there's a service called rutracker

>>102457585

yt-dlp -F <URL>

then

yt-dlp -f <best_video>+<best_audio> <URL>

https://rentry.org/firehawk52

Everything you need is here

>>102457689
bestaudio pulls 128kbps opus

Unless you are mentally challenged you should be sing soulseek.

>>102457585
I genuinely think that's the best you can get out of YouTube.

>>102457689
>>102457725
No idea why this guy responded with that. 128 opus is what 100% of YouTube videos are now at all resolutions and it's been like this for years. As you say 128kbps is serviceable on opus (equivalent to something like 192kbps mp3 or something I think).

I don't know a better service for mass ripping but I've used slsk for everything music related for years now. Only a few more obscure releases I went to private trackers for.

>>102457585
Use Soulseek via Nicotine+ client, I felt like a chimpanzee that got cutlery when I discovered it

>>102457585
how many hours did this take?

I think I might go buy a spotify gift card instead of making a catalog.

>>102459019
I probably spent 8-10 hours max fetching all of the links for the ~750 albums I wanted, running a download script, and curating metadata with the help of Picard to get everything loaded comfortably into Navidrome with correct genres/cover art/release dates/etc. It's not difficult at all. Ideally I'd like to stay away from direct downloads/anything I can't script since I still have about 1500 albums I want to download which is why I haven't used some of the common suggestions in this thread. >>102457708 (Apple Music, ALAC) looks promising though.

File: opus vs mp3.png (10 KB, 600x416)

10 KB PNG

>>102458910
>(equivalent to something like 192kbps mp3 or something I think)
nope, way better than that, should be on par with v0 or 256 kbps cbr
if OP really is ripping from youtube music uploads only, there's no reason to want more

>>102459194
>there's no reason to want more
It's fine for 2 channel direct play but if you do anything with transcoding or use a 5.1/7.1 sound system it doesn't sound nearly as good.

>>102457585
these things called private trackers
>>102440286
go interview for RED

>>102459225
>if you do anything with transcoding
well, i do rip flacs so i can transcode to 96 kbps opus for additional efficiency, but I don't think that's what op is going to do
>or use a 5.1/7.1 sound system
this doesn't make any sense, why would stereo audio require more bitrate to be transparent on a 5.1/7.1 system?
more bitrate would only be required if the music was actually 5.1/7.1, and in that case, youtube would actually provide higher bitrate encodes

>>102457585
>I'd even be okay with paying a subscription for a month or two while I pull everything.
YT Music, format 141 is 256Kbps AAC, you need to import cookies tho.

>>102459274
>this doesn't make any sense
In my experience, upmixing FLAC stereo to 5.1 sounds a lot better on a 5.1 system than upmixing MP3 192 or just playing stereo on the 5.1 system.

>>102459349
format 141 is no longer being offered, no?

>>102459386
It works if you have a YT music subscription

>>102459361
>baseless nonsensical claim with no abx test results provided
alright, thanks for wasting our time

>>102459386
why wouldn't it be offered anymore?
format 774 (opus 256 kbps) is also available btw

>>102459274
>i do rip flacs so i can transcode to 96 kbps opus for additional efficiency
You do realize HDDs aren't $10000/TB? How much fucking music do you have? I've got 36.000 songs which are 540 GB, 70% are 320 MP3s, the rest FLAC.

>>102459693
youtube has been changing what they offer lately for what i assume is better hardware efficiency on their end, no video streams come with audio anymore, if you want specific ones you have to select both a video and audio now.

>>102459847
>You do realize HDDs aren't $10000/TB?
You do realize phones don't come with microsd card slots anymore? shut the fuck up

>>102459875
wait, for real? HAHAHAHA

>>102459875
So? Why would you need your whole collection on there? Or just don't buy a "modern" shitphone with less features than phones 15 years ago.

