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

451–460 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#451

Post by fermentation »

linsomniac wrote: post #326

Somewhat related: A month ago I migrated from Spotify to YTMusic (Youtube), and published the scripts I used to do it. People have kind of come out of the woodwork: reporting issues, starring the repo, asking questions, last night I found someone has written a GUI for it. https://github.com/linsomniac/spotify_to_ytmusic The biggest reason I ditched Spotify is that their shuffle play of playlists is laughably bad. I l…

I wanted to like ytmusic, but their ios client is somehow worse that spotify. Main daily gripes are toasts (stop doing toasts on ios, never do toasts) hiding ui elements I want to touch and the app forgetting my queue every day or two

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#452

Post by beej71 »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #305
beej71 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some programs aren't available on DVD in my region. But I suppose DVD players are cheap, so people can just buy one per region. ... Or does piracy sound like a better experience?

It probably comes down one's personal ethics, views about civic virtue, etc. I want my neighbor's pile of firewood. They probably wouldn't miss one or two logs, but I have other reasons for not taking any. I'm not trying to persuade anyone that my view is correct, I'm just saying that I think this is one aspect of how different people approach the question of how to obtain digital entertainment.

The "piracy==stealing" argument doesn't work here. I don't doubt you'd make a copy of your neighbor's pile of firewood if you coveted it.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#453

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #292
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload), which in many cases was probably a lossy codec in the first place. So often you're listening to some lossy codec, reencoded to another lossy codec.

> Even disregarding which codec Youtube uses, there's also the question of what codec was uploaded(unless it's an official upload) Hm? What codec was uploaded if it's an official upload?

Presumably a lossless one.

As opposed to some mp3 ripped off a scratched CD in some guy's drawer.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#454

Post by seemack »

felixbraun wrote: post #307

Worked on an open source cloud player 10y ago: idea was to have one place to curate playlists and your music library in general -- basically an access and authentication platform where the underlying providers can change over the years without impacting your collection. Still feel this is the right way to think about collecting and curating music going forward…

I had a similar thought a few years ago when trying to think of "useful" uses of NFTs. It could be great if I could buy music, etc and then play it on any streaming service via some sort of proof-of-right-to-play mechanism.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#455

Post by _joel »

bayindirh wrote: post #360
Tarq0n wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the best recordings I've heard (NPR) are only on YouTube. This leads me to believe recording quality is orders of magnitude more important than encoding, as long as a decent bitrate and encoding scheme were used.

The quality ceiling for any recording you have is the quality ceiling of the weakest link in your audio pipeline. This means, to be able to get a good sound from any system, you have to feed it a good signal, and that path starts with recording. Current audio codecs are great from a psychoacoustic point of view. A good encoder can create an enjoyable file at modest bitrates (192kbps for MP3, and 128kbps for AAC IIRC)…

> Lastly, it's not possible to completely contain the sound of a symphony orchestra in a stereo recording

Thank god we have more than 2 ears.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#456

Post by [deleted] »

linsomniac wrote: post #326

Somewhat related: A month ago I migrated from Spotify to YTMusic (Youtube), and published the scripts I used to do it. People have kind of come out of the woodwork: reporting issues, starring the repo, asking questions, last night I found someone has written a GUI for it. https://github.com/linsomniac/spotify_to_ytmusic The biggest reason I ditched Spotify is that their shuffle play of playlists is laughably bad. I l…

[deleted]

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#458

Post by kjqgqkejbfefn »

bayindirh wrote: post #360
Tarq0n wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the best recordings I've heard (NPR) are only on YouTube. This leads me to believe recording quality is orders of magnitude more important than encoding, as long as a decent bitrate and encoding scheme were used.

The quality ceiling for any recording you have is the quality ceiling of the weakest link in your audio pipeline. This means, to be able to get a good sound from any system, you have to feed it a good signal, and that path starts with recording. Current audio codecs are great from a psychoacoustic point of view. A good encoder can create an enjoyable file at modest bitrates (192kbps for MP3, and 128kbps for AAC IIRC)…

What's your take on audio systems that deliver vibrations. I have a nuraphone and a subpac. Great for listening to trap music or iranian experimental.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#459

Post by judge2020 »

tills13 wrote: post #449
bayindirh wrote: post #2

Nifty. Please be aware that this is not a "spotify client" per se. It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube. It's an interesting invention, and worthy of the first page, if you ask me.

Not really suggesting Spotify pays their artists well but surely YouTube is worse, right?

Supposedly "between $0.001 and $0.003" from [0], but then this site[1] claims:

> Plays on YouTube Music will gain on average $0.008.

Although neither have sources. I imagine YouTube Premium plays match or beat Spotify on average.

Of course, for anything, if you block ads AND refuse to pay for the premium subscription, the artist makes $0 from your listening. Hopefully you can support them off-platform via merch or even purchasing their albums (e.g. iTunes which provides DRM-free versions), but then you're still not paying for the platform if you continue to use one with an ad blocker.

0: https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/

1: https://routenote.com/blog/how-much-music-streaming-services... Although this doesn't take into account

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#460

Post by JadeNB »

hirako2000 wrote: post #442
denysvitali wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair it would be more HN worthy if they managed to reverse engineer the DRM of Spotify to create a custom client without the Spotify library (which only works for Premium users)

Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what.

> Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what.

Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.

Post reply on HN