Is there any real difference between 320kbs mp3 and FLAC?

Is there any real difference between 320kbs mp3 and FLAC?

Other urls found in this thread:

abx.digitalfeed.net/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No.

Yes.

You should use MP3 VBR, not CBR.

>You should use MP3
fuck outta here

Measurably yes, perceptually no.

It's a great, open and free format, with great compression ratio for good sound quality.

Yeah, file size.

Why is vbr better than cbr? Just for compression?

Better sound quality. CBR has been abandoned, only VBR has been improved in the past few years.

...

>2017
>still using mp3
opus is objectively better and since you're probably playing your music from your PC or your smartphone, you won't have any compatibility issues. mp3s only for legacy stuff like your car stereo.

>opus
It's complete junk. Does not even support 44100KHz.

> Listening to 44MHz

>junk
How? There was an experiment that showed that opus provides the best quality in terms of bitrate.
>44100KHz
any reason why I should avoid resampling?
The format is lossy anyways and it's not like upsampling actually hurts quality.

>any reason why I should avoid resampling?
Yes. It introduces artifacts. ALso my sestem is se to output to 44,1KHz, since 99% of my music is 44,1KHz. So I would end up upsampling to trash 48KHz then downsampling on the fly back to 44,1KHz. Useless and the result is awful.

I know mp3 is probably better supported, but from what I've read, it seems like opus is just better.

Is there no reason to use mp3 anymore since opus? Can music nerds fill me in if I'm missing something? Is it just shilling/placebo/etc or does it have something to do with the bitrates and stuff?

>ALso my sestem is se to
You okay buddy?

Ahaa, I'm eating right now. Doing it and typing at the same time results in that.. :(

The difference is that if you decode, edit, and reencode an mp3 enough times, it degrades to the point that you can hear noise. This doesn't happen with a lossless codec like flac. But if if you're just going to encode it one time and listen to it forever, you won't hear any difference.

>Is there no reason to use mp3 anymore since opus? Can music nerds fill me in if I'm missing something?
Support. Literally everything can run mp3, opus is still kinda spotty.

mp3 is a cleaner and less bloated format

if you cant tell the difference between flac and mp3 youre an earlet

So eventually, can we expect people to move to opus? I remember a time where .mkv made me go 'wtf is this' but now it's everywhere. For mp3's though, it seems to have survived ogg and other stuff.

no

What is bloat in this sense?

From what I understand, it can compress files more while keeping good audio quality. Literally the exact opposite of bloat (unless you have a different definition?)

>It introduces artifacts
Audible ones if you're using something fast and shit. Just use a high quality resampler. I do get your use case where your audio set-up is set to play everything at 44.1khz but I'm confused as to why you're complaining about the act of resampling itself, you're already listening to lossy music which means you aren't too much of an audiophile to care about placebo-tier enhancements. Also, why are you listening to lossy at home?

t. pretentious 'audiophile' who couldn't pass an a/b listen test

The file format, I meant.
Try to implement a parser yourself and you will understand.

shut up

Doubt it. People play mp3s on the most outdated devices that won't ever get updates. You'll not want to alienate those. I can see people switch from mp3 if either all those devices are dead (in 100 years), or there's a significantly better music compression option in the likes of it making it 100 times smaller. Both options mean that opus won't be the best option anymore.

Yes. If you're burning music CD's to play on a high end stereo, use lossless formats. Even the fucking retards who think flac is placebo will be able to tell the difference.

looks like he rekt you

>complaining about the act of resampling itself, you're already listening to lossy music
There is no reason to degrade the audio further by artificially resampling FOR NO REASON. Especially when I have the option not to do it, by using MP3.

IME, everyone who refers to himself as an 'audiiphile' turns out to be a pretentious, delusional dingdong who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Surely, the quality per bitrate that opus provides come more than compensate for that.

