11 ms·

I'm a longtime OGG Vorbis user and upgrading everything to Opus. From the FAQ: Does Opus make all those other lossy codecs obsolete? Yes. From a technical poin

by jph 10y ago

I'm a longtime OGG Vorbis user and upgrading everything to Opus. From the FAQ: Does Opus make all those other lossy codecs obsolete? Yes. From a technical point of view (loss, delay, bitrates, ...) Opus renders Speex obsolete and should also replace Vorbis and the common proprietary codecs too (e.g. AAC, MP3, ...).

theandrewbailey 10y ago
If you're going through all your music and converting everything to Opus, don't. It's another lossy codec and you will lose more sound quality (it will sound worse). Keep what you have. If you're really concerned over sound quality: use something lossless, like FLAC. If you're concerned over space: storage is insanely cheap, and is getting cheaper.
- dangravell 10y ago
  Sensible advice, but "user" of OGG doesn't mean "I store my gold music library" in OGG. My gold library is in FLAC but I transcode to MP3 using mp3fs for various uses.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > If you're concerned over space: storage is insanely cheap, and is getting cheaper. Depends on the storage context. If you want to carry a significant fraction of your music collection on a phone, lossless is not an option. Lossless is what I use for my main storage (a machine with a dozen terabytes-worth of spinning rust), but the music is converted to lossy before being synced to my laptop and phone, and I'd rather have lossy files in these contexts (whose output quality isn't exactly top-of-the-line anyway) than having to juggle external drives. In that context, converting the lossy versions of the library to OPUS (with master files remaining lossless) makes perfect sense.
  - mikevm 10y ago
    I just use Subsonic to transcode on-the-fly and stream my FLAC files. On iOS there's play:Sub and on Android there's DSub.
    - RX14 10y ago
      That is assuming that you don't want your music available offline and you have enough data allowance. Which is not true for many people.
- nwah1 10y ago
  Some people keep both lossless and lossy copies around. It makes sense to have lossless backups on a cheap storage medium, and only carry around lossy versions on your phone. And switching to Opus for your lossy version would make a lot of sense if you're currently using an inferior format.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  The optimal solution is probably lossless for archival, lossy for portable playback. I ripped my whole CD collection to FLAC and gave away the CDs. Now if I want to try something like Opus I can easily re-rip from FLAC. As you hint at, you shouldn't rip from lossy, that makes no sense.
- rmk2 10y ago
  He probably doesn't mean that he is simply reencoding his already lossy OGG files with OPUS.
- klodolph 10y ago
  I'm sick of the "storage is insanely cheap" refrain from FLAC proponents. CDs are 1400 Kbit/s and FLAC might be half that at 700 Kbit/s. I have 50 GB or so of music at 260 Kbit/s AAC. If I were to use FLAC instead, I would need 140 GB of storage. Practically speaking, for a MacBook this means going to the 512 GB storage model instead of the 256 GB storage model, which is an extra $300. For my desktop, this means either dropping $200 on another SSD or going with rotational storage for my music library. For my phone, this means downsizing my library by an additional 60%, and I have already had to trim a lot of music out. Or I could buy another phone and spend $200 to get a model with enough storage for me. (Streaming to the phone is not always an option. I spend time in areas without reception.) However, since the difference between FLAC and 260 Kbit/s AAC is imperceptible to us mere mortals, I can spend my $500-700 on something more interesting than "insanely cheap storage", and I get to enjoy my music. Yes, let's not have people transcode music needlessly. But stop saying that "storage is insanely cheap" because cheap storage isn't portable. FLAC is great for archiving music but that's not something that I do. I don't archive music. I listen to it.
  - gglitch 10y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but as someone else who's also feeling the sting of having a small built-in HD on my mbp, I can point out that 256G thumb drives are like $60 right now. "Insanely cheap" is of course relative, but I'm not going to call that prohibitive.
    - Aldo_MX 10y ago
      Friendly reminder that not everyone lives in a developed country. $60 (+shipping+taxes+customs+middlemen) can be really prohibitive in a non-developed country.
      - haimez 10y ago
        I think you'd have a bigger problem with the MacBook part of your equation there.
      - barkingcat 10y ago
- shmerl 10y ago
  >If you're going through all your music and converting everything to Opus, don't. It's another lossy codec and you will lose more sound quality (it will sound worse). Keep what you have. If you're really concerned over sound quality: use something lossless, like FLAC. I'm buying music in FLAC, and store it as master copy. Then I convert it to Opus for actual playback. If better free codec will come out, I'll do the same thing, using FLAC as a source. So FLAC has its usage.
- golergka 10y ago
  > you will lose more sound quality (it will sound worse) If you want good sound, treat your room. Then buy _good_ speakers or headphones. Then buy a good sound interface. And only after that should you start worrying about signal qualities above 320kbps mp3. Given as majority of people don't actually hear the difference form the first of these steps, advice about flac is only relevant to a really small amount of people, who are not only capable of hearing the difference, but also have gone through all previous steps.

