3 ms·
As of today, if I need to compress, I use M4A/ALAC. This article may have been appropriate >10 years ago. Most of the time I have good speakers and decently en
by vkaku 8y ago
As of today, if I need to compress, I use M4A/ALAC. This article may have been appropriate >10 years ago.
Most of the time I have good speakers and decently encoded sound, I do not have any real quibs.
- out_of_protocol 8y agoCheck out opus encoding - should be way better
- pizza234 8y agoThe available research is incomplete. The Opus "Comparison" cherry-picks the sub-128 kbps bitrates, where the format is evidently strong, but it doesn't include references for high-bitrate music compression. Actually, even their (partial) diagram hints that there is virtually no difference at over-160 kpbs bitrates. I'm struggling to find high-bitrate music compression (blind) listening tests lately in general; it seems that the internet crowd enthusiasm in the subject vanished in the last decade.
- ZoomZoomZoom 8y agoWhat do you mean by incomplete? What information do you lack? If you meant some tests of OPUS over 128kbps, then it's just there's no real need for it. Why would anyone want to add some 50-100% weight to your files for almost no audible increase in quality? In any case, lossy codecs are not meant for storage/critical listening. Lack of enthusiasm in publishing tests can probably be explained by the ease of performing ABX tests by yourself with your own gear and exact listening conditions you're aiming for.