hell, even 64kbps is a viable option for many people since it's in the ball park of MP3 LAME V5 (130kbps average) which is good enough for many people. FLAC etc) since the whole point of lossy audio is to get the smallest file size while maintaining a high enough level of sound quality and in this regard it's hard to go wrong with Opus 96kbps or 128kbps. or if someone is THAT concerned with perfection, you might as well switch to a lossless format (i.e. 96kbps or 128kbps (especially with Opus) is probably more than enough for most people, if not the vast majority of people when just sitting back and listening to their music straight up. LAME V2 (190kbps average)), as shown in IgorC's test from Oct 2020, gives high quality sound overall lacking 'maybe' a couple of samples or so. I am of the mindset if someone is going to use any higher than 96kbps or 128kbps you might as well just jump to 192kbps range and forget about it as it seems like once people are in this 192kbps range or so, it does not really matter which lossy format you choose as they are all close enough to each other overall. I think you sort of answered your own question as if your concerned with perfection then 192kbps is the safer option even though 160kbps is probably minimally worse and is a bit more efficient. īecause for someone who's concerned with getting peak sound quality with Opus, but without pegging the bitrate ridiculously high and defeating the purpose of using a lossy format in the first place, 192kbps seems to be what you probably want. Given what the OP said, 192kbps is likely what you want to use given this listening test from Oct 2020 from IgorC as every single sample he tested was a perfect 5.00. You'll save a lot of space and I doubt you'll regret it. It's not absolutely perfect but nothing is (it's the exact meaning of lossy). You want to make a smart use of modern lossy encoders like OPUS? 160 kbps is really fine. So my question is: WavPack lossy or LossyFLAC? And in this case, I see many people recommanding to go up to 380 kbps if not more.Īt the end, you stay with your FLAC library untouched. But now I'm not even sure to use perceptual lossy encoder anymore. But what about using 220 kbps to reduce further the risk: it's only 15% bigger? Finally, doesn't 256 kbps provide a better safety margin? Oh wait, I found a topic and someone was able to ABX one sample at 256 kbps: shit, I now really think it's better to maintain at least 320 kbps. 160 kbps is fine but 192 mathematically reduces the risk. There is an inflationary pressure at the exact moment you want to replace lossless by lossy and ask to avoid all possible risk of hearing slight artifacts on exceptional case, or minor differences under extreme listening conditions. Quote I'm not really worried about what is likely a minor space saving difference between 160 or 192kbps, so if it might be worth it from an audio quality perspective to use 192kbps, even if it's only worth it in rare cases, I might go with that just to be on the safe side.Be careful, here is exactly where begins the slippery slope. I'm not really worried about what is likely a minor space saving difference between 160 or 192kbps, so if it might be worth it from an audio quality perspective to use 192kbps, even if it's only worth it in rare cases, I might go with that just to be on the safe side. I've read more than once certain people's opinion that you should just use 192kbps to ensure optimal quality under all conditions. I've mainly written this post because I want to get an up-to-date set of opinions from people. This is one of the main links I've used to help decide on this range (160 to 192kbps) for converting my files: So far I'm thinking maybe 160kbps is enough to ensure universal transparency across all music (perhaps some "killer samples" excluded), but before I start converting my FLACs, I wanted to make sure there's no advantage to converting to 192kbps in Opus (or perhaps even higher). From what I've read Opus has improved over time, in the sense that 128kbps and higher were relatively easy to spot as not transparent when only earlier versions of Opus were available, but for some number of years even lower bitrates have been considered transparent to many people for most music. So I think I've read most of the information available regarding people's opinions (here and elsewhere on the internet) going back as far as probably 2011 to today.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |