AAC
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Normalfags mostly use/associate lossy MP3s with their music, while neckbeards use 320kbps MP3s or FLAC. But why is is that AAC/M4A isn’t well known at all, considering that it’s newer and less lossy than MP3?
>>51718077
>acc/m4a
>itunes/iphone
>not well known
1/10 since I replied.
>>51718077
>FLAC
whats so great about FLAC?
>>51718077
its propeitary and itunes related. also realise that everytime someone buys music on itunes its in alac and when it gets moved to an iphone its aac (or atleast used too).
>>51718157
The L in FLAC stands for Lossless. But FLACs (and 320 kbps MP3 likewise) are only used by self-proclaimed audiophiles who want the absolute best quality.
>>51718077
It is well known and probably the most used lossy codec by people who know anything about audio (aka not your average /g/ poster).
Because it sucks balls compared to Opus and the only reason MP3 is still widely used is because of compatibility reasons. In addition to this Opus cab be used for bitrates lower than 48 Kbps and for streaming with very little latency (ie voip) thus making AAC a joke.
In 2015 you either use ancient MP3 because you still have an MP3 player from 2010 or you accept Opus as your lord and savior.
>>51718077
No true neckbeard would use 320kbps. v0 sounds just as good at takes up less space.
>>51718273
my collection is only 1gb less in v0 vs 320
>>51718284
You could have saved even more space with Opus. Nobody on earth has beaten an ABX test between 192 vbr complexity 10 Opus and FLAC.
>>51718312
i bought a massive sd card to store my flacs on the go. multiple backups is what im going after
>>51718157
I'll try to keep it short, there's a lot of technical science behind it.
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.
>>51718531
I don't like this meme
>>51718453
If you absolutely MUST use FLACs then keep them on your desktop/laptop. Use Opus for listening on the go instead.
Opus is audible transparent between 128-160 vbr even with an good pair of headphones but some use 192 vbr which is really overkill. Anything above 192 vbr is either autism or used to store in near 100% archival quality (ie 512 vbr).
FLAC will only bloat storage space even though it's still smaller than uncompressed WAV. FLAC can range from 1-1.2 Mbps depending on music complexity. For shits and giggles lets say all your music only averaged 1Mbps with FLAC.
At 192 vbr Opus, 48 hours of music would result in ~4GB of storage use.
At 1Mbps average FLAC, 48 hours of music would result in ~21GB of storage use.
Just use Opus to listen on the go man.
AAC's most common use is for audio in video files.
>>51718157
Nothing, it just takes up unnecessary hard drive space.
It's a format used to archive music by autist who claim it sounds better than any lossy encoded music and are too chicken shit to prove it with ABX tests.
>>51718673
The common accepted bitrate for transparency with Opus is 96Kbps.
Here's the results of the listening test that was done a while back: http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
>>51718693
They should really be using Opus so more bitrate can go to video. Most groups encode 256-320 kbps AAC with their video and even worse some use FAAC!
>>51718722
There are still a few who have beaten an abx test between 96 vbr Opus and FLAC. It is for this reason "unsafe" to use a bitrate that low unless space is that limited on the device. 128 vbr Opus is the lowest I would go and in fact all my music is encoded to 128 vbr Opus on my phone.
how 2 use Opus
>>51718673
good info thx
>>51718831
TAudioConverter
Just make sure a complexity value of 10 is set and you use VBR to maximise the Codec's compression efficiency.
There are other tools you can use but taudioconverter has been the easiest to use for me.
>>51718894
>TAudioConverter
not available for linux, kin
>>51718986
Just use soundkonverter with opus-tools or whatever its called installed.
>>51718986
>uses linux
>doesn't know how to encode Opus audio
Try lamexp then.
>>51719036
nevermind you have to use wine to run lamexp. God, this is why I never bothered to even try Linux.
>>51719036
>doesn't know how to encode Opus audio
I'd never even heard of it before 2bh
>>51718831ffmpeg -i song.flac -acodec libopus -ab 128k song.ogg
Replace 128k with your bitrate of choice
>>51719094
>thinking his favourite GUI windows programs are going to run natively on Linux
You can use ffmpeg, opusenc or a frontend like soundkonverter. There's plenty of easy ways to do this.
>>51719178
thanks bud
>>51719094
Fuck off retard
>>51719188
Oh yeah, I forgot about ffmpeg. FUCK
>>51718077
>300mb for one fucking song
How do you expect me to store music on the go
>pretty much as good as Opus at over 100kbps
>tried and tested quality (no funny surprises)
>vast support in audio players
>low on the CPU usage
>isn't limited to 48kH
Why should I use Opus, again?
>>51719329
Because Opus respects your freedoms.
I'm about to start converting my movies/tv shows from my blu rays into digital copies, should I have my audio as AC3 or AAC?
