Give me one (1) good reason to not convert my entire library of FLACs to 256k Opus with no perceivable quality loss.
Give me one (1) good reason to not convert my entire library of FLACs to 256k Opus with no perceivable quality loss
Matthew Price
Other urls found in this thread:
people.xiph.org
wiki.xiph.org
twitter.com
Christopher Gutierrez
Because a couple years down the road when some other compression format is innovated you’ll be decompressing lossy data files and you WILL hear the difference unless you’re deaf.
We’ve been over this. Are you a bot?
Evan Ward
If the differences between high bitrate opus and flac is transparent now, how exactly will a new codec achieve "more" transparency? It would sound the same but at a slightly lower bitrate.
Owen Phillips
Sometime in the future, ghost (or some other lossy codec) will release, with better performance than opus, but only from lossless.
From lossy, the performance will be horrendous, as it always is when transcoding lossy to lossy.
And it'll become the default for a lot of software/hardware. And when you try to use this software or hardware, your opus will be transcoded automatically and will sound horrible.
Learn from archivists and preserve your music collection properly. Say no to lossy archival.
Jacob Robinson
eventually there will be something better than opus that you can transcode to.
Gavin Barnes
It doesn't work like that, the quality loss is accumulative, even of transparent at first generation the quality decreases every transcode even if you use the exact same settings where eventually it stops being transparent.
Jace Thomas
even if*
Xavier Miller
Is 128kbps opus transparent?
Elijah Martin
>hard drives are so cheap now that they’re practically free
>worrying about how much space your shitty kpop albums consume
Hey it’s 1999 again!
Evan Russell
also
>burn entire FLAC collection to bdr using 7zip split archives
>encode everything to opus for listening
that's what I plan on doing except probably AAC since I'm getting a mac