Hi all. I'm annoyed at more music stuff. This time it has nothing to do with discussing, comparing and contrasting music genres (thank the lord) because I can go on about that for hours.
Anyway, sometimes friends of mine at school, on here, anywhere like to ask me about music. It's no secret to anyone that I listen to a lot of music pretty much all the time, so a common question I get is "how many songs do you have on your ipod?" It's a weirdly specific question, but I find out and answer anyway. At this very moment, I have 7,175 songs in my itunes (and in conjunction, my ipod) I usually get a split reaction from people when they hear this big number. One reaction I get is just "whoa! that's a lot of music!" and the other reaction I get is "why don't you just listen to the music on youtube?" Now, I've mostly heard the "SAVE SPACE AND LISTEN TO MUSIC ON YOUTUBE" thing from people I go to school with. When it comes to music, obviously there aren't many like me at school. Obviously not everyone is going to care about the quality of their music, so long as they're listening to the music in any way they can. I get that, and that's fine, but it's not for me. So, why does everyone that mention listening to music on youtube have to act like they've found the light, as in, they think their method is infinitely better than mine. Every single person, I'm talking, has sounded ever so slightly patronizing when telling me about their genius music listening ways. Well, nobody asked y'all how you listened to your music.
But while I generally avoid using youtube for portable music listening (because it takes up a fuck-load of mobile data on a phone plan that isn't unlimited ha ha) I do use it a lot at home for finding music before I either buy or download it. Now, when I get into bands, I really, really can get into them. What I mean by this, is, I like to find all sorts of rare stuff to listen to. Whether it be bootlegs, B-sides, demos, I have to have them. Usually they aren't terribly difficult to find. If I were to torrent the artist's discography, sometimes the person making the torrent will have the demo tracks and include them in the download. But even then, sometimes it'll lack a few rare tracks. This is to be expected, though. You just can't expect everyone to have every single song ever made by an artist. But after extensively searching every filesharing site, P2P filesharing service, and torrent site, you'd expect at least someone to have them... right?
I'm a bit of a snob in regards to rare songs and demos because I like to always try and get the files straight from the source if I can. For example, if a band releases a demo on a CD, I'll try and find a direct CD rip. Same goes for cassette. This way I can get the best quality. Even if it's a file that leaked online in like 2001 and has a low bitrate, I still like to find those because usually, they aren't un-listenable. As a very last resort, if I can't find the original files from wherever / whatever the songs came from, I'll then go to looking on youtube and download it from there. But doing this brings up a problem that only me and, like, really pretentious people have (and I really hate to admit that I have this problem, but I absolutely do) and it's to do with quality of the songs.
Now, the whole problem stems from transcoding. Not everyone knows the term so I'll try to explain it in this context as best I can: It's when you encode (in this case) an audio file into another audio file entirely. Now, when people upload music to youtube, they usually don't pay attention to the bitrate the audio is being saved in. In a lot of cases, So if you put a 320kbps MP3 file into whatever editor you're using to put it in a video, and save the video with an audio bitrate of 64kbps or 96kbps, you're drastically decreasing the quality of the song. Even if you save the audio in the video at a high bitrate, Youtube's video encoding system takes its toll on the quality, with every single video having a bitrate of 128kbps, no matter what the quality. Then there's a whole lot of confusion with Youtube to MP3 converters, because they usually encode the audio with some unreliable external program and more often than not save it at 192kbps (I know freemake downloader does this) - No quality is gained. Quality is lost from the original video file being saved from the original audio, and then more quality is lost putting it on youtube. So, upscaling the MP3 bitrate is pointless and a waste of space.
Now for some examples. Hopefully this makes the whole problem not seem needlessly complicated (because it really isn't, there's just a lot of numbers involved.)
Example 1: The demo version of the song "Walk By" by Good Charlotte
Now from what I understand, the only MP3 that has surfaced of this version of the song (from a scarce demo EP that only had 50 copies) is a 96kbps file. I've managed to get a hold of the original file and while it is indeed 96kbps, it doesn't sound bad. But then again, maybe that's because I haven't heard it in better quality. But I'm sure I'll never be able to hear it in better quality unless I take a time machine back 16 years to Waldorf, Maryland- okay I'm rambling now.
