How does the 192kbps opus compare to 320kbps mp3 or to flac, /g/?
In terms of sound quality, of course.
What kind of retarded question is that OP?
Holy fucking shit, just kill yourself, it should be easier for everyone this way.
Flac = lossless = source quality
320 kbps mp3 = low compression lossy = good quality
192 kbps opus = high compression lossy = nigger quality
Is anything unclear?
>>51418624
>comparing as though codecs are equal
Enjoy your 320k DTS.
>>51418624
But it's not like that
>>51418624
>320 kbps mp3 = low compression lossy = good quality
>192 kbps opus = high compression lossy = nigger quality
You should probably check some of this shit before you try to teach others about it.
>>51418539
Both 192kbps opus and 320kbps mp3 are high enough quality that (excluding samples designed to break them) it would be very difficult to tell either from a source file.
>>51418665
Yes it is.
>>51418659
Enjoy your low fidelity, lossy codec.
>>51418539
192kbps = Good enough for most purposes
320kbps = Great; sounds perfect
FLAC = Actually perfect, but it's huge and you can't hear the difference anyway
>>51418862
>FLAC = Actually perfect, but it's huge and you can't hear the difference anyway
This is true if all you listen to is Lady Gaga or Snoop Dog and you use 10€ earbuds.
>>51418862
/thread
>>51418539
All of these sound literally the same to human ears.
Use Opus if you want to save space, MP3 to be able to play music on ancient devices, and FLAC if you have autism.
>>51418862
Pretty much this.
Daily reminder that you should always play Flac files for the best quality, unless your home computer is a Commodore 64 or unless you enjoy pretending you're really listening to music when you're outside, when actually you're just trying to look cool with your overpriced Beats/Apple earbuds junk.
>>51419004
God, I hope you're trolling.
Nothing compares to FLAC. You're going to say you're satisfied with missing, lossy bits of audio?
>>51418539
They all sound the same. But if you pick mp3 or opus you're stuck with it forever. FLAC can be transcoded to any other format without quality loss.
>>51419004
Define "best quality".
>>51419077
That is without *additional* quality loss because of transcoding. Of course you will still lose quality if the new format normally loses quality.
>>51419077
You're actually stuck with FLAC forever too since you also most likely have autism as well.
According to ABX double-blind listening tests, Opus 1.1 at ~160kbps VBR is perceptually transparent (i.e., cannot be distinguished in an iterated double-blind test from lossless original) on all tested content, excluding "problem samples" for lossy codecs such as fatboy, maracas and harpsichord: however Opus rates higher in ABC-HR on all of these than any other lossy codec. It comes thoroughly recommended, and exceeds the quality of Ogg Vorbis and AAC.
MP3 achieves broadly similar quality, excluding problem samples, with LAME -V2 (~192kbps VBR).
320kbps MP3 is virtually pointless: it is lossy, but no more transparent with problem samples than -V2 in testing. You may as well go to FLAC if you need more than perceptual transparency with most content.
>>51418539
Opus is superior to mp3 in literally every single way, hell even vorbis is better than mp3.
mp3 is deprecated garbage.
>>51418624
192kbps opus is actually better than 320kbps mp3.
Why would anyone care about lossy codecs? Jesus Christ, Flac files usually take only 5Mb per minute, then a 120 Gb storage unity can contain a lot of music.
Do you need lossy codecs to play music on your cheap portable devices? Then get 60kbps mp3, since you probably don't even care about sound quality at that point.
> inb4 Flac is placebo
> inb4 every codec, regardless of its bit-rate, sound as good as Flac
FLAC is made for archival purposes. Lossy codecs are for portable devices with limited storage and where output quality is not the main focus.
>>51418624
babbies first codec knowledge.
reaad this: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>>51419102
The one that sounds better than all other formats.
>>51419318
>CD Quality is a placebo
I want /mu/ to leave.
>>51419360
FLAC is actually made for people with autism. WAV is used for archival purposes. Lossy codecs are used to listen to music.
>>51419384
Then do an ABX test between 192 kbps Opus and FLAC and tell me which "sounds" better.
