Convert your lossless audio to the OPUS audio codec. AAC and MP3 are 28+ years old. OPUS is only 13.If you can install vlc on your grandma's vibrator from 1998 it would probably play OPUS as well as an mp3. I converted FLAC 16 bit to MP3 and OPUS. You tell me which one would sound better.
I only use MP3 for compatibility for music players.My music collection is so small that I just leave it with the original encoding.
>>106741833MP3 320 CBR > other made up bullshit
Your car? You can connect via aux or bluetooth and play an OPUS on vlc with your 21st century phone and it would still sound better,
CBR is only necessary if your device is a potato. Otherwise VBR is much more space efficient. Hell even the flac I used is VBR.
>>106741833>opus is only 13
If you use YouTube then you are already using OPUS VBR 160k as the primary codec and OPUS VBR 256k as the YouTube Premium/Music codec. AAC 128k VBR is a fallback youtube audio codec. If you download music off youtube, you probably want the OPUS VBR 160-256k version instead of downloading it from a mp3 youtube download site that runs a conversion of the OPUS->MP3 in ffmpeg, further reducing its audio fidelity because its lossy to lossy.
>>106741833I use opus my phone, i don't see why i should delete all my flac files i got from bandcamp which just sit around on my nas
>>106741833>they've made updates to the way acoustic waves propagate in the environment 13 years ago guise
>>106741833i really hate the way aac compression sounds like
>>1067418331 album mp3 can fit in 1 track flacebo
>>106741833>AAC and MP3 are 28+ years old. OPUS is only 13.>old bad>new good
>>106742735>implyingOpus offers a good and noticeable improvement (specially for slop quality) and still is fast to encode.Meanwhile h.265 couldn't replace h.264 as well as h.264 replaced h.262 and and other old and thankfully forgotten codecs. h.266 and AV1 are even worse...Some new things can be good, others have terrible trade offs, and others are worse, like the enshintification of shiternet.
>>106742906>encodeoh man I LOVE encoding musicI use my expensive hifi equipment to encode music every dayretard
>>106743146>unmedicated mental illness be like
If PMEDIA had a brother named OMEDIA that reencoded PMEDIA FLACs to OPUS 256k VBR...
Opus ftw
>>106741920Bluetooth will automatically reencode your opus to a ~156kbps AAC. Best to just keep your music in that format to avoid a second lossy encoding.
>>106742293Out of ten!
>>106743186that's right, faggot op should be institutionalized
>>106743656BT stack on your phone doesn't just magically stream your AAC files as is, retard. If you're worried about lossy->lossy BT conversion, put FLAC on your phone. Or get headphones that support aptX Lossless or LDAC.In reality, it's EXTREMELY unlikely your fucking AirPods + background/environmental noise provide enough of a threshold to even notice a stank-ass MP3 from 1998 getting re-encoded to SBC.
>>106743146take your meds
>>106744145>BT stack on your phone doesn't just magically stream your AAC files as is, retardIt does. Almost every BT device supports aac <156kbps without reencoding.
>>106744518>BT device supportsHow do you confirm that this is indeed what is happening. You take their word? You claim you can hear it?
>>106744564You can check in dev options on android.
>>106744518>Almost every BT device supports aac <156kbps without reencoding.They don't. AAC is always reencoded because it must pass the OS Mixer.>>106741833>Convert your lossless audio to the OPUS audio codec.Opus is primarily an Speech Codec. It does not support more than 48 kHz for example.
Ill use apples aac over opus thank you
Why even bother? Storage is so cheap nowadays.
>>106744651>dsdmost of the time, DSD is generated from 24/384 PCM though
>>106744676so?
thank you Russian pirates for mostly providing lossless rips
>>106744696Why listen to the converted DSD when FLAC is a thing?
>>106744752you are low iq
>>106744761You are a third worlder if you cant afford to have all your collection on flac or wav, or maybe youre just an autistic weeb with a trillion anime soundtracks, either way shit take
>>106744778dsd > flacshitkill yourself nigger lol
>>106744782whatever you say basement pedo
>>106744782Ok and why exactly do you think that?I told you that DSD is basically converted from something akin to FLAC. Why would I listen to the converted product and not the original?
