• twistedtxb@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    1 year ago

    Much like GIFs, MP3s will never go away.

    Sure there are better alternatives, but widespread adoption over decades now is hard to gloss over.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not being encumbered by patents is a huge advantage for MP3s going forward, and the reality is that MP3 is good enough for vast majority of situations. The improvements newer formats like AAC bring are not worth the trouble of being chained to a proprietary format.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was a flac snob when I was younger, and I can say with certainty: 320kbps mp3s or even VBR are indistinguishable from opus or even lossless except when listening very very very closely on high end hardware. I'm very into audio still and production etc. That's not to say opus isn't better or higher quality, but the difference it makes is decidedly negligible to the vast majority of listeners. I guarantee that almost everyone would fail to do better than a coin flip a/b testing these technologies on the same audio recording.

              • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                192kbps opus will allow you to achieve roughly the same quality as 320kbps mp3. If you stream your music from any device or have a larger collection this difference can matter a lot.

              • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                As a music producer, you notice 192k MP3. The next jumps you probably don't notice. I'm still a flac snob because I have to work a lot with original quality files, but for the average users there's probably not even a difference between MP3 192k+ and flac or wav or opus or whatever.

    • venusenvy47@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same with H264. I still have trouble getting H265 videos to play on all devices, so it's easier to stay with 264.

      • Izzy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is considered a high bitrate? There isn't much reason to go higher than 320 kb/s on an mp3.

        • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I'm not sure you can go more than 320kb/s on mp3. I have my music collection on my home server in FLAC but I transcode to 320kbps constant bitrate mp3 for my car and phone. I chose 320 because it's the highest that I've seen mp3 converters able to go.

          • Izzy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good point. I guess there is a reason that is the highest setting.

      • SatyrSack@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Basically it goes a little like this… I bounce out a song as a WAV, and then convert it to a 320 MP3 using iTunes. iTunes compresses very well (imo), and so if you compare that WAV with that 320, they will sound practically identical. I then take that 320 and Convert it to 128 in iTunes. The sound is STILL practically identical. (Because it is a good 128.) There may be a little rolloff around 8-10k (super high end) but it's more of a "sound change" than a "degradation". This conception that 128's are drastically inferior to 320's mostly comes from 1. people reading bullshit on the internet, & 2. people downloading BAD 128's!!! Seriously. Not every WAV is equal, not every 320 is equal. I could take something at 92 KBPS and rebounce it as a WAV. does that make it a lossless audio file? Fuck no. Who knows how many times it' been downconverted/upconverted etc. Just because you downloaded a rip on /xtrill and its a 128 and it sounds bad doesn't mean 128's sound bad. Just because the apple I bought was rotten doesn't mean all apples taste awful. Basically if I listen to a song and it sounds good, I will play it. People knock me for playing 128's and I'm just like… If I can't tell the difference, then neither can you. And the bit about playing it on big systems and it sounding like shit is also a load of crap. TL;DR: If it sounds good on good headphones, play it. (That said, anything below 128 and you will notice audio quality deteriorate VERY quickly.)

    • RelativeArea0@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As someone who grew up with mp3 and is currently replacing it with opus, o7

      (IK theres flac, but bruh…storage is expensive and my equipment isn't like state of the art)

      • sobuddywhoneedsyou@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did the same. Faced a problem where mp3 and opus replaygain tags follow different spec (replaygain calculators for some reason use R128_ tags for opus files for some reason) and some players don't support it yet. Apart from that there haven't been issues.