>mozilla adds FLAC support decades after chrome does it >THIS

>>56407129
VP9 video now lags on baytrail atoms

well played, israel, well played.

I should've known, bait rail

What is with you MP3 shills? Are you proud of inconsistency in sound?

You don't use FLAC for audio quality alone, you use it because you know for a fucking fact it sounds 100% like intended.

Lets see your .log for your MP3 rips that ensure 100% accuracy in rips.

File: 1472827164296.gif (4MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 853x480px

even Internet Explorer has FLAC support

>>56407158
Is there anyone out there that listens to music in a goddamn web browser and gives a shit about that?

>>56407188
>>56407129

Just ripped 200+ songs from YouTube onto mp3.
Can't tell much difference between it and Spotify Premium's version.

Have a torrented 320 kbps mp3 to compare one song with. It's slightly better. That's all.

Will carry on enjoying my music now to the detriment of audiophile society. kthxtc

>mp3
lmao fucking luddites

Opus master race

>>56407311
>Just ripped 200+ songs from YouTube onto mp3
You're not very bright.

>>56407158

Doesn't sound very free

>>56407372
What else does one do for 200+ individual artists worth of songs?

>>56407401
You know, you could just have left them in the opus/aac file that they came in.

>>56407401
Grab format 22 if >128kbps. Otherwise 251.

AAC-HE 80 KBit/s is pretty epic.

Sounds like 128 to 160 KBit/s MP3, which is still shit, but if you need to compress lots of music for some shitty bluetooth speaker garden party it's good enough.

Because 80 KBit/s is extremely smol.

However, MP3 master race. MP3 is the vinyl of the digital music world.
Everything supports MP3, it's like FAT32. Even toasters can read it.

>>56407420
Tsk, you can make playlist and use youtube-dl to dl it

File: tony why.jpg (23KB, 288x499px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 288x499px

>>56407129
>caring so much that you train yourself to hear the difference between formats
I use opus

>>56407420

>>56407439
>>>56407457

I don't want to run a line for each video. Have made a playlist and used a playlist downloader site out of desperation (long train journey tomorrow).

Is there a smarter alternative that I can run to rip all of it, perhaps from a playlist?

>>56407505
>Tsk, you can make playlist and use youtube-dl to dl it

literally

 youtube-dl [URL Playlist]

and eventually

 --extract-audio --audio-format 

>>56407129
>Unless you can pass an ABX test (tell the difference) between 320kbps MP3, 192kbps Opus and lossless, post the log here, and you upload the files files that you tested (the FLAC, MP3 and Opus files) you're full of shit.

I use FLAC because it is archival quality and I never have to worry about whether the fag who made the mp3s ripped from his original disc or converted a 320k rip to 192k Opus. Having FLAC means I have the original disc, as far as music quality goes.

I can also convert it to V2 VBR for my portables, and save a lot of space and get great quality. Can't do that with 320kbps mp3 or 192k Opus - it would either take twice as much space, twice as bad sound output (lossy transcoded to lossy), or wouldn't be able to play (Opus has fuck all hardware support).

I don't give a fuck about ABX testing.

>>56407567
-i

>>56407581
What do you use to listen to music?

>>56407567

Thank you. It's very kind of you. I'll try not to be as noobish on this matter again.

>>56407176
>3.72MB for a short video with shit quality

what the actual fuck

I ripped 20 CDs to FLAC files just this afternoon. I honestly don't know why people are aroused by lossy formats. I'm not poor, then I can afford a decent amount of storage for keeping flac files and not having to worry about lack of storage anyways.

>>56407581
>192kbps opus
why

128 vbr opus is more than enough

I can't tell the difference between Lossless, MP3 v0, or vorbis q6.0 (192kbps), yet I have almost exclusively flaces.
It is because I use v0 and ogg everywhere but my computer, which is my main storage centre.
Is it only so that in the future, when better codecs will get created, I can start using it then.

>>56407129
>192 kbps Opus
don't have much faith do you?

I want to see an ABX between 96 kbps Opus and FLAC. It's possible, but I want to know if /g/ is capable of it.

everyone knows theres no audible difference between 320K mp3 and lossless, even on fairly good audio equipment
I still prefer FLAC if I can find it, since I've plenty space, but 320 mp3 is totally acceptable if its what I can find.
Anything under 320K MP3 though, even the mid 200s, god no.

