Re: Lossy audio between 200kbs and lossless, what use value is still there?
Reply #22 – 2022-10-08 21:51:12
I tend to be of the general mindset that with lossy audio it's largely about using roughly smallest file size while still maintaining a high enough level of overall sound quality when just sitting back and enjoying ones music and in this regard I generally default to the following (which should be pretty good minimal starting points for most people in general in my estimations)...
-MP3 = V5 (130kbps). based on public listening tests I am willing to bet most people would struggle to notice a difference here when just sitting back and enjoying their music on a typical set of speakers/headphones and the like. -AAC(AAC-LC) = 96kbps. while TVBR is the default, if someone wants to sacrifice a little storage space for 'maybe' a hair better sound quality, then CVBR is probably a bit safer, especially since 96kbps is pretty much a safe minimum for AAC-LC if you ask me. so by using CVBR it can help force the bit rate a bit higher on average over TVBR, which makes it a touch safer/less risky. -Opus = 64kbps. while 96kbps etc is still a good option, I feel at that point one is better off using AAC due to near-universal compatibility and once you get around 128kbps/130kbps on up, a person is probably better off with MP3 for universal compatibility. that's why if someone is going to use Opus, I feel 64kbps is a pretty good all-around setting and gives it a worthwhile advantage (in file size) over MP3/AAC. like I would say it's plausible that Opus @ 64kbps ain't much different than MP3 @ V5 (130kbps) to where I am fairly confident if someone is happy with MP3 @ V5, they will probably think Opus @ 64kbps is good enough to. because I feel of someone is THAT picky on sound quality were they throw a excess bit rate at it to clean up what is likely a pretty small difference overall, they are better off going straight to lossless (FLAC etc) because the whole point of lossy is to get a large enough portion of the overall sound quality at the lowest file size. I never understood those who use MP3 at 320kbps CBR as it's pretty much a waste of storage space when something around V2 (190kbps) is probably roughly as good but is much more efficient. even if there are some improvements, it's got to be so small that it definitely don't justify the loss in efficiency. And streaming services have their own specific needs too, like avoiding complaints about the lack of high frequencies in spectrograms. Yeah, it's amazing you see people complain about 'visual' on something like audio as visuals mean absolutely nothing as you already know as it's all about whether a person can actually hear a difference or not. Since the purpose of music is to bring enjoyment to the humans who listen to it, and humans can't hear above 20 kHz, 16/44.1 is indeed a perfect representation of the relevant information. Exactly. because standard audio CD's (or equivalent) already exceed human hearing so it's pointless to increase any further on standard stereo sound. which is why I think it's pretty much totally pointless for people to want those "HD" audio files at higher settings as all it does is waste storage space for no real world gains. that's why it's not really possible to improve on what we have had for pretty much 40 years now (i.e. standard audio CD format) as it topped out and that's that as there is no point in striving for 'better'. that's why I never understand why some people dump a ton of money on sound equipment as once you reach a certain point, differences likely become pretty small at that point to where it definitely don't justify spending a boat-load of money for such small gains (if any gains). like someone who spends hundreds of dollars tops (like less than $1k and I suspect even half of that tops will get your something well more than good enough) is probably very similar to those who spend thousands or more. even if I had money to burn, I still don't think I would spend beyond a reasonable figure just on principle. p.s. hell, even visual stuff with TV's, which is easier to notice differences... even here I think things are pretty much at the point for a while now to where you can get a pretty strong TV at a fairly big size for not much money. so those spending a lot of money on a TV, it's probably not much better (even if it is on some level it's probably just smaller differences (like small differences in color etc) and probably largely comes back to personal preference) for double or triple the price etc.