FLAC vs. 320 Mp3
Feb 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Post #556 of 1,237

taffy2207

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
10,237
Likes
7,160
Location
51.4539° N, 3.1694° W
Feb 28, 2019 at 12:24 PM Post #557 of 1,237

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
9,531
Likes
4,924
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.
 
Feb 28, 2019 at 12:42 PM Post #558 of 1,237

TheTrace

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 30, 2013
Posts
240
Likes
35
Last edited:
Feb 28, 2019 at 5:57 PM Post #559 of 1,237

stonesfan129

100+ Head-Fier
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.
 
Mar 2, 2019 at 7:46 AM Post #560 of 1,237

71 dB

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Posts
1,741
Likes
587
Location
Helsinki, Finland
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.
 
Mar 2, 2019 at 1:02 PM Post #561 of 1,237

RRod

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Posts
3,371
Likes
971
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.
 
Mar 2, 2019 at 2:34 PM Post #562 of 1,237

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,399
Likes
4,926
Location
A Secret Lab
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?
 
Mar 2, 2019 at 3:28 PM Post #563 of 1,237

RRod

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Posts
3,371
Likes
971
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:
Mar 7, 2019 at 3:35 PM Post #564 of 1,237

spbkaizo

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Posts
46
Likes
12
Location
UK
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?
 
Mar 12, 2019 at 7:20 AM Post #566 of 1,237

stonesfan129

100+ Head-Fier
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.
 
Mar 12, 2019 at 7:27 AM Post #567 of 1,237

71 dB

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Posts
1,741
Likes
587
Location
Helsinki, Finland
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.
 
Mar 12, 2019 at 7:29 AM Post #568 of 1,237

stonesfan129

100+ Head-Fier
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.
 
Mar 12, 2019 at 1:13 PM Post #569 of 1,237

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,399
Likes
4,926
Location
A Secret Lab
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.
 
Mar 12, 2019 at 3:33 PM Post #570 of 1,237

71 dB

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Posts
1,741
Likes
587
Location
Helsinki, Finland
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top