>>106744793HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are just low iq i am not bothering entertaining literal nigger
Frankly I dont care about the DSD pedo, he can have his placebo proprietary format if he wants to, but the "OPUS 128kbit is the same as lossless" turdworlders need to fuck off
>>106741833>mp3works everywhere but it's fundamentally broken>opusbest compression for quality but problematic hardware support>aacalmost as good as opus, works almost everywhereall in all aac seems like the clear winner desu
>>106744832You will never be a lossless format
>>106744867well yes, you use flac for losslessnot sure what point you're making. none of those are lossless
>>106742146>even the flac I used is VBRbaka, lossless compression can never be CBR, for obvious reasons
>>106745047Anon, are you new here? This board constantly bombards us with false advertising like "opus 128kbit is transparent, you dont need more"
>>106745127Wonder why people do that. Storage is so cheap nowadays and you'd assume tech inclined people being in /g/ would have quite a bit of storage on their devices, unlike normies who don't even own a computer.
>>106745251>Storage is so cheapYeah but you can always hoard moar where storage becomes an issue again
>>106744632>he's still spreading this bullshitincrediblehttps://wiki.xiph.org/OpusFAQ#But_won't_the_resampler_hurt_the_quality?_Isn't_it_better_to_use_44.1_kHz_directly
>>106745259Ok but a 1TB hard drive costs like 40 bucks and you can fit about 4 thousand albums in FLAC there. Do you need even more than that AND at the same time you can't afford an extra 20 bucks for a 2tb drive which would fit 7 or 8 thousand FLAC albums, so you'd rather convert it all to a compressed format? Sounds like a pretty uncommon case, anon.
>>106745127>opus 128kbit is transparentit almost always isand if you're worried, you can bump up the bitrate to 160 or 192 kbpslossless is better for archival but not much else
>>106745311sure lemme just casually lug around a 1 tb hdd to use with my phone and just pay 1 tb of off-site cloud storage for backups, just so I can store useless data that cannot be perceived by human hearinggenius idea, thanks anon!
>>106745261I'm not talking about upsampling from 44.1 to 48 The whole codec maxes out at 48kHz and is inferior in this regard to pretty much every other lossy codec>>106745311Yeah but now you have high res FLAC and suddenly an album has 1GB or more.
>>106746044>Yeah but now you have high res FLAC and suddenly an album has 1GB or more.Well that's your fault for falling for the hi-res scam. 16/44.1 is all you need and tons of albums sound better there than they do on their "hi-res" counterparts.
>>106746044>not allowing higher rates than 48 kHz, which only hurt quality (and even moreso on a lossy codec) is a bad thing???seriously kill yourselfhttps://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.htmlbesides, do you even know what a low shelf cutoff is? no sensible lossy codec/encoder will actually encode anything past 22/23 khz no matter the bitrate or sample rate, only ldac is stupid enough to waste bits on data that cannot be heard (but of course that's literally an audiophool scam so it makes sense it would do that)
lossless audio is a retarded memeopus or apple aac ftw
>>106742293Too Old imo
>>106742146>flac I used is VBRAnon...
Oh boy another thread where people pretend FLAC doesn't sound noticeably different. Epic meme!
>>106741833>Convert your lossless audio to the OPUS audio codec.Why the fuck should I? My entire collection isn't even 1TB, it's fucking pointless to save space there.
>>106746256>https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html>Monty's articles and demo work are sponsored by Red HatKEK>>106746256>no sensible lossy codec/encoder will actually encode anything past 22/23 khz no matter the bitrate or sample rateVorbis will encode happily up to 30-40 kHz if you use q8 to 10
>>106746585you addressed literally nothing lmao>vorbis will encode up to 30 - 40 khz if you use a bitrate so retardedly high that it doesn't know what to spend bits on anymore ...your point?
>>106746368>lossless audio is a retarded memeWhat makes you say that? We've had lossless audio for 43 years now, why should we settle for something inferior now?
