I honestly don't understand why mp3 is such a sticky codec. It's long been surpassed by others.
I honestly don't understand why mp3 is such a sticky codec. It's long been surpassed by others.
I challenge everyone who feels strongly about this to actually bust out abx and do some listening tests comparing flac to LAME-encoded extreme MP3s and prove to yourself that flac matters at all on your equipment. And then share your results with us if you want!
https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/abx.1.html#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
But yeah I should put the command to encode to flac there for people who prefer it!
If you aren't trying to save bits, then why use a lossy codec at all?
That's more my point. MP3s will be smaller than flac, for sure, but opus or he-aac files can be even smaller (half the size or more).
But generally I agree with you, if you're happy with how your setup works and sounds, MP3 is no great sin.
As for what the commenter said, firstly, MP3 was synonymous with digital music in most of our minds for so long; second, even if modern equipment handles all the better codecs, a lot of us still have memories of times it didn't in the past. Third, I think some of the tooling around metadata is not as developed or ubiquitous for, say, an ogg container. There are ogg comments, but ID3 is better supported.
I think this is probably the main reason for mp3's stickiness.
> second, even if modern equipment handles all the better codecs, a lot of us still have memories of times it didn't in the past.
Sure, and your dvd players didn't always handle x264. Things change :). It's been probably 10 years since new audio hardware had trouble with non-mp3 media.
> Third, I think some of the tooling around metadata is not as developed or ubiquitous for, say, an ogg container. There are ogg comments, but ID3 is better supported.
Granted, I think ogg will have worse support for equipment. However, I'd expect that aac in m4a will end up with the same level of support as mp3s do today simply because it's a lot more common than opus (and older).
> MP3 is no great sin.
It's not, I just don't like seeing generally superior tech getting sidelined because the inferior tech is more familiar. Perhaps that's a sin on my part :). I admit it probably doesn't ultimately matter if your music is 1MB vs 2MB.
(After typing that, I realize that calling it a "black box" is a pretty good pun on MP4 box formats..)
I still encode to plain old 128k mp3. Here's why ...
First, I keep the WAV originals and those are what I listen to on my music system, in my music server, etc.
Second, if I am using the mp3s it is because I am going to some unknown place to interface with some unknown tool to play these - let's just make life simple and use something that will work everywhere - even the dumb creative audio bluetooth adapter that was in that airbnb that one time ...
Finally, 128k mp3 is typically a 10:1 compression ratio and makes size and space "budgeting" easy. It's easy to remember.
One other thing:
When I export my ripped CD wav collection to mp3 I also compress the filenames - I flatten to ASCII 256 and truncate the filenames to 64 characters, etc. LOTS of car audio interfaces just puke when they hit weird unicode characters or can't display long filenames ... it creates all manner of havoc.
FLAC is well-supported. But, PCM RIFF WAV files are triv-i-al. Any CS101 student can write a parser. They don’t need decoding.
2:1 lossless compression is nice. It’s quite a technical feat.
Meanwhile, as an old software engineer, I focus pretty hard on technical simplicity. And, the complexity ratio of PCM vs. pretty much else everything is a a very, very small number. Very small :p