You can do the test with foobar2000, I'll be happily waiting for the results.
>>51419395
Vynil is placebo
CD is placebo
FLAC is placebo
>>51419318
>muh 3 album library
Some of us don't just listen to In The End 90,000 times.
>>51419405
How to make an audiophile go batshit insane: the post
>>51419424
> muh 10000 albums I'll never listen to
> FLAC is placebo
> I care for music
>>51419384
I don't need your shitty software to test what sounds good to me when my god given ears are perfect the way it is.
>>51419424
16-bit, 44100hz, best compression FLAC is usually about 800-1000kbps so you're doing something wrong.
>>51419424
I have like 600ish albums in 164 gb. It's not that much.
>>51419601
>16 bit 44.1kHz
>lossless
>>51419652
Yes.
>>51419668
>16 bit 44.1kHz
>lossless
You really don't know what "lossless" means, do you?
>>51419690
The source is the CD, so again yes.
>>51419714
You don't know what DTS-MA is, do you?
>>51418539
Both are transparent, no audible difference. Opus achieves transparency below 192kbps though so it's pointless to go that high with the bitrate. FLAC doesn't sound any different from those two. mp3 is transparent below 320kbps. Roughly 256kbps VBR is transparent.
>>51418624
No.
>>51419738
>DTS-MA
Not relevant to music.
>>51418659
DTS has no 320k option..
>>51419690
The real question is do YOU know what lossless means. CD quality is the highest distributed via CD. If we're looking at SACD (Super Audio Compact Discs) then 24 bit would be more common place. Although if we are shooting for quality I would suggest DSD. DSD uses 64 times the sampling frequency of CD: 2.822 MHz vs 44.1 kHz.
I'm trying to be a Dj and one thing i have observed is that the standard for industry is WMA's which is uncmpressed FLAC's. Pioneer uses them on their CDJ's, too bad about their proprietary software Rekordbox. WMA's are a must to bring the full power and fidelity of 50.000W Funktion One's
>>51419741
B-BUT MUH FLAC AND MUH GOLDEN EAR DIFFERENCE!
I can see the replies now telling you to get a better setup or calling you deaf despite there actually being no audible difference between those three.
Placebo fags are actually the worst.
>>51419789
shit i meant WAV's
>>51419766
There's a reason for that.
>>51419762
My music comes in DTS-MA. What crap are you listening to?
>>51419738
a populair audio format used on Blu-ray discs?
>>51419837
>My music comes in DTS-MA.
That means you buy overpriced placebo crap or just download stupid rips. Congratulations.
>>51419837
>My music comes in DTS-MA.
Music gets released on CD's, not BD's.
>>51419859
Both actually.
>>51419893
I was not aware of that, nice. Does it come as audio only? Or is there also some kind of video involved?
>>51419893
Nice placebo idiot.
>>51419859
Miku concerts are released on BD.
>>51419918
There's a video component to it.
You'll also need a receiver capable of handling a DSD PCM stream to get the most out of it. My PS3 and Onkyo HT-S7400 handled it well after some configuring. Most receivers will indicate the passthrough with something like an orange DTS light.
>>51419979
Thanks.
For anyone more interested in hi-fi digital, this site has been an invaluable source for indoctrina- err educating.
http://www.ps3sacd.com/sacdfaq.html
Is 256 Kbps .opus a good compromise?
>>51420219
You probably can't hear the difference between FLAC and 100 kbps Opus.
>>51420219
Go with 160kbps. Anything above that is nothing but bloat. Chances are that you won't be hearing a difference at 128kbps or even 96kbps but 160kbps is absolutely transparent in music listening.
>>51420249
What about 192 Kbps?
>>51420293
Goes over 160kbps so it's just useless. If it gives you the peace of mind, go for it.
>>51420339
So 160 Kbps is really the best without placebo?
>>51420612
People with ATH-M50 headphones have literally bombed all ABX tests between 160 vbr opus and flac. So yeah.
>>51420636
Thank you.
>>51420612
Yes it's at the point where nobody has been able the difference between that and lossless in a double blinded listening test.
>>51420636
Headphones have very little to do with spotting compression artifacts.
