How would /g/ rate music codecs in 2016. Specifically for daily use, not for archival. For example, the following formats seem relevant:
Please also include your preferred bitrates.
Hell if I know but majority of my music is 320/V0 mp3 just because that's what people encode shit in. Most of the people just don't care and want their empeethrees because that's what they are used to and because of the demand people who rip encode it as such.
This is also why opus/vorbis is slightly more popular in less normie infected communities, such as weebs.
How's MP3 less free than AAC? Both are covered in patents.
MP3 is prolly more free when you consider the tooling, where MP3 has good open-source encoders (libmp3lame) and AAC doesn't.
MP3 is already near-transparent at low bitrates and disk space is getting bigger not smaller. You gain nothing by switching. Some old plastic boxes might not even support AAC.
fuck i rember times when mp3 was only encoding option like on sony mp3 players and nobody bother to vobis, with really wins on variable bitrate
And i rember times compressing shity albums to 64 mb per cd xD
Opus where I can play it (PC, android, rockbox), ogg if I can't (sony mp3 player in car), and mp3 for all other usages (chinese mp3 player for running)
I keep a conversion cache on an older 1TB drive and store my flac archives on a 2TB RAID 1 setup that I occasionally backup to an offsite external drive
It's okay. Good because literally anything can play it. Bad because you need to set the bitrate around 192 Kbps to get audible transparency.
Hipster garbage. Only reason to use it is because you have fapple devices. A good bitrate varies depending on what extension is used (ie LC, HE)
The best audio codec out there. Audible transparency is reached around 96-128 Kbps if a complexity value of 10 is used. Only bad thing is fapple and ancient devices have trouble playing it or won't play it at all.
Almost as good as Opus. Audible transparency reached around 128 Kbps.
*.mp3 has been there since the dawn of internet piracy. It is actually nostalgic to somebody like me, who remembers that era but it also just works, on everything. Somewhat locked in my ways here, I won't allow any other music format in to my library.
>Specifically for daily use, not for archival
This statement makes no sense. I'm going to maintain an archive regardless, because I don't want to re-buy any CDs that succumb to disc rot. Why would I turn around and transcode everything to a lossy format just for listening? Why shouldn't I just use my lossless archival copies that I already have?
So on that note, FLAC > everything else. It's not like portable devices these days are even short on storage, so again, there's no reason to use anything but archival backups.
>No one cares about obscure formats for music that no one can play.
Sorry, what? I couldn't hear you.
Market adoption is practically non-existent. No stores sell Opus music. No music streaming services use it. Only a bite-sized amount of Android music players support it.
MP3 V0 is key. The final patent expires next year and after that it's free forever.
I do not. You said it's worse, but compared to what?
Also, I'm not the other anon who replied mentioning ad blocking. I wouldn't run an ad blocker on spotify free since I'm not a complete leech, although definitely a pirate.
I buy physical CDs and streaming services are useless for me with zero music but that's from my perspective and your mileage may vary.
>Only a bite-sized amount of Android music players support it.
The only players worth a damn.
FHG/QAAC -> Best all round
OPUS -> hipster MU FREEDOM codec. Becomes transparent at around the same bitrate AAC does, however AAC is 1000x more compatible so there is no point using opus besides specific cases where Low latency and ultra low filesize is needed. While I do like to carry a lot of music on my sd cards, I prefer encoding with a small margin above my own personal transparency thershold (around 170~180kbps for FHG/QAAC) so there is no point in using OPUS.
-Vorbis: I feel for the meme of the "Promissing mu freedom codec" before, and that was the AoTuV Implementation of Vorbis. Encoded most of my library for the go in AoTuV when it was better than AAC. But them, the developers start improving it, and the promisses of the format replacing mp3 never fulfilled, instead, the AAC improved even further and surpassed Vorbis and know vobis don't play anywhere else besides smartphones and computers. In the end I had to reconvert all my vorbis library to AAC, since AAC can at least play on my car stereo natively.
While for 90% of cases mp3 at V2 is transparent, it still has much more issues with artifacting difficult samples than AAC. I hate people that still release things in mp3 CBR 320kbps, that's utterly stupid. Just use fucking V0 if you want to go to placebo level, no point on bloating that shit with CBR FFS.
I have tested several of my favorite music with bot ABX and ABC-HR and found out that for over 95% of the time in ideal condition, music becomes transparent to me around 192kbps for mp3, and 170~180kbps for QAAC.
However, I find acceptable to hear mp3 at around 170kbps without "annoying me" and as low as 144kbps for QAAC. These lower bitrate settings I usually use on my smartphone to save space on my least favorite music tracks or classical chamber/solo instruments, as they need much less bitrate than rock or jazz which is my second favorite genre of music.
People should really do proper ABC-HR testing before making claims, even ABX is overkill.
AAC can play literally anywhere. Even shitty flip nokia phones from 2004 play AAC.
Unless you buy a shitty cheap car stereo that only plays mp3 and wma, you would never have problem of not playing AAC. Good luck looking for a decent car stereo that play Opus or even Vorbis.
Vorbis is worse than AAC, faggots.
FLAC über alles.
Everything else is a compromise for poorfags.
And we're talking real bottom of the barrel miserly jew losers here, a 64gb mSD can be had for ~$15. Even if every single FLAC album is 300mb (they skew much closer to 200mb), that's something like 200+ hours of lossless, uncompromised music on something the size of your nail. It's the ultimate epitome of affordable music quality and quantity in human history.
Not using FLAC is yelling to the world "Yes, I DO enjoy shit in my ears!"
Might be my audio card is bad, or that my equipment is not the most expensive. But I find the old trusty LAME encoder set to V0 VBR MP3 to do a good job at digitizing my music.
No, lossy audio should only be converted to another lossy format if absolutely necessary, else don't encode them to another lossy format.
If space is a vital asset then the lowest bitrate I would use is 192Kbps with a complexity of 10 for Opus assuming source is 320k MP3.
Not for storage, no is not.
For storage on a hard drive on your desktop, it's pointless. it's fine if it's a high bitrate lossy format and you want to put it temporarely on a portable music player. Reencoding to a smaller bitrate from a lossy encode with a large margin of bitrate to spare will accumulate VERY LITTLE encoding artifacts.
In fact, this was a topic already discussed on HA and there has been some smal limited listening tests between users, me included, concluding that is almost impossible to double blindy discern which is A or B in the following scenarios:
A:FLAC -> mp3 V0 -> opus 96kbps
B:FLAC -> opus 96kbps
This becomes even more true when listening outdoors where the ambient for proper appreciating the music is fairly compromised.
Mp3 is stupid.
bloating mp3 won't save you from killer samples, just use a fucking better codec with lower bitrate instead.
I know this is bait, but:
>compromise for poorfag
>enjoy shit in my ears.
Confirmed as a stupid missinformed audiophilic wannabe that buy into whatever cheat placebo it's presented to him.
You have clearly never done a proper ABCHR listening test before. If you do, it'd become clear that there is no reason to store 200gb of FLAC music you don't even really like that much for an unperceiveable gain in quality.
Because you are.