AC3 would be 384kb/s 5.1, AAC would be 256kb/s 5.1
AC3 would have more compatibility, but does that really matter when all devices post 2000 can properly decode AAC anyway?
>>51718730
>implying 128kbit/s difference makes video dramatically better
Opus shill, please go
Also, there's a reason why AAC is used commonly for TV and Web sources. Hint: remux
>>51719407
Unless you plan to use some shitty receivers, I see no reason to ever use AC3.
>>51719178
>Unknown encoder 'libopus'
it was a noble attempt
>>51719502
>didn't compile ffmpeg with opus support
install opus-tools and use opusenc then fag
>>51719502
Do you even think for two seconds what that error means?
>>51718157
It's a great format. It's lossless, has efficient compression, is FOSS, and supports all sorts of nice features.
But Opus is transparent at 128kbps, so wasting the storage is pointless. FLAC is full-featured and well-engineered, but it's crazy to use it as a general audio codec.
>>51719520
too much work for a literally who codec
>>51719545
no
>>51719329
Opus has low CPU usage and can be played on over 90% of devices now.
Pic related is 192 vbr Opus file barely using 25% CPU resources of 1 core. Mind you my phone has a weak A7 @ 1.2GHz.
>>51719329
The lower latency (in streaming applications).
The fact that it doesn't make you a kek to patents.
When using below 64kb it's much better than AAC (sbr a shit).
When talking lossy in audio, resampling doesn't really mean shit.
If you use a good resampler (IIRC the one in Opus is pretty good) you may actually improve quality (most hardware shittily resamples to 48k on playback anyway).
The best (and only) encoder is completely free software, and is included in from ffmpeg.
>>51719599
*20%
>>51719597
>browsing the technology board
>too lazy to learn or do anything
Kill yourself.
>>51719439
Well remuxes are pointless for online sharing. Just give me 16 CRF video + 192 vbr Opus and I'll be very happy.
>>51718157
It's great to archive music, but you'd be a madman to actually use it for playback.
>>51718702
>It's a format used to archive music by autist who claim it sounds better than any lossy encoded music
I used to have my music encoded as vorbis on my phone. Before that it was mp3. I recently made it all opus. Both transitions literally took a few clicks, because I kept all of the originals in one folder in flac format.
I'd hate to see how shit it would all sound if I had gone from mp3 > vorbis > opus.
>>51719636
>anything
oh no pal, I just know how to pick my battles
if there's a quick way to test it with the stuff I already have, great. if not, I don't care about it
>>51719660
>Well remuxes are pointless for online sharing
In terms of audio, no. This is 2015 and not 1998 with 56k modems. Why would you want to reencode audio for a difference in 64kbit/s (if source is AAC 256 - so TV and Web sources), while otherwise you can preserve online quality?
Caring about this makes sense in terms of video, but I really can't understand people who care about this in audio (well maybe except for FLAC or other huge codecs).
>>51718077
Most of my library is composed of 128k M4A because I used to rip CDs with iTunes in the past. I think it's much better than 128k mp3. Now I mostly listen to FLAC because I don't need to save space on my pc storage, but 128k M4A are still a great alternative.
>>51719782
Instead of having 10+ different encodes for the same fucking movie/show, people should stick to a standard so others don't have to re-encode/remux shit.
Maybe either use H264 22 CRF + 128 vbr Opus if you care about "muh file size" or use H264 16 CRF + 192 vbr Opus for everything else.
I know hard drive space is cheap as fuck now but instead of waiting 8 hours to download a 40GB 1080p remux with a couple of seeders, people would rather download that 2GB 1080p remux with hundreds of seeders. This is why yify was so popular. The internet doesn't want remuxes except for a few autists.
>>51719960
>people should stick to a standard
There are scene rul s, but sticking to a standard is dumb imo and who would choose Opus as a standard, being one of the least supported codecs to use? The difference in AAC and Opus for video usage is way too subtle to justify this.
For the rest, that's why there are different encodes. If people want to wait 8 hours for remuxes, let them wait. You don't need to adapt standards for the sake of popularity which would ruin the quality, as encoding effiency isn't the same for every source. Having choice is great and you need to remember that there's the golden middle in between "shit but small" and "great but bloat". Not every group does either small shit encodes or bloat encodes, their and are ones that make great ones which have good quality, good compatibility and a reasonable file size. Also, you shouldn't compare audio to video remuxes, as the difference in size between them is different vastly.
>>51719507
>There are scene rul s, but sticking to a standard is dumb imo and who would choose Opus as a standard, being one of the least supported codecs to use? The difference in AAC and Opus for video usage is way too subtle to justify this.
Opus has better compression and support is above 90% now. Even fapple products can play Opus audio now. Opus also has better compression efficiency compared to AAC albeit small.
