The Reddit post titled “Is it just me or is YouTube music very ‘shrill’?” initiated a lively discussion among audiophiles regarding the audio quality of YouTube Music compared to Spotify. The original poster, who goes by the name NewShadowR, expressed concern over their imminent switch from Spotify to YouTube Music as their Spotify subscription neared its end. Although they were initially drawn to YouTube Music for its value when bundled with YouTube Premium, their experience listening to old tracks left them feeling uncomfortable. According to them, YouTube Music has a higher treble that comes off as shrill and aggressive, contrasting sharply with the more spacious and easy-going sound design of Spotify. They further noted that Tidal provided a better listening experience than both services, despite its smaller library for obscure tracks. NewShadowR also raised a practical concern regarding YouTube Music’s lack of audio normalization, which leads to erratic volume levels between tracks.
Summary
- Users report varying experiences with YouTube Music’s sound quality, with many agreeing on its ‘shrill’ nature.
- Audio encoding quality appears to play a significant role in the perceived audio quality across various music services.
- The lack of audio normalization on YouTube Music is a common frustration among users.
- Many audiophiles prefer Tidal or Amazon Music for a more balanced listening experience.
The Shrill Debate: User Perspectives
The opinions gathered from users offer a spectrum of insights into why sound quality on YouTube Music can feel off-putting. For instance, user VinylHighway emphasized that the audio experience can largely depend on specific channels and the source material. They noted, “I find it entirely depends on the channel and source but mostly agree” with the original post, suggesting that not all YouTube Music tracks are created equal. On the other hand, VoidJuiceConcentrate dove into the technical side, explaining that sound quality can suffer if the upload quality is less than ideal. They noted, “If the codec is OPUS above 160kbps, then something is wrong with the uploaded song,” hinting that users should manually select higher quality settings to enhance their listening experience.
Quality over Quantity: Musical Library Concerns
User MartyKinn shed light on their decision to move away from YouTube Music altogether, not just because of audio quality but due to the tediousness of manually rebuilding playlists. They commented, “I don’t use YT Music mainly because it doesn’t import playlists and it’s a severe pain manually finding all my music.” This sentiment resonates with many users who prefer platforms that make accessing and managing music a streamlined experience. MartyKinn also remarked on their experience with sound fidelity, mentioning, “But as far as the sound goes, I sensed a shrillness or coarseness with Spotify… But I don’t recall anything bad sounding about YTM.” This raises a compelling point: sound quality can often feel subjective, with personal preferences playing a significant role.
Technical Issues: Encoding and Bitrate Debate
Another compelling angle in the discussion emerged regarding audio encoding and bitrate. User fuzzynyanko pointed out the potential pitfalls of audio modifications, suggesting that “weird sonic modifications” could arise from encoding issues when songs are uploaded to the platform. They claimed, “One reason could be ffmpeg’s AAC encoder screwing things up,” indicating that the tools used to compress and convert audio files could affect the resulting sound quality. Meanwhile, suitcasecalling reinforced the idea that bitrate significantly matters, especially within hi-fi setups. They stated, “I have both YT music and Tidal and its night and day difference for my setup. Bitrate actually matters despite the all dacs sound the same crowd screaming otherwise.” This indicates a preference among serious listeners for higher bitrate formats that offer more accurate audio reproduction.
The Greater Ecosystem of Streaming Services
When it comes to streaming services, the choice often reflects individual priorities. Some users explicitly preferring Amazon Music for its balance of cost and quality noted that they appreciate the “studio-quality streaming for $10/month.” This stands in stark contrast to the mixed reception of YouTube Music’s offerings, as highlighted by users expressing frustration with inconsistent audio levels and the over-presentation of certain sounds. As evident in the posts, there is a shared yearning for a user-friendly interface that doesn’t compromise the audio fidelity that serious audiophiles expect from their listening experiences. The overarching takeaway is that while YouTube Music draws in users due to its content ecosystem and affordability, the audio quality concerns highlighted in this discussion suggest room for improvement in how the platform handles sound.
Across the Reddit thread, the dialogue showcased a vibrant community of listeners willing to dissect and analyze their experiences. From technical issues regarding sound encoding to personal sentiments about usability, many users reflected on their diverse experiences with sound quality. Whether users embrace the potential convenience of switching to YouTube Music depends greatly on their value perceptions regarding audio fidelity, library availability, and the overall streaming experience. Exploring audio platforms should empower users with choices that foster both enjoyment and sonic integrity, ultimately enriching their musical journey.