by jph 10y ago

theandrewbailey 10y ago

If you're going through all your music and converting everything to Opus, don't. It's another lossy codec and you will lose more sound quality (it will sound worse). Keep what you have. If you're really concerned over sound quality: use something lossless, like FLAC. If you're concerned over space: storage is insanely cheap, and is getting cheaper.

dangravell 10y ago
Sensible advice, but "user" of OGG doesn't mean "I store my gold music library" in OGG. My gold library is in FLAC but I transcode to MP3 using mp3fs for various uses.
masklinn 10y ago
> If you're concerned over space: storage is insanely cheap, and is getting cheaper. Depends on the storage context. If you want to carry a significant fraction of your music collection on a phone, lossless is not an option. Lossless is what I use for my main storage (a machine with a dozen terabytes-worth of spinning rust), but the music is converted to lossy before being synced to my laptop and phone, and I'd rather have lossy files in these contexts (whose output quality isn't exactly top-of-the-line anyway) than having to juggle external drives. In that context, converting the lossy versions of the library to OPUS (with master files remaining lossless) makes perfect sense.
- mikevm 10y ago
  I just use Subsonic to transcode on-the-fly and stream my FLAC files. On iOS there's play:Sub and on Android there's DSub.
  - RX14 10y ago
    That is assuming that you don't want your music available offline and you have enough data allowance. Which is not true for many people.
nwah1 10y ago
Some people keep both lossless and lossy copies around. It makes sense to have lossless backups on a cheap storage medium, and only carry around lossy versions on your phone. And switching to Opus for your lossy version would make a lot of sense if you're currently using an inferior format.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
The optimal solution is probably lossless for archival, lossy for portable playback. I ripped my whole CD collection to FLAC and gave away the CDs. Now if I want to try something like Opus I can easily re-rip from FLAC. As you hint at, you shouldn't rip from lossy, that makes no sense.
rmk2 10y ago
He probably doesn't mean that he is simply reencoding his already lossy OGG files with OPUS.
klodolph 10y ago
I'm sick of the "storage is insanely cheap" refrain from FLAC proponents. CDs are 1400 Kbit/s and FLAC might be half that at 700 Kbit/s. I have 50 GB or so of music at 260 Kbit/s AAC. If I were to use FLAC instead, I would need 140 GB of storage. Practically speaking, for a MacBook this means going to the 512 GB storage model instead of the 256 GB storage model, which is an extra $300. For my desktop, this means either dropping $200 on another SSD or going with rotational storage for my music library. For my phone, this means downsizing my library by an additional 60%, and I have already had to trim a lot of music out. Or I could buy another phone and spend $200 to get a model with enough storage for me. (Streaming to the phone is not always an option. I spend time in areas without reception.) However, since the difference between FLAC and 260 Kbit/s AAC is imperceptible to us mere mortals, I can spend my $500-700 on something more interesting than "insanely cheap storage", and I get to enjoy my music. Yes, let's not have people transcode music needlessly. But stop saying that "storage is insanely cheap" because cheap storage isn't portable. FLAC is great for archiving music but that's not something that I do. I don't archive music. I listen to it.
- gglitch 10y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, but as someone else who's also feeling the sting of having a small built-in HD on my mbp, I can point out that 256G thumb drives are like $60 right now. "Insanely cheap" is of course relative, but I'm not going to call that prohibitive.
  - Aldo_MX 10y ago
    Friendly reminder that not everyone lives in a developed country. $60 (+shipping+taxes+customs+middlemen) can be really prohibitive in a non-developed country.
    - haimez 10y ago
      I think you'd have a bigger problem with the MacBook part of your equation there.
    - barkingcat 10y ago
shmerl 10y ago
>If you're going through all your music and converting everything to Opus, don't. It's another lossy codec and you will lose more sound quality (it will sound worse). Keep what you have. If you're really concerned over sound quality: use something lossless, like FLAC. I'm buying music in FLAC, and store it as master copy. Then I convert it to Opus for actual playback. If better free codec will come out, I'll do the same thing, using FLAC as a source. So FLAC has its usage.
golergka 10y ago
> you will lose more sound quality (it will sound worse) If you want good sound, treat your room. Then buy _good_ speakers or headphones. Then buy a good sound interface. And only after that should you start worrying about signal qualities above 320kbps mp3. Given as majority of people don't actually hear the difference form the first of these steps, advice about flac is only relevant to a really small amount of people, who are not only capable of hearing the difference, but also have gone through all previous steps.