>>56407877
It's really easy once you do a few tests and start understanding what every codec is weak on: high frequency sounds. Opus cuts shit off the 12.5-15.5KHz range and makes the 15.5-20KHz range inaccurate for some songs at that bitrate (easy to hear in an ABX test, but everything still sounds good, I use this bitrate for music on my phone)

This guy can hear the difference between Opus at high bitrates and lossless in one sample: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112572/topicseen.html though I can't hear it myself even at 144kbps, which is the highest bitrate where I've passed ABX tests.

>>56407129
>flac browser support
for what reason?

File: 1472827925266.gif (4MB, 850x478px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 850x478px

I don't see the point in fighting mainstream FLAC support, it already has more hardware support than other open formats like ogg. Firefox having support just means you can upload flac files to mixtape.moe, share them and link them around. FLAC should be a first class citizen just like MP3 is.

>>56408085
>4MB for a shit quality 3 second gif
what the fuck is wrong with you

>>56408085
source

FLAC is fucking stupid for general use

it only makes sense in production and remastering

proponents tout it as 'lossless' but you are already dealing with a digitization of the true audio wave form: you already lost. For that reason it's equally good in terms of sound compared it a high quality lossy compressed audio file... and it's far far worse in terms of file size.

Therefore nobody should be using FLAC in the browser for your ping sound effect when you get a message or something like that. It's wasteful.

>>56407311
how does it feel to be deaf?

>>56408251
how does it feel to have downs syndrome?

>>56407338
Also AAC, but mostly this

>>56408236
litterally iqdb

File: kys ;^).png (177KB, 1053x863px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1053x863px

>>56408274

>>56407823
>>56408143
see: steganography
see: cheese pizza

File: 1472827098747.gif (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

The important thing is FLAC's next step in replacing MP3 as the dominant normie format. They don't have or require 10k libraries in their phones, nor do they have remorse over watching a cat video on youtube in 1080p. The time for perfect audio is now.

I used to not care about audio quality that much. Ripped all my music from YouTube.

Then I got a used car, and the original owner upgraded it's audio to a Bose system. Holy shit did it make the YouTube rips sound like shit. I updated all my music (took months) to 320 mp3 and it sounds amazing.

Point is, if it sounds the same, it's because your speakers or headphones just aren't good enough. It's not autism or audiophilia.

>>56408315
>The important thing is FLAC's next step in replacing MP3 as the dominant normie format
no it's not

>>56407129
This whole pointless argument is akin to going into the Louvre with colored sunglasses on, walking around looking at Picasso, Monet, Van Gogh, Michelangelo... and thinking, yeah, good stuff. You're just not opening your brain to what's there.

>>56408351
sub v0 mp3 is not autism
flac is autism

>>56407129
Who plays FLAC in their web browser?

>>56408423
https://my.mixtape.moe/kslmdz.flac

>>56408456
>this triggers the firefags

>>56408383
I bet that you use cable levelers too.

>>56408315
Stop using outdated bloated shit.

>>56408391
Maybe the difference between flac and mp3 320 is noticeable to anyone with a sound system designed for a concert.

File: qm12922883276.jpg (32KB, 525x349px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 525x349px

FLAC is fucking stupid for general use

it only makes sense in production and remastering

proponents tout it as 'lossless' but you are already dealing with a digitization of the true audio wave form: you already lost. For that reason it's equally good in terms of sound compared it a high quality lossy compressed audio file... and it's far far worse in terms of file size.

Therefore nobody should be using FLAC in the browser for your ping sound effect when you get a message or something like that. It's wasteful.

>>56408558
I've yet to met someone who can pass a double blind ABX test

File: 1472750676684.png (97KB, 796x566px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 796x566px

>>56408520

File: Nozomu_Ezomori_.png (77KB, 448x384px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 448x384px

>>56408236
Anime is called Kanokon. One of my favourites.

>>56408568
>a digitization of the true audio wave form: you already lost

Not really. You're getting 100% of what the microphone picked up. A microphone is an instrument too.

>>56408657
ty

>>56408568
stop reposting retard

>>56408657
I want to shag that wolf.

>>56408664
>You're getting 100% of what the microphone picked up
oh really? where do you get your stupid masters from?
kys familia

>>56408657
use webms instead of gifs
do it for her

>>56408677
Nozomu Ezomori
She is best grill fyi

>>56408683
Digitally mastered?

