What possible reason could you have for using this pile of shit in 2019?

Flac is where it's at.

Because it's the industry standard.

What "industry"?
CDs don't use MP3. Video streaming services don't use MP3. No audio professionals would ever use MP3.

I still have mp3s dating back almost 2 decades a lot of which in modern times crappy bit rates but I listen to some of them anyway.

Not even the most popular streaming services use mp3. The only people that use mp3s are boomers stuck in the past.

Good ol' 128 kbps with questionable encoder settings.

>not torrenting an iso and burning it to a cd yourself
It's like you don't want the authentic sound. Audio files will never sound as good as a optical disk being read from with a period-correct red laser.

>streaming services
Music streaming services to be more exact.

The work industry

If you actually buy files from amazon or use download codes from LPs, they usually always use mp3. Sometimes you get lucky and get .wav files too. MP3 doesn't have DRM and it has universal compatibility with players.

>buy files from amazon
No one does this. Thing of the past.

>download codes from LPs
If the download code to your hipster piece of vinyl seriously only offers mp3s, you should never ever buy from that band/label ever again.

>period-correct red laser
As opposed to what? A gramophone?

Hes not being serious retard

Ok then.

Attached: m'lady.gif (401x353, 323K)

A blue laser (DVD), or worse yet a ultraviolet (BD) laser. The lower on the electromagnetic spectrum the laser is, the more low tones it can pick up.

I use Vorbis at -q4.

>gramophone
>serious
You think I am?

Attached: uhh.jpg (250x250, 4K)

lmao
that's why people get their libraries in flac so at least it won't degrade when they turn it into some different codec

Well, judging by the pirate sites/private trackers etc I that I use, everything is moving to flac.
Which is usually good but sometimes bad as I don't want to WASTE my bandwidth with 20GB of a flac version of Korn's discography

>not having half of the discog. on CD already.

>filename
>dubs
/thread

>DVD
>Blue laser

I mean... I have a few reasons

Still works perfectly fine - with everything
Legacy collection
Still used all over the place
Don't feel any real need to use anything else
Don't feel like converting 50 million songs to another format
The mp3 I have of your mother moaning when you were conceived still sounds perfectly fine, kinda nostalgic actually.

Most (~80%) of my library has switched to FLAC, but I often still use 320kbs MP3 because:
>the difference compared to FLAC is usually imperceptible; only really remarkable when you're playing a track with a lot of sub-bass or sound-stage
>keeping around a 6-gig discog of an artist I don't listen to anymore is stupid when I want to listen to one of their tracks like once a year
>some albums are just impossible to find in FLAC (wanna prove wrong? Post a link to "Art of the Sample" by Blockhead. I'll delete all of my MP3s, just for you)

Or just get everything in high bitrate mp3. It will never need to be reencoded. Mp3 is eternal, like jpeg.

Where do I claim my prize?

Attached: ez.png (1519x217, 39K)

Nigger i only listen to music on vinyl

My condolences.

I only buy cd's or vinyl.
If I don't want to own the album I'll just listen to it on a streaming service.

lmao, upload this shit somewhere, please

In terms of player support, MP3 is second to none, full stop.

lol'd audibly

>>In terms of player support, MP3 is second to none, full stop.
I use a player from 2007 and I don't think it supports anything else actually

I dunno what that is, but it's not a link.
I'll tell you what, though: you upload that to MEGA, and I'll screencap me deleting all my MP3s, if you care about that.
But yeah, I don't fuck with private trackers. I CAN, I got all the bandwidth in the world for it, but it doesn't seem worth the effort for those 5 or 6 albums I can't find in high quality.

...

That's a slsk screenshot.

>believes he qualifies for a prize
>audio is 16bit 44100hz
gtfo

Shit nigga, I didn't realize that program had a history with underground music. I thought it was just another Limewire or something, so I never looked into it.. Thanks for the tip.

youtube-dl -x --audio-format flac

I believe the correct word is NIGGER, NIGGER!

t. dumbass snake oil consumer

It's Soulseek forgot to mention lol. You don't have to delete anything.

Soulseek is fantastic.

FLAC is useful for archiving and masters obviously but for actual listening and storage on a portable device, MP3 320kbps just werkz

honest question, why is mp3 still around?
>FLAC
bigger files, but no reduction of quality
>Opus
smaller files, better quality, royalty free

Is it because fucking car stereos can play mp3s? Or is it an "Applel doesn't support opus" kind of shit deal?

>youtube
>flac

LMAO

>why is mp3 still around
Because mp3 means music, the general population think that's not quite right listening to formats other than mp3, geez, I bet some think that mp3 is the highest quality they can get.