>There is no reason to degrade the audio further by artificially resampling FOR NO REASON.
Compression, same reason as why you'd use mp3 over flac.

dont reply to me or i will have your account deleted

>Surely, the quality per bitrate that opus provides come more than compensate for that.
It doesn't. I tried.

What compression? Saving in 48KHz instead of 44,1KHz is compression? Read again to what you just replied to.

>What compression?
The extra compression that opus gives for the same quality you retard.

>Saving in 48KHz instead of 44,1KHz is compression?
No.

OP here im asking because Deezer offer both version to download and i dont know if flac worths the bigger space

You're using mp3s when listening to audio IN YOUR HOME. There is no need to save space and fit everything onto a tiny SD card since you probably have your music stored in a hard drive.. You're unnecessarily degrading audio.

Dipshit.

>The extra compression that opus gives for the same quality
It doesn't. I said already, it sounds worse due to two unncesessary resamplings done until the output you hear, one being on the fly.

Are you going to keep the file for any period of time? FLAC.

>It doesn't.
It absolutely does, there are tests, your anecdotal evidence isn't enough to say the opus in general has more size per same quality.

>It doesn't. I tried
You listen to compressed music which tells me you're not that much of an audiophool. You complain about artifacts, which are mostly inaudible (if using a good enough resampler), when resampling which tells me you're an audiophool. I'm confused.

>degrading audio
How? MP3 is better in terms of quality.

And I don't listen only at home. I keep them on my phone too and listen to my car stereo via aux jack. Which MP3 is far superior due to low CPU usage during decoding vs other formats.

I can delete then download it again any time

>You complain about artifacts, which are mostly inaudible
They are very audible.

>due to unnecessary resamplings
Your case was already mentioned. We've already moved on to resampling itself.

nice of you to ignore the parentheses

Guys is this lossy? I find the 20kHz cutoff and the gap a bit fishy.

i remember doing a blind test between 192k, V0 and FLAC, 10 different soundclips i think. the lower quality of 192k was immediately obvious to me every single time, but then in the same test i also ended up choosing V0 as the best sounding clip every single time. i understand the benefits of lossless audio and use FLAC whenever i can, but my ears don't seem to have anything against V0. of course, anything below that is out of the question.

No. You just igonre it. Unnecessary resampling is tthe biggest issue with opus. Second would be high CPU usage during decoding, especially for portable devices, then compatibility.

>And I don't listen only at home
I, too, have a library in my phone but I'm smart unlike you. Lossless at home where I have the space, lossy on the go for fitting into an SD card.

Bost boi bussy

>No. You just igonre it.
Isn't this what audiophools say when they claim they can hear the difference with the thousad-dollar aux cable?

I don't feel the need to store everything in lossless format. Lossy MP3 is just fine for the most part. Else lossless.

There is. Highs are distorted especially if you use equalizer or other post processing effects. Something which does not happen with MP3.

>Which MP3 is far superior due to low CPU usage during decoding vs other formats.
>Second would be high CPU usage during decoding, especially for portable devices, then compatibility.
Can you post a source for these tests? Thanks.

lol. go screw yourself.

>bandcamp ripper only rips the 128kbs files

I'm led to believe that you're only hearing distortions because you have a shit resampler in your audio system. Any high quality resampler will eliminate audible artefacts for the audio file itself.

>Highs are distorted
Are you sure that's not the 20khz cutoff in the mp3 encoding?

lol go fuck yourself

I tested throughout time on different systems. Resampling, especially twice, and for no reason to top it, is bad and only degrades audio further.

No. And what 20KHz cutoff? CBR has it, but VBR does not.

Can you explain what exactly this image is conveying? Higher pitched sounds are louder with flac?

The amount of data MP3 retained from the lossless format. You have a colour graph at the right which tells you how loud each colour is. Pretty much anything that's in the blue spectrum is barely audible.

and you're sure you aren't hearing things because you want to hear them
I pretty much doubt that highs would be distorted since it's an upsample. But if it's an upsample then a downsample, then I can see how you're hearing distortions.

