Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-17 15:34:28

Quote from: genuine on 2024-11-17 14:39:47

128 kbps may be enough for you. But it is definitely not enough for my usage conditions and sound systems. That's why we prefer Lossless in most cases.

128kbps may be not enough for you, but MP3 should be enough for everyone at higher bitrates, so there's absolutely no need to use lossless.

Is the same thing as Bluetooth audio, you don't need lossless. But you're not going to delete your lossless (or at least high quality lossy files) just because lower bitrate is enough. Maybe for portable listening, but for transcoding or a good audio experience you need high quality (high bitrate). Btw... maybe some incredible algorithm could give totally transparent quality at 128 kbps or less, then I could agree with there's no need for lossless, but right now there's no such thing, so we need FLAC, WavPack, 320kbps AAC, 160kbps Opus, etc. MP3 is weak for (very) good quality. And there's still lossless around, so why limit yourself with (old) lossy formats?

128kbps may be not enough for you, but MP3 should be enough for everyone at higher bitrates, so there's absolutely no need to use lossless.

I doubt you will get the same number of responses that way. The sheer amount of options will make some users close the poll. Others will vote still.

In my opinion, very low quality sounds are unnecessary nowadays.

Well, I don't doubt of mental capacity of members of this forum  to be able to vote in this poll.

Lossy introduces so many "ifs" and "maybes" that to justify it you would have to crank the bitrate as low as possible or or you end up with not even that small 320 kbps files. A considerable amount of my lossless library isnt even double that.

@iwod Many hardware players support only MP3 or MP3 and WMA as lossy codecs.

128kbps, or maybe even 112kbps MP3 is totally transparent for me

Just in case, totally transparent meant you dont hear *any* difference between two samples. Not that you dont prefer one over the other. And unless you have some recent study to suggest otherwise ( may be people have less sensitive ears in the past 10 ears, but I doubt it ), the vast majority of normal consumer under different study and media testing can definitely tell there is a different between 128Kbps MP3 LAME against CD / Lossless.  

There are factors that are only indirectly related to quality or not immediately appearent: -Generational loss -Killer samples.
Since i do edit my files i wanna make sure i start with the quality high. The things i do with my library have drastically changed and expanded to more than just listening. Collectors appeal also plays a critical role in this.
When i was at the start of that journey, i was more likely to convert to lossy permanently, but the more i did with it the less i considered it because its just not worth a dumb space advantage. Maybe if harddrives will run sparse again i will commit but until then i dont have to.

[…] and MP3 can be completely transparent for killer samples too, while they can require a higher bitrate.

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-18 14:43:49

[…] and MP3 can be completely transparent for killer samples too, while they can require a higher bitrate.

With over twenty years of experience at Hydrogenaudio, we've learned that MP3 is a format that struggles to achieve total transparency, especially with certain challenging audio samples often referred to as "killer samples." The MP3 format was not designed to handle such tasks optimally, which can lead to issues such as pre-echo.

See for proof of audibility: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,121579.0.html

Formats that have emerged over the past two decades have been better designed. This is why codecs like LC-AAC, Vorbis, Opus, and USAC usually perform better than MP3 encoders with less bitrate, effectively addressing or reducing well-known issues such as pre-echo and the inability to achieve total transparency.

I couldn't fully understand that and I still think making or using a lossless codec is not logical at all, of course if you don't have a scientific purpose for that. I have this opinion not just for audio codecs, but for image and video codecs too. My reason is that storing a data in it's simplest form (which is what lossless codecs do) is not efficient as it's far away from the way that the brain processes things. What is lossy and what is lossless changes by the viewpoint, and what's important here is "is it transparent?".

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-18 14:08:59

I couldn't fully understand that and I still think making or using a lossless codec is not logical at all, of course if you don't have a scientific purpose for that. I have this opinion not just for audio codecs, but for image and video codecs too. My reason is that storing a data in it's simplest form (which is what lossless codecs do) is not efficient as it's far away from the way that the brain processes things. What is lossy and what is lossless changes by the viewpoint, and what's important here is "is it transparent?".

Lossy codecs are never for professionals. If you do some research on what lossless codecs (audio, image, video...) are used for, you will do yourself a huge favor. This really isn't difficult. You can simply ask Chatgpt or Gemini about this issue. If you can't even do that, I can help you from here 

320kbps CBR performing worse than V0 clearly shows that LAME is far away from being perfect. Besides that, we shouldn't measure the capability of a codec with a single encoder.

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-18 19:08:13

320kbps CBR performing worse than V0 clearly shows that LAME is far away from being perfect. Besides that, we shouldn't measure the capability of a codec with a single encoder.

LAME is still the recommended MP3 encoder here:
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME

MP3 was never perfect. Hydrogenaud.io was found in 2001 by someone who tuned LAME MP3 with the help of strong and scientific principles (TOS . Over the past two decades, LAME has emerged as the most robust MP3 encoder for high bitrates.

It’s unreasonable to challenge LAME’s status as the recommended encoder at 320 kbps by citing its shortcomings at 8 or 16 kbps. The consensus has long been that FhG outperforms LAME at low bitrates, but that doesn’t diminish LAME’s dominance in high-bitrate encoding.

You originally claimed that MP3 achieves full transparency at 320 kbps and then suggested that LAME had not yet matured enough to meet this hypothetical level.

I can't see how a listening test at 16 kbps can backup any of your previous claim.

With all due respect, I must decline to engage in further debate on this matter.

we shouldn't

320kbps CBR performing worse than V0 clearly shows that LAME is far away from being perfect. Besides that, we shouldn't measure the capability of a codec with a single encoder.

Quote from: Klymins on 2024-11-18 19:08:13

320kbps CBR performing worse than V0 clearly shows that LAME is far away from being perfect. Besides that, we shouldn't measure the capability of a codec with a single encoder.

1) It's not a bug, it's a feature.  And the feature is called bit reservoir. Apprently VBR has advantage  over CBR to allocate more extra bitrate in very critical moments (called 'Big Values' in  EncSpot as specified in this thread https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,126817.0.html ) 
2) 320k CBR didn't perfom worse than V0 in that test.  See bars delimiting  confidence interval

It's not a weak point. It's how CBR and VBR work.
On average CBR uses more of bit reservoir, but the peaks/big values are bigger for VBR. It's a nature of VBR/CBR. Nothing to do with LAME encoder.