>>108You're blatantly conflating flac with lossless and mp3 with lossy. It's no huge secret that mp3 is technically inferior, but your rant isn't even relevant, because we're not talking about that specific codec, just lossy codecs in general. You don't even understand what container those YouTube videos are going to be served to you as; that could vary drastically depending on your browser
and the uploader. Webm specifically uses Vorbis Opus, not mp3. Plus, the quality of the audio of those YouTube videos could simply be that the audio is compressed at a level below the transparency threshold and, as such, isn't a reflection of any sort of technical flaws.
It's ironic that you'd say listening to compressed audio is archaic, because the fetishism of lossless files and audiophile in general was spawned out of the abysmal quality of audio cassettes, where such amendments would actually be warranted, because things were sincerely bad.