Talk about a dinosaur codec. Rippers should use a better codec if they're going to release lossy soundtracks. Vorbis, opus or even AAC with a high quality encoder like qaac.
Printable View
Talk about a dinosaur codec. Rippers should use a better codec if they're going to release lossy soundtracks. Vorbis, opus or even AAC with a high quality encoder like qaac.
Quack quack? :quacko:
flac is the best
None of those will play on my car stereo. If you're going to use a substandard format there's zero sense in diverging from the format that's actually useable.
Every time I've accidentally downloaded acc's or whatever, I just promptly delete them. I'm not going to waste my time re:encoding a lossy format into another lossy format. And if I'm going to have a album that only plays on my PC, why wouldn't I just get flac?
Yeah, no. MP3 is an accepted format. Look at the problems MKV causes for video...
Also as Ragnar added it's the most compatible format, I know there are better quality codecs but if I lose a little bit in size to compensate in quality I don't mind that much, or even if the codec snips a little bit of the file and there's a slight decrease in quality I'll accept it. Also, I have no choice when some music I want is hard to find.
I got one discography in .FLAC format and honestly I couldn't notice the quality difference, perhaps my headphones or computer setup weren't good enough but they seemed similar to me.
Also bitrate plays a part as well. Too low and you get weird audio artifacts. One of the points was to save space which of course was more relevant in the nineties than it is today with hard drive space having exponentially grown. The idea was to cut certain audio algorithms which the human ear couldn't detect anyways. A decently high bitrate mp3 should be in theory be no different than the music from the cd it was printed on. Personally I don't notice any difference. I suppose if someone spent thousands on a home stereo setup then maybe you could. This whole thing just seems like quibbling to me. If the op has great hearing and can tell the difference then by all means use so called better formats.
MKV is fine what are you talking about?
Could depend on the rips too but yeah your equipment definitely matters. I upgraded heaphones recently (paid too much money :booger: ) and I definitely notice a difference between flac and mp3s or....God forbid wmas.
But yeah, like Ragnar said people upload to MP3 because it plays nicer with a lot of things.
320k MP3 vs lossless is going to be negligible for most people even on a good quality setup. Some music I feel I can tell a difference with, some I can't. There's a touch of high frequency roll off and you may lose some dynamics and stereo separation, but unless you have good equipment, are A'Bing obsessively and know what to listen for you're unlikely to notice. And even then I often suspect it's a placebo, especially when so much music is loudness war'd to shit and mastered with lossy formats in mind these days anyway.
Arguing one lossy format is better than another strikes me as silly, assuming of course we're talking about high bitrate rips. If we're talking low bitrate the quality issue is moot anyway. In both scenarios though it makes sense to go with the most compatible option. That's probably always going to be MP3 with AAC a distant second.
Besides, flac won't play on my 8 track.
My phonograph playeth yon flac :ignore:
:wacko:
Also it's amazing how we can argue something just for the sake of arguing :P
Funny. I feel the same about mp3s. I avoid them like the plague.
Accepted by whom?
I was playing mkvs just fine in an old bluray player from 5 years ago.
Maybe we should go back to 8 bit wavs for broader compatibility?
Then go ahead and rip lossless, instead. There's little point in bloating up a lossy file size in a poor codec.
If a file is being ripped lossy, it's due to size considerations. If that's the case, rip it smaller and higher quality by using a better codec.
All of my rips are in mp3. If you don't want them, don't download them. Why mp3? Because I have an mp3 player.
And for your information, I do also play 8 bit tracks on my Toshiba libretto with built in Yamaha opl3.
Bloop!
No it isn't. I re:encode every flac album I get into mp3, and keep both encodes. Mp3's will play on *EVERY* device I have. Every device I have can use removable memory, which is so cheap it's virtually unlimited. I have a sealed 32GB MicroSD card sitting in my desk right now, because I don't even need it.
Literally the first "mp3 player" that came up on amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...d_i=1264866011
It supports:
1. .AA (audible)
2. FLAC
3. MP3
4. Ogg Vorbis
5. WAV
6. WMA
7. WMA (secure)
If you have devices that only support mp3, then you have odd/old devices. It certainly doesn't represent the majority of devices out there.
Thanks for shopping with us today. Don't forget your receipt.
Ask the next person on the street what files they load onto their music device. It will not be an OGG.
And to answer your question, I use an 8GB zune from 2007 cause yeah. :wacko:
I'm pretty sure 'the next person on the street' wouldn't know their hole from an ass in the ground, when it comes to codec technology. iPods are still the most popular, dedicated PMPs and they have always supported aac. In fact, aac is the default codec that itunes rips to. They are not using mp3 for a reason.
Apart from that, at this point android phones are probably the most used devices to play music portably, by far, and they support aac and vorbis.
