this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
455 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

61989 readers
4341 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 hours ago

I 100% do. I think mp3 is a good compromise of sound and space. It's also the format I'm used to. Just like how people swear by physical record. If I'm at a get together and hear mp3 quality, I'm at home.

That being said, I have my absolute favorites in flac for my iPod 5th gen video I rebuilt. The 5th gen's dac, Wolfson, is a solid little dac for the day and age. Got Rockbox loaded up and I'm ace, but I've hard saved all the Apple firmware for every model in case the time came to sell them. Old iPods could be an investment someday and I own every gen in multiples.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago

Still care about MP3- it's the bog standard, the thing EVERYthing supports. Like the shitty SBC codec on Bluetooth. I've still got tons of MP3s and they aren't going away anytime soon.

Everything I get new though is high-res FLAC.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago

Ogg at lower bitrates sounded better than mp3 at the same rate. Consumers dont care, but for a lot of game developers the zero patent risk and higher quality shipping with smaller files made Ogg a great choice at the time.

For me? FLACs are the only way.... which reminds me, I wonder I can still convert all the SHN (shorten) lossless files I still have. I should get on that before a converter doesn't exist.

[–] aceshigh 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

… I’m out of the loop. Why don’t people care about mp3s?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Its mostly been superseded by AAC, Opus and FLAC.

[–] aceshigh 8 points 3 hours ago

Mhmm I haven’t heard of the first two. I still listen to mp3s that I got from the 90s.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee 22 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I have thousands of mp3s so I'd say they still matter. As far as audio quality goes I doubt my ears, at least at my age, can tell the difference between them and a lossless format.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Anyone telling you they can hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and lossless audio is full of shit, anyway. It's still a great format for keeping file sizes small, though I prefer ogg these days.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm in the same boat: can't hear any difference.

But, I have GBs of 320k MP3s... is it worth converting to Ogg ?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

I'm a big fan ogg opus, but I wouldn't convert between lossy formats

[–] LovableSidekick 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

I listen to mp3 all the time. Back in the Napster days I collected a ton of music, but moreover I'm a fan of Old Time Radio from the 30s and 40s, so I accumulated around 10,000 of those shows. More than I'll ever have time to listen to. Audiophiles may deride the quality level, but I don't believe in letting perfection be the enemy of good. And even if "computers" - whatever that even means anymore lol - drop support for mp3, there will always be software that plays it as long as there are people with big collections of files they don't want to take the trouble to convert to something else.

[–] aliceblossom 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That sounds fascinating. If I were interested in those shows, where would I start? Are there at least some that are easily listenable to on the open internet?

[–] QuarterSwede 3 points 4 hours ago

Check out the many OTR Gold podcasts that have the serialized shows as episodes.

[–] agent_nycto 6 points 10 hours ago

I freaking love old time radio, that stuff is great!

[–] flop_leash_973 7 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

There might be things that are better these days in the technical sense. But there is always value in having something "good enough" that is freely available and compatible with nearly everything that has speakers to use to keep those technically better yet more expensive options in check.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah it works. What's the deal? You've got mp3s and then you got flac if you're audiophile.

[–] Valmond 10 points 12 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Usually_Lurker 4 points 5 hours ago

240 VBR was the sweet spot when drive space was expensive. Now I use flac lossless for things I care about.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Might be a controversial opinion but I don’t think there’s a discernible difference between 320kbps mp3s and FLACs, and one of them takes up a fraction of the storage space. I have a pair of “audiophile” headphones and I can’t tell between them at all.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee 6 points 10 hours ago

Yes. People forget that regardless of the technical differences between them ultimately it is your ears that have to listen to them and I doubt the average person can really tell the difference.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

It's useful because it's ubiquitous. Everything that can take in music files supports it.

Is MP3-encoded audio of the best possible quality? No, of course not. But for most people it's Good Enough, especially if you do most of your listening in a noisy environment. MP3s are to lossless formats what CD was to vinyl for so many years.

[–] bokherif 26 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

A lot of people cant tell the difference between MP3 @320Kbps and a fully lossless FLAC.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 14 hours ago

All people. 320kbps mp3 is completely audibly transparent under all normal listening conditions. It's a low-tier audiophile meme to claim otherwise but they will never pass a double-blind test.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] hogmomma 9 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

From what I understand, vinyl and CDs can both output in a range greater than human ears can detect, so the medium isn't as important as the mastering and the gear being used to listen to the recording.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303

[–] SquiffSquiff 2 points 1 hour ago

This is what we were all told for years and years- that it was impossible that anyone could hear anything in vinyl that was supposed to be there but that couldn't be reproduced with digital at cd quality. Then DVD came out And people could genuinely hear the difference from CD quality audio even in stereo. It turns out that dynamic range is limited by the audio sampling rate and the human ear can easily detect a far greater range CD audio supports.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

CDs can, by a very narrow margin, reproduce sounds beyond which the human ear can detect. There's a theorem that states you can perfectly reproduce a waveform by sampling if the bitrate is double the maximum frequency or something like that, and CDs use a bitrate such that it can produce just above the human hearing range. You can't record an ultrasonic dog whistle on a CD, it won't work.

It's functionally impossible to improve on "red book" CD Digital Audio quality because it can perfectly replicate any waveform that has been band-passed filtered to 20,000 Hz or thereabouts. Maybe you can talk about dynamic range or multi-channel (CDs are exactly stereo. No mono, no 5.1 surround...Stereo.) It's why there really hasn't been a new disc format; no one needs one. It was as good as the human ear can do in the early 80's and still is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

The Nyquist limit?

You need sampling at twice the frequency as a minimum to extract a time domain signal into the frequency domain. It says nothing about "perfect" especially when you're listening in the time domain.

There is a lot of data in the time domain that impacts sound/signal quality. As others have said though, it probably doesn't matter without high quality equipment and a good ear.

It's also good to note that you can train your hearing. A musician or producer or audiophile are going to hear things and qualities you don't. It's edge cases though, and generally irrelevant to regular listening.

You definitely can hear the difference between MP3 320 and lower mp3 bitrates though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Vinyl is lossy in that any dust or scratches on the record can be heard in the output, so this is only true if you've got an absolutely pristine vinyl.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thechaoticchicken 31 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

Sounds fine at good bitrates, universally supported, small, efficient, everywhere.

Yeah, MP3 is just fine. Found zero reason to use any other format. And of course, while the rest of the world streams everything I'll be happily using my massive MP3 library I can fit on a tiny little storage device and take everywhere I go without the need for the interbutts and big brother keeping tabs of what I listen to.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TankovayaDiviziya 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I use m4a format simply because my downloader uses that format. But I think m4a sound quality is better than mp3.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

m4a

That's mp4, which is 33% better than mp3 /j

load more comments
view more: next ›