honestly. i dont know if you notice this but spotify audio encoding quality is better than youtube
even instagram has more dynamics in the sound.. anyone relate to this?

youtube is the worst!!! feels like sound loses dynamics and volume. why the hell did they make stable volume? also.. i would like to know what kind of bitrates and quality these platforms use.

 

Last edited: Jan 24, 2026

Source and more: https://wiki.libre.moe/en/codecs/audio/compression-comparison-of-music-streaming-services

Ranking the non-lossless offers based on my personal (a bit subjective but well-informed) knowledge:

1. Spotify App (Premium)
2. Apple Music, Spotify Web (Premium), SoundCloud (HQ)
3. YouTub, Spotify App (Free)
4. Spotify Web (Free), YouTube Live
5. SoundCloud

Please note that all lossless offers will deliver better quality than any lossy offer, meaning Tidal and Apple Music Lossless (which is included in the regular subscription) are better than e.g. Spotify or YouTube.

 

Googling gave me this:
YouTube Music streams at a maximum quality of
256kbps AAC (or Opus) for Premium subscribers

 

why does youtube sound so bad

 

Because they're using different sources, i.e. masters, for many tracks. This and any pre-processing do matter. The codec doesn't really.

Metallica's "My Apocalypse" – YouTube (top, green) vs. Spotify (bottom, blue):

 

simply put: it is your job to create masters according to the specs the platform wants. if you stuff is to loud, the platform might destroy the sound.

 

Yes, resoundingly... Spotify and all others who only offer MP3 quality encoding are total crap and a waste of $$, IMO. I chucked spotty a long while back and went to Qobuz because most all stuff there is 96k/24b or at least 44k/16b audio if nothing else. You can record stuff off qb @ 96k/24b (or direct to 44k/16) and go directly to CD or FLAC with it. They aren't screwing with the audio like so many other platforms are doing. They do have an option switch to turn on "leveling" if one wanted it, but I never use it and the setting is defaulted to OFF. The only problem is that as far as dynamics go with more modern stuff, much of the dynamics are chucked out the window at the mastering stage anymore which IMO is complete b.s..

 

Last edited: Jan 25, 2026

Codecs got so good by now, I'll be the first one here to admit that I can not really hear a difference reliable in a blind test above 128 AAC.

Even though I've been producing music and training attentive listening for many years. Maybe my ears got worse because of that, I hope not.

But honestly... I'm sure even the high fi Tidal people can't really hear a difference from Spotify (320 Vorbis) to Tidal (lossless). I sure couldn't, I won't lie. (The big joke is also that on these lossless platforms a lot of music exists in higher quality then the original recording so they just converted to and suddenly people brag about how the can totally hear the difference... yeah)

Except SoundCloud. That's shit of course. And with YouTube it depends, with so many people uploading music you get all kinds of mixed qualities.


Spotify is 320 and 256 Vorbis and AAC I believe. I'd be interested how many people can tell the difference against higher quality in a blind test.

 

Last edited: Jan 25, 2026

songs from 16 years ago on youtube sound really bad.. low volume, almost mono, muddy and vague

 

YouTube Music started 10 years ago.
Are you talking about random videos that someone uploaded from who knows where?

 

Youtube ID content and Youtube Music are 2 different things.

 

qubus and tidal seem to boost @ 100hz which is a little unpleasant

 

Spotify app work for me

 

When I consider to get mediocre (musically speaking) tracks, almost any codec about 128/192kb is good to me.
For the rest I try to get flac, if possible from a CD.

A small question to AI:
Considering the same constant bitrate, let's say 192kb, for a same reference audio, which is the best codec to use, sorted from the best to the worse?

AI Overview:

Spoiler: answer

At a constant bitrate (CBR) of 192 kbps, audio codecs are generally considered "transparent" or near-transparent (indistinguishable from the source) for most listeners
. However, in terms of compression efficiency and fidelity—how well they preserve the original signal's nuance at that exact data rate—the best codecs, ranked from best to worst, are:

Opus (State-of-the-art): Generally considered the best modern lossy audio codec. At 192 kbps, it offers near-perfect transparency and handles high-frequency content better than competitors.
AAC (Advanced Audio Coding - LC/Apple Encoder): The industry standard for high-quality streaming and portable devices. Apple’s AAC encoder at 192 kbps provides exceptional quality, often indistinguishable from the source.
Ogg Vorbis: While older, it is still very competitive, often used by Spotify, and generally performs better than MP3 at similar bitrates.
MP3 (LAME Encoder): While the oldest, at 192 kbps, it is quite good for general listening, but it is less efficient than the above, meaning it retains fewer of the original sonic nuances.

Why this order?

Efficiency: Opus and AAC are much newer than MP3 and can store more "information" about the sound in the same 192,000 bits per second.
192kbps context: At 192 kbps, the performance difference between Opus and AAC is minimal, but at lower bitrates, Opus holds a significant advantage. MP3 starts to show limitations, whereas Opus/AAC remain highly transparent.
AAC-LC vs HE-AAC: For 192 kbps, standard AAC-LC (Low Complexity) is superior to HE-AAC (High Efficiency), as HE-AAC is optimized for much lower bitrates (e.g., <96 kbps).

Yet, since few months ago when I loaded links in Jdownloader (at least in past it gave the first as best choice), the first audio codec appearing was .opus 158kb, now is .m4a, then .aac, then .opus, any of them not exceeding 128kb.

Moreover, listening to the video and analyzing audio in real time the bandwith cut is in most cases near 20kHz (.aac or .opus 158kb?), while the best downloadable audio file is mostly 15kHz.
So my guess is that video file embeds as container a better audio, but as I said I don't care much about quality of yt downloaded files.

For the sake of curiosity I can try, download a clip (don't know if video resolution counts) and extract raw audio to compare it, if someone wants to try the same it could be a nice statistics.

 

I noticed that with Bandcamp, and I had to double check if it sounded better than Spotify & YouTube, etc.

 

Can I upload higher resolution audio?

Yes! Bandcamp supports high-quality audio. You can upload 16-bit or 24-bit files, and your fans will see the audio quality available. Here’s a quick overview of how it works:

• Bandcamp accepts 16-bit and 24-bit files; the quality will be indicated on your release page.
• FLAC, WAV, and AIFF downloads retain the exact bit-depth and sample rate of your original upload.
• ALAC files are limited to a maximum sample rate of 48 kHz.
• Lossy formats (MP3, Ogg, AAC) are optimized based on playback devices, using the highest quality possible.
• If uploading files with a higher sample rate, leave at least 0.5 dB of headroom to avoid clipping during transcoding.
• 32-bit files are not supported at this time.

Uploading high-res audio ensures your music sounds its best—go for it!

Source: https://get.bandcamp.help/hc/en-us/articles/23020723975959-Can-I-upload-higher-resolution-audio