>never obsolete

>never obsolete

CRIME Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obsolete since 1997 when AAC was released

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp

      I'll gladly use mp3 at either 320kbits cbr (or v0) if I'm downloading music and it's only avaiable in that format as a lossy option, but mp3 is pretty much dead if you're encoding from a lossless format to a lossy one. Like, literally why would you willingly use mp3 over aac in 2000+25-1^1

      mp3 has been dead for at least 2 decades yeah. I remember using aac circa 2006-2007 when I used py PSP as a media player kek

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When friends and family ask me for music I always give them 320kb mp3 encodes

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the first pmp i bought in 2003 supported mp3/wma/vorbis, so i used vorbis since it was the best of those options
        there was no reason to use mp3 past the '90s

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what makes AAC so better than mp3?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's literally the direct successor, mp3 is mpeg-1 audio layer III, and aac is mpeg-4 advanced audio coding
        made by the same people to replace mp3

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          right, I forgot

          mp3 was obsolete before anybody even started using it, the only reason mp3 was used at all was because it was cheaper to make a hardware mp3 codec in the late 90's for consumer digital media players
          that's it, that's the only reason. people called them mp3 players because they played mp3, fair enough, but then people kept calling them mp3 players into the 00's when they started being able to play better formats (literally anything else), making "mp3" become synonymous with "digital audio"
          mp3 is just a familiar name at this point, a genericized name for digital audio so to speak, there hasn't been a reason to actually use it in over 20 years

          >but then people kept calling them mp3 players into the 00's when they started being able to play better formats (literally anything else), making "mp3" become synonymous with "digital audio"
          interesting
          but why is the format inferior to AAC or other formats? is it because the maths being the audio compression algorithm are too simplistic and that it's possible to make a higher fidelity compressed audio with less data basically?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            better understanding leads to better techniques, newer technology with more processing power also allows for most costly techniques to be used, what was feasible to implement in the late '80s/early '90s when mp3 was being developed became trivial soon after, so more advanced techniques could be used for aac
            same things happen with other lossy codecs like video and photos, a combination of researching new techniques and increased computing power available to use more expensive techniques result in more efficient compression

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        mp3 was obsolete before anybody even started using it, the only reason mp3 was used at all was because it was cheaper to make a hardware mp3 codec in the late 90's for consumer digital media players
        that's it, that's the only reason. people called them mp3 players because they played mp3, fair enough, but then people kept calling them mp3 players into the 00's when they started being able to play better formats (literally anything else), making "mp3" become synonymous with "digital audio"
        mp3 is just a familiar name at this point, a genericized name for digital audio so to speak, there hasn't been a reason to actually use it in over 20 years

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's acceptable at 320 kbps. Opus is better at lower bitrates if you're trying to save space and bandwidth though.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"Acceptable"
      Literally undistinguishable from lossless. Stop being autistic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cool story, /b/ro

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not with classical and jazz.

        Why would you use patent encumbered AAC when Opus exists?

        No native 44.1k support.

        MP3's problem is gapless looping. If the world had agreed to a solution to that it would probably have been good enough forever.

        Not a problem with proper tagging. Blame the encoder.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        only for sound effects or voice recording

        cmon now are you deaf or never listened a/b through soeakers

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you can barely hear the difference between 128 and 320 kbps

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        maybe if you have shitty headphones, but the difference is actually hearable. there's hardly any hearable difference between 256/320 and CD, but I still store everything in FLAC (sometimes even hi-res). storage is the cheapest thing in audio nowadays

        When friends and family ask me for music I always give them 320kb mp3 encodes

        chaotic good

        Obsolete since 1997 when AAC was released

        fpbp

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no, YOU can barely hear the difference because music is not important to you in the slightest

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it's acceptable at *worst possible encoding setting*
      kys, v0 is 2/3 the space while keeping the same exact quality, cbr tards deserve the rope

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And at even lower bitrates USAC is better than Opus.

