Is FLAC just snake oil?
Yep
128kbps MP3 is enough for anyone.
>>50793648
yes
It's a lossless audio codec, it works exactly as advertised.
Maybe you should look up what snake oil actually means before making another shit thread.
>>50793648
Yes.
inb4 pic related itt
There's no real or easy notice difference between V0 and FLAC, but I like things in FLAC nonetheless. Also, what if there's like a Book of Eli type thing that happens and no one has the world's music in the exact condition that it was initially sold? You can't forget that MP3 chops off higher frequencies.
>>50793648
Its not a snake oil format because it works just as it says its supposed to.
Basically its an archival format, its something to store music in. As this guys said >>50793667 128 kbps (or possibly a bit lower would do) mp3 is good enough, but FLAC is used to store music where you have lots of space to spare and want to preserve the quality to the highest possible extent
>>50793809
Assuming bit rate degradation wasn't a thing, would 128 kbps still be good?
>>50793865
sure
even after taking bit rot in and other factors in account, mp3 at 128kbps is great
FLAC is overkill tbh, we dont really need that kind of accuracy for day to day usage
>>50793648
mp3 sounds like shit
flac sounds alright
wav is good
the end.
>>50793930
>wav is good
its comparable to flac
Hell both are loseless so no one can tell the difference anyway
Who cares?
>>50793930
>wav is good
enjoy your 500 MB 5 minute song
>>50793648
Assuming you are talking about auditory difference, to hear the difference between a FLAC file and a properly encoded mp3, say V0, you need two things:
1) Above average hearing (>18KHz frequencies)
2) A speaker capable of outputting such frequencies.
Otherwise, there's no audible difference between FLAC and mp3 BUT FLAC is not useless at all. It's made for archival purposes.
>>50793972
I care, and I can tell the difference between all three.
Honestly the difference between 320 and 128kbps is noticeable with good headphones, but the difference between flac and 320 is almost nothing
>>50794017
>I care, and I can tell the difference between all three.
No you can't, because FLAC is literally a .wav that's been losslessly compressed. It is the same exact information once decoded, not even a computer can tell it apart.
>>50793809
>128 kbps (or possibly a bit lower would do) mp3 is good enough
haha no. a superior format like opus could get away with 128kbps but mp3 is garbage under V0/V2 which are ~250kbps VBR
>>50793988
800mb = 70 ish minutes
>>50794017
>I care, and I can tell the difference between all three
then you're likely a digital being
FLAC is compressed loseless
>>50794033
>>50794058
he can't hear the difference between a well encoded mp3 and wav, stop replying to obvious bait
>>50794058
>>50794033
assuming it's a flawless compression/decompression process, It isn't.
To me FLAC and 192 Mp3 sound exactly the same.
I don't care anyway, if people want to download, seed, store FLAC it's their choice
>>50794080
christ almighty, what kind of shit speakers are you listening to. It's not a small difference
>>50794012
>>1) Above average hearing (>18KHz frequencies)
Considering the fact that 44100hz sample rate allows up to 22khz frequencies, that statement is not at all true
>>50794106
JBL M2 my friend
Enjoy your poorfag 'hi-fi' speakers with their nice wooden finish and terrible audio reproduction
>>50794106
not that guy but
>tfw have 50 GB of FLAC music
>tfw use chink 1$ earphones to hear that music
>>50794113
>JBL M2
I'm not surprised you can't hear on those monstrosities, I'm not trying to disrespect you, I do however have 15 years experience in the recording industry and 6 different pairs of studio monitors.
>>50794175
>I do however have 15 years experience in the recording industry and 6 different pairs of studio monitors.
that's adorable. i'm not sure what someone who doesn't understand science nor human hearing is doing in the recording industry but considering how many terribly mastered records there are out there i guess you explain that
Pretty much. 192 Kbps VBR complexity 10 Opus audio is the most you will need even with an expensive pair of headphones. I use 128 Kbps but I have shitty $20 earbuds and I failed all ABX tests between source CD Audio and 128 Kbps opus file.
>>50793920
>>50793865
What about rotational velocidensity? Or does that only affect HDD's and not SSDs?
>>50793648
Asking all the flac people here
Do i need expensive earphones/headphones to enjoy flac? I use the earphones you get on flights right now
>>50794189
>doesn't understand science nor human hearing
I'll have you know I'm rather good at my job, and it's not my fault the 'mastering for volume' war started
>>50794239
better the cans the better the experience.
