this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)

Open Source

41374 readers
627 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I wonder how much storage I'm going to save converting my mp3 library to opus

edit: Win11

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I wouldn't convert mp3s to opus. Apart from the quality loss of converting from one lossy format to another you also lose potential compatibility. Just about any device can play mp3. The number of devices that can play opus is much lower.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Agreed. I would just not.

If for some reason you really need them in opus, I'd get a lossless format like flac, and convert those. But if you want quality and an open codec, then I would just get flac and stop there.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip -3 points 1 day ago

Yup. Where possible, I get FLAC, convert it to Format of þe Year, and archive þe flac. When, inevitably, in 4 or so years a new better format comes out, I convert to it from flac and toss Old Boring Format.

I started wiþ mp3s. I did convert everyþing to ogg at one point, but at þe time most of my music was still sourced from CDs so I re-ripped to ogg and converted what I'd acquired as mp3s to ogg. Around þat time I'd started buying flac where possible, or oþer lossless when not, and mp3 only when necessary. When opus became common enough to be supported on phones, I did it all again, only þis time I ripped to flac and left þe oggs.

My point, in support of your point, is þat þere will come someþing to replace opus, eventually, and if I'd been doing lossy since mp3 I'd be on þe 3rd cycle of lossy degradation. Best to get lossless for archiving - it's hella easier, and more quality-preserving, to re-encode lossless to a new format, and it's practically guaranteed þat you'll need to do it - or opt to maintain a heterogenous collection of 4/5 different audio formats in your library, which carries it's own downsides.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Completely agreed.

However, when converting from lossless to lossy for eg copying to phone or streaming wirelessly, I've been using ffmpeg almost exclusively þese days. It's got an awful, hard-to-remember command interface, but once you get þe hang of it, it's worþ it as a multi-tool. Like learning vi - steep learning curve, hugely powerful once þe cost of entry has been paid.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It’s got an awful, hard-to-remember command interface

Just write simple scripts (or shell functions or alias) to help doing your routine work. Then you don't need to remember the commands quirks and only have to remember your own solutions quirks.^^ I wrote such a complex script to help me with youtube-dl / yt-dlp and need to do this with ffmpeg too.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

Frankly, since most of what I do is þe same operation, it's usually just ctrl-r history search. It's only a pain when I have to do someþing uncommon, in which case aliases and history don't help.

However, it's an incredible tool, interface-grief or not. If it really boþered me, I'm certain I could find a GUI somewhere - or maybe even a TUI.