>>56408721
I want her to mark her territory by pissing on my face while Chizuru gives me paizuri.

>>56408664
shit, you're right. I am converting all my audio files to FLAC now.

>>56408722
meant studio masters
it was a typo
you're not getting everything the mic picked up is my point

File: FLAC vs MP3 VBR vs MP3 CBR320_.png (2MB, 2766x647px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2766x647px

>>56407129
MP3 VBR is fine. CBR 320 is shit: low performance, large file size, too lossy.

File: Kanokon - 04 - Large 03.jpg (48KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1024x576px

This is now a xebec appreciation thread

File: Kanokon07-11.jpg (17KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x270px

>>56408788

File: kan230.jpg (39KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1024x576px

>>56408814

>>56408842
>>56408814
>>56408788
nigger do you really have to spam this shit in every thread

>>56408867
Literally different people

>>56408769
I wonder when they'll stop referring to 320kbit as --insane

>>56408739
More sample data isn't necessarily more quality, but compression is always compression. I'd rather have 44.1KHz flac than 192KHz opus

>>56408997
Never, because LAME is dead

>>56409019
>192KHz Opus
retard alert

>>56409023
LAME 3.100 will be released. Y-you'll see.

File: 1472720519830.gif (658KB, 371x396px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 371x396px

I use FLAC because I like to put Moon Man over some of the songs in my library and reupload so they can hear in the original quality without twice-encoding. It really gives a song a certain kkkick when used properly.

File: 1472928670005.png (119KB, 503x151px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 503x151px

There is a place and time for FLAC and a place and time for anime. The place and time for FLAC is now and the place and time for anime is now.

>>56409272
https://my.mixtape.moe/tqrsus.flac

wtf i like flac now

I don't really care about web browser support for FLAC. I store my stuff in FLAC because hard drive space is cheap, and it's a kind of future proofing. What if I get better ears installed some day?

>>56410519
They still wouldn't hear a difference with your craphones

>>56407456
This
My car stereo can use wav and mp3 but not flac
Even stranger is that it has some convoluted thing where you can play music through USB from a ifone

Remember when OGG was the future?

Good times.

>>56407152
VP9 maxes out AMD's Puma+ cores too, whats your point?

File: tmp_21600-quality-51935691.png (126KB, 1280x948px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1280x948px

>>56407456
AAC is good but OPUS is flat out superior to every mainstream lossy codec there is, especially in low bitrate situations.

>>56408251
The entire point of lossless compressed formats is that you can have a master file to convert to any other format for whatever the need. Instead of, for example, converting lossy 320k mp3 to lossy (format of choice), losing more quality in the process.

It's kind of comparable to using .png instead of resaving a .jpg a thousand times, but the degradation is much stronger.

>>56409050
>>56408769
320CBR is if you want a high shelf of quality retention, but in normal circumstances there was a cutoff in 19.5kHz (not sure if you're using LAME). That's the tradeoff for filesize.

In VBR (particularly V0, but again, OP isn't privy on details, you get less file size and more range but less quality throughout.

CAPTCHA: keck 4200

>>56412166
I'm a few minutes away from converting my ~20000 FLAC files to Vorbis q6 for my phone, am I doing the wrong thing?

>>56414464
Opus 128kbps vbr

>>56412399
>needing to transcode
That's why you use lossy. There's no reason to transcode since you're already lossy.

I'm not sure why people don't understand the idea of wanting to preserve and hear the original data 1:1. It's very simple if you stop dragging in all this unrelated emotional shit in that has little to do with the actual logical framework at work.

>>56407823
Either has packed data 4chan doesn't detect, or has been poorly compressed. Look at it in a hex editor and run it through gifsicle to see which. It's not uncommon to be able to improve the compression of a poorly encoded gif by 40-50%.

>>56407338
>not better than vorbis when bitrate is 128 or higher
>larger files for music with quiet places than vorbis
>no 44khz support
Seriously tho, why opus?

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUTIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMMMMM

>>56412275
Vorbis is better for music, esp.for bitrates higher than 128, whereas opus has artifacts noticeable in high quality record

>>56414483
What is he going to play it with on his phone?

>>56416168
A music player application?

>>56416214
Name one that supports opus

>>56416301
Poweramp alpha, foobar2k, Neutron, Aimp, GoneMad, VLC.