>For the rest, that's why there are different encodes. If people want to wait 8 hours for remuxes, let them wait. You don't need to adapt standards for the sake of popularity which would ruin the quality, as encoding effiency isn't the same for every source.
If you use CRF then you know if an encode is shit. 28-34 CRF will look like shit no matter the source. 22 CRF will look like good quality no matter the source. Finally 16 CRF will look very high quality no matter the source.
>Having choice is great and you need to remember that there's the golden middle in between "shit but small" and "great but bloat". Not every group does either small shit encodes or bloat encodes, their and are ones that make great ones which have good quality, good compatibility and a reasonable file size. Also, you shouldn't compare audio to video remuxes, as the difference in size between them is different vastly.
Downloading rips would be less of a headache if there were less choices. It's better to have 2-3 good choices instead of 10+ choices in which only 2-3 are good. More is not always better.
>>51720263
whoops meant to quote >>51720150
>>51718077
>while neckbeards use 320kbps MP3s or FLAC.
I have only albums encoded in FLAC, ripped perfectly from CD's and I shave daily so I'm not neckbeard.
>>51720150
the standard from 1982 is CD Audio
>>51720315
>I shave daily
You sound like a fag. Do you also shave your arms and legs as well?
>>51720349
>Do you also shave your arms and legs as well?
No, I just want to have smooth face overall.
>>51720333
trips confirmed for audio standard
>>51720372
Well be careful. In modern times shaving daily is a symptom of being a homosexual. Maybe just don't even mention you shave daily else people might get the wrong idea.
>>51720263
>above 90%
Now where do you pull these number from?
No, Apple products don't support Opus natively. Only via third party software/SW decoding.
>Opus also has better compression efficiency compared to AAC albeit small.
And why would anyone care about this tiny difference while sacrificing compability with HW players, which the movie scene cares about a lot.
>22 CRF will look like good quality no matter the source
No, 22 CRF doesn't look good.
16 CRF often does look good, but in this case you could say that another CRF value (let's say 17) may be more efficient, since it almost looks the same. In this case why not use 17 instead of 16? Choosing quality by source makes more sense than by standard.
>More is not always better.
Won't deny that, but setting strict standards is just dumb.
>>51720418
*this number
>>51720333
We're talking about piracy publishing standards, not retail publishing standards where this makes more sense.
>>51720460
>piracy publishing standards
piracy publishing standard is mp3 192 kbps
> But why is is that AAC/M4A isn’t well known at all
lol, that's far from the case.
Do you know how many people have their entire music libraries in M4A because they're either getting it from iTunes?
Ask yourself, of the people who use iTunes, how many don't pirate? Whethyer that's an insanely large number or not, the majority of those folks buy their music from iTunes.
Yes, the majority who don't pirate have M4A libraries. Given that bit of info, that same group of people probably don't take part in the shitfest discussions about iTunes on 4chan (let alone /g/).
Anyway, all my vinyl rips are 24/96+ in ALAC.
>>51718251
This chart ends at 128 what is the fucking point of it?
>>51720485
>Anyway, all my vinyl rips are 24/96+ in ALAC.
Why do you even rip all your vinyls at all? Stick to CD rips
>>51718251
How does Opus compare to Vorbis?
>>51720503
dunno who you quoted but it says i filtered them lol
would do u good to do the same since it seems they're retards
>>51720485
>Anyway, all my vinyl rips are 24/96+ in ALAC.
Retarded audiophile detected.
>>51720529
lol, CD rips aren't same same quality as a vinyl rips, and not everything that is on vinyl is offered on CD (and vice versa).
>>51720503
Are you an idiot? The chart clearly shows that the codecs all converge at around 128 kbps which should be obvious. More bitrate = better quality no matter the codec.
>>51720576
>CD rips aren't same same quality as a vinyl rips
They aren't. CD rips when ripped properly offer accuracy of 100% digital data where vinyl is not measurable and only quality gain *may* be achieved when ripping with more higher and higher tier of equipment.
And if you are talking by any chances about Vinyls that are better than CD, then sadly but no. This same apply to SACD, Digital Downloads (192khz/24bit)
What you perceive in Vinyls is muffled and backed down dark sound that you find to be enjoyable, but its not at all an accurate presentation of the sound.
>>51720533
Same shit on sane bitrates (>=128kbps). >=160kbps should be transparent for most sources no matter what codec (except mp3).
>>51720418
>>above 90%
>Now where do you pull these number from?
Close to 90% of smartphone owners have android phones. Most of which can either natively play Opus audio or use a 3rd party app. Applefags can use a 3rd party app to play Opus. The less than 10% group are people who still use dvd players/ancient apple/android devices without updates.
>No, Apple products don't support Opus natively. Only via third party software/SW decoding.
Downloading an app to play Opus isn't rocket science. Almost all applefags have a 3rd party player.
