjab wrote: post #56
monsieurbanana wrote: post #4

For something that puts "not using electron" so prominently I didn't expect it using flutter. I admit I don't really have much experience with it, I thought it was like react-native (but better?), still far from truly native apps. Im here to being told I'm wrong. I would love to, specially since we can transpile clojure to dart

I’m sort of surprised it’s considered a good thing. Some of my favourite programs use electron, like visual studio code. I haven’t used Spotify though, so maybe that is one of the many electron apps that suck? I was very unimpressed by flutter when we PoC it at work, but that was years ago, so maybe it’s gotten better since.

Spotify Desktop also doesn't exactly use Electron, but 1 layer below: CEF

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#148

Post by superultra »

Reubend wrote: post #3

While it's nice to have an open source client, please think twice about bypassing the premium subscription/ads to listen for free. Musician deserve to be paid for their work, and it's not fair to them to bypass all of the mechanisms to do that. Spotify doesn't pay musicians well, but there are still indie artists making a living from it nonetheless. I hear a lot of people these days complaining about ads, and that's…

I work in the music industry and am intimately familiar with streaming earnings. While you are technically correct, I would much rather someone use this tool and buy a ticket to a show or an LP that stream over Spotify. In fact, the ad supported tier of Spotify is one of the lesser equitable ways to pay artists.

Your intent is good but gatekeeping people to use an inequitable system is not the solution.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#149

Post by superultra »

kossTKR wrote: post #36
Reubend wrote: post #3

While it's nice to have an open source client, please think twice about bypassing the premium subscription/ads to listen for free. Musician deserve to be paid for their work, and it's not fair to them to bypass all of the mechanisms to do that. Spotify doesn't pay musicians well, but there are still indie artists making a living from it nonetheless. I hear a lot of people these days complaining about ads, and that's…

Deserve to be paid by whom though, Spotify already pays nothing? A song with 10000000 (10 million) streams , a pretty big hit and only reserved for big artists will give you 500 dollars before cuts, taxes etc. So not even the biggest artists will make anything substantial.

There’s a lot of misinformation on this post.

A 10 million stream song will gross about $30-40k. After cuts for an artist, depending on the structure, they might get anywhere from most of that to $5-10k.

Not that Spotify is an equitable payment system but let’s be honest about the numbers.

Post reply on HN