    And at even lower bitrates TSAC is better than USAC.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I still remember all the morons freaking out when the mp3 patent was expiring saying the format was going to die when in reality it was the exact opposite because now it can be used in anything without paying a royalty meaning stuff like linux distros support it out of the box now.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll gladly use mp3 at either 320kbits cbr (or v0) if I'm downloading music and it's only avaiable in that format as a lossy option, but mp3 is pretty much dead if you're encoding from a lossless format to a lossy one. Like, literally why would you willingly use mp3 over aac in 2000+25-1^1

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would you use patent encumbered AAC when Opus exists?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >caring about patents

        Because opus doesn't do 44.1 so aac plays better with my autism (I use qaac btw)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Because opus doesn't do 44.1
          ...which is one of the best things about it
          44.1 should die, and every video/movie/tv show/game you play is using 48 khz... so wouldn't having all of your audio be 48 khz do better for your autism???

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          1. opus can do 44.1, but you have to use a custom profile which is optional so won't be supported everywhere
          2. there's no reason not to resample the audio to 48khz, whatever distortion you get from that using a decent resampler is nothing compared to the distortion you get from using literally any lossy audio coding, complaining about resampling while talking about a /lossy/ codec is laughable

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >complaining about resampling while talking about a /lossy/ codec is laughable
            it's even more laughable considering that:
            1. on mobile, android resamples all audio to 48 khz, unless you use some very specific media players and fiddle with settings and shit to force it to output 44.1 which is only supported on some devices, 48 khz resampling at encode time is saving you battery and probably doing a better resampling job than whatever resampler android is using natively (which isn't SoX but a faster one)
            2. on desktop/laptop, most content you consume that isn't music will be 48 khz, so setting your sound card to output 48 khz just makes more sense, the only alternative is literally switching modes every time you listen to music
            I really can't fanthom how 44.1 khz tards never account for this, music is the only thing that uses that shitty sample rate, just resample it at encode-time instead of fricking up everything else

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's a good point, you may end up with less quality just because now instead of using a quality resampler at encode time, you may end up using a shittier resampler at playback time instead

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            also fun fact, many sound cards only actually output 48kHz anyway, it's been the standard for quite a long time now, you have to go out of your way to ensure a completely 44.1kHz pipeline, and doing so is completely pointless, doubly so because again, we're talking about a lossy codec here, if you could tell the difference between 44.1 and 44.1 resampled to 48, you wouldn't be touching lossy encoding with a 10 foot pole

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > many sound cards
            Anyone here doesn't use a proper USB DAC and Pipewire/MacOS to send audio in exactly the source format to it?
            Audio system on Windows is complete shit, but you can't really blame a format for that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and you manually have to switch to 48 khz every time you watch a video on youtube, or a movie, or play a game?
            again: that's a dumb "solution", also every sound card has the option to switch to 44.1 khz, even built in realtek ones, that's not a feature exclusive to overpriced audiophool garbage
            also, do you carry that around with you when playing back music on your phone? doubt it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > manually switch
            Why?
            Pipewire supports all of the formats that my DAC uses. If the next song is in 98 kHz, it will send 98 kHz and my DAC would switch to 98 kHz.
            Same with MacOS. Only Windows can't do that and (terribly) up-/downscales your audio to some fixed resolution.
            > every sound card has an option
            Great, then

            also fun fact, many sound cards only actually output 48kHz anyway, it's been the standard for quite a long time now, you have to go out of your way to ensure a completely 44.1kHz pipeline, and doing so is completely pointless, doubly so because again, we're talking about a lossy codec here, if you could tell the difference between 44.1 and 44.1 resampled to 48, you wouldn't be touching lossy encoding with a 10 foot pole