1000kbps flac sounds outstanding compared to 320kbps.

FLAC is lossless, you idiot. You can't set bitrate restrictions when encoding.

>anything over 192kbps
completely retarded

>and you're sure you aren't hearing things because you want to hear them
No. Which is why I also advocate against CBR at any value. VBR at 192-256 is better than CBR320. I'm not praising the whole MP3, but VBR MP3. And VBR MP3 is imo the best lossy format for music/audio.

but we're talking about sample rates here
opus doesn't have a cbr option at all

Hearable, try some hardcore distortion shit, how clear is that, even at normal notebook card, when I set it up to 24/96 it's totally different highs than MP3... You can't benchmark audio on Taylor Swift, like where does that compression appear at Taylor? None. Once I get Something like dynamic images up, they are going to be the same every MP3 sample and different every FLAC sample,

It's meaning, while isotonic symetricity induces like ~k = 30 neurons that cares about difference, my flac gotta do that like every 1/16 of beat, because it's different one every time.

Source?

That was to tel you that I'm not hearing distortion only because I don't want to use or like OPUS.

You can compare them too, you know?

>That was to tel you that I'm not hearing distortion only because I don't want to use or like OPUS
That was wholly irrelevant, m9. You will hear what you want to hear regardless. I'm essentially arguing against anecdotal evidence here. I'm gonna need something better than "I can TOTALLY here it, dude".

That screws with seeking within tracks though

I can actually get antialiased sharp shit in 32/192, your mp3 sounds like fart.

ive been telling people for YEARS that mp2 is better than mp3

no one believed me

meh, the war's over now, everyone uses FLAC & we have the storage capacity for it.

Opus? Please let us all know where one might be able to find albums in that format.

shitty encoder options, doesn't count. CBR is simply inefficient, way past the "diminishing returns" threshold for a codec devised for VBR. But no, it won't lead you to worse quality. Just to a waste of space.

Your brain has dissolved sound above 15khz or why don't you hear the difference.

AND THAT BITRATE MEANS 24 is with float, 16 is just int.

abx.digitalfeed.net/
Do these tests and prove yourselves wrong.

You can't read a spectrogram. Detail beyond the 16k threshold is a waste of space in a lossy codec.

>anything over 192kbps
>completely retarded
Continue listening to YouTube video to MP3 rips. I don't know why audio engineers bother with different formats and bitrates.

>
>>Which MP3 is far superior due to low CPU usage during decoding vs other formats.
>
>>Second would be high CPU usage during decoding, especially for portable devices, then compatibility.
>Can you post a source for these tests? Thanks.
Hello?

If you're using a lossy codec, then yes it's completely retarded. Having such a high bitrate pretty much defeats the point of having to compress lossily in the first place.

What are you even talking about?
You can hear the difference between 192 kbps MP3s and 320 kbps MP3s. Listen to a song that you've downloaded and then listen to it on YouTube. As far as I'm aware it's 192 kbps MP3 at best.

Do you want test samples optimalized for what can compression do?

How? It works fine here on all players I've tried, even on phones as old as Nokia 6630, I remember it was dealing with VBR MP3s just fine.

I can hear the difference user it's very audible for me, I'm sure some people are unable to hear it but I can and it's enough for me to go full flac.
I can assure you that there are even tracks that sound slightly incorrect because flac can let you hear limits of the actual rendered (I dunno what the process of creating sound file is called so lets call it a render) sound file like for example when some part of the song samples were in slightly worse quality while mp3 versions make it distorted and blur the difference with noise
I really hope mp3 meme dies some day

If amy winehouse took a bath in salt water she'd be amy brinehouse

I don't understand

Brine = water with a lot of salt.

Eh.. okay?

>2017
>mp3
>not qaac at q127

anyway, i can hear the difference in horriblesubs release and bdmv lpcm.

>qaac
Not a codec?