/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>16381460
>may be it's well for you
For everyone.

>Opus takes more decode time and needs more high frequency, hence Opus consumes more energy
You missed this:
>(will only get slower from here)

nero_192.m4a 534.83% realtime Decode time - 32.90s 40.38MHz
nero_256.m4a 510.47% realtime Decode time - 34.47s 42.31MHz
nero_320.m4a 488.37% realtime Decode time - 36.03s 44.22MHz

opus_192k.opus 503.31% realtime Decode time - 34.95s 42.91MHz

You said you only use 340k files. Guess what? They're equally slow as, or slower than, 192k opus, which is also transparent and takes up much less space. 256k AAC-LC is not transparent.

>but any lossless codec is better than lossy Opus
Opus doesn't go as high in bitrate as the best lossless codecs.

>and any lossy codec is bad for [...] high fidelity equipment
You are literally retarded. You *cannot* hear a -80db noise floor. Noise floors that low only matter in audio production, where they add up. Audio production =/= high fidelity equipment.

>and for mobile devices QAAC is better
For mobile devices MP3 is better. QAAC makes absolutely no sense. It's less space and power efficient than opus at every level of equal perceptual audio quality.