            is lying and this isn't even an issue.
            > do you carry it with you
            The one at work can do the same.
            > on your phone
            Don't care much, honestly. It's on the street with a ton of external noise and shitty tiny earbuds. I just steam FLAC from my subsonic server and don't think about it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Only Windows can't do that
            well that's what 90% of people use you know
            also... wouldn't pipewire do the same with any dac? why would you need a "proper usb dac" for that to work?
            >Great, then *Black person* is lying
            well, it is true for a lot of android phones, and maybe he means some lower end sound cards actually internally resample to 48 khz anyways? I've often read that 48 khz is easier to implement than 44.1 because of *reasons* so maybe that's true in some cases? anyways, 48 khz always just works and is what most sound cards default to
            >The one at work can do the same.
            that doesn't answer the question butthole, you know what I mean
            let's say you have to listen to music in your car with your phone plugged in via aux, or while walking with headphones, you aren't carrying a bulky ass dac with you and your phone most likely can't natively output 44.1 khz (or is only able to do so via some sheninegans and only on some specific apps), the fact your dac at your workplace supports this is irrelevant
            >Don't care much, honestly. It's on the street with a ton of external noise and shitty tiny earbuds.
            but one of the points was that it requires extra processing which will increase battery use on a mobile device, the "it degrades audio quality" point is essentially non-existant (to anyone that isn't a moronic audiophool like you anyways)
            you are essentially asking "doesn't anyone here have this moronation of a setup to avoid resampling anyways?" and the answer to that is no, period.
            people listen to music on their phones and on their windows computers without snakeoil dacs sold to audiophools, this is still a problem for everyone else, quit coping.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > 90% of people
            Not my problem.
            > any DAC
            Yes. It's only restricted by formats DAC supports, though. For example, I can use DSD natively.
            > went usb DAC
            for a comfy knob and wider format support as well as proper insulation (my internal sound card outports sound when I move the mouse or some text is scrolling).
            > some bottom of the barrel shit is shit
            I'd expect IQfy to not have the worst possible hardware.
            > you know what I mean
            I'm not a psychic, so no. I listen to music mostly at home or at work, where I have equipment capable of producing common audio formats.
            > AUX
            Ooh, retro.
            > Auto or phone
            As mentioned, don't really care. Sound on both is shit due to the amount of external noise. I just steam the best quality possible and don't worry about it.
            > extra processing
            How much? I'm terminally online and my phone (when new) survived 1.5 days on a single charge. I mean PiP video while I shitpost on IQfy for 8 hours straight level of usage.
            How much battery do I use from "extra processing" here?
            > moronic setup
            > a DAC
            Are you well? Besides, didn't you say even internal cards don't need resampling nowadays?
            > people eat shit
            More power to them, I guess.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MP3's problem is gapless looping. If the world had agreed to a solution to that it would probably have been good enough forever.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FLAC on PC
    Opus on phone (unless you have a SD card, then FLAC)

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's obsolete to me and that's all that matters.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can't wait for xHE-AAC to take off. It's been a good 10 years since we had any advancements in audio codecs.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I believe that USAC (xHE-AAC) is going to have very limited support on the Web (for example, Firefox won't ever play it because patents).

      But it might have some success in Telegram, though only after FFmpeg supports USAC soonish (notice that the author of https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-April/324987.html said “I'll be posting patches in a few days to add xHE-AAC decoding support which also fixes remuxing” in early April but there's still zero support, and thus “in a few days” must have been a damn big understatement).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But it might have some success in Telegram
        why would that be?
        despite telegram supporting opus/vorbis/every codec on earth except xhe-aac, everyone still only shares mp3's
        I don't see normies transcoding their audio to xhe-aac before sharing to telegram anytime soon

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Αnonymous

    Someone explain to me what makes OGG better?
    Is it actually more openly accessible in and of itself, or is it just based on a more gay-friendly algorithm but you can totally edit the frick out of an mp3 just as well and just as thoroughly as you could an OGG.
    Obviously I won't pretend my ears can hear a difference. What's the practical difference? Compression size?

    Also Wav's. Do they have any value? I believe it's Windows Audio V...format?
    Is that more closed and harder to edit?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OGG is a container, so you could theoretically put whatever inside.

      WAV is an uncompressed audio format that's obviously lossless. FLAC compresses the audio, but is still lossless. There's no reason to keep audio in WAV unless you're too lazy to convert to a smaller format.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Someone explain to me what makes OGG better?
      - free/open standard, so can be included royalty-free in any software or product
      this part may be obsolete now since the mp3 patents expired in 2017
      - has better compression than mp3, meaning smaller files for the same quality, or better quality for the same file size
      - ogg vorbis also supports gapless playback, something which was always a pain point for mp3

      >Also Wav's. Do they have any value? I believe it's Windows Audio V...format?
      it means "waveform audio file format", it's not an acronym, it's just the first bit of "waveform"
      it's an ancient container format (1991) and is really simple and easy to implement, while it does support some compressed formats, it's almost always just used as a header for pcm data so players don't need to be told what the pcm data is, which is what all containers do, but i mean with wav you can literally just prepend 44 bytes of metadata to pcm audio and there's your wav file, its age and widespread support makes it a good choice when you just need pcm in a more useful format

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can't hear a difference between mp3 and FLAC

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no one can. anons here pretend they can to justify the price of the products they buy or their autism

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        a/b compare mp3 to .wav, you're literally deaf if you can't hear the vast difference. I bet you think Trump won in 2020 too

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Quick QRD on that 44.1 <> 48kHz thing?

