>not using Monkeys Audio instead of FLAC
thanks, but i'm sticking with 320kbs mp3
>>109012990ah yes, destroying performance and compatibility for 3% smaller filesize than flac.
>>109012990Use case?
>>109013302Ape allows much more compared to FLAC>PerformanceAll my systems have no problem with it, even my old Blackberry Q10 from 2013, it only works slow on VLC and it depends on what compression level was used
>>109013326Yes
>>109012990kys, monkey
>>109012990WavPack has always been peak for me. Best in class lossless audio compression + respectable lossy encoding with correction files. Truly a luxury audio format.Monkey's Audio is comfy though, I will give you that, but WavPack BTFO of everything else. If only it would see wider adoption.
>>109012990Hope the true autismos in here remember this stuff:https://www.rarewares.org/index.phphttps://www.rarewares.org/rrw/
>>109016007>Lossy encodingEh? Also what makes you think Wavpack is better?
>>109016007Based, same.>>109016347Look up WavPack "Hybrid". Plus AFAIK it's the only lossless format that can compress DSD.
Why don't you use OptimFROG?
>>109016402A true fellow patrician autismo. Salutations my man.
>>109016513Support for it is just too low, doesn't allow as many configurations as FLAC, Ape and WV AND no easy way to convert files to it
Old /g/ would have been all up in this thread with encoder comparisons and performance statistics until it hit the bump limit. How times have changed.
>>109018111You can thank the shartards for that
>>109018111Audio format will never be taken seriously until retards stop spending their money on a lossy music.
>>109021015I pirate it, and the only thing I'm losing is filesize, which means I'm winning.
>>109016101i used to use oggdrop and a few other things on those pages
>>109018111there isn't much competition in the audio compression space these days. while flac technically the best in every metric (features, compression), it's the right amount of good enough and common enough that you'd need really specific requirements to use something else. not to mention storage space on even the smallest devices is so large that minor differences in compression ratio don't matter as much as they used to.as for lossy, opus is basically the same deal, very few reasons not to use that.not sure if there's any reasons not to use the official encoders for them either, i suppose i haven't looked in ages but i doubt there's as much codec competition as things like mp3 and aac got (mp3 i know long settled on LAME, idk what the current go-to aac codec is since i never really used aac. last i checked the apple aac codec was the best one, but that was many years ago)
>>109021122>while flac technically the best in every metrictechnically isn't*
>>109021122>not to mention storage space on even the smallest devices is so large that minor differences in compression ratio don't matter as much as they used to.also to elaborate on this, i mean you can fit more than enough of even flacs on modern /micro/ sd cards. back like 20+ years ago you might consider less-than-transparent bitrates to get more music onto a device, and that's where codec/format choice really matters, but nowadays there's basically no reason not to use transparent/overkill bitrates since music just aren't large files by todays' standards.
>>109012990I used to, but the files end up being bigger than FLAC. It was the best shit for the longest time.
>>109013365>All my systems have no problem with itThis is completely meaningless.
even though storage is big today, I'm still annoyed by music taking more than necessary. 128kbps mp3, aac, ogg, opus for me. let someone else archive pristine lossless originals.
>>109016007Wavpack is the lossy redpill, it looks identical in spek under 22.1kHz, only downside is require a music player with custom decoder
im an audiolet huh
Where do you /g/ents get your FLACs from? >used to use deemix-gui
>>109021149>End up bigger than FLACHow?>>109021152Why? It's likely only systems made in the 2000's have actual trouble with APE files>>109021122This kind of thinking is what causes everything to become bloated
>>109021397>This kind of thinking is what causes everything to become bloatedthat's the thing, music hasn't gotten bigger. 25 years ago you were either using flac, or 128k mp3's, today you're either using flac, or 128k opus. the sizes haven't gotten any bigger
>>109021406>It doesn't get bigger>So its ok
>>109021424well you could do 64k opus, it's about as good as 128k mp3, but what are you using today that you're willing to sacrifice audio quality to store more songs on?note that at no point have i suggested codecs shouldn't keep improving, if you know of any cool new advancements then that'd be something to talk about
>>109021431Opus is lossy, and even worse, it cuts of a significant part of the highs
>>109021446>opus is worse than mp3 because it low-passes >20 kHz which no human being on earth can hear and spends those bits in actually audible regions instead...this is bait right? like there's no actual way you can be seriously this retarded
>>109021507he might be one of those 96kHz vinyl rip flac "i know better than the people who make flac (and opus, they're the same people)" kind of guys
>>109021431what exactly is stopping you from using Opus 96 kbps which is on par with mp3 192 (aka: transparency for the vast majority of people) that is half the size with no compromise? not to mention... 64 kbps opus is actually almost on par with 160 cbr or 135 vbr (v5 i think it's what lame calls it), 128 CBR is almost equivalent to Opus 48 kbps so yeah you're just underselling opus a lot by making stupid comparisons and implying it scales worse at lower bitrates than it actually does96 kbps gets you transparency at 20% less filesize than 128 kbps mp3 which sounds like complete dogshit even to deaf people with dollar store earbuds, it's much more impressive when you put it this way... there's no reason why one would go from dogshit 128 mp3 to overkill 128 opus, literally 0 sense.