Anyway, here's the original MP3:
Definitely listenable. Now, here's a youtube clip someone uploaded, using the same file.
Awful. They screwed with the equalization as well as re-saving it in bad quality. If I hadn't found the original decent sounding MP3, I'd have to settle for downloading this and putting it on my ipod. And that, I wouldn't like.
Example 2: "Drop the Chalupa" by Patent Pending
This song isn't impossibly rare like the first one. I actually have the CD it's from and know a good number of people that do. But before I found my copy of the CD, there was a 128kbps copy floating around the net. I'm sure it sounded alright. Here's the song in 320kbps, more or less how it was meant to be heard:
Now here's someone who uploaded the song and didn't care to make sure it didn't sound like shit. You can especially tell in the drums how low the bitrate is.
But like I said, it's not a huge problem. The song isn't impossibly rare, like I said before, but finding the song isn't easy. I only found a 128kbps copy on SoulseekQt, the modern day equivalent to limewire (without all the malware) but sure enough, it seemed like a legit CD rip.
Example 3: "Ever After" by Patent Pending
Now, this song... Well, let's not beat around the bush. You can not find a decent quality version of this song or the album it's from. Evidently, you could like 12 years ago, but only in 128kbps. I have 5 out of 10 tracks from the album that I found, that's how rare it truly is. I only know one or two people that have the CD, and they either don't know where it is or it's scratched. It's really too bad.
Anyway, this particular song, I first heard through youtube. I really like it, despite it being a real big mess of a song. Here's the atrocious quality video I found which introduced me to this song:
This is the 128kbps MP3 I found. I obtained it by asking a few people on last.fm if they had their original MP3 from way back when, and amazingly someone did. The quality isn't amazing, but it's a huge step up from the video. Again, you can especially tell with the drums.
I could think of a few more examples but I think you get the point. Listening to music strictly through youtube is not the way I choose to live my musical life, and all that there was why. Hopefully some of you can see my point of view, and why I absolutely hate downloading songs from youtube videos.
I like music. This is how I prefer my music.
Anyway, sometimes friends of mine at school, on here, anywhere like to ask me about music. It's no secret to anyone that I listen to a lot of music pretty much all the time, so a common question I get is "how many songs do you have on your ipod?" It's a weirdly specific question, but I find out and answer anyway. At this very moment, I have 7,175 songs in my itunes (and in conjunction, my ipod) I usually get a split reaction from people when they hear this big number. One reaction I get is just "whoa! that's a lot of music!" and the other reaction I get is "why don't you just listen to the music on youtube?" Now, I've mostly heard the "SAVE SPACE AND LISTEN TO MUSIC ON YOUTUBE" thing from people I go to school with. When it comes to music, obviously there aren't many like me at school. Obviously not everyone is going to care about the quality of their music, so long as they're listening to the music in any way they can. I get that, and that's fine, but it's not for me. So, why does everyone that mention listening to music on youtube have to act like they've found the light, as in, they think their method is infinitely better than mine. Every single person, I'm talking, has sounded ever so slightly patronizing when telling me about their genius music listening ways. Well, nobody asked y'all how you listened to your music.
But while I generally avoid using youtube for portable music listening (because it takes up a fuck-load of mobile data on a phone plan that isn't unlimited ha ha) I do use it a lot at home for finding music before I either buy or download it. Now, when I get into bands, I really, really can get into them. What I mean by this, is, I like to find all sorts of rare stuff to listen to. Whether it be bootlegs, B-sides, demos, I have to have them. Usually they aren't terribly difficult to find. If I were to torrent the artist's discography, sometimes the person making the torrent will have the demo tracks and include them in the download. But even then, sometimes it'll lack a few rare tracks. This is to be expected, though. You just can't expect everyone to have every single song ever made by an artist. But after extensively searching every filesharing site, P2P filesharing service, and torrent site, you'd expect at least someone to have them... right?
