5 ms·
Not really, if you take A/B/X test and realize modern codec can be transparent at low bitrate (e.g. opus@128kpbs)
by mayli 5y ago
Not really, if you take A/B/X test and realize modern codec can be transparent at low bitrate (e.g. opus@128kpbs)
- xxpor 5y agoopus didn't exist when people were worried about 10 gb iPods
- RealStickman_ 5y agoAnd also can't be played on said ipods.
- fomine3 4y agoBut AAC than MP3?
- folkrav 4y agoIn all fairness, it wasn't that long ago Apple were still selling iPod Touch with 8GB base storage, having tons of storage is a relatively new thing for most people. But with that specific 10GB metric, I'd assume we're speaking about those earlier scrollwheel iPods.
- bscphil 5y agoOP specified reencoding, which probably means converting lossy to lossy. Despite the fact that modern codecs (and even mp3, LAME is transparent at V2~192kbps for most tracks and everything except killer samples at V0~256kbps) are generally very transparent at low bitrates, the same guarantee does not apply when encoding lossy to lossy. Think about it, if transparency guarantees applied for lossy transcodes, you could encode mp3 -> mp3 thousands for times with no generational loss. This clearly isn't possible. Of course, you could rip all your files again in a better codec, but the time required to do that is pretty intense.
- lxgr 5y ago> if transparency guarantees applied for lossy transcodes, you could encode mp3 -> mp3 thousands for times with no generational loss That's not really a counterexample for the idea that one pass of lossy -> lossy reencoding doesn't necessarily mean certain doom for audio quality.
- copperx 5y agoWhen Apple reencoded its music library, you didn't assume lossy to lossy, did you?