Youtube Downloader in original quality?

Discussion in 'Internet for Musician' started by Roject, Aug 31, 2020.

  1. Qrchack

    Qrchack Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Poland
    What's you boot time like with that DVD?
    Pressing start, V, enter and having the browser launch is *infinitely* faster than scrolling through folders and folders in XP. And the search in Windows 7 is severely lacking compared to 10. I also don't have to click "All programs" like I did in Windows 7. Plus workspaces are the bomb, easily one of the best reasons to use Windows 10.
     
    • Interesting Interesting x 1
    • List
  2. Coronazi

    Coronazi Kapellmeister

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2020
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    40
    Here are some ways
    youtube-dl -F
    youtube-dl -f 22
    youtube-dl -f 18
    youtube-dl -f 137+140
    youtube-dl --all-subs --skip-download

    etc.
    For example :
    youtube-dl -f 22

    or
    youtube-dl -F
     
  3. Rockseller

    Rockseller Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2019
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    102
    yo ableton has good drum synths. some are free... serum is easy to make hats and claps and kicks, also ni massive etc and there's tons of tutorials on yt. really recomend trying drumsynthesis and recording. it is a lot of fun. fl studio has a lot of stuff in it you can use. i.e. harmor synth to make 808s

    free on kvr
    https://www.kvraudio.com/plugins/windows/vst-plugins/instruments/free/drum-synth/newest#results

    free on vst planet
    http://www.vstplanet.com/Instruments/VST_Drums5.htm

    other free vsts
    https://vst4free.com/instruments/Drumsynths/

    it's legal sides, you will find something to make kicks you like ... greez
     
  4. Coronazi

    Coronazi Kapellmeister

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2020
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    40
    go 96khz, less artifacts etc.
     
  5. Xupito

    Xupito Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Europe
    Damn, I thought you were talking about OS performance, not productivity.
    So forget that, I basically agree.
     
  6. StinkieDinkle

    StinkieDinkle Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you want to download this in a higher quality?
     
  7. Roject

    Roject Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2019
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    248
  8. Gyro Gearloose

    Gyro Gearloose Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,920
    Likes Received:
    1,604
    Location:
    Germany
    you must choose from different distrubutions so this needs some tiny extra time and booting needs longer then normal but its not unendurably

    i use this kind of LINUX magazin's from supermarked...sometimes they have several linux distrubutions on DVD
     
  9. Qrchack

    Qrchack Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Poland
    No. Just no.

    Well, normally I don't care about changing my operating system each day to a different one, I'd rather keep all my work and software I'm relying on to make a living.
    Yeah, right. So you don't even choose the distribution you like. This is not something you can say is a daily driver for real work. You can use it to browse Facebook (and it's probably faster since, but you can't use it in your studio.
    Looks like lossy re-encoding with smaller video bitrate to me.

    493 kb/s for 480p video is quite low. Youtube upload guidelines suggest 500-2,000 Kbps for 480p video. See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en
     
  10. No Avenger

    No Avenger Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2017
    Messages:
    4,423
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Europe
    Well, sort of. This is one of the very rare cases where Dan missed something. He compared 48 and 96kHz SR to FF's Saturn HQ mode which, as he stated himself, works with 8x oversampling. Therefore a correct comparison would be a SR of 384kHz. And if you do so, like I did, the results are of course the same.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. Xupito

    Xupito Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Europe
    I agree but the video is from 2010. Not that you couldn't afford better quality back then but it matters, especially when you have to upload it.
     
  12. Qrchack

    Qrchack Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Poland
    Yes. But the samplerate is not the reason for better quality. Samplerate during nonlinear processing is. Just using a higher sample rate doesn't make things better, the only reason they can get better is if you're timestretching/pitch shifting, or if you're distorting/compressing. If you're distorting/compressing, all decent plugins upsample for you. If you're not doing distorting/compressing, higher samplerates do nothing but quadruple your disk and CPU usage for no reason.