File: 1472829211068.gif (4MB, 777x436px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 777x436px

wtf i like firefox now

>>56408769
>CBR 320 is shit: low performance, large file size, too lossy.
>too lossy
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. 320kbps is the highest possible bitrate supported by MP3. V0, the highest possible vbr setting, will peak at 320kbps. 320cbr is constant 320kbps. By definition, it is less lossy than vbr.

That said, there is absolutely no reason to use 320cbr over V0 (or V2, really), because V0 is transparent at a smaller file size. You won't be able to ABX test V0 vs source any better than 320 vs source.

>>56416097
>not better than vorbis when bitrate is 128 or higher
you don't need more than 128k, most people can't even hear a difference at 96k
>larger files for music with quiet places than vorbis
not sure about that
>no 44khz support
really doesn't matter, resampling is a relatively minor operation compared to the lossy compression itself

File: pepepepepe.jpg (23KB, 385x385px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 385x385px

>>56407129

you can't tell the difference with some commercial shit headphones. you have to have nicer or better gear and not block the necessary frequencies.

so everybody can hear the difference when they listen to it but the problem is everybody don't have the necessary gear for it.

if you don't care shit about audio> go for mp3
if you are an enthusiast go for better, non compressed formats.

>2016
>OP is still gay

mfw ppl don't care quality

>>56407372
not like YT has much quality to start with

DSD, anyone??

No? okay, i'll just sit at this corner.

DSD is as close to the real thing as it will ever come.

>>56416742
>>56405960
>>56406427

>guys I'm deaf, stop using better formats
>sounds the same with my shitty gear

every
single
thread

>>56416757
How do they encode n store audio?

>>56416830
>guys i have golden ears
>stop using anything i don't use

every
single
thread

>>56416692
V0 is equivalent to 320kb/s.

>>56416742
Idk, some people beliee as a music (not voice) compression format opus is still artifacts ridden https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?PHPSESSID=s02cvf6q1nnjegum96al4heqr2&topic=110433.msg913973#msg913973

>>56416779
go away sony/philips, you can't even properly prove DSD is all better than PCM

>>56416779
https://chiru.no/dl/notanime/sacd/

https://www.nyaa.se/?page=view&tid=825807

>>56416872
The guy must know what hes talking about, cause he has written an opus plugin. I tend to believe opus still suffers from artifact

>>56416912
thats some awesome dumps bro. much thanks!!

>>56416887
okay.

i'll just sit around then.

>>56416866
equivalent how? perceived sound quality?

>>56416866
That's what anon said, yes. But V0 is much smaller. There's no reason to use 320, except if you use Apple shit that can't handle seeking in VBR files.

>>56416872
That's just for weeb vocaloid shit m8.

>>56417341
Decoded outputs. They're bitexact, the encoder just doesn't waste bits for a given quantization window if it knows there's no benefit.

File: B1.Fly Me To The Moon (In Other Words).dsf.png (4MB, 3400x3333px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3400x3333px

>>56416779
Firefox support for dsf/dff when?

https://chiru.no/play/?notanime/sacd/Frank%20Sinatra%20-%20Sinatra%20At%20The%20Sands/B1.Fly%20Me%20To%20The%20Moon%20%28In%20Other%20Words%29.dsf

>>56417358
What is? Opus?
Or are you trying to say artifacts only occur in vocaloid shit?

>>56407158
100% accuracy isn't really important when you're creating mp3s. There's nothing stopping you from including your EAC log with an mp3 rip. It's really only important if you're planning on burning a cd using the cue sheet. Cue sheets included with mp3 rips used to be much more common in the days of OiNK. I don't think many people really burn CDs anymore, they just want 100% rips just to have them.

>>56417362
>Decoded outputs. They're bitexact, the encoder just doesn't waste bits for a given quantization window if it knows there's no benefit.
That's just not true. In order for them to be bitexact, the V0 setting would first have to encode to 320 cbr, then losslessly compress further. But that's not what happens.

You can prove this is false by encoding a source audio file to both v0 and 320cbr, then convert them both to .wav and compare the files

>>56408252
Take the snake oil somewhere else.

>>56417420
I recall doing just that some number of years ago, and they came out bitexact (not just a hash comparison). Although I could be mistaken.

Don't really feel like testing at the moment.