Even those supported aac.Quote:
And to answer your question, I use an 8GB zune from 2007 cause yeah. :wacko:
Why are people still using CD (or much worse; compressed digital formats) instead of SACD or DVD-Audio?
Why would they use them? There is no discernible difference to human ears between SACD/DVD-Audio and CDs.
Their only advantage might be the capacity to deliver surround sound, but how many people have surround sound systems?
But physical media for music release as a whole is a waste of space and plastic, including CDs. Lossless digital encodes should be preferred.
Lolololololol
You just nailed your own coffin on that one! :wacko:
Kudos to Dead!!! :top:
Nobody has said only. We've said mp3 works on everything, because it does. Nobody would even bother bringing a device to market without mp3 support.
Feel free to look at Amazon and find us a music player that doesn't support mp3.
And you don't seem to be aware what that reason is. Here's a hint, it doesn't have anything to do with quality.
Spoiler warning:
Ninja Ragnar stole my bike.
The same could be said about wav. In fact, if we're going for the absolute widest user base, wav should be the choice, because I'm sure someone out there is still rocking a 486 PC, not to mention all the flip phones from 15 years ago.
That's really not the point.
If it doesn't have anything to do with quality, then why does aac (encoded with the better encoders) consistently rank high in listening tests? Do you think apple wants the audio format it uses to be known as low quality?Quote:
And you don't seem to be aware what that reason is. Here's a hint, it doesn't have anything to do with quality.
Spoiler warning:
They don't. Of course patents contributed to their choice, but so did codec quality.
That Apple audio originally had DRM iirc. Look, it's all shit just accept it and move on.
MP3s are what are easily available everywhere. It's a chicken and egg problem. Rippers will favor other formats if people demand it. People will favor other formats if they are widely available.
Did someone say eggs? Now I need my toast question answered.
Buy cds, rip them, sell them. Or just buy them digitally. Or download mp3s here for free. Your choice.
Because not all of us are audiophiles who think we can hear stuff that is physically impossible.
I just wanted to point and laugh at you guys for seemingly caring about the sound quality of your music. It'd only make it easier to tell that the guitars are out of tune, ya pop-strings!
So Nick, what I don't quite understand: you hatred of MP3s, is it because you really think that AAC sounds so much better or is it more of an academical thing here? Because if it's about whining for the sake of whining I'll totally hop aboard with you. I still won't give a shit about this here question, mind you, but I'll totally nod my head, go "good man" etc etc. :nod:
Also, you guys are needlessly mean. I can totally dig it.
I'm too lazy to iron all my clothes but those little marks clothes pegs leave really bother me >.>
I'm not going to lie and say that the regressiveness and people's unwillingness to change that mp3 represents have nothing to do with it, but another issue is wastefulness. It is a comparatively inefficient audio codec. If people are unwilling to do the easiest thing, with added benefits in favor of less waste, that leaves us with poor prospects as a society. I'm not saying an audio codec is particularly important compared to other issues like global warming, but it is what it is.
So if you wanted a deeper answer, there you have it. But the important bit is that mp3 is not a good codec to be using in 2015.
And I never said I prefer aac, only that it's better than mp3. Pretty much any modern, lossy audio codec is better than mp3. Vorbis and AAC just happen to be mainstream enough to be viable choices. Opus is on the horizon and beats them both.
DRM can be placed on a lot of things. AAC just happened to support it as a feature. I'm the farthest thing from an apple fanboy, in fact I hate apple's practices. Either way, DRM audio files seem to be a thing of the past.
To be honest for years I have been using 320kbs MP3s and I was totally fine with it.
But since a few weeks I got a pair of high end speakers and build myself a Volumio network audio player with a Raspberry Pi and a hifiberry DAC+.
When I listen to Flac or 24bit content I can hear a clear difference in acoustical music like Jazz, Flamenco and so on.
But when I listen to normal pop music I can not hear a real difference due to how theses songs are mastered in the Studio with hardly any dynamic.
Even with most of my Tech-House and Minimal-Techno I can not hear a big difference.
A great song for testing my audio gear and the quality of different codecs for me has been Privat Investigation by Dire Straits.
So in the end it all comes down to your audio equipment and the style of music that you listen to.
mp3 works on my phone, PC, mp3 player, PSP, and NDS. AAC is arguably a better codec, but everything comes in mp3 anyway. I'm used to mp3, and there really isn't a big difference. I think your argument about being lazy as a society (and comparing it to global warming etc.) is deeply flawed, as the priority of what codec I listen my music in is different on something large scale like global warming or war. I do hate the fact that so little people care about (or even know about) those subjects, but I don't really care what format people listen their music in. If you really care so much then by all means get your music lossless and then encode into your codec of choice. I'd totally do so if I cared enough.