>>102459870
so it's basically "trust me bro they getting rid of it to improve efficiency"
do you really think they are going to remove 256 kbps audio, which would probably make them lose a lot of subscribers, to save transcoding costs? as if making an extra aac encoding for music is taxing on their systems which are at the same time encoding thousands of videos everyday in av1 at like 8 different resolutions, you are retarded
and besides, they just started making 256 kbps opus transcodes a couple of months ago, why would they now get rid of it? you are literally spewing random bullshit which doesn't make any sense
>does youtube still offer 1080p? i think they don't since they are trying to cut on costs
that's pretty much what you are saying

>>102459916
>So? Why would you need your whole collection on there?
i don't see how storing half of my collection in flac is more appealing than just having all of it there in a format that takes 10x less storage space while being transparent
it would complicate things a lot, and give me less... for no gain, why?
flactards are really like "bro storage is cheap so just waste it all to store useless data"

>>102459932
>which would probably make them lose a lot of subscribers
consumers are retarded normies who won't notice a difference
>as if making an extra aac encoding for music is taxing on their systems which are at the same time encoding thousands of videos everyday in av1 at like 8 different resolutions, you are retarded
Do you have any idea how many monthly visitors yt has? It's in the billions. the smallest efficiency changes make a huge difference at scale dumbass.

not sure if it's the right thread to ask but I don't know where else is better
Is there a way to exclude results from auto-generated channels in a youtube search?
I want to discover covers of a song I like but 95% of results are the original getting re-uploaded for every compilation/best-of album that gets released

>>102459960
>i don't see how storing half of my collection in flac is more appealing than just having all of it there in a format that takes 10x less storage space while being transparent
because you can convert flac to whatever format in the future forever and storage costs so little it's barely worth factoring in.

>>102459965
>consumers are retarded normies who won't notice a difference
then why does every other streaming service provide equal or better quality?
most normies don't notice a difference, correct, but they do notice bigger number better
>Do you have any idea how many monthly visitors yt has? It's in the billions.
care to explain how additional visitors requires extra transcodes?
an artist uploads his song to youtube music, youtube music makes a transcode... if that song is streamed 10 billion times or a single time, that's still a single transcode, what the fuck are you talking about? your logic makes no sense
in fact, the reason youtube transcodes so much is so they can save bandwidth since it's a sunken cost, you transcode once and then stream a bijillion times
>he smallest efficiency changes make a huge difference at scale dumbass.
you are the dumbass, the "scale" literally doesn't affect the thing you are talking about

>>102459960
>useless data
Maybe when I'm 60 and my hearing is half gone I'll think like you. Also I can use my songs for remixing and shit like that, good luck using a lossy source for that. I have 16TB of movies and tv shows alone (only a select few in 4K, so not even 1TB is nothing)

>>102459990
>because you can convert flac to whatever format in the future
yeah cause i bet in the future they'll find a way to cram lossless audio into less than 96 kbps and i'll be screwed... oh wait, even if that magical thing did happen, lossy to lossless transcoding would make sense in that case

and btw, i never mentioned that i delete my flacs and only store opus (which will make you audiophools seethe but i do), so why did you assume that were the case?
my original statement still makes sense, flac to lossy is more efficient, period.
this entire thread has turned into bitching about random stuff, as always

>>102460085
>Maybe when I'm 60 and my hearing is half gone I'll think like you.
maybe when you'll provide an abx test result, i'll believe that you need that data
and actually even if you do, that doesn't change the fact that i don't, ansd you don't need to have hearing loss for 96 kbps to be transparent with opus anyways
>Also I can use my songs for remixing and shit like that,
which is a use case i don't have, so?
what else? should i also be storing 192 khz 32 bit songs so i can do editing on it without aliasing? what the fuck is your point
>I have 16TB of movies and tv shows alone
don't care, didn't ask, and storing terabytes of movies you'll watch once every ten years makes no fucking sense when they're all readily available on torrent trackers, literal schizo behaviour
again: your argument seems to be literally "storage is cheap so if you don't fill your hard drive with useless garbage you are a retarded poorfag"
oh and btw, i bet you have a local backup + an offsite backup for those 16 terabytes of stuff and won't lose it all in the next months when that hard drive shits the bed or your house catches on fire (most likely this isn't the case)

>>102459194
Except there's no guarantee that the music on YouTube was uploaded at an adequate quality. It transcodes to 128 kbps opus no matter what you give it. I assume official uploads are good though.

>>102460223
>Except there's no guarantee that the music on YouTube was uploaded at an adequate quality.
yes there is
if it is an auto generated music upload, it was sourced from lossless just like on any other music streaming service

>>102460278
That's why I said official uploads are fine. This isn't necessarily what you're getting from YouTube though. The more obscure you get, the less likely the upload is auto generated

yt-dlg

>>102460649
Not to mention some bands don't bother to auto generate songs already uploaded to their old ass channel so some music video uploaded in 2011 that sounds like dogshit is their upload of the song. This is happening less and less though, even when it appears to be this way you can usually poke around and find a clean auto generated upload but still it's something I occasionally come across.

>>102459978
good luck