>Do you also watch DivX videos?
Yeah because for this one movie I can't find a better rip and I can't get my hands on a DVD for a reasonable price to rip it myself.

Let's be honest: The general population doesn't even deal with file formats ever. They start up their music streaming app and just listen. File formats have become a niche for enthusiasts. Windows and macOS don't even show them by default, they don't want their retarded audience to be confused by file endings.

Yeah, you're right.
They managed to make formats and extensions abstract. They are in levels of abstraction that's not even possible.
The educated ones know that mp3 is a kind of audio format, using something different is a no-no.

> he doesn't transcode his DivX files to H.264 MKV's

Attached: 1534913017195.jpg (453x470, 16K)

>transcoding from an already lossy source

Attached: DoOvYQ3UwAAqhnW.jpg (471x520, 190K)

rutracker

>he doesn't transcode in loseless mode

Attached: 1531486289746.jpg (613x531, 36K)

Don't forget to upload them to some private tracker and label it "HQ".

That's where I got it from and the best quality I've found it in.

>Do you also watch DivX videos?
Given a high enough bitrate it doesn't matter what media coding format you use. The difference is that video usually requires a much higher bitrate to reach that point. So even in our age of cheap disk space, using somewhat efficient video coding formats is desirable.
Efficient audio compression just isn't as important to the end user as it used to be. Unless you have a gigantic music collection, even storing your music uncompressed is a valid option. With that in mind, you only really need FLAC for lossless compression and -q0 MP3 for lossy compression.

you are mentally retarded, kys audiopedophile

I download flacs and immediately convert them to 192kbs opus. The alternative seems to be 320kbs mp3, which is just bloat.

here in slavland I commonly find movies in .avi and they're not even straight DVD rips
I always cringe when I see this bullshit

>being a retard that doesn't know about slsk
Embarrassing.

AVI is just the container, it's just sort of hacky and not as good as other containers. You can still have h264 avi files.

unironically have sex

>Given a high enough bitrate it doesn't matter what media coding format you use.
That's like saying given enough fuel, it doesn't matter if you drive a literal tank to work or a Tesla, so we should all be driving tanks.

For actual storage devices MP3 is retarded, ESPECIALLY 320kbps.
Every device that plays MP3 in 2019 also plays AAC, which is far more efficient. You'll save space and probably even battery life.
Vorbis is usually supported as well. If you're on Android you can probably even use Opus, which blows both out of the water.
There's no reason to use MP3, let alone 320Kbps CBR MP3.

Yes I know avi is a container, but 99 times out of 100 the contents are MPEG-4 Part 2 DivX/XviD bullshit, sometimes even with the watermark.

Good. You proved that you're able to read. Now go ahead and read past the first sentence.

I did. The fact you suggested MP3 at all shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why do you watch h.265 and h.264 video? Because someone told you to? Or because it's far more efficient and better a codec than most other video codecs?
MP3 is fucking horrible and there's no reason to be using it in 2019 other than ignorance. None.

Attached: 1546441476038.png (446x384, 232K)

because of my legacy music collection is mostly MP3 and I ain't dowloading everything again

>US KIDS KEEP UP WITH BRAND NEW "STANDARDS" AND WILL USE ANY PIILE OF SHIT AS LONG AS IT'S NEW BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT DEAD USING ANYTHING OLD, THAT SHIT WOULD KILL OUR FUCKING STREET CRED WHACK DAB YOLO
Dumbest Generationals.

What audio codec would you recommend?

Found Opus was quite good. Ogg used be to a decent alternative, but there's better now.

Because not everything can be found in lossless formats.
Pic related, unless you're looking to track down a vinyl or cassette yourself then the best you get is an mp3 file.

Attached: covercompr.jpg (1000x1003, 129K)

>Why do you watch h.265 and h.264 video? Because someone told you to? Or because it's far more efficient and better a codec than most other video codecs?
Because uncompressed video is gigantic, losslessly compressed video is huge and older video coding formats are large, given a high enough bitrate to make the result look good.
This still holds true, even with how cheap disk space is nowadays. It's not the same for audio though. I can store my music uncompressed or losslessly compressed without any problems, so the compression efficiency of lossy audio coding formats isn't as important as other factors. Compatibility and for mobile devices decoding performance are far more crucial. In both categories MP3 and AAC win, with MP3 having a slight edge when it comes to compatibility with very old devices (e.g. old car radios).

I have to admit that I made a mistake though. I should've written
>With that in mind, you only really need FLAC for lossless compression and -q0 MP3 or AAC for lossy compression.