>>Opus also has better compression efficiency compared to AAC albeit small.
>And why would anyone care about this tiny difference while sacrificing compability with HW players, which the movie scene cares about a lot.
Because honestly with such good SW players today, HW players don't matter anymore. Especially since most android phones now have MHL or miracast to display movies on a TV.
>16 CRF often does look good, but in this case you could say that another CRF value (let's say 17) may be more efficient, since it almost looks the same. In this case why not use 17 instead of 16?
Uniformity I guess. It's the same reason people recommend 96, 128, 160, and 192 bitrates for audio instead of 91, 124, 166, and 197 bitrates.
>>More is not always better.
>Won't deny that, but setting strict standards is just dumb.
It would help make things look more neat on teh internetz. But most people wouldn't adopt a strict standard even if it was for their own good. It's a shame really.
I don't get it, why are you debating about the bitrate and codec use? Just get compressed lossless flac and youre done, its not big and you have each bit
>>51720738
Because flac is a placebo.
>>51720349
>something in the past considered as a must do every day is now considered faggy by some anon
Holy shit
>>51720485
>Anyway, all my vinyl rips are 24/96+ in ALAC.
Found the autist
>>51720755
mp3 320k is also placebo, youre good at 192k
But don't you want to archive your favorite records in perfect condition and listen to them?
>>51718077
Mostly because it's the single most expensive compression standard in existence today by almost an order of magnitude cost. Companies hate deploying it for that reason.
>>51720738
Because listening to lossless music on mobile is pretty insane because of filesizes.
>>51718531
This is bad and you should feel bad.
>>51720533
Opus can use lower bitrates than vorbis and is slightly more efficient. In addition Opus can also be used in voip due to the low latency it has.
However for listening to music, Opus is not much of an improvement compared to Vorbis. Both are transparent around 128-160 vbr for most people.
>>51718192
Music bought from iTunes is 256kbps VBR stereo AAC. It used to be 128kbps stereo DRM AAC.
>>51720842
yeaa, on mobile the lossy may be more optimal, but in general use or if you use nice set up its a real weird move to encode to smaller sizes just for sake to have them smaller
>>51720713
The original recording is entirely different when it is done on analogue equipment; CD quality audio is only as good as the limitations of the equipment used to post-process it onto the medium.
There are limitations to CD Quality recordings, which is why places like Boomkat offer digitial downloads which are more accurate than the recording released in CD format.
Further to the point, not everything on vinyl was released on CD.
>>51720755
>having an exact copy of your source material is placebo
>>51720877
The way I see it using a lossless format is a sign of autism and I'll do my best to avoid people who use flac.
>>51720880
>CD quality audio is only as good as the limitations of the equipment used to post-process it onto the medium.
And the same isn't true of fucking vinyl?
Fuck off you retard. The redbook audio standard is perfect and designed to be audibly transparent. The quality of any recording depends on the equipment you use not the medium you end up. Vinyl isn't magically unbound by these limitations because "it's analog too lol."
>muh placebo sampling rates and bit depths
>>51720909
> avoid people who use flac
> come to /g/
> come to /g/ and talk about music quality
sharpest tool in the shed right here, boys
I use opus because at 92kbps i get the same transparency than a 320kbps mp3 with ~65% smaller filesize.
fite me
>>51720898
It is, we're only human beings. Using flac compared to opus gives you literally 0 benefits. In fact all flac does is take up unnecessary hard drive space.
As a human being you don't need a bit-for-bit copy of audio/video in order to enjoy it (unless you have autism).
>>51720940
> not the medium you end up
I'm the retard, huh.
CD Quality is limited to 44,1k amirite?
You can only take 44.1k out of a CD Rip because that's what you're given, right?
And i'm the retard?
>>51720725
>Close to 90%
Not even 85% m8 according to your graph, and Opus support is only available since 5.0, reducing that number even more.
>Applefags can use a 3rd party app to play Opus.
Inconvenient though.
>The less than 10% group are people who still use dvd players/ancient apple/android devices without updates.
You're projecting smartphone marketshare to any other device now. That doesn't make any sense.
>Almost all applefags have a 3rd party player.
Not normies.
>HW players don't matter anymore.
For battery life, they do.
>Especially since most android phones now have MHL or miracast to display movies on a TV.
Still more inconvenient than just playing via TV or something like that. Just for the purpose of Opus (where AAC also does the job), it's not really worth is.
>Uniformity I guess.
Loss of efficiency though.
>vinyl
topkek
IIRC it has both a lower dynamic range and much higher noise floor than even compressed 'red book' spec audio.
That forgets that many vinyls were actually mastered using digital delay lines which I've been told actually sampled at 32kHz.
>>51720940
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
and especially
https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
>>51720954
Do most of you really use FLAC? Maybe I need to leave 4chan.