>>56417489
I don't think that's really possible. Lame applies a different lowpass to 320 than it does v0.

>>56417489
Just think about it logically, it makes no sense.

If V0 was 320cbr losslessly compressed further to achieve a smaller filesize, and the output could be decoded to the original 320cbr file, then why would the two separate settings need to exist? Why wouldn't the 320cbr setting just do the lossless compression automatically?

>>56407129
How many times does this fucking thing has to be posted here? Is it the same autist every time, too? Who gives a fuck.

>>56417516
I know it's not exactly what you're talking about but a 320k mp3 can be losslessly converted into vbr using mp3packer which saves a little bit of space in some cases.

>>56417516
I did think about it logically. 320kb/s is a CBR target. Thinking about it as being losslessly compressed "further" is backwards. Consider each extreme:
-Encoding silence the encoder would realize there's no information to represent with a higher bitrate, and would use the minimum possible to approximate the signal to the best of the system's ability
-Encoding random full spectrum white noise. It would mostly max out trying to represent the source signal in a given quantization window

Admittedly I don't know too much about the mp3 spec and it's been a whole since I looked into how it worked. The other anon is probably correct in that I'm mistaken.

>>56417554
Or maybe I'm the one who has it backwards. No, I definitely am.

Fuck it, I'm going to bed.

>>56417530
mp3packer:
>Can make CBR -b 320 files up to 10 % smaller losslessly (depending on the LAME version used)
The goal of the LAME encoder at the 320cbr setting is to achieve the smallest possible file at the 320kbps bitrate.

If another program can compress even further without any loss of quality, then LAME has failed.

I'm pretty sure mp3packer applies the newer, more efficient methods of the modern LAME codec on files that were generated via older, more inefficient versions of LAME.

If mp3packer could take a 320cbr file generated using the latest version of LAME, and compress it further losslessly, then LAME has seriously failed.

>>56417581
I think it works better on files produced by older versions of LAME and other encoders especially. It has uses other than that though, like making vbr files work on devices that can't play them otherwise.

>>56417554
Yes, you described exactly how VBR works.

But VBR != CBR.

If a CBR file could be losslessly compressed further into a VBR file, why wouldn't LAME just store all CBR files as "lossless VBR" and decode them on playback? It would achieve a smaller file size that way.

>>56417621
Probably compliance with decoder specifications.

>>56417722
Screw logic. Just perform a spectral analysis on a 320 and V0 from the same source. The files are decoded before the spectral is drawn. You'll notice they are different.

>>56417738
Nah. I haven't been too sharp for some number of weeks now. I don't care about any meaningful form of learning or mind expansion, nor empiricism.

I'll just take your word for it. Thanks for the correction.

>>56407129
>vpshit, flacmeme,
>no hardware support from SoCs
Into the trash

>>56408021

High quality animu streaming!

>>56418980
I wonder if webm supports flac audio. I know ogg does. Firefox might have to bring MKV container support.

>>56408021
Basically so chiru.no doesn't have to use its javascript flac decoder.

>>56417363
are there even pc soundcards with DSD hardware?

>>56417621
>why wouldn't LAME just store all CBR files as "lossless VBR" and decode them on playback? It would achieve a smaller file size that way.
because the result wouldn't be CBR, would it?

>>56419312
For USB yeah

>>56419065
>I wonder if webm supports flac audio.
na, pretty sure webm is strictly vp8/vp9 video, vorbis/opus audio, and webvtt subtitles only
but keep in mind webm is basically mkv with restrictions, so an mkv containing flac audio is basically what you're asking for

>>56408558
Flac is only for archiving you should transcode it into opus for phones.

>>56420181
Who the fuck would listen to music on a telephone? Opus is also a complete waste of battery life, even FLAC is better here.

File: 01.jpg (286KB, 1588x1400px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1588x1400px

Just listened to this album. Absolute masterpiece.

https://my.mixtape.moe/xwmirr.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/kxjvzx.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/hafzfd.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/csxvxe.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/yhduuf.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/lckiov.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/ohgvow.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/zixmbe.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/nngttg.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/fykdqw.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/lvqybq.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/qxexbg.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/ahrmvr.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/uxmbcj.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/mmqrgm.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/hoiqin.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/tqvhzj.flac
https://my.mixtape.moe/kjhtit.flac

>>56416746
by reading your post i can tell that you suffer from autism youre at least 101% autistic

>>56420829
this is complete shit you autistic weeaboo

90% of those who posted itt are heavily mentally impaired

>>56420959
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpaYTSdmWfY

>>56421021
ur dum

>>56412275
all this graph shows me is that opus is good for 16-32kb mono sound.

if i was a game dev and wanted to squeeze more samples into a title, I might consider it.
otherwise, show me the 128-320 kb quality/size range and I might start to care for music.