>>50794239
$1 million headphones, magic stones, 32-bit 192 Khz FLACs, and ceramic cable lifters are the minimum :^)
>>50793648
i just downloaded my first ever flac song and
Fuck, its beautiful
Its so vivid and beautiful
>>50794304
Thanks, I downloaded that song from youtube. Isn't it amazing how flac improves the quality of everything?! flac4life :^) I'm gonna start converting inferior mp3 rips and convert them to flacs. Everyone will be so happy at the better quality :^)
>>50794107
mp3 has a frequency cut off.
https://www.whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/
so I thought I could hear the difference between lossy and lossless, and I can't hear it.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
tbchwy fam, I'm smhid.
![Harman%2520Speaker%2520Measurements[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SfSTbn8.jpg "Harman%2520Speaker%2520Measurements[1].jpg")
>>50794263
>I'll have you know I'm rather good at my job
you're trying to argue that there's an audible difference between transparent lossy files and lossless files.
stop that.
also
>I'm not surprised you can't hear on those monstrosities
you find me some flatter speakers with better imaging because nothing beats these
>>50794345
But Opus doesn't (at least above 64 Kbps). Someone could rip 64 kbps opus files, convert them to flac, and upload them as high quality flac rips. None of you audiofag autist would know the audio was butchered with 64 kbps opus.
>>50794239
>Asking all the flac people here
>"i'm going to blatantly ignore all the actual facts thrown in here and ask retarded placebophiles their opinions on things they don't understand but simply parrot"
i hope somebody convinces you to get a mortgage and drop your entire life savings on some garbage tube amps and meme cables
>>50794374
Maybe, but I wasn't talking about Opus.
>>50794376
>>"i'm going to blatantly ignore all the actual facts thrown in here and ask retarded placebophiles their opinions on things they don't understand but simply parrot"
the fact is that FLAC is loseless and MP3 is not
I can download either of them for free
>i hope somebody convinces you to get a mortgage and drop your entire life savings on some garbage tube amps and meme cables
do you really think your average /g/ poster is THAT stupid? Really? By the way tube amps are better than transistor amps. Thats a fact right there
>>50794392
oh k den. MP3 shouldn't even be used in 2015. Might as well use MPEG2 for video too. It should have died out like MP2 a long time ago.
>>50794085
>assuming it's flawless
That's what "lossless" literally means you fucking spastic.
>>50794419
>the fact is that FLAC is loseless and MP3 is not
>I can download either of them for free
sure you can. that doesn't mean you can hear a difference. by the way, you can't.
>By the way tube amps are better than transistor amps. Thats a fact right there
tube amps are colored and distorted crap and your bait is really obvious but i gave you a reply anyway
>>50794361
I would recommend Neumann kh310a
or ATC scm100asl
As Im sure you know, there's a lot more to it than frequency response and imaging
>>50794419
>By the way tube amps are better than transistor amps. Thats a fact right there
You tell em audio enthusiast friend :^). Hey what magic stone works the best?
>>50794463
>basic rehashed tweeter design that has been unchanged for decades
yeah, no. neumann and atc (and genelec for smaller setups) are great but they don't hold a candle to the result of harman's extensive research
>>50794435
'lossless' is nothing more than a saying, used to confuse morons, kind of like saying 80% fat free, you total prick.
>>50794468
>>50794455
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_amplifier#Advantages
educate yourselves children
>>50794282
>32-bit 192 Khz FLACs
Are there really encodes like this? If so, what can you possibly use or want it for?
>>50794508
tubes are measurably worse than solid state
>>50794508
>"which many audiophiles and musicians subjectively believe"
Stopped reading right there
>>50794550
for sound reproduction, no they aren't
For power savings and other reasons, i can agree
>>50794561
>Stopped reading right there
>implying you can even read
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound#Audible_differences
>>50794495
well, I haven't heard the jbls so i'll leave it there but I do believe the ATC mid driver to be the finest in the world and mid range is the most important thing to get right, It also looks like thy are 2 way which means you have a xover right in that critical band, always a negative.
And I do own some genelec 8000 series, they aren't that good.
>>50794576
>for sound reproduction, no they aren't
yes, they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound#Harmonic_content_and_distortion
>>50794514
What if your cat is also an autistic audiophile?
>>50794508
>using wikipedia links as citation when the referenced articles on the wikipedia page have absolutely no scientific basis and are some ramblings of some idiot
oh boy
No, it really is lossless audio. Whether or not you'll be able to tell the difference depends entirely on the source file, the transcoding, the listener's condition, etc.
I might not notice the difference, but then again, I don't carry FLAC only files on my music player, if anything I just archive in FLAC to make sure I get consistent quality in the future.
>>50794507
>herf derf flerp derp flerp
"lossless" is a well defined entirely justifiable term when applied to digital compression.
