MP3 320kbps is enough. WAV, FLAC etc are placebo.

>>61999800
no

hello r e ddit. please include my post in screencap. thanks

>>61999825
yes.

192kbps is enough you literally can't hear the difference between 320kbps and 192kbps

>>61999800
Enjoy your low low quality remixes

>>61999894
They sound fine to me.

>>61999800
you need expensive cans, amps & custom cable to hear the difference

>>61999849
who needs 192kbps? 96 is plenty for normal human hearing!

For listening purpose, --V0 is enough. For archiving purposes you need lossless.

Shitposting aside, depending on quality, it can only be heard with higher end equipment. If you listen to flac on 99 cent chinkphones, you won't tell the difference from 192kbps.

>>61999800
Degredation, lossy

>>61999926
Double blind studies say you can't.
>>61999800
For listening, yes. For preservation and converting to other formats, no.

File: 1404941097687.png (124KB, 400x369px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 400x369px

>>61999800
OPUS
P
U
S

>>61999800
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

>>62000007
Holy fuck please tell me this is pasta

File: HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg (34KB, 500x389px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x389px

>>62000007
still makes me laugh

File: Condescending-Wonka.jpg (42KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x366px

>>62000049
you must be new here

>>62000005
what is the equivalent kbps of opus in regards to 320kbps mp3?

File: 1495825537773.jpg (51KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 768x960px

>>62000007
ayyyy, this explains why the movies I collected in 2001 look like shit today compared to the movies that I downloaded today. Great information anon.
+1 upvote.

File: 1430718259897.jpg (45KB, 475x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 475x500px

>>62000125
144kbps

>>61999800
>mp3
>using bloated deprecated legacy shit
lul

>>62000125
96kbps vbr

File: 1483644212633.png (13KB, 269x207px)

13KB, 269x207px

>>62000153
>>62000206
Tell me more please. I just converted a 10MB / 320kbps MP3 file to OPUS from this website http://audio.online-convert.com/convert-to-opus and 3 got 3MB opus file with pic related. There is no bitrate and it's an OGG.
How do I find the bitrate of that file? I tried it on mpv as well and I cant see.

>>62000263
>lossy to lossy transcode
just use something like foobar2k or ffmpeg and convert a. flac to opus and mp3 if you want to compare

dunno about that shitty site

>>62000206
You won't find a better supported audio format. Anything plays MP3 now. Yes for the same audio quality you could have files that weight a bit less with a newer format, but I'd rather have the certainty of playing my music anywhere than save a few kbs here and there.

File: 1476339553214.png (304KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1366x768px

>>62000332
>>62000206
>>62000153
Found this http://soundconverter.org/
Now I'm converting all of my music to OPUS.
I'll let you know about the status in 5 hours.

>>62000794
are you serious about transcoding from a lossy source? if not, nice bait bro
if yes, you're fucking your audio quality up

>>61999926
If I need to spend several thousand dollars to MAYBE notice a slight improvement in sound quality from normal headphones and 320 kbps mp3, then being an autdiophile is not worth it.

>>62000007
>for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps
This must explain why my mp3s from 12 years ago sound so bad, they have negative bitrate

>>62001329
Now you're just being silly anon. Due to electrical interfetterence, sound files can't go below 0 bitrate.

>>62001160
what? http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm

>>61999800
480p is enough.
720 and 1080 are placebo.

>>61999800
>mp3
>compressed is the same if not better than uncompressed
no

>>62001565
An opus file transcoded from MP3 will sound worse than an opus file encoded straight from source (WAV or FLAC).

This test only says that OPUS has the best quality out of the other formats at 96 kbps. At 320kbps OPUS could be equivalent or worse than MP3.

>>62001291
being an anything-phile is not worth it desu

>>61999800
Anybody can tell the diff between a music cd burned from lossy vs. lossless files on a good stereo. Nobody can tell the diff between 32kb/s .wma and uncompressed .wav on dollarmama earbuds.
Stop posting these shitty bait threads because it's really, really, really making me mad.

320kbps mp3 is the worst trade-off between space and quality you can make

144kbps opus or -q4 vorbis is the best

∆
∆∆

>>62002338
nice bait but I'll bite
>320kbps mp3 is the worst trade-off between space and quality you can make
I think 320 kbps is pretty much transparent and opus is transparent at 96 kbps. The size difference is huge because of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(data_compression)
https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings#Recommended_Bitrates

>>62002382
opus at 128 kbps*

>>62002400
>>62002382
yeah I agree honestly, I just said 144 cause at that point nobody can reasonably claim to tell the difference. for me personally it's transparent at 128kbps. I maintain that CBR mp3 is the worst of all worlds

>>62002338
MP3 V0 is more than enough.

>>61999800
>MP3 320kbps is enough.
Enough for what faggot?

I'm 99% positive you're arguing an opinion here and left your statement unfinished on purpose.

File: 8-inch-floppy.jpg (14KB, 430x319px)

14KB, 430x319px

>>61999800
Yeah it's enough, but if you'd encoded in a modern codec you'd only need 192 or even 160Kbps to get the same quality.