I'm a bit of a snob in regards to rare songs and demos because I like to always try and get the files straight from the source if I can. For example, if a band releases a demo on a CD, I'll try and find a direct CD rip. Same goes for cassette. This way I can get the best quality. Even if it's a file that leaked online in like 2001 and has a low bitrate, I still like to find those because usually, they aren't un-listenable. As a very last resort, if I can't find the original files from wherever / whatever the songs came from, I'll then go to looking on youtube and download it from there. But doing this brings up a problem that only me and, like, really pretentious people have (and I really hate to admit that I have this problem, but I absolutely do) and it's to do with quality of the songs.
Now, the whole problem stems from transcoding. Not everyone knows the term so I'll try to explain it in this context as best I can: It's when you encode (in this case) an audio file into another audio file entirely. Now, when people upload music to youtube, they usually don't pay attention to the bitrate the audio is being saved in. In a lot of cases, So if you put a 320kbps MP3 file into whatever editor you're using to put it in a video, and save the video with an audio bitrate of 64kbps or 96kbps, you're drastically decreasing the quality of the song. Even if you save the audio in the video at a high bitrate, Youtube's video encoding system takes its toll on the quality, with every single video having a bitrate of 128kbps, no matter what the quality. Then there's a whole lot of confusion with Youtube to MP3 converters, because they usually encode the audio with some unreliable external program and more often than not save it at 192kbps (I know freemake downloader does this) - No quality is gained. Quality is lost from the original video file being saved from the original audio, and then more quality is lost putting it on youtube. So, upscaling the MP3 bitrate is pointless and a waste of space.
Now for some examples. Hopefully this makes the whole problem not seem needlessly complicated (because it really isn't, there's just a lot of numbers involved.)
Example 1: The demo version of the song "Walk By" by Good Charlotte
Now from what I understand, the only MP3 that has surfaced of this version of the song (from a scarce demo EP that only had 50 copies) is a 96kbps file. I've managed to get a hold of the original file and while it is indeed 96kbps, it doesn't sound bad. But then again, maybe that's because I haven't heard it in better quality. But I'm sure I'll never be able to hear it in better quality unless I take a time machine back 16 years to Waldorf, Maryland- okay I'm rambling now.
Anyway, here's the original MP3:
Definitely listenable. Now, here's a youtube clip someone uploaded, using the same file.
Awful. They screwed with the equalization as well as re-saving it in bad quality. If I hadn't found the original decent sounding MP3, I'd have to settle for downloading this and putting it on my ipod. And that, I wouldn't like.
Example 2: "Drop the Chalupa" by Patent Pending
This song isn't impossibly rare like the first one. I actually have the CD it's from and know a good number of people that do. But before I found my copy of the CD, there was a 128kbps copy floating around the net. I'm sure it sounded alright. Here's the song in 320kbps, more or less how it was meant to be heard:
Now here's someone who uploaded the song and didn't care to make sure it didn't sound like shit. You can especially tell in the drums how low the bitrate is.
But like I said, it's not a huge problem. The song isn't impossibly rare, like I said before, but finding the song isn't easy. I only found a 128kbps copy on SoulseekQt, the modern day equivalent to limewire (without all the malware) but sure enough, it seemed like a legit CD rip.
Example 3: "Ever After" by Patent Pending
Now, this song... Well, let's not beat around the bush. You can not find a decent quality version of this song or the album it's from. Evidently, you could like 12 years ago, but only in 128kbps. I have 5 out of 10 tracks from the album that I found, that's how rare it truly is. I only know one or two people that have the CD, and they either don't know where it is or it's scratched. It's really too bad.
Anyway, this particular song, I first heard through youtube. I really like it, despite it being a real big mess of a song. Here's the atrocious quality video I found which introduced me to this song:
This is the 128kbps MP3 I found. I obtained it by asking a few people on last.fm if they had their original MP3 from way back when, and amazingly someone did. The quality isn't amazing, but it's a huge step up from the video. Again, you can especially tell with the drums.
_______________________________________________________________________
I could think of a few more examples but I think you get the point. Listening to music strictly through youtube is not the way I choose to live my musical life, and all that there was why. Hopefully some of you can see my point of view, and why I absolutely hate downloading songs from youtube videos.
I like music. This is how I prefer my music.