(12-09-2021, 11:01 AM)Shannon Wrote: There are a lot of considerations that I have to take into account when choosing a codec to use. It's not just the ability to retain maximum quality (and I use 320 kbps setting for MP3).  It's also how popular, and thus easy to use for the end user, that format is.  Opus may or may not be superior to MP3; I don't know how OPUS works or what it would do to subliminalized data.  It doesn't make a damned bit of difference how good it makes typical audio sound if it damages subliminalized data.  At 320 kbps, MP3 only shaves off a very small amount of the subliminalized data.  Codecs can be tuned for different specific things.  Subliminal data typically is considered to fall within the range of data that lossy codecs throw away.  That's why I need to use 320 kbps with mp3, plus a little special secret tweaking.  I would have to spend some time researching Opus, experimenting with it, and then it would have to be widely supported.  Since it is not widely supported, it doesn't even make it to the research and testing phase.

The fact is, in audio, the herd is what determines what gets used.  Audio engineers and audiophiles may be able to appreciate the improvements, but most people can't, don't, and don't even care enough to think about it.  So what is already in use is good enough, and it's expensive to manufacture new things like a physical player that handles Opus.  So the first thing that Opus needs for me to consider it is...

Popularity and ubiquity.  Mindshare.  Widely available and widely used compatible hardware and software.

Then it needs to pass extensive testing and experimentation, which is time I cannot afford to spend unless there is a high probability of return.  In this case, even if Opus is superior to mp3, at 320 kbps, mp3 is pretty efficient at keeping the subliminalized data.  Opus would have to be at least as efficient AND provide significant improvement in size to be worth bothering with.

(07-22-2022, 03:18 AM)Benjamin Wrote: If you can use flac then it's better to use it, Shannon has said it's not a massive improvement but it's enough to use if you're able to.

The problem with iphones is that apple does so much dodgy things like trying to lock it to their own format, I know it used to be difficult to use flac on it.. I haven't got one so can't comment on how it is now.

(07-22-2022, 05:58 AM)whome Wrote:

(07-22-2022, 03:18 AM)Benjamin Wrote: If you can use flac then it's better to use it, Shannon has said it's not a massive improvement but it's enough to use if you're able to.

The problem with iphones is that apple does so much dodgy things like trying to lock it to their own format, I know it used to be difficult to use flac on it.. I haven't got one so can't comment on how it is now.

It’s pretty easy. The Files app does FLAC, as do a lot of third-party apps. I don’t use the built in music functionality so I dunno if it does.

(07-22-2022, 10:13 AM)Z-Man Wrote: Hey Whome, I suggest you download vox flac player(Flacbox) You can add files to google drive & create a playlist. Than add them to offline files and it won't use any data to play them.