>>51419117
>accepting low-fidelity sound
>>51421084
Stay autist
>>51421118
What was that? I'm picking up grainy feedback on your end. Maybe you should increase your sound quality!
>>51421316
Show us the result of an abx test between 192kbps opus and flac.
You won't do it cause you're a punk ass bitch nigga.
Opus is transparent at around ~160 kbps, so they both should sound the same except if you're a special snowflake with mutant ears.
>there are people on /g/ seriously not storing 24bit, 96khz versions of music
>muh "I actually buy CDs"
>>51421630
>there are people on /g/ seriously not storing 24bit, 96khz versions of music
>not storing music in 96-bit, 384khz
Stay pleb
>>51421630
I have a 96khz wav vinyl rip that actually sounds worse than the cd rip. I don't know why I'm keeping it.
>>51418891
Do you do abx testing to back that statement up?
>>51421414
>>51420249
>>51420219
Yeah just go with 3kbps Opus, there's no audible difference with a lossless Flac file. Why wasting space for that placebo? Pff even 20 kbps mp3 are as transparent as Flac, if not even better. And you know what? There's no audible difference between 40 hz and 15 khz at all. Why even buying CDs when 3kbps opus sounds so good? You can have 20000 thousands discs in your music library and you'll never listen to them all in all your life, but who cares? Flac is just a waste of space after all.
>>51421698
Of course he doesn't, all audiophiles are pussies who never do ABX tests because they know it would shatter their delusional fantasy world where FLAC sounds better than 192kbps Opus.
>>51421630
>not listening to live recordings only
engineered studio masters are for plebs and pleb DJs
>>51421703
>he bought a pair of headphones he couldn't afford and now he spends all his time telling lies on the internet to justify it
>>51421703
eat a dick mad placebofag. Go jerk off to your 96KHz FLACs.
>>51421748
>96KHz FLACs.
You forgot 32 bit copied onto multiple hard drives with frequent error correction. These things degrade mate.
>>51421748
>96kHz
>>51421831
>not using a 16tb ssd
>>51421978
Holy shit look guys this anon is a CAT!
Science really has gone too far.
I don't know why keks don't use opus for podcasts.
People are retarded.
> not knowing that 10kbps Opus already reaches transparency
> not knowing that anything beyond that is placebo
> not storing 200 albums in just 3 Gb
You guys are disgusting.
What's the difference with FLAC compression levels? Is there any transcode difference when using something like level 8?
What I'm saying is, If I transcode a file with the same settings, bit a higher compression level with FLAC what am I losing?
>>51422188
Absolutely nothing
The difference is compression / processing time.
I HATE FLACFAGS
>>51421703
I only download lossless only unless there is no lossless available. This has nothing to do with the perceived difference in sound quality. I can't ABX 160kbps Opus from lossless, I can't ABX 128kbps Opus from lossless but at 96kbps I can tell differences depending on the content.
Stop with the fucking shitposting, do an ABX test to actually try if you can tell a difference and please, post results and the files you used here. I'm sure plenty of people would be interested, me included. I'm not new to compression artifacts or how they become audible. There was one of these threads months ago where some anon was kind enough to provide some samples of FLAC vs Opus at 96kbps and I successfully ABX tested the results getting 16/16 tries right. There was a difference but it was extremely subtle.
>And you know what? There's no audible difference between 40 hz and 15 khz at all.
Fuck off. Seriously.
It's one thing to know what is audible and what matters and another just to assume you can hear a difference or that we who actually have used lossy and lossless files AND double blind tested them think fidelity is something trivial. It's the opposite. I want my music to sound as perfect as it can be in a home listening setup. Frankly, modern digital encoders are ridiculously good at compression and it's almost never the limiting factor.
>>51422188
Just that, compression which results into smaller files on your computer. It's lossless compression and never loses any data in the process. Higher compression level means it'll take longer to encode but save storage space. Unless you are in a hurry somehow, just use the highest compression.
>>51419194
The correct answer in the thread.
>>51422320
> I want my music to sound as perfect as it can be in a home listening setup.