>>51721004
yes
goodbye
>>51720877
I'm not vomit retard to delete originals after converting them to opus. I keep everything in FLAC on my PC, but for web or mobile use I convert them to -q5 vorbis with scripts in foobar. That way I can fit almost 10 compressed songs in space of 1 FLAC.
>>51720988
You cannot perceive ultrasonic frequencies nor does their presence effect the audio quality in any way. Are you a bat?
Music has practically nothing in ultrasonic range anyway. But yes, you are the retard if you seriously believe vinyl is inherently closer to the recording than CD.
>>51720790
>But don't you want to archive your favorite records in perfect condition and listen to them?
If it's good enough for listening why wouldn't it be good enough for archiving? Are you going to have magically better ears in the future?
Addition to my last post (>>51720990):
>>51720725
Some kind of uniformity wouldn't be too bad, like e.g. BakaBTs "quality slots". Though that would be in the hands of the torrent side to implement something like this.
>>51720857
>replying to stale pasta
>>51721047
>nor does their presence effect the audio quality in any way.
>what is aliasing
u r a bait urself mr. Anon.
>>51721004
I don't. I only have Opus rips on my laptop and phone.
>>51721004
I have albums only in FLAC lvl 8 compression from CDs ripped with Exact Audio Copy.
Average size is about ~240 MB per album, I don't complain about size as I have shit enough space both on main hard drives and back up drives. (I don't hoard, I save only albums I enjoy and adore)
>>51721004
No. Most of us stick to lossy codecs. It's just the few autists that leak from /mu/ that use flac.
>>51721064
I was ignoring possible IMD caused by shitty transducers. The point is that a random 40khz tone doesn't make your music any better.
i use m4a and alac, mp3 if i pirate it and don't feel like repackaging
>>51721087
autist
>>51721048
Well... The IT world is growing with new tools and solutions, who said that there won't be something better than lossless FLAC format in near future that can compress even further and as end format will be smaller than mp3 file itself but still will hold all the data?
>>51721129
frog poster
>>51721111
By lossy you probably mean 320k mp3.
It's disgusting and you should feel disgusting.
>>51720977
Benefit 1: having an exact copy of your source with compression which you can then later encode to different qualities whether 128 MP3 or 320 MP3. You can't do that with a lossy format.
>>51721004
320k mp3 fag here. I tried flac once for an album. Shit sound exactly the same as my mp3 rips and it literally took 4 times the storage space. Fuck flac.
>>51721193
That's a pretty long worded explanation describing autism. Do you have autism?
I think that FLAC (from ripped CD) is a perfect digital format for music.
The snake oil are HDtracks with super high res or counter movement of pointless SACD.
>>51721111
The quads of truth have spoken.
>>51721206
You should try 160k aac/vorbis/opus. Shit sound exactly the same as your mp3 rips and it literally takes 2 times less storage space. Fuck mp3.
PCM master race. Enjoy your QUALITY LOSS.
>>51721249
Isn't SACD dead?
>>51721256
Don't choke on the digits trip fag
>>51721229
>can't refute my argument
>better call him autist
>>51721257
Nah, I'm okay with MP3. Beside my entire music collection is less than 10gb and I have a 128gb microsd chip on my phone with 50gb free so reducing file size isn't something I care about.
Beside most of my cds are too scratched to rip opus files out of them.
the main reason is that there is no good open source encoder for aac. All the work is being done on improving opus it seems.
>>51721261
Encoding
PCM WAV > FLAC > WAV > FLAC > ALAC > WAV > FLAC > FLAC
What will be end result?
A) Its the same as PCM WAV
B) Its lossy because of too much encodings
C) Dunno
>>51721111
quads confirm
>>51721261
lol
>>51721335
>What will be end result?
autism
>>51721367
>autism
Are you fan of autism or what? Fuck off already
>>51721004
No. I've been using 160k vorbis since 2010.
>>51718531
O.m.f.g.
Jawdrop.jpg
You are trolling I hope
>>51721398
autist confirmed
>human ear can hear past 128kbps MP3
enjoy your placebo
>>51721423
dumb frog poster
>>51721177
It's still 10x better than flac though.
>>51721435
>human ear cant' hear past 128kbps MP3
enjoy your placebo
>this retarded tripfag
Filtered
>>51721435
Nice try flacfag. You're not gonna pry me away from my 320k mp3 collection ever.
>>51721423
CEO of Blowjobs for Autism. You're doing God's work. I appreciated you really getting in there and cleaning my foreskin and it looked like you enjoyed it too!
>>51721447
Technically its 4x times better. not 10
>>51721469
You sound like an autist. He'll be grateful for not having to read your replies anymore.
>>51721460
>>51721471
bet you fags also download 1080p movies even tho human eye can't see past 720p
>using mp3 instead of FLAC
mp3 doesn't respect your freedoms; it's shit
>>51721498
Literally my only post in this thread. Trip on faggit
>>51721516
this. Use Opus instead.