    First time I ever heard about it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      something something human ear can only hear 22000 frequencies, something something sin waves and fourier transforms means you have to store double that amount of samples to reconstruct the original wave something something computers like multiples of 8 and the closest multiple is 48kHz but some formats / encoders still just use 44.1kHz

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1. resampling doesn't affect sound quality to the point that you can tell a difference
      2. most devices will do it at playback time since most content is 48 khz already (games, movies, tv shows, youtube videos) and it makes more sense to resample music to 48 instead of resampling everything else at 44.1, also sound cards work best at 48 khz because it's easier to handle
      3. Opus only supports 48 khz because of point 2, which is a good thing as it does it at encode time instead of playback time (higher quality resampling + less battery drain during playback)

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *so much

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not an audiophile, but I've been the most amazed by opus in terms of size/quality balance. Kind of pisses me off that Tidal doesn't use it.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >people still say humans can't tell the difference between mp3 and FLAC
    >The human eye can only see 60hz
    >The human eye can only see 100ppi bro

    Those without sharp senses will just try to gaslight those with sharper senses, but I cannot understand WHY they feel the need to do this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      true dat

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The graph is so bullshit, holy shit. If anything, WAV can accurately reproduce the bottom one, while mp3 can't do it.
        Image for fricking morons.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        is not it a fake? should be perfectly opposite because most lossy encoding algos actually do the opposite and mostly look like low pass filters, not quant trash on the pic

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Comparing a very good quality lossy encode to FLAC is much different from comparing low and high refresh rate monitors.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Acksually, I can tell the difference between refresh rates but not Flac vs. 320Mp3.
        That is not my point at all. My point is that, at the very least, some people have strong enough sensory perception to see the difference in refresh rates and/or hear the difference between mp3 and FLAC. My point is that people have been saying forever that these various improvements are not perceptible, which is total bullshit. I can certainly hear 320mp3 vs. FLAC.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      true dat

      >The human ears can only hear 128 kbps bro

    • 2 weeks ago
      кaни

      >
      >

      true dat
      >>The human ears can only hear 128 kbps bro

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >only thing flac offers above a good mp3@320k is a narrow band above 20kHz despite having 3x the file size
    >my hearing limit is at 17.5kHz right now anyway (apparently very good for my age though)
    yet I still can't decide which format to keep files in. like I'm missing out on something by not keeping the flacs. is it autism?

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was obsolete for every codec in use since it's release

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    homosexuals out here buying fancy wall adapters because their mains isn't wavy enough lmaooooooo

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dead since opus
    also CD/FLAC

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Flac because free drive space.
    Wav is better because frick you

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >LOSSLESS enjoyer
    >Listens all the shit in FLAC because cheap space

    >LOSSY listener
    >Either listens everything in trash quality provided by name yet another spotify or listens every single track so specify the appropriate bitrate if not lossless for the track

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      post tests Black

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what tests are you talking bout?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          F I L T E R E D
          I
          L
          T
          E
          R
          E
          D

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has been obsolete since vorbis came out now we have opus and it's double obsolete.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ogg
    Frick this container format though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Frick this container format though.
      why

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        OGG is fricking awful. Seeking is the worst in OGG. Here's old rant that goes into all bad things:
        https://hardwarebug.org/2010/03/03/ogg-objections/

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a flac audio file is about 8 MB per minute, surely you can fit several hours worth of audio on a $15 64 GB sandisk micro SD you can buy at walmart.

    i'll never understand why mp3 still exists.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >several hours worth
      not enough
      >micro SD
      phones these days are 128 gb with no microsd card slot moron
      >i'll never understand why mp3 still exists
      because people are morons, Opus and aac is what non-morons use

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I use $20 PC speakers, my phones speakers or pixel buds (at the moment), my old cars default sound system, my TVs speakers, some $10 JVC 3.5mm earbuds and have bad hearing.

    FLAC is just bloat. I'll stick to MP3 because I'm deaf oldpoorgay.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lossless audio is the standard, as it allows you to preserve music without quality loss, and transcode it to whatever meme-format that's currently trendy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *