Post media formats that just work

>320kbps CBR MP3
>1991
>33 years ago

.txt

>>105763937 (OP)
mp3 is a crime against humanity. It works in the same way as performing vivisection on children "works".

>better at gifs than gif
>better at pngs than png
>better at jpgs than jpeg
it just works

>>105763937 (OP)
I'll tell you what doesnt work : your hearing.
mp3 butchers music and causes a compression effect that destroys dynamics and can cause headaches after prolonged listening.

>>105764069
> the same way as performing vivisection on children "works".
... I'm curious

>>105764180
>1743334837682.jpg
curious why not use it then?

if we're not baiting and being honest, AAC (especially apples QAAC encoder) is when lossy audio peaked.

>>105763937 (OP)
Flac.

>>105763937 (OP)
>WAV
No data molestation or trooning required

>>105764069
You realise, your messages are logged and anchored to your identity?

>>105765678
Doesnt work in my car
>>105765690
Works in my car

>>105764510
This board hasn't been updated since moot sold it, and even then they only fixed shit when it got hacked because of decades old ghostscript.

>>105764069
nooo you are supposed to love children tenderly!

>>105764180
>none of the above is true
>can't handle full gamut RGB properly without FUCKING everything up
KYS Google shill

i don't recall a single instance where CBR worked but VBR didn't.

>There are people who still use gif, jpeg, and mp3 in 2025

>>105763937 (OP)
>128kbps VBR AAC-LC
>1997
>28 years ago
literally no fucking reason to use mp3 unless yu're a retard

TIFF.

>>105764180
>>better at gifs than gif
trvth nvke.
>better at pngs than png
*VERY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER*
>better at jpgs than jpeg
debatable.

>>105764180
>better at gifs than gif
anything is
>better at pngs than png
yes, it's still the format with the most efficient lossless compression and often by quite a lot
>better ta jpegs than jpeg
what the fuck do you mean by this? it's at best only 20% more efficient when it comes to lossy compression, and it definitely doesn't perform well in regards to generation loss (or efficiency) of re-compressing already existing jpeg images
https://siipo.la/blog/is-webp-really-better-than-jpeg

>>105770090
>better at pngs than png
>*VERY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER*
?

>>105765717
reported

>>105770129
WebP is used as a PNG replacement on THE WEB ONLY for a reason.

>>105770143
there's nothing stopping you from using it locally tho?
>for a reason
which one

>>105770187
>there's nothing stopping you from using it locally tho?
Of course.
>>for a reason
>which one
The user shouldn't have to load, primarily small (in resolution), images with shit compression. It all adds up FAST.

>>105770217
>The user shouldn't have to load, primarily small (in resolution), images with shit compression. It all adds up FAST.
we were literally talking about lossless compression, nothing of what you just said makes any sense, converting your pngs to lossless webp has nothing to do with small resolution images with shit compression.
>It all adds up FAST.
...what adds up fast

>>105765690
WAV is obsolete because of FLAC and other lossless codecs. It's also retarded without ID3 tags since it RIFF chunks doesn't accept non-English alphabet letters.

>>105768489
MP3 is the only thing that works in my car without a fuckton of testing. It supports AAC, but not all settings, bitrate, etc. Meanwhile, any MP3 I throw at it just works.

>>105770251
>we were literally talking about lossless compression
Yeah.
>nothing of what you just said makes any sense
I'm being pretty clear.
>converting your pngs to lossless webp has nothing to do with small resolution images with shit compression
I know. Earlier I said
>WebP is used as a PNG replacement on THE WEB ONLY for a reason.
>...what adds up fast
Downloaded bytes.

>>105770387
Anyone disagreeing with this hasn't read the FLAC spec. The one good reason for preferring WAV over FLAC is simply comparability.

>>105770408
>The one good reason for preferring WAV over FLAC is simply comparability.
* compatibility

>>105764180
hallo good morning sar good proprietary google format sar

>>105770408
>I'm being pretty clear.
pretty clear? you're being completely fucking retarded, you're not making ANY sense
>Downloaded bytes.
what the fuck does this mean? the reason webp is a png replacement only on the web is that it saves bandwidth okay, but again, how does that affect your ability to use it locally, to achieve a similar goal (saving disk space)? lossless webp does the same thing that png does but better
>The one good reason for preferring WAV over FLAC is simply comparability.
which is fucking ironic because there's no reason for you not to say the same thing about lossless webp

>>105770438
>proprietary
...but it's not

>>105770475
>pretty clear?
Yeah.
>you're being completely fucking retarded.
I'm sorry.
>what the fuck does this mean?
As you mention later on, bandwidth. YES.
>but again, how does that affect your ability to use it locally
It doesn't.
>to achieve a similar goal (saving disk space)?
Yeah.
>lossless webp does the same thing that png does but better
I'm not a fan of how WebP compresses images.
>which is fucking ironic because theres's no reason for you not to say the same thing about lossless webp.
I disagree.

