LAME MP3, AAC or OPUS for non storage music?

>non storage music
???

>>62240437
Opus. I recently reencoded a ton of audiobooks and got massive filesize reduction at no noticeable quality loss.

AAC for applefags, Opus for everyone else

File: react-00.jpg (31KB, 437x359px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 437x359px

>>62240437
>non storage music
What does that mean?

>>62240561
Not OP, but obviously they mean "storage" music to be WAV or other losslessly-encoded stuff, and the "out of storage" music is lossily encoded for putting onto phones or whatever.

It depends. What kind of music do you listen to, OP? If it's shit, 128 kbps MP3. Otherwise FLAC.

>>62240601
>obviously
I appreciate the explanation. I personally have never seen the terms "storage" and "out of storage" used to describe audio files (only lossy/lossless, compressed/uncompressed). But I learned something new today.

Yeah should have been uncompressed music.

So no love for LAME MP3 then? Most of my music is stored that way.

>>62240538
>Opus. I recently reencoded a ton of audiobooks and got massive filesize reduction at no noticeable quality loss.
>no noticeable quality loss
No fuck you. That's what we used to say over 20 years ago when MP3 was starting to become a thing. HEY LOOK I FIT THIS WHOLE SONG ON ONE 1.44MB FLOPPY IT'S NOT MIDI IT SOUNDS JUST LIKE CD.

Never, ever use lossy format when lossless is available.

LAME MP3 at V0 for maximum compability, OPUS for maximum space savings. AAC is only good if you have access to the iTunes encoder.

>>62241678
>AAC is only good if you have access to the iTunes encoder.

Foobar has it included.

>>62241574
>Never, ever use lossy format when lossless is available.
Nah most likely you can't tell the difference between a GOOD lossy file and a lossless file. Wasting space for shit you can't hear is dumb. If you've taken the double blind ABX test and have the golden ears then by all means use lossless, but generally people refuse to take these tests

Opus obviously. I'd go for 192kbps as it sounds better than 320k MP3 and it is good enough for portable listening.

>>62242349
a good lossy file eventually becomes a bad lossy file

Ever try listening to a 24 year old mp3?

>>62242349
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.

>>62242454
what if I store them on SSDs?????