Why are people still using MP3?

[Nick Naim]

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.

[Inferno.]

Quack quack?

[toxic]

flac is the best

[Ragnar]

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.

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?

[Sprung]

Yeah, no. MP3 is an accepted format. Look at the problems MKV causes for video...

[Tassadar]

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.

[Zaladane]

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.

[Gypsy]

Yeah, no. MP3 is an accepted format. Look at the problems MKV causes for video...

MKV is fine what are you talking about?

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.

Could depend on the rips too but yeah your equipment definitely matters. I upgraded heaphones recently (paid too much money ) 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.

[Cosmic]

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.

[Ktiger41]

320k MP3 vs lossless is going to be negligible for most people even on a good quality setup.

This right here. It's the limitations of the human ear.

The space difference between .mp3 and .flac is noticeable on most albums, so I tend to favor MP3 for compatibility and the human ear just can't detect it. Also, I have 90's hard drive space mentality.

[Sprung]

Besides, flac won't play on my 8 track.

[Zaladane]

My phonograph playeth yon flac




Also it's amazing how we can argue something just for the sake of arguing

[Nick Naim]

Every time I've accidentally downloaded acc's or whatever, I just promptly delete them.

Funny. I feel the same about mp3s. I avoid them like the plague.

Yeah, no. MP3 is an accepted format. Look at the problems MKV causes for video...

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?

320k MP3 vs lossless is going to be negligible for most people even on a good quality setup.

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.

[Jazzmarazz]

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.

[Zaladane]

Bloop!