Looking at pure compression efficiency:
Opus > AAC > Vorbis > Opus

Opus if you can use it.
Vorbis or AAC otherwise. AAC is supported everywhere thanks to the iPod, so if you have lossless music already you should at the very least be using AAC.

If you're converting music to a lossy format, you're trying to save space. If you're trying to save space, you should be using a codec such as AAC, Vorbis, or Opus which are all FAR superior to MP3.

542MB Centipede Hz/WAV
349MB Centipede Hz/FLAC
107MB Centipede Hz/MP3 -v0
70MB Centipede Hz/AAC -q0.5
60MB Centipede Hz/Vorbis -q5
44MB Centipede Hz/Vorbis -q3
42MB Centipede Hz/Opus --vbr --bitrate 110

And these are like 2014 numbers. Opus was still in development, so it's probably even better now.

Not too long ago I went through the trouble of copying all the mp3 cds I found from my HS days to a hard drive and it was a mess. Missing or mismatched tags, different qualities in the same album, glitches from bad rips, missing songs due to having to search for them individually, remasters alongside original recordings, no consistent naming or folder structures and so on. I've replaced a lot of it (the things I still like) and it was so simple and fast it was a no-brainer for me. Torrenting whole discographies trivializes what took my teenage self weeks of effort.

I remember Opus being larger at higher bit rates, but also listenable at much lower bitrates. 128kbps MP3 is AWFUL but it's tolerable with Opus.

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.

A 192Kbps MP3, AAC, , Vorbis, and Opus file will all be the same file size, because you're literally defining them by how many bits per second they have.
If the file is 900 seconds long (15 minutes) it'll be 172,800 kilobits, 21,600 kilobytes, or 21.6 megabytes in size.
Codecs like AAC, Vorbis, and Opus can go below 192Kbps and still sound like the FLAC file you used to make them however. It will be "transparent" compared to the source audio.
Since you're using a lower bitrate for audio that sounds the same, you save space.

Also I should mention that post assumes a constant bitrate.
However, since codecs other than MP3 are more efficient at constant bitrates (CBR) it means they will naturally be more efficient at variable bitrates as well, because they can go to lower bitrates when needed, and don't need to go as high as MP3 to be transparent.
Use AAC or Vorbis.

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (800x762, 76K)

What is the context to these numbers? I doubt they are supposed to represent the same level of quality.

Everything on that list sounds roughly the same. The AAC version of the album is 65% of the MP3 version.
The Vorbis -q5 version of the album is 56% of the MP3 version.
That means if your music collection was 10GB in MP3s, it'd only be 6.5GB in AAC, and 5.6GB in Vorbis.
You could argue the Vorbis -q3 and Opus encodes would be audibly different, so you can remove those if you want. It doesn't change the fact MP3 is the least efficient on the entire list.
You can test all of this yourself with an ABX test and FLAC/WAV file.

Yeah, I doubt those numbers.
listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm

Your link is just supporting my argument. All of those settings are LOWER quality than what I posted.
If your link is correct, and those settings sound the same as the source audio, then my settings would be bloated by comparison.
I actually did my own ABX testing to get the numbers I came up with. You can easily do this stuff yourself.
lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx
I suggest converting all lossy audio to WAV for the testing program though. There can be a delay that you recognize, which defeats the purpose of the test.

All true, but let's see it from a different perspective.

Let us assume we encode Opus at 128Kbps. That would result in roughly 1MB for a minute, 60MB for an hour and ~1.4GB for a full day worth of music.
Let us further assume MP3 -q0 is twice that (quickly testing it with 50 files shows that it's pretty much the maximum you can expect, not the average). So 2MB for a minute, 120MB for an hour and ~2.8GB for a fully day worth of music.
With how much space we have available nowadays, is it really worth it, when we take Opus' worse support and decoding performance into consideration? In my opinion, no.
MP3 for maximum legacy support. AAC in all other instances.

Well you have a point. If you have a 256GB phone battery life is more important.
AAC is likely going to be supported anywhere MP3 is however. If you're already converting your music for your phone, AAC is probably the best choice, all things considered.

>legacy support
This is a non issue. Everything I own plays opus files already, as will every device I buy in the future. You might as well keep cassette tape copies of everything you own for even greater legacy support.
I haven't tested the difference in battery consumption, but once again, if it is not a problem for me right now in 2019 (using a phone from 2014), there's no reason to believe that it will ever be a problem for the rest of my life.

>Everything I own plays opus files already
Good for you, user.

Now this is quality

I download my mp3s @320kbps because I want lossy audio, but I also want larger filesize to compensate for my small penis.

>Double the original file size
>Now in a different format, just because
Good thinking.

Attached: OK.jpg (630x630, 84K)

This is Jow Forums in a nutshell