>>51721531
??
I'm not the tripfag though
>spotify premium
>320kbps
>neckbeard
i dont think so senpai
>>51721594
>paying for DRM streams
wew lad
>>51718251
I'd be using Opus if it was actually supported, but for now I'm sticking with CVBR 128kbps AAC.
>>51721362
What's wrong? Can't afford more space? It's 1TB/$25.
>>51721335
How audio encoding should work:
(anything) > PCM > PCM > PCM > AAC
convert to PCM to avoid any quality loss and then at the end you convert it to AAC for compression while minimizing quality loss. FLAC never worked for me so it's ****.
>>51721607
>wanting to find an album
>spotify
>type it in
>it comes up
>download it with one click
>it werks, i can listen
>pirate an album
>have to find a good source
>no seeders
>shit rip
>incomplete album
its just too much effort desu
>>51721447
But we're not talking about -q5 vorbis sempai.
>>51721628
>inb4 the retard suggests private trackers
>>51721628
Just because you're incompetent doesn't mean the rest of us are.
>>51721004
Yes, because there doesn't exist any valid reason to not use Flac. If your storage is limited and you can't afford at least a 1 TB extra storage unity, you should blame your poverty. If you want to play music on the go on a portable device, it means that you don't even care for music quality in the first place, then you would be just ok with even a 50kbps Mp3. Secondly, Flac files are great for archiving purposes. Deleting Flac files once you encoded them to a lossy format is pure autism, then why should I listen to a lossy file and waste extra storage for a lossy file when I already have the glorious Flac file in my library?
>>51721618
Software decoders to exist you know. And the most recent version of Opus uses very little cpu resources.
See >>51719599 & >>51719623 (correction)
>>51721654
im not saying im incompetent
its just that ive been pirating music for years, and im tired of doing repetitive shit
i wouldnt be able to pirate all my albums without joining le cool ebin secret club
>>51721628
>imblying spotify even comes close to having a complete catalog
>>51721671
Fuck off back to /mu/ you fucking autist
>>51721684
Software decoders? Are we speaking about desktop listening? Because I thought all this talk about Opus and AAC implies we're talking about optimizing for portable media players. I don't think you can tamper with portable media players unless you hack the shit out of it, and you can only do it on a selective list of devices.
>>51721473
cheez-it
>>51721684
>>51721732
I misunderstood. I forgot to clarify that I'm not using my phone to listen to music, so all that versatility does not apply to me personally.
>>51721628
more like
>type an artist
>nothing found
>try another artist
>nothing found
>try another artist
>nothing found
it just works
>>51721704
You are. Pirating an album takes like a 1 minute if you know what you're doing. It won't save you notable amounts of time and you're just throwing money down a whole. Plus, Spotify doesn't carry everything anyway.
>>51721732
>not using your phone to listen to music in 2015
It's time to move on gramps
>>51721809
As if battery isn't already being drained by other uses, I really don't want music to share that burden. I also plug it into my car and I don't want my phone functions blasting in the car and interrupting the music functions.
>>51721755
You should really be listening to music on your phone. bluetooth/wifi headphones exist if you need to listen to music while exercising. mp3 players are very ancient devices now.
>>51721809
>fixed storage, no parametric equalizer, battery lasts one day, no hardware buttons, use 3rd party players with wakelocks to play anything but mp3 files
but i don't want to downgrade
>people pirate music when Spotify premium and apple music exists
And if the artists you want aren't on there then they need fucking money so buy their album
Get a job
>>51721869
this
>>51721869
I actually buy CDs so nice try senpai.
>>51721869
>he thinks /g/ NEETs and poorshits care
Where do you think you are?
>>51721855
I plug it into my car when I drive, take it out when I need to get on foot, all independent from my phone use and its battery life. I just find it all very comfy. It can go for weeks through varied use which I definitely cannot say for my phone.
>>51721859
>>fixed storage, no parametric equalizer, battery lasts one day, no hardware buttons, use 3rd party players with wakelocks to play anything but mp3 files
Most android devices accept 200GB microsd chips formatted in fat32. You've literally never used a good music player on your phone. Also most phones have over 24 hours of battery life if used to play music continuously.
>>51721908
ok boss but don't come crying to us when people make fun of you for using an mp3 player in 2015.
>>51718193
>FLACs (and 320 kbps MP3 likewise)
kek!
>>51718157
It's in the name - Free (Lossless) Audio (Codec)
So Lossy formats use math and programming things to *Approximate* audio, and it works pretty well... But it will never ever ever be the 1:1 sound
Lossless is like a wave file... if you did a CD Rip, it's the exact audio from the CD, if you recorded, it's the exact sound you recorded. No Approximations.