>>109021529that's cool, it's improved a bit since i last checked
>>109021529>there's no reason why one would go from dogshit 128 mp3 to overkill 128 opus, literally 0 sense.also to explain this a bit more, what i mean by this is that people used 128kbps mp3 25-ish years ago because it was as low as you'd want to go, like it was the bare minimum, people did it anyway because storage space was limited.now (or last i checked when 128k opus was considered ideal), you can have full quality music and not use any more space, while your devices have several hundred times more space
>>109021539there's been barely any improvement in medium-high bitrate music encoding since libopus 1.1 released in late 2013.96 kbps had already been proved transparent for vast majority of people in July 2014 (https://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm)So no, your just retarded.
>>109021554can't hurt to use a little bit more than what "most people" think is enough, just in case. last i read there were some minor exceptions ("killer samples") that 128k covers. if i still had limited space i'd have probably used 96k, but i don't
>>109021544>128 was considered idealby retards>you can have full quality and not use any more space... I don't understand how you fail to realize how big of an improvement this is already>while your devices have several hundred times more spacemy 128 GB non-expandable phone (so like most smartphones still on sale today) doesn't have that much more storage available for music than an mp3 player or iPod from decades ago considering that space is shared with other stuffbut sure, it's no big deal that I can fit my 3500 song library in under 10 gigs, its not like mp3 at the same bitrate (96) was that much worse right? oh yeah actually I'm getting transparency at a bitrate which is outright unlisteanable with mp3... but again you'll treat this as no difference for some reasonI don't understand what your point is, the entire premise is flawed.what's the point of H264 when we are using the same MPEG-2 480i bitrates to encode decent quality 1080p? and don't get me started on av1... passable 4k at dvd bitrates? what a small improvement... does this put in perspective how retarded you sound?
>>109021583>... I don't understand how you fail to realize how big of an improvement this is alreadythat was my point from the beginning
>>109021564ok...so with mp3 to account for killer samples the same way (which is pointless btw) you would need... more than 320, which the codec doesn't even support.while Opus at 192 kbps scores a literal 5.0 MOS: https://hydrogenaudio.org/index.php/topic,120007.0.htmlso in this scenario, opus is infinitely more efficient as mp3 literally cannot do it.again, I don't understand your point a single bit.
>>109021613are you taking the piss?
>>109021507>>109021528Stop projecting you niggertards, >You le can't hear-EVERY damn (actual) standard goes up to 20khz at the least, just because YOU dont hear it doesn't mean it isn't there. If something is measurable, it's there
The vast majority of people who agonize over sound quality don't DJ nor have a home theater.
>>109021655except that a lossy codec's entire point is literally to discard information that is not perceived by humansyeah I smell bait>>109021635yet another great argument
>>109021694I already pointed out that it was bad in the first place BECAUSE its lossy>>109021672Well I do
Besides, if you were to go lossy, the only real options are AAC and VorbisEfficient and catch the full human hearing range
>>109021730>well I dooh so you are literally just blatantly admitting to being severely underage? and somehow that's something to brag about?rule two btw.
>>109021757Opus catches the full human hearing range and scores better at overkill bitrates on problem samples due to not wasting bits encoding garbage dataprobably same retard as before samefagging, no way there can be two of the most retarded people on planet earth on the same thread, extremely unlikely.
>>109021757>efficientoh I had missed that partso you are not talking about overkill bitrates eithersure, I'd like to see your abx test where vorbis at an efficient bitrate (so like less than 160 kbps) scores better than opus while retaining lots of garbage information.which literally isn't possible, I'm pretty sure it only retains such frequencies at higher bitrates for obvious reasonsonly good AAC encoder (qaac) is so aggressive at low passing if you don't force it to not do it its not even funny, at 96 kbps (which is still competitive to opus btw) the highest it will encode is like 16 kHz, again good luck encoding higher frequencies efficiently with it.its funny because opus unironically is the best at encoding high frequencies efficiently, and that's the reason it does so even at very low bitrates, but sure let's focus on the part where it doesn't retain pointless ultrasounds ever...
>>109021758I meant that I have a Home Theater retard>>109021765>>109021765You're still missing a part of audio that shapes how it sounds
>Encode to flacEasy, anywhere, anytime >Encode to 13% of population audioWhat, where, how?
for me, it's compatibility and that's flac and aac