>>106746572Exactly the point I was making earlier, I don't get it. 1tb allows for about 4 thousand FLAC albums, do you really need MORE albums to the point where you have to save space? Especially considering a 2tb hard drive is like 50 bux?
>>106746532If I've heard it and I liked it, I download the album in FLAC, if I didn't rip my own CD. Some albums I have multiple times over...like Yes's Fragile. Just from the 2015 Blu-Ray Audio, I ended up with:>2015 Blu-Ray (5.1, Stereo, Instrumental)>2002 DVD-Audio (5.1, Stereo)>"Flat" Transfer of the "original stereo mix" 24/192>UK Vinyl Needle DropEven after beating the PCM that came off the disc with the FLAC stick, it's nearly 20GB. All the same album.And I still fucking listen to an (Apple) AAC -V 127 copy of the fucking CD. Because I cannot hear the difference. You cannot hear the difference. I can tell the different mixes apart, sure. The flat transfer sounds...like a neutral studio mix. It is "perfect". And it is boring.The CD from 1993 fucks and sounds the best to my ears.The DVD-Audio had a much MUCH more "fun" Surround mix than the Blu-Ray, but I highly doubt anyone involved with the original production had any intention of it being mixed like that. The stereo mix on there is too punchy for such an old record. The Blu-Ray stereo mix is nice. And the stank ass 30 year old CD of a 60 year old album still sounds the best.AND NEITHER MY EARS, MY EQUIPMENT, YOUR EARS, OR YOUR EQUIPMENT ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRANSPARENT* LOSSY FILE AND THE UNCOMPRESSED (or lossless) SOURCE FOR A SINGLE SONG IN THIS 30GB GLOB OF 8 DIFFERENT MASTERS OF THE SAME ALBUM.Post a double-blind, or just shut the fuck up. Keeping teh FLACs to hoard/preserve, or to collect, or even for future lossy encodes to something better? Dandy. Acting like you can hear a difference under normal listening conditions? Go fuck yourself.It's not 1999 anymore, we're not dealing with pre-echo filled, cymbal smearing 128k MP3. My old ears CAN still ABX those at 80+% Medium/high bitrate AAC or opus? MAYBE 1 in 100 songs. Probably 1 in 1000. Usually on something that's mixed so loudly/poorly that whatever smeary artifact the lossy encoder produced improves it...
>>106746626>...your point?My point is that you are full of shit
>>106746790>The album is from 1971 and never sounded good. Let it go anon
>>106746790That whole wall of text just to end up shilling ABX tests again like every other nigger redditor. I've done double blinds and heard the difference 9/10 times. I do not need to prove this to you because we aren't on Reddit. You either accept that FLAC sounds objectively better or cope like you do in your post. It's really that simple.
>>106746790 (me)For what it's worth - I used to mix and produce music for myself and others. My "last step" was always to shit out a 320k MP3, burn THAT to a CD, and go listen to it in my rust bucket on my commute. Because most people listening to it will probably mangle it even worse. If it still sounded close enough to "what I intended" then my work was done and the song was finished.>>106746840Full disclosure: I only downloaded it for Roundabout. There's probably only 1 other song on there I've listened to in its entirety more than twice.>>106746848>muh redditSee: Go fuck yourself. A double blind is objective. Proving your point is objective. Anything else reads the same as """audiophiles""" justifying $1000 Toslink cables. You can hear the difference on anything other than a killer sample? Prove it, nigger.Remember, talking to someone with damn near 1 TB of FLAC out of preservationist and collectionmaxxing autismo. When that shit goes on my phone, it's 44 or 48k AAC/opus. Moron.
How well does it account for rotational velocidensity?
Lossy Audio is literally for poorfags. An iPhone 17 Pro Max with 2TB is just 2k. That's half a month of rent. If you can't afford that why are you here?
>>106746887You gotta make sure you de-magnetize your CDs anon, and don't forget to add ferrite chokes to your optical cables.
Just archive in flac and let the player transcode to opus if needed
>>106746922The real answer. Keep the lossless/original, make lossy copies for listening when space might be an issue. I'm not going to fill 512GB with FLAC for shit I'm going to be listening to with road noise. I can masturbate to the idea of hearing shit my dog could only dream of when I listen at home.