-
FLAC is best for archiving CDs and ripping vinyls. Good for Listening to on your desktop.
FLAC is also best for Audio professionals - Say you recorded an audio track for a documentary or some shit, it's better to store that in Flac than the Wav that comes out of your recorders
Even if you can't hear a difference, because it's the same exact, 1:1 copy of audio, it's objectively the better format.
-
If you want it for your phone, sure you could put flac on there, but fuck it, my lazy ass puts out 96kbit Opus on my phone and calls it a day. My phones a cheap chink tier android so flac won't make it that much better (see >>51718673 for math )
-
>>51721416
Welcome to /g/ you must be new here - this is a meme that happens occasionally... you'll get used to it, it's the shittiest one you'll find here. Can confrm - used to be a newfag (probably still am)
>>51721728
You must be at least 14 to have a slight knowledge about the topics people talk about here. Go back to your Town Hall level 5.
>>51722001
No one's made fun of me for not owning a tablet yet so I'm good.
>>51721925
>You've literally never used a good music player on your phone
Enlighten me please.
>>51722044
>What is the n7player
>>51722164
According to their site it doesn't play Opus and their EQ is graphic instead of parametric.
m8
>>51722017
You tell him my fellow FLAC connoisseur.
Hey do you know a good place where I can find 32-bit, 192khz FLAC rips? :^)
>>51722218
>32-bit, 192khz FLAC rips?
you misunderstand the concept of FLAC
>>51722239
No, no I totally get it. More is better. Using a lossy codec is a death sentence. I want the best possible quality there could exist. I'll probably buy cable lifters and acoustic resonators later to for my home listening. :^)
>>51722202
I dunno about opus playback right now. Maybe it can play Opus now. Still a really good audio player for me anyway.
>>51722218
Fucking bats shitting up my 4chan. Go fuck off back to your cave you little flying turd.
>>51722391
inferior butthurt organism detected. Not our fault you can't hear above 20khz
>>51722310
I don't know about others but for me its the following:
CD audio > Ripped with EAC > WAV encode to FLAC lvl 8 compression
The idea is to have 1:1 copy of what CD audio offers, further more CD audio and its concept is the perfect meta since 1980 for human being without any compromises.
The 192kHz, 24 bit, 32 bit music downloads or vinyl rips are snake oil and pointless.
Just check these and educate yourself rather force the irony and sarcasm.
see >>51721002
>lossy codec is a death sentence
No its not, encode to good enough bitrate and enjoy
>cable lifters and acoustic resonators later to for my home listening
A good speakers or headphones would be a better start...
>>51722336
>Still a really good audio player for me anyway
I'm not saying it's shit, only that when you get a pmp which has those features and you get used to them changing to a phone just feels like a downgrade.
>>51722218
batfag pls go
>>51722472
>2015
>not having bat ears
I weep for you anon
>>51722521
I can hear max 18.5 kHz
>>51722535
My condolences.
>>51722551
And bats are hearing harmonic distortions beyond 21 kHz that point so...
>>51722551
Fuck you. You niggers are deaf below 10Khz so you will never be able to enjoy dubstep.
>>51722622
>enjoy dubstep
>
>>51722622
>enjoy
>dubstep
pick one
>>51722551
Honestly, that's not too bad. The max people get is 20KHz.
>>51722640
>he doesn't know about the >10KHz melodies in dubstep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoBPNTAFZMo
>>51722808
>low bitrate mp3 sounds like shit
What a scientific discovery!!! Now tell him to compare 192 Opus vs FLAC
>>51722884
it was 320k mp3
>>51721398
deactivate yourself
>>51722934
dumb frog poster
>>51722917
aka not Opus
Friendly reminder that Apple-encoded AAC is an excellent lossy format and competitive with Opus for quality/bitrate.
>>51723019
then make the test with opus, who holds you back?
>>51723055
You can't use aac for voip at least not without massive lag.
more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoS3-zIhZHI
jesus christ
>>51723085
I've never understood the latency thing. What exactly does it mean? Why does one audio codec have higher latency than another? And why does it really matter? Shit is confusing.
>>51723019
>>51722884
You will hear the difference same as with 320k mp3 shown in youtube video. There won't be pure silence when using phase cancellation so it will be shown at hand what are you missing from your opus.
>>51723164
not same anon but all it proves is a lossy file will remove unnecessary audio data that humans can't perceive. In the end a lossy opus/mp3 file with a high bitrate will sound exactly the same to human ears.
Of course lossy codecs remove some audio data, that's what they do.
Well, AAC does have some crap encoders (I feel sorry for FFmpeg users) while MP3 has pretty much standardized around LAME. Most of /g/ - Smartphones wouldn't know how to extract CoreAutioToolbox to use Apple's encoder outside of iTunes, anyway.
But yeah, MP3 has long been depreciated.
