I agree . I have Qobuz but I very much prefer YouTube Music when it comes to its radio/playlists functions so it's great for casual listening, on the go, doing work around the house. Radio functions are getting to be good as Pandora which is saying something.Yt music can be used by Chromecast.
Quality has no meaning in case of YT, as power of yt are unique playlists, search engine and content.
Availability of unique music is even more important than quality. For this reason I'm using tidal and yt music as two main sources.
Besides, quality of YT is not that bad as relatively good codec is used - opus. It is batter than ogg used by spotify and aac used widely by apple (also in case of air play).
Use Chromecast instead of AirPlay, it’s more than sufficient for YouTube musicCan someone post in this thread when Youtube music gets added please? With the lack of Airplay on the Ultra, the addition of Youtube Music is a necessity for me before buying in. Cheers!
I’m an Apple userUse Chromecast instead of AirPlay, it’s more than sufficient for YouTube music
YouTube uses Chromecast even on Apple devices doesn't it?I’m an Apple user
Yes, that’s why I suggested it…YouTube uses Chromecast even on Apple devices doesn't it?
Doesn’t matter, the YouTube music app on iOS supports Chromecast too.I’m an Apple user
I think even YouTube Premium (which I think you need to be able to cast) is still 256kbps max, but then again Spotify is also lossy and has lots of fans. Just enjoy the musicThanks for the suggestions folks! I’ve gotta admit since being in the Apple eco system I’ve never done anything but use AirPlay and I thought Chromecast was a no go for Apple devices.
I just grabbed an old unused Google speaker and yes I was able to use Chromecast to connect to it! This is excellent news.
Btw, not saying it’s hi-res or anything but the YouTube Music App is different to regular YouTube and definitely provides a higher quality stream, so don’t mock it too much.
Thanks again
Maybe you meant "lossy"...I think even YouTube Premium (which I think you need to be able to cast) is still 256kbps max, but then again Spotify is also lossless and has lots of fans. Just enjoy the music
Of course I did Edited.Maybe you meant "lossy"...
I just thought that it was a mildly sarcastic, and joking comment, so that’s why I used that emoji.Of course I did Edited.
No, just my not unusual habit of answering wrongly just as I’m wakening upI just thought that it was a mildly sarcastic, and joking comment, so that’s why I used that emoji.
Is it like a high-end amplifier that takes a long time to warm up?No, just my not unusual habit of answering wrongly just as I’m wakening up
More like an old engine that takes a while to crank up and get goingIs it like a high-end amplifier that takes a long time to warm up?
(Sorry, I said something that didn't need to be said again...)
Still a lossy codec thoughYt is using opus so statement regarding low quality does not have much sense. Bit rate is not everything and matters differently in case of different codecs.
True but it becomes a matter of principle, given that other operators offer the files as they are, pay the artists more and charge the same price. And to be honest, in many obsessive compulsive comparisons that I have made between streaming services, setting up systems that made me switch instantly between two services, with the same edition in synchronized play, generally, not always but often you could perceive how the lossless was better. I agree that in an absolute way it's hard to recognize but in an instant comparison, it's far more easy. Given the premises I do not see why you should pay the same for less...Bit rate is not everything and matters differently in case of different codecs