The player looks really cool but OPUS (together with FLAC) is the audio format of today, not MP3 (in fact it is plain ancient and the worst option available today, worse than WMA, worse than Vorbis, worse than AAC, worse than OPUS).
As for me I've recoded hundreds of gigabytes of MP3s to OPUS already to save huge lots of space (which is very precious on a 128 GiB MacBook SSD as well as on mobiles) without loosing quality.
Did you know a 32 kbps OPUS podcast/audiobook sounds exactly the same as a 192 kbps MP3? The ratio is not this mind-blowing yet still very impressive for music files too: 128 kbits OPUS music file soudns like 256-320 kbps MP3.
Please add OPUS support and I will start recommending your player to everybody.
Yes, you did lose quality, Opus is a lossy format so whatever your source material is, you will lose some quality.
How important or noticeable that is will depend on the opus bitrate, your hearing and your personal preferences are. But just putting this as a warning for anyone reading.
This is obvious. Whoever collects MP3 files already knows what a lossy compression format means. I don't mean recoding FLAC to OPUS can save space without loosing quality, I mean recoding MP3 to OPUS can save space producing a file of the same quality as the MP3 original is. Obviously it will have less quality than a FLAC/CDDA original but not less than MP3 (unless you actually set the bitrate too low). E.g. I am sure converting a 256 kbits MP3 to a 192 kbits OPUS means no loss anybody can hear and converting it to 128 kbits OPUS may only mean tiny loss almost nobody can hear. Speaking about lossy format implies there is always a loss from the mathematical point of view, no loss means no perceivable loss in this context.
The same kind of loss as caused by using cheap audio cables instead of golden cables perhaps... (sarcasm)
It would make sense to speak about quality loss if it was about FLAC originals but not if the originals are already MP3. You can't save what is not there.
Umm ... no, when you recompress music that was already compressed with a lossy algorithm, you will have lower quality than if you had just stuck with the original. You can’t save what isn’t there, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t lose even more!
Decoding an MP3 and then encoding the data to OPUS of course incurs generational loss and will sound worse than the original MP3. You should encode from the original or losslessly compressed data.
I have lost (left behind moving) all my CDs a decade ago already and I didn't have enough HDDs to use FLAC back in the days. Now I recode my 320 kbits MP3s to 128 kbits OPUS and can't tell the difference (although I am one of those rare people who can distinguish between high (128+ kbits) MP3 bitrates).
You can distinguish them because you know what the artifacts sound like.
To go and convert all these files without saving the best original you have is kind of silly, given that storage is extremely cheap today. But suit yourself.
What about OPUS?
The player looks really cool but OPUS (together with FLAC) is the audio format of today, not MP3 (in fact it is plain ancient and the worst option available today, worse than WMA, worse than Vorbis, worse than AAC, worse than OPUS).
As for me I've recoded hundreds of gigabytes of MP3s to OPUS already to save huge lots of space (which is very precious on a 128 GiB MacBook SSD as well as on mobiles) without loosing quality.
Did you know a 32 kbps OPUS podcast/audiobook sounds exactly the same as a 192 kbps MP3? The ratio is not this mind-blowing yet still very impressive for music files too: 128 kbits OPUS music file soudns like 256-320 kbps MP3.
Please add OPUS support and I will start recommending your player to everybody.