>>106741833might actually try that
>>106741833Why would I convert my lossless audio to a lossy codec?
>>106746804>I'm full of shityou still haven't given us any data that shows benefits of encoding more than 20 khz.
>>106746954 it ultimately comes back to this insecurity because you think people who listen to FLAC hear things you don't you can't just admit lossless is superior to lossy since that would invalidate compression as anything but a relic of the pastso you invent this strawman that FLAC listeners are schizos who hear supersonic frequencies when they really just don't want artifacts in their audiojust because Opus or AAC are transparent doesn't automatically make them better than FLAC.
>>106741833Are you sure that is a real FLAC file? I used to download music from YouTube and re-encode to FLAC and then upload the files.
>>106747105What the actual fuck are you talking about? I stated multiple times that my collection is entirely lossless. I want the originals. I keep the originals. They're obviously "better". There's no point to your fucking argument.>insecurityStarting to think you might be projecting, reading comprehensionlet anon...>so you invent this strawman that FLAC listeners are schizos who hear supersonic frequencies when they really just don't want artifacts in their audioNo. I cannot hear the artifacts in a qaac -V 127 AAC. Ignore hi-res, which is an entirely different can of worms. Regular Red Book audio. No hi-res version available. I've seldom both been able to hear artifacts AND ABX >50.>>106746790>It's not 1999 anymore, we're not dealing with pre-echo filled, cymbal smearing 128k MP3. My old ears CAN still ABX those at 80+%.>Medium/high bitrate AAC or opus? MAYBE 1 in 100 songs. Probably 1 in 1000. Usually on something that's mixed so loudly/poorly that whatever smeary artifact the lossy encoder produced improves it...Are you assuming anyone listening to lossy anything is listening to 64k opus and acting like it's perfect or something? It's technically amazing, and somehow sounds better than said stank ass 128k MP3s, but it's still not transparent.
>>106741833Can't I just play FLAC directly?genuinely asking, I am starting to replace my favorites with flac. Why add another step?
>>106747457Yes. Literally everything can play it. I only transcode to save space on my phone / because I am never listening to music on my phone with anything near low enough of an ambient noise floor to ever be able to tell the difference.If you aren't trying to store a million songs on a craptop with a 512GB SSD, nothing is stopping you.It's also hilariously less CPU-intensive (and thus more power efficient) to decode than the fixed point decoder Android (used to? Still uses?) uses for AAC.
>>106742906hevc replaced avc for fhd above. get a real computer, you potato using brown
>>106747498>FHD aboveNTA. I've only found HEVC to be useful for anything above FHD. 4K. 8K (VR porn)>you potato using brownTry forming coherent sentences first. Did you mean "FHD and above" or "above FHD"? If it's the former, you're as wrong as the nigger you're replying to. HEVC still requires extensive tardwrangling and "slower than SVT-AV1" settings to get good output on film/live action that's smaller enough than x264 to make it worth it.Animation is a different story. 4K+ is a VERY different story, AVC isn't equipped for that. Blocks too smol.
if you are looking at lossy audio formats your main goal is to save space and preserve as much audio fidelity of the lossless version as best you can. Im not saying to throw away your FLAC collection Im saying you should throw away your AAC and MP3 collections because they are technically obsolete. The music industry and especially the pirate community should have adapted to OPUS by now imo. Its a better standard.
>>106747498>misses the pointUnironically sad.
>>106742735>codecs don't improve over time with newer, more efficient releases>old good new badGo listen to an MP3 encoded in 1997. Do it faggot. Larping shitposter.
>>106746848>this entire post>to say you think providing backing for your statements is redditThis is your brain on "I depict you as the soijak so I win".
>>106741833Encoding 128kbps OPUS in 2025 feels like encoding 128kbps mp3 in 2005
>>106741833Why would I convert my lossless audio to lossy audio? The only reason to ever use lossy audio is if your portable music player device needs that.
>>106741833I love opus, great format. I've converted all my flacs and CDs to it.
more like copus
>>106750462alright, I laughed
>>106750462>>106751611kek