Then go for 10 kbps opus. Everything beyond that is just a literal placebo and a waste of space.
After all Opus is such an awesome digital codec there's not even a difference with Flac or any other "superior" format. Oh and by any chance are you using any expensive headphones/amp/speakers? You can throw them in the gutter, you know, there's not a sensible and audible difference between audio products at all. You know, when you listen to a 10 kbps opus file it sounds so good you feel like you're in the middle of the recording studio, even though you're listening to music with an Apple earbuds. Yeah, Opus files sound this good.
>>51422427
Fuck You too.
People here miss that FLAC is perfect for archival. 160 Kbps is what should be used for regular playback usage.
>>51422488
What's the point of wasting more space and time to transcode music and listening to vicious lossy music files when you already own Flac files?
>>51418738
/thread
>>51422530
Because it's more practical when it comes to storage efficiency.
>>51422427
>still bootybothered
Yeah I'm using HD 800s with O2+ODAC and a parametric equalizer to fix the response. I also have Genelec monitors here which I use sometimes. Doesn't help with the ABX of compression artifacts. Equipment matters relatively little when spotting compression artifacts anyway. It's an audiophile meme to think you need some fancy ass gear to tell digital compression. Some fidelity is required of course but it mostly depends on the listener's familiarity of the compression.
I'll keep using FLAC despite the fact I can't hear a difference between it and the formats/compression levels I mentioned. FLAC is a handy format as I always have the lossless original at hand and I can transcode my music to lossy files to use on portable devices where storage space is limited and sometimes for other uses. It has its advantages because it's lossless. Being audibly better is not one of them.
Still waiting for some person to actually ABX the difference between 160kbps Opus and FLAC.
I'll keep replying to help the people who actually don't understand how the compression works and what matters in actual listening. Probably can't stop you from shitposting and derailing the thread. But yeah, refer to this post for a short tldr of OP's question: >>51419194
There are a heck of a lot of differences between audio setups and products. File compression almost never factors in.
>>51422488
Many here understand that. It's just these few morons who have their own ideas about what lossless means and implies or they just want to shitpost. Also for most users who have FLACs on their computer as an archival format, there's no reason to transcode them for local listening. Just use the FLAC and transcode for other devices you might have or for other needs. I sometimes edit videos and if I put a song in there, I'll use a lossless format in the editing as a source the video container and codec needs to have it transcoded it into lossy.
>>51422530
None.
>>51422565
>in the editing as a source the video container
in the editing as a source before the video container*
>>51419397
FLAC is objectively superior to WAV regardless of autism because FLAC applies lossless compression while WAV applies literally no compression at all.
>>51422597
One could argue that WAV is more compatible and thus preferred for some uses but yes, as long as your setup can decode FLAC, it's a much better option than WAV.
>>51422597
FLAC can't handle 32bit files. WAV can.
Really though stop pushing this opus shit, no one uses it.
>>51423218
>Why use something new? I don't like change. It doesn't matter if it is better.
Why are you doing at a technology board?
>>51423275
>it's better!
Still won't be implemented in most devices around 2020.
>>51423218
I agree. Ogg Vorbis is still the way to go for me. At least my BB can play it.
>>51422680
that is because a music file that is 32 bit would be like all of the sine waves you can imagine together. also wav lacks tagging and silence removal, flac is the perfect file type for archiving, there is no way to improve it
>>51423330
Sure as hell won't be if people are dumb enough to resist change for the better - which is retarded.
>>51418624
>>51423365
Opus is Ogg, dumbass. It's just a different codec.
>>51423330
>implemented in most devices
Android supports user code
Windows supports user code
Mac supports user code
iOS supports user code(not completely sure about this one though)
Linux supports user code
*BSD supports user code
rockbox supports opus codec
How does this not cover *most* devices?
>>51423454
Then does any device supporting Ogg also support Opus?
>>51423454
No you mong.
>>51420219
Might as well just go with AAC in that case. Its more compatible and takes less CPU to decode. You won't hear the difference.
>>51424030
Why not just mp3 or vorbis then. They both have even greater compatibility.
>>51424112
You won't hear the difference.
