this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024

669 points (100.0% liked)

196

16437 readers

1880 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone

moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone

moss@lemmy.world

queue@beehaw.org

funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone

PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone

threegnomes@lemmy.blahaj.zone

greembow@lemmy.world

remotelove@lemmy.ca

Roflmasterbigpimp@feddit.de

qaz@lemmy.world

A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.ee

qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone

A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world

qaz@lemmy.dbzer0.com

qaz@sh.itjust.works

qaz@lemmy.sdf.org

669

Key difference (jlai.lu)

submitted 3 months ago by ElCanut@jlai.lu to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The codec used for transmission is a tiny part of the production pipeline. Perhaps it is publishers choosing to mostly push lesser quality to YouTube, or videos uploaded before they started using better codecs, or any number of reasons.

The truth still stands that YouTube's videos (at keast almost) universally have shitty audio quality.

Besides, look at it this way: YouTube can be accessed for free. Why would the publishers want to push a perfect replacement for buying the music on a free platform? They'd make less money.