>>105770482
yeah just like chrome technically isn't, but basically is.
stop shilling google's slop

>>105770526
>yeah just like chrome technically isn't
??? it definitely is.
what

flac

>>105770496
>I'm not a fan of how WebP compresses images.
what the fuck is that supposed to mean, again, we are talking about LOSSLESS compression
at this point you're either baiting or mentally deranged
>I disagree.
...explain why you disagree maybe?

>>105771065
>what the fuck is that supposed to mean, again
It's as I said.
>we are talking about LOSSLESS compression
Exactly. I don't like how WebP does it's lossless compression. How it does lossy compression is unrelated, but I don't like it either.
>...explain why you disagree maybe?
No.

>>105771086
>I don't like how webp does it's lossless compression
ok then explain what you mean by this
>No.
??? ok thanks for confirming you are mentally deranged

>>105771127
>ok then explain what you mean by this
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/compression#color_de-correlation_transform
>??? ok thanks for confirming you are mentally deranged
:-(

>>105763937 (OP)
winamp and mp3 is all you need, fuck fags talking about other media player and flac garbage lol.

>>105771086
>. I don't like how WebP does it's lossless compression. How it does lossy compression is unrelated, but I don't like it either.
Having the same container and extension for lossy and lossless compression is foolish to begin with.

>>105771143
>https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/compression#color_de-correlation_transform
I have no fucking idea what this is, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and let's assume it's a very bad thing...
the end result is still lossless, it's still fast to encode/decode, and achieves 2x compression efficiency compared to png or 1.5x compared to lossless jxl, objectively nothing outperforms it and png is way worse (ignoring compatibility like you did before).
so... why the fuck do you care how it's achieved?
once again nothing of what you are saying makes any sense.

>>105771396
>he thinks a png cannot be lossy
retard
and besides, once fucking again, we are only discussing about lossless compression for local storage since lossy webp is retarded.
If you only use webp to losslessly re-compress images that were originally pngs for your local use, as we were discussing, this "problem" will never present itself, unless you also save something that can only be sourced as a lossy webp (but at that point why would you care in the future to tell if it's lossy or not when a lossless version doesn't even exist?)

>>105770402
Get a new car radio

>>105763937 (OP)
MP3
AAC
JPG
PNG
GIF
MP4 (with h.264)

WEBP and AV1 is better for corporations to reduce bandwidth costs, but just shifts those costs onto the end user with increased power draw and requires consooming new hardware.

>>105771482
>WEBP and AV1 is better for corporations to reduce bandwidth costs, but just shifts those costs onto the end user with increased power draw and requires consooming new hardware.
1. webp REDUCES power draw on mobile devices, since it barely takes any more processing power to decode than jpeg but results in smaller data to be received wirelessly, see picrel
2. av1 only increases power draw if you haven't consoomed new hardware that has hardware decoding for it, if hardware decoding is present, it either uses the same amount of power as h264, or again, requires LESS power in case of mobile devices or laptops because you are transferring less data while decoding takes the same amount of power.
plus there are many use cases where the end user definitely can also benefit from av1 leading to smaller filesizes/bandwidth requirements if you just think about it for like 5 minutes, there really is no reason to be against it as long as fallback to legacy codecs is present for devices without hardaware decode/encode.

just. works

>>105772404
you are a terrible person and i hope the i.r.s. audits you if you like the petey f. so much

>>105764180
Congrats on the easy bait

.ogg

>>105763937 (OP)

> wax cylinder phonograph
> 1877
> 148 years ago

> heliography
> sometime between 1826 and 1827
> 198 years ago

>>105765571

You should listen to some xHE-AAC and notice how things have been improved since the early AAC days.

>>105768489
Why the fuck shouldn't I use mp3?

>>105774312
It's been usurped by opus

>>105774312
obsolete since 1997, which is funny considering practically nobody was using even mp3 at that point yet

>>105770475
nta but lossless webp only supports 8 bits color depth and maximum resolution is limited to 16383x16383
for web shit that's almost never a limitation, but it can be for other use cases (editing or whatever)

>>105773358
Wax cylinder phonographic records are dogshit there's a reason we use pressed vinyl now
>tripfaggot is a retard
What a surprise

>>105764225
that's because you're using headphone 24/7