    TL;DR the reason 96kHz sounds better is not because 96kHz is better period, it's because when distorting you want to temporarily increase the sample rate. It's better to work in 384kHz during distortion but right after that convert to 44.1kHz, than to work at 96kHz or 192kHz. 192kHz is already very heavy in terms of CPU load, even 96 is if you're using raw CPU power. Most commercial studios run at 48kHz these days if they don't have DSP and/or outboard. It's more efficient to use high sample rates in places where it matters.

    Still, the reason stands - 96kHz does not give you "less artifacts", unless you're distorting or compressing. And when you are, it's better to use oversampling to higher than 96kHz, and if need be work in 44.1/48k for the rest of the session.

    Sure, the point was the video he downloaded looks bad because what he downloaded has a low bitrate for 480p video. It was not "360p" as he said. It was 480p, but with a lower bitrate = lower file size. Just like a stereo mp3 at 64kbps is still a stereo mp3, not a mono one. But it will be half the size of a stereo mp3 at 128kbps. The reason for that it's literally half the bits per second of audio. The same goes for video. Resolution is not the only metric of video quality when dealing with compressed video. The bitrate is just as important, if not more important than the resolution.
     
  13. No Avenger

    No Avenger Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2017
    Messages:
    4,423
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Location:
    Europe
    Mate, take a deep breath, take a step back, relax and look at the posts.

    You wrote
    and to prove this, you linked a vid where Dan was solely talking about oversampling vs sample rate in regards of nonlinearities. And that was all I was referring to. I never said 96kHz SR sounds better per se - because it doesn't.
    I just pointed out that it doesn't matter if you use 8x oversampling or 8x the sampling rate, again in regards of nonlinearities. I never said a higher SR doesn't consume more CPU power - because it does (as well as a plugin with oversampling).
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2020
  14. Qrchack

    Qrchack Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Poland
    I looked. You say higher samplerate gives you less artifacts. This is technically true, but in practice, lower samplerate with higher oversampling results in less artifacts, as you're not wasting your CPU on samplerate where it doesn't matter. Working with everything at 96kHz is worse than working at 48k and using 4x oversampling in nonlinear processing, and you effectively end up with better quality than working at 96k. It makes sense to work with a lower samplerate, to be able to use a very high one in the critical places.
    Yes, we agree here. 8x samplerate is the same as 8x oversampling. The difference is, you'll not be using 8x samplerate because your system can't handle it. So you'll likely use 2x or at most 4x samplerate. My point is it's better to run at 1x samplerate and use 16x oversampling to make better use of your system resources and get better quality instead of using a higher samplerate just for the sake of it.
     
  15. Xupito

    Xupito Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Europe
    Actually the point was that the VP9 codec gives better quality than the H264.
     
  16. Qrchack

    Qrchack Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2015
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Poland
    This is also the case, VP9 is definitely a better codec than h264, I just pointed out that the h264 stream he downloaded had a very low bitrate, but it was indeed 480p - and that a video can be 480p and look like crap, if the bitrate is too low.
     
  17. Xupito

    Xupito Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Europe
    A different case.
    H264 is ancient and can't be compared to VP9. For that we have H265 and AV1 (hopefully available some day)
     
  18. Roject

    Roject Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2019
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    248
    You're right with this but
    Actually actually point was that the most software/sites to download videos from yt download video with H264 codec and m4a audio codec and inform this is the best quality which is not and has different codecs than original youtube video.
    Almost in all cases there is no codec selectable and no info about it.
    Only youtube-dl and JDownloader has providing a choice of video with specific codecs.
     
  19. Xupito

    Xupito Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    2,270
    Location:
    Europe
    Well, usually H264 is the best quality. Most people upload in H264 because is good enough and it's an MPEG standard. Commercial, BTW.

    But that's not Google VP9 codec fault. It's way newer hence clearly better than H264. And free! But it's too new still to be widely adopted (released at 2013).

    About at the the same year H265 (next commercial fucker standard) was released. It's VP9's direct rival and roughly the same quality.

    I've only seen H265 in pirated movies/shows lol, because this one is so incredibly buried in patents that even big companies have legal and financial troubles adopting it.
    Seeing this landscape Google and many major tech giants have joined to develop AV1, the successor of VP9.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Interesting Interesting x 1
    • List
Loading...
Loading...