>not listening to your Mandarin marionettes in QAAC q127
>>51723295
>worst miku album
>>51723295
what's wrong with the ffmpeg AAC encoder? I thought it was fraunhofer which was almost as good as Apple.
>>51723295
>v1.3.8
update foobar you nigger
>>51723441
The ffmpeg AAC encoder is fucking trash, and I'm not basing this on some shitty jerk off test. Core Audio sounds pretty damn awesome at 64kbps in my live streams while I had to bump ffmpeg AAC to 96kbps hoping it won't still sound swashy. It's poverty AAC.
>>51723386
>>51723830
Awful
>>51723970
>>51724028
You are trying to piss me off aren't you?
Haven't converted these yet.
>>51724349
THE ALBUMS, THEY SUCK DICK(S)!!!!!!!
I have arrived family
>>51725347
Can you even read those chink scribbles?
>>51721249
HDTracks usually has markedly better masters though, such as those of Dream Theater and Green Day
>>51721925
>Noise
>Distortion
>Niggerbass
I fear the death of my iPod Classic
>>51725347
For what purpose senpai
>>51723806
But anon, ffmpeg released their superior aac encoder 2 days ago, surely it must be better!
http://ffmpeg.org/
>>51719188
>soundkonverter
all my years of dicking around with ffmpeg and scripting and I had no idea this existed.
>>51718157
Unless your ears are as good at perceiving sound as Jackie Chan is at martial arts, then nothing.
>>51719692
>but you'd be a madman to actually use it for playback
Why? If you have the space for it, what's the downside to using FLAC for playback?
>>51718077
AAC sounds like I'm listening underwater. My ears acclimated to mp3 decades ago.
>>51730247
>Why? If you have the space for it, what's the downside to using FLAC for playback?
I'm refering more towards portable playback (where even a small library can max out a device with flac).
I personally listen to FLACs on my computer, but that's because I already keep them and don't see the point in using the compressed versions. On portable devices I use Vorbis.
>>51719692
>It's great to archive music, but you'd be a madman to actually use it for playback.
Seems more crazy to me to have a duplicate library in lossy format over just using your lossless library
Please tell me anything beyong mp3 128K is placebo.
>>51732271
pretty much
I'm using mp3 v4 I think (works out around 130kbps but VBR). I was ogg vorbis at 128k but was finding my phone would just locked up on song change sometimes. Very random but it was fucking annoying. I haven't had those problems again yet, but I just switched back to MP3 the other day.
I keep flac backups of my CDs on my NAS so I have access to them when I test different formats. I've tried OGG, AAC, MP3 and WMA and a few other ones, inevitably I stay with MP3 because of compatibility I find. I love free stuff though.
>using shit-tier Opus when there is an open-sauce encoder for superior AAC
http://ffmpeg.org/index.html#news
YouTube uses it too :)
Flac are always to be prefered for both playback and archival, but if a lossy codec is necessary I would recommend AAC. 128 kbps AAC are close to transparency and they're surely better than both mp3 and Ogg and Opus.
At last this thread.
AAC master-race since 2010.
Thanks fucking iPod Touch.
~128Kbps because i can't tell the difference.
>>51719599
>and can be played on over 90% of devices now.
Poweramp can't into OPUS
Stock Android players can't into OPUS
>open thread
>please no more opus @ 128 bullshit
fuck, stop this madness, it sounds awful, what kind of music are you listening to?
>>51721193
>Benefit 1: having an exact copy of your source with compression which you can then later encode to different qualities whether 128 MP3 or 320 MP3. You can't do that with a lossy format.
FUCKING LIES!!!!!!
AAC DON'T DEGRADE FROM RE-ENCODING.
You can have 256kbps AAC and re-encode it 100 times and quality won't be lost.
here proof
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Faudiophilesoft.ru%2Fnews%2Flossy_multiencoding_research%2F2014-12-07-120&edit-text=&act=url
>>51718251
>likes Opus
>enjoys being force to convert all his 44.1khz FLAC to 48khz only OPUS.
>>51722808
B-but all youtube videos have ~120 kbps AAC audio
>>51718149
Well, strictly speaking, it's still relatively 'unknown' since most people aren't really aware that they're listening to an AAC/M4A file.
>>51721516
>>51721532
Patents ran out on MP3 awhile ago.
>>51735504
Evangelion OST.
>>51735528
LIES!!! DON'T TRUST THE COMMIES
>>51722001
>/g/
>schooling you on how not to get bullied
>>51735662
This commie (actually he's Ukrainian, almost EU now) understand how audio works better than 95% of this board.
One day his site will be in english.
>>51721869
Most of the money goes to the Jews when you buy an album or stream. Virtually nothing goes to the content creator, especially with streaming.
Wanna support your favorite artist? Go to their concerts, they get to keep a big chunk of the ticket price.
