Your previous thread asking this

Here is a link that might be useful: Your previous post

Shaxhome, that was exactly what I was looking for, thanks so much! Raven, that post was several months old and didn't have anything that was helpful to me so I reposted it and got what I was looking for. It never hurts to ask and ask again!

Shaxhome, that was exactly what I was looking for, thanks so much! Raven, that post was several months old and didn't have anything that was helpful to me so I reposted it and got what I was looking for. It never hurts to ask and ask again!

Ugh, almost 5 years to the day, first post, what are the odds!!!

Same question, but I want higher quality than MP3 - preferably FLAC or ALAC!

I don't like replying to old threads but I do like to try to help.

The two limiting factors for the sound quality of recorded audio sourced from YouTube or any other is the low sampling rate of the source itself (reputedly at less than 200kbs) and the fact that it's flowing through a mediocre at best sound circuit on a PC.

If you take a 128 or 192kbs sound stream, capture it losslessly (easy to do) and save it to a FLAC or ALAC file, what you have remains a 128 or 192kbs lossy, compressed audio signal that sounds lousy compared to a higher resolution version of the same thing. Tidal and a few others offer higher quality streamed music.

For limited situations, I use Audacity. It's an entirely manual operation. If I want a better quality of just one track, I tend to buy it from Amazon. Yeah, lower quality (usually around 200kps, but adequate if something I want to have a copy of when the quality is secondary. If the quality matters, I'll buy the album on CD and rip it myself.

I use Audacity to digitize analog sources, like vinyl records. But the OP asked about saving a YouTube stream. I listen to many live concerts on YouTube, and would like to capture the audio stream.

Audacity records digital audio information. If you're recording a sound sourced from a record, with the sound source connected to a PC, it's gone through a A to D conversion. Which is what my first comment today mentioned as a factor limiting quality. PC level sound converters are of low quality generally. A really good one all by itself costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

Whether a sound is stored in analog form or in consumer digital source, at the point where it's inside a PC and "recordable", it's digital. Digital is digital, the original source doesn't matter as far as ways to record it.

When you say "OP", are you talking about the conversation above from many years back?

PS - there's nothing at all wrong with sound stored in digital form, per se. Most modern musical sound recordings are stored in that way. But at the recording studio level, the sound is lossless and is at VERY high bitrates and VERY high sample rates, much higher in both regards than anything available or playable at a consumer level. Playback of such recordings over appropriate equipment sounds nearly exactly the same as the sound was live.

I use 4K Video Downloader to save YouTube music and videos of interest. It saves videos in choice of .mp4 or .mkv. Extracts/saves audio in choice of .mp3, .m4a, and .ogg formats. Available formats may vary depending on the source. I went deaf in one ear 14 years ago so can no longer enjoy surround or stereo separation, the bit-rate and quality is OK for my purposes.

Sorry for your hearing disability, dadoes.

Stereo aside, compressed, lossy and compressed at low bit rates music should sound poor to anyone. I do understand that some don't use equipment capable enough and or also don't listen closely enough or carefully enough to music to hear a difference. If they did, no one would listen to sources with abysmal quality like Sirius, internet streaming music or even FM radio. People do, they're happy with it, and don't hear a difference.

You're right, Elmer, I was talking about the OP from 9 years ago! And, also, I misspoke about Audacity. I use an ADC made by Behringer to create my digital files, then Audacity to edit them, if necessary. I've gotten hung up on the high resolution audio (where CD quality is not good enough), but maybe that's a never ending game and using my current system, I probably can't hear the difference. I would call it a "mid-fi" stereo system costing less than $3000 total I've been blown away at audio shows listening to $250,000 speakers!