Should opus become the dominant compressed audio codec?

>>72834854
Everything is AAC now

you are much more versed in the subject than i am why are you asking me lmao

>>72834862
I still see .mp3's as the dominant format, I have only one album in AAC. As far as I can tell, opus is far better at the frequency response/file size ratio. AAC is very much like variable rate mp3's.

>a 128kb/s .opus song literally sounds exactly the same as a 320kb/s mp3

Gonna need some proof mate

File: proofs.png (65KB, 600x506px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x506px

>>72834854
>A 128kb/s .opus song literally sounds exactly the same as a 320kb/s mp3
proofs

>>72834941
convert it, and test it yourself. http://audio.online-convert.com/convert-to-opus
you can place both files in a spectrum analyzer to see the frequency analyzer to see the frequency response http://spek.cc/

>>72834854
ofc it should but since most devices don't support .opus ATM its probably not happening in the near future

>>72835073
Android, Windows, OSX. Linux all support the format.

Humans take a long time to make the most optimal choices.
I use mp3 since I'm a dumb sheep like everyone else.

>>72834854
They use Opus on the officially uploaded "topic" videos on youtube right?

>>72834854
>A 128kb/s .opus song literally sounds exactly the same as a 320kb/s mp3.
I highly doubt it. Anyway mp3s are good enough. After a certain limit (maybe 192 kbps) it's almost impossible to tell the differences (transparency). Even if opus is more efficient it's basically the new ogg vorbis. There's no point of switching from a well established format like mp3 to save a few kb when storage capacity isn't really an issue these days.

>>72835193
you mean the official audio format? Youtube uses AAC