4 ms·
> MP3 works fine. M4a does not work. Doesn't make much sense then. YouTube doesn't have MP3 so MP3 means unnecessary transcoding i.e. quality and time loss. W
by qwerty456127 7y ago
> MP3 works fine. M4a does not work.
Doesn't make much sense then. YouTube doesn't have MP3 so MP3 means unnecessary transcoding i.e. quality and time loss.
Why would anybody convert to MP3 today having AAC and OPUS originals? OPUS provides unprecedented quality at all bitrates (better than AAC and MP3), AAC also provides great quality&compression (better than MP3) and plays everywhere.
- SisRob 7y agoWell, the audio quality is already reduced on upload - and much more than mp3 transcoding would.
- qwerty456127 7y agoAmong other options, YouTube offers 160 kbps OPUS (which, AFAIK, can be expected to be perceptually lossless and better than 320 kbps MP3). Would they waste bandwidth on streaming it this high if the actual quality they store is worse than that? As far as I know every transcoding reduces it further. Even transcoding from 128 kbps AAC to 320 kbps MP3 will make the quality slightly worse.
- pseudoroot 7y agoWhen using file's metadata method for tracking downloaded records, m4a file extension is not supported. Metadata method relies on 'purl' metadata tag. And m4a format has no purl tag, so it does not work. One can use archive file method instead. This limitation has nothing to do with yt-audio's capability of downloading m4a format. M4a limitation only applies to metadata method of tracking downloaded tracks.
- qwerty456127 7y agoWhy rely on tags if there is the ID appended to the file name and the file name is the title of the video? Youtube-dl names the files it downloads this way by default, just leave it as it is and you can identify the files easily.