FLAC vs. 320 Mp3
post-14807960
Post #556 of 810

taffy2207

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
8,831
Reaction score
5,577
Location
Bae Caerdydd
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Location
Bae Caerdydd
Posts
8,831
Likes
5,577
     Share This Post       
post-14807991
Post #557 of 810

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
9,086
Reaction score
4,425
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
9,086
Likes
4,425
in my case, I only recently started to use AAC for my new rips maybe 2 or 3years ago. most of my library is still in MP3. I'm the man from the past! ^_^
the main reason being that I'm lazy of course. but also that I've been juggling with a bunch of old cheap DAPs, some of which had "compatibility issues"(AKA garbage firmware). nowadays AAC is basically everywhere by default so the inferior MP3 really doesn't make much sense. but Opus isn't exactly universal. so while I'm personally convinced that Opus rocks in term of sound/kb, I'm not planning to use it ATM because my DAPs haven't heard of it.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: TheTrace
post-14808024
Post #558 of 810

TheTrace

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
240
Reaction score
33
Joined
May 30, 2013
Posts
240
Likes
33
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14808662
Post #559 of 810

stonesfan129

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
140
Reaction score
30
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Posts
140
Likes
30
I ripped all my CDs to FLAC with dBpoweramp Reference on Secure Mode w/ AccurateRip. I rarely buy a CD anymore and 99% of my purchases are through iTunes. I can't tell a difference between 256k AAC and FLAC. I have enough storage space on my FiiO X1 that I do not need to compress anything but I'd say I'm fine with 256k AAC purchases from now on. I have been incredibly impressed with Mastered For iTunes albums. I think the iTunes AAC encoder sounds better than LAME MP3. I don't see the point of using Opus as AAC is already good enough and far more software/hardware supports AAC.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14811588
Post #560 of 810

71 dB

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
350
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Posts
1,398
Likes
350
Age
49
I have ripped + pre-crossfed some music from CDs using 192 kbps mp3 for my portable player, and I have also bought some music files that aren't available on CD, but in general I don't like digital music files. I want physical CDs. Files get lost in my harddrive and I don't even remember what music I have. CDs are there in my bookshelf and remind of themselves everyday. If I can't get the physical things why pay for a file when I can listen to the music for free in Spotify * or Youtube? What's the difference? So, for me the problem isn't sound quality/bitrate, but the "hidden" and "invisible" nature of the files. I want my ownership of music to be more physical than that.

* I do explore music on Spotify and if I like what I hear I try to get the physical CD. Recently I listened to Dua Lipa's Complete Edition on Spotify and liked it enough to get the CD. Dua Lipa has been one of the more consistent pop artists of the last few years and this 25 track 2 CD set is pretty solid without complete duds. You may say pop music like this is crap, but I disagree. Sometimes it is crap and sometimes it's not. It can be great in it's own way and I like to switch between different genres of music, perhaps first listening to Mieczyslaw Weinberg's Violin Sonatas and then some pop music by Katy Perry and then maybe Neil Cowley Trio's concert Blu-ray ending the listening session with cantatas by Nikolaus Bruhns.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14812102
Post #561 of 810

RRod

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
969
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Posts
3,371
Likes
969
True, but even that thread itself was last responded to more than a year ago. Maybe it's the compatibility issues still. Considering Android having a good share of the smartphone market today I would have thought that opus would have more of a lane by 2019 is all.
In a sense Opus was probably too little too late to force a quick victory. People are already satisfied with their ~128-256k streaming or download solutions, and at those rates there's very little reason to choose Opus over AAC (or even MP3 if one uses the nearest VBR option). One could argue that being the best option on YouTube is a decent lane, I guess.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14812288
Post #562 of 810

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
21,584
Reaction score
3,628
Location
Hollywood USA
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Location
Hollywood USA
Posts
21,584
Likes
3,628
Website
www.facebook.com
I've never used Opus, but my impression is that it is basically the same thing as AAC. It's an MP4 codec isn't it?
 
     Share This Post       
post-14812396
Post #563 of 810

RRod

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
969
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Posts
3,371
Likes
969
I've never used Opus, but my impression is that it is basically the same thing as AAC. It's an MP4 codec isn't it?
I think it's registered for mp4 but I'm not sure if anything supports it in the container yet. It definitely uses different algorithms than AAC, so I guess they are only the same in the sense they are both lossy codecs… I would wager that your AAC examples would have different artifacts (or none at all) at the same Opus bitrate.

Edit: ffmpeg supports Opus in mp4 if you allow experimental settings
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14822624
Post #564 of 810

spbkaizo

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Location
UK
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Location
UK
Posts
42
Likes
10
the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.
Are you sure your friend wasn't referring to Vinyl?
 
     Share This Post       
post-14823464
Post #565 of 810

TheTrace

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
240
Reaction score
33
Joined
May 30, 2013
Posts
240
Likes
33
Yeah I've never heard of that theory for lossy.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14831744
Post #566 of 810

stonesfan129

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
140
Reaction score
30
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Posts
140
Likes
30
That's not how lossy audio works. Lossy audio works by throwing away some of the original data. Different data is thrown away depending on which encoder and bitrate you use. This is how it reduces the file size. It doesn't throw away data every time you play the file.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14831753
Post #567 of 810

71 dB

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
350
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Posts
1,398
Likes
350
Age
49
That's not how lossy audio works. Lossy audio works by throwing away some of the original data. Different data is thrown away depending on which encoder and bitrate you use. This is how it reduces the file size. It doesn't throw away data every time you play the file.
Playing a file is just reading the file, not saving it. If you open the file to a editor and save again, you might lose data, because the algorithm handless lossy data differently than the original data, but I not sure you lose data always. I think sometimes it's possible to lose nothing.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14831758
Post #568 of 810

stonesfan129

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
140
Reaction score
30
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Posts
140
Likes
30
Playing a file is just reading the file, not saving it. If you open the file to a editor and save again, you might lose data, because the algorithm handless lossy data differently than the original data, but I not sure you lose data always. I think sometimes it's possible to lose nothing.
If you save a lossy file as another lossy file, then yes you are removing data each time and it will slowly degrade the sound quality.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14832363
Post #569 of 810

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
21,584
Reaction score
3,628
Location
Hollywood USA
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Location
Hollywood USA
Posts
21,584
Likes
3,628
Website
www.facebook.com
If you save a lossy file as another lossy file, then yes you are removing data each time and it will slowly degrade the sound quality.
That isn't true. I took a CD and ripped it to AAC then to WAV then back to AAC ten times and there was no real degradation. Once you run a song through a codec, it removes what it's going to remove. If you run it through again, it just tries to remove the same thing again and it isn't there, so it pretty much passes it through. If you changed data rate or used a different codec, it would degrade, but not if you keep re-encoding it with the same codec and data rate.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14832600
Post #570 of 810

71 dB

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
350
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Location
Helsinki, Finland
Posts
1,398
Likes
350
Age
49
If you save a lossy file as another lossy file, then yes you are removing data each time and it will slowly degrade the sound quality.
The codec doesn't need to remove data because it fits to the given bitrate already. I believe the only reason why data would be lost is if the codec wants to encode the data differently than the original data, but for that to happen the lossy file must be very different so it perhaps can only happen at the lowest bitrates.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 7, Guests: 10)

Top