Live data from Hacker News

Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

github.com

461–470 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#461
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank god they recorded the concert using binaural mics on an identical copy of your head :)

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#462
post #339

I don't get it at all. > No ads, thanks to the use of public & free Spotify and YT Music APIs¹ There's zero permission to use Spotify's APIs in this way. So what does "thanks" mean in this context? I don't like projects like this that potentially ruin it for the rest of us.

there are easier ways to get Spotify for free that requires more bandwidth

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#463
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that it is better to pay 90$ for 1000$ worth of goods than to pay nothing. This is a false dilemma, there is a third choice that is paying only what you can afford. Paying only 9% of a physical good wouldn't make anyone less of a robber. A lot of people here would rather blame those who steal better than they do, than question the industry that allows artists work to be sold off. Furthermore, I would say that…

These aren't physical goods, and (my issues with the categorization of piracy as theft aside) given that we're talking about legally listening to music you have access to through a service you pay for, I don't even know how to engage with the suggestion that this is theft (on the part of the consumers anyway). If you have the means and inclination to pay more I strongly urge people to pay more also. There are issues…

> These aren't physical goods, and (my issues with the categorization of piracy as theft aside) given that we're talking about legally listening to music you have access to through a service you pay for, I don't even know how to engage with the suggestion that this is theft.

It being legal doesn't do much about its unfairness.

> For the average person who can maybe comfortably afford $90 per year, a subscription service is a much more viable way to support the musicians they listen to than buying 4-9 albums

The option that you describe as the best for people who can't put more than 90$ a year on music (which is perfectly fine), is going through a subscription service, because even if a lesser amount of that money goes directly to artists, more of them get to see a bit of it.

I disagree with that, because you don't know for sure where your money is going, as all of this distribution system around streaming services is pretty opaque. As far as I know, the money from subscriptions on Spotify is not equally distributed among the artists that a user listens to. Bigger artists tend to get more per play than smaller ones.

The other option would be to spend that same amount on buying albums each year on a service like Bandcamp, which is known to distribute the money in a more direct and transparent way, and where artists actually have more control over what and how they want to sell.

It definitely means making a choice about what to buy, but it is still better than letting an obscure algorithm make that choice for you.

We should also consider that we can favor artists who are in need over those who are already earning large amounts. This is the opposite of what streaming services seems to be doing.

> your idea that poor people should have reduced access to the arts

This is not my idea and I didn't say that. I criticize those who waste their time chasing the "theft", who they blame for being the origin of the artists being poorly paid, when the subscription model being proposed as the best solution is actually far from it and could also be considered as theft when you put out the numbers of how much artists are asking for their work.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is region locking, if I can't access the content in any way without potentially purchasing a very expensive TV package, I'm left with only one choice. A lot of music on spotify can't be accessed in my region and same with movies/series.

> My problem is region locking, if I can't access the content in any way without potentially purchasing a very expensive TV package, I'm left with only one choice. Do you mean that literally? Because I'd think buying physical copies, or forgoing access, would also be options.

Have you ever had your content region locked? Wanting to watch something but can't because of where you live? What if you're half way through a series and a company rips away access to your country? Do you just shrug and 'forgo' your access?

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#465
post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it was a flawed example for sure. All of the other examples I could think of at the time seemed like they'd be inflammatory in various ways.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#467
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)…

A reduction in soundstage/width is likely due to using "joint stereo" or "intensity stereo" encoder modes, which do things such as mid-side (M-S) conversion (which isn't itself the culprit) in order to give more bits to M (which results in better quality for sounds with high L-R correlation, like vocals) and fewer bits to S (which results in less quality for sounds with low L-R correlation, like a drum kit stereo miked).

If using plain old "stereo" mode instead, this problem doesn't occur, but you need a higher overall bitrate for correlated sounds to come through at the same quality, so it's rarely used at modest bitrates and instead tends to be reserved for only the highest bitrates.

Thus, comparing mp3@192 with mp3@320 often actually means comparing mp3@192joint with mp3@320stereo and therefore the listener will find very little if any improvement in the quality of mono-miked center-panned sounds (vocals, etc.) but a decent improvement in the quality of wide sounds (cymbals, reverb, string sections, etc.) since the 320 will have only a few more bits for "mid" but way more bits for "side" so to speak, relative to the 192.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to pay for Spotify but canceled because the player experience was so bad, not because of the cost.

I usually keep my opinions on software to myself, but I struggle to understand how the audio playback code path is not rock solid at this point. It's a state machine. That's it.

It's not audio quality or the specific playback experience I had a problem with. It's all the features around it. I'm used to players like Winamp, foobar2000. Real native applications that are responsive and customizable and feature rich.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#469

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?

[deleted]

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#470
post #179

The lengths that literal engineers will go to to not have to pay $10/mo for music or $3 to rent a movie in 4k immediately. Can't believe I have adult friends who make 70-300k and they still pirate based on money, not quality/directors-cuts/anti-cheats, etc. I quit pirating when I got a real job and could afford to pay developers and movie teams for their effort. I write software. I want to get paid too, right? Why sh…

Piracy is a moral imperative. The internet was supposed to be free and break down barriers. Instead what we have now is a show available in the UK but not available in the US. This is not acceptable.

This plus the fact that actual artists get a pittance, means the flag will fly high till companies learn.

Also piracy has become much more reliable these days. There are systems which will make sure you get 4k streams based on any genre you enjoy. New shows from around the world. No need to wait for Netflix to add it to your countries playlist that to hidden behind garbage UX.

At the end of the day it is about availability, user control, artist benefits and showing the middle finger to large corporations.

That is the hacker mindset. That is what I grew up with in the early 2000s and it is substantially better than what we are "supposed" to do now. Hope that makes sense.

Post reply on HN