>not opus
Consider suicide.

Opus@ 128kbps (v1.2.1)
https://my.mixtape.moe/kzmcbl.opus

MP3 LAME (newest version
https://my.mixtape.moe/simciv.mp3

Wich bitrate should i use for opus for listening on my nexus 4 audio jack?

File: fkntunem8.jpg (2MB, 4304x2860px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4304x2860px

>>61999800
agree

>>62004456
96kbps vbr is transparent so go with that or 128kbps vbr

>>62001671
720p is unironically enough at a good bitrate. 1080p is nice but not essential. 1080p at a shit bitrate is worse that 720p at a good bitrate. 4k is absolutely placebo for anything other than VR.

>>62004939
>4k placebo
I don't think you've seen a good 4k video.

just do a blind test, there's a plugin in foobar for it. you'll figure out whether you can tell the difference between lossy and lossless. whether you can tell the difference or not depends on what music you listen to and what equipment you have. for a lot of people 256 AAC should be absolutely fine, it's a better format than mp3. people should focus on finding the best master of their favorite music, some older CDs sound better than newer CDs because the mastering people got retarded at some point

>>62004939
Download an UHD bluray rip and a FHD bluray rip and compare them. If you can't tell the difference between them then go get your eyes checked by an optometrist.

Uh dude the human eye can't even hear more than 24 samples per second

>>62000007
This is for real?

>>62006033
Yes. A bit outdated though. NVMe is even worse.

>>62002180
>Anybody can tell the diff between a music cd burned from lossy vs. lossless files on a good stereo.
Post some double blind test results of an original source and 320 kbit/s MP3 that back this claim up, then.

>>62006233
do it yourself you lazy negro

File: 1484158905958.png (20KB, 391x349px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 391x349px

My mp3+flacc folder

File: 1488737507369.png (20KB, 390x340px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 390x340px

>>62006342
opus folder after conversion
although 500+ files are missing, I've yet to see if they are .wma files from my Windows era, size is very low as you can see which I think is perfect for listening on phones. All of those files are vbr 120-96 kbps.

>>62006290
>posts uneducated opinion
>backs it up with racist language
GTFO

FLAC for archiving. The state of the art lossy for portables. (currently Opus, AAC previously)

>>61999800
>streaming tier
mp3-128

>casual enjoyment tier
mp3-192

>I want to hear fucking everything tier
mp320 and sometimes flac

>>62006774
mp3 is a 90s tech. 128kbps in a modern protocol is as good as lossless for MOST audio and most people.

>>62006841
>protocol
you mean format, mr. big brain? OP never mentioned opus anyway

>>61999800
OPUS at 192kbps sounds better.

>>61999800
I agree. WAV is retarded. And flac is only good for archival

You faggots will argue over anything

92kbps opus is the way

>>62007608
>big brain
Yeah. So big it can even hold synonyms.

protocol
[proh-tuh-kawl, -kol, -kohl]
noun
1.
the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.
2.
an original draft, minute, or record from which a document, especially a treaty, is prepared.
3.
a supplementary international agreement.
4.
an agreement between states.
5.
an annex to a treaty giving data relating to it.
6.
Medicine/Medical. the plan for carrying out a scientific study or a patient's treatment regimen.
7.
Computers. a set of rules governing the format of messages that are exchanged between computers.

>be born
>discover technology
>realise people who make technology are capitalist pigs climbing on the backs of slave labour
>realise people who like technology as a hobby are socially retarded
>can't adapt to either
>dislike technology
>dislike everything
>socially isolate
>kill self

>>61999932
But for a barely noticeable difference, you can store 4x the music at 16kbps

>>62007922
my man

>>61999800
The human ear can't hear past 192fps anyway

>>61999800
Lossless for listening is a meme, but it's essential for archival. What if you want your music in a different format?

How to not be a retard:

1. Download FLAC
2. Transcode to an optimised format per device
3. Use the already existing FLAC where storage isn't an issue
4. Keep up to date with codec improvements rather than being limited to the same format forever

My proper setup gets the FLACs I keep on my NAS. There would be little to gain from transcoding it to anything else.
My phone gets Opus (recently re-encoded with 1.2) at the highest bitrate that storage space allows.

>>62007922
Currently on the "socially isolate" step myself.

Human ear can't hear above 192kbps. Google your shit before you post

File: CBqMzpt.jpg (44KB, 510x382px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 510x382px

Tbh, for most people MP3 @ 128kbps ("CD quality") is enough. Anything above that is only appreciated in upscale equipment. You save them in 320 to have some quality for collecting purposes... Technology improves and gets cheaper. Now, if you really care about quality 128kbps just don't cut it anymore.
FLAC is the best in quality and fidelity, but it takes more space and only can be appreciated with really high-end hardware.

>>62010391
You seem to have confused 128 Kbps for 192 Kbps. 128 isn't "CD quality", that's 192.

>>62010718
CD quality is subjective and you just proved that point