File: 1448005956938.png (531KB, 644x641px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 644x641px

You guys are fucking retarded

Tell the difference between these two

The original flac file
https://my.mixtape.moe/vqagib.m4a
The 128kbps aac file(what YouTube uses)
https://my.mixtape.moe/vqagib.m4a

And here is a 80kbps .ogg file
https://my.mixtape.moe/unzicx.ogg

>why waste bandwidth on stupid shit when other alternatives work just fucking fine

placebo autism knows no bounds

>>56422008
This is fucking stupid
Websites with audio streaming dont use mp3, they use aac

Flac will never replace aac because its wasted bandwidth

>people say that they can tell the difference between FLAC and high bitrate MP3/Opus with no proof (ABX test pass)
>some even talk about DSD autist placebo shit shilled by sony and philips
what the FUCK are you guys doing

no abx test pass log = you can't tell the difference
make sure that you upload the files that you used to test

File: 474d8e2ab6a14aec3a6f9d3f88b760da-.gif (4MB, 575x323px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 575x323px

>>56422468
It's only a matter of time until Firefox gets DFF/DSF support. Might as well start downloading your collection from >>56416912

File: 1462252972974.png (460KB, 599x411px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 599x411px

>guy with trained hearing
>$1400 iems
>coming from a top tier dac
>using very well mastered material

>still has trouble telling the difference between 128kbps aac and flac
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrfX-g8auc8

>flac tards still think we need flac for basic internet audio streaming

Feels good watching autists getting BTFO

File: lol.png (73KB, 227x250px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 227x250px

>iems

File: opus_std.png (101KB, 704x525px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 704x525px

>>56416097
It -is- better than Vorbis at bitrates over 128, do ABX tests of Opus and Vorbis against FLAC on different bitrates while raising the bitrate of Opus/Vorbis and you'll see what I mean. You'll start failing them at a lower bitrate than Vorbis with Opus.

It has no 44.1KHz support because the algorithm works better at 48KHz (iirc) and any problem introduced by resampling is inaudible.

>>56420206
It consumes as much battery as Vorbis or AAC.

>>56422516
Yeah, if that happens, Chrome will get it a year early compared to Firefox, just like with FLAC.

>>56416803
>>56405960
>Opus isn't intended for music anyway, it's intended for voice and streaming

Well, what the fuck do you think that people stream?

I have over 900 songs encoded to Opus at 160kbps VBR and the average bitrate is 167, just a bit higher than the target, so the VBR isn't bad.

File: 04994c7b643a0f413691a540d80e5249-.gif (4MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 720x405px

>>56422806
Opus is a waste of space above 128kbit, especially if it's 44.1KHz. Vorbis is intended for CD ripping.

FLAC uses much less cpu than aac, which uses less cpu than vorbis, which uses less cpu than opus. Opus is a battery hog and unsuitable for phones.

Vorbis is a much better choice for transparent encoding of music, while opus is a good choice for sub-transparent.

>>56423067
>FLAC uses much less cpu than aac, which uses less cpu than vorbis, which uses less cpu than opus. Opus is a battery hog and unsuitable for phones.
this information changes from time to time, for example;

>Opus Version 1.1.3 released
>Neon optimizations improving performance on ARMv7 and ARMv8 by up to 15%

>>56423067
Unless your phone has hardware acceleration for AAC and Vorbis, the battery life should be about the same for all 3 formats. Opus 1.1.1-1.1.3 brought many speed optimizations for ARM.

Storage needs battery too. The savings using FLAC are pretty small, and it doesn't feally matter when all formats can go for at least 24 hours before you have to charge your phone.

>>56423067
Is flac cpu use that better just to justify using it over lossy encodes?
Im pretty sure its most likely not, it's probably comparable to dimming your screen 5% just to save battery.

Plus the space used makes flac a dumb choice on mobile

>>56423170
You mean caching?

>>56425430
no, DRAM sinks current when the cell charge is refreshed.