Just because you're a total fucking drooling retard who doesn't understand that doesn't make it wrong. Now shut the fuck up while the adults are talking, you chuckle fuck.
>>50794576
>for sound reproduction, no they aren't
not him but I can confirm they are pleasant but totally inacurate.
>>50794576
>for sound reproduction, no they aren't
You fucking stupid, son.
>>50794624
hahah
>>50794239
The idea that you need expensive equipment to tell the difference between FLAC and some trash encode is nonsense. It's mostly a matter of training to tell differences and unless you're using absolute shit like apple earbuds or something, ABXing the two is easy. However, FLAC vs a well-encoded lossy file is almost impossible outside of a few edge cases.
Of course, good audio equipment sounds better, but you don't need anything absurdly expensive. It just depends on your use case.
>>50793648
FLAC is not snake oil because MP3, AAC nor OGG can function as an archival format. They objectively cannot be a 1:1 backup of the source format, whether it be a CD, DVD or vinyl.
>>50793667
I'd argue that, with higher-end equipment, you can distinguish details up to around 320.
>>50794685
no, V0/V2 are the threshold for transparency in mp3 encodes
>>50793648
no one here can disagree vinyl sounds better if they're recorded as they're meant to be
No one can
>>50794685
That's ancient MP3 though. Good luck with passing ABX tests above 192kbps opus, nigger.
>>50794432
>implying
>>50794663
the insinuation is preference in using FLAC for listening because it 'sounds better' not for archival. if people understood the actual purpose of losslessly compressed files this thread wouldn't exist
>>50794715
but vinyl is by nature an inferior format to digital cd
>>50793648
No FLAC isn't snake oil
It works just as its supposed to
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_coding_formats
>>50794751
>but vinyl is by nature an inferior format to digital cd
why would you say that?
>>50794715
>vinyl
Enjoy your distortion.
>>50794769
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29
>>50794769
Not him, but playing back a vinyl is inherently a flawed mechanical process. The needle itself introduces distortion into the sound. Digital audio has none of these problems.
>>50794751
The FLAC are already on the hard drives. They double as archival and for listening. No one is going to transcode to MP3 or Opus just to listen at home.
It's good for archivization. THE END.
>>50794807
>not transcoding your collection to opus and leaving the flacs on an external backup drive
>>50794738
Jesus christ how horrifying.
>>50794824
That's retarded.
What do you even need to archive music for? Seeding on a tracker? Once you convert it to a lossy codec that is usable on any device you don't need to transcode it ever again
>>50794824
Keeping two copies on purpose just so you can dodge out of listening to the archival copy is quite autistic. Unless your lossy copy is sitting on your portable media player and you've got that docked or something, then sure.
>>50794229
>rotational
There's your answer
>>50794867
Even the stock audio player of android can play flac, stop being an idiot.
>>50794867
Because formats get better and more efficient as time goes on. Having a lossless copy gives you the freedom to transcode to whatever your heart desires and prevents you from being locked into one format. Imagine being stuck using one of the early shitty mp3 encoders.
>>50794971
because you're going to put flac on your device with limited storage right?
fuck you're retarded
>>50794983
What's stopping you from downloading a lossless copy later on?
>the freedom to transcode to whatever your heart desires
But you're never going to transcode the FLAC anyway
>>50793648
Flac is rarely distinguishable from v0, to keep it short. The true difference, comes when you start to listen to 24/96 flac... and don't start me on 24/96 flac MoFi rips...
You plebs...
>>50794867
That's like saying you should edit your photos, upload them to Facebook, use that for fucking ever and permanently delete the original. You are probably the Facebook audience.
>>50795040
That is nothing at all like what I said, nice logical fallacy retard.
>>50795007
>What's stopping you from downloading a lossless copy later on?
How on earth can you guarantee that the copy will still be available? There's rare shit out there.
>But you're never going to transcode the FLAC anyway
But I have. I transcode for my portable devices and have switched formats multiple times when I get support for better formats.
>>50795061
Your point is you should convert shit to some lossy format and it will serve you for the rest of your life, and permanently delete the source file. I proved that your logic is shit.
>>50795010
>falling for memes this hard
>>50795094
You are
1. Assuming that the lossy compression of well-encoded lsosy files are even comparable to the crap Facebook does to a source image
2. Assuming that sometime in the distant future you're going to need your lossless file for another transcode.
>>50795067
>and have switched formats multiple times when I get support for better formats.
Why? Well encoded mp3 is already lossless and you're not exactly running out of storage space over time. The size of a well encoded mp3 is already small enough.
>>50795132
>is already lossless
Sorry I meant to say transparent here
>>50795132
>Why?
Because mp3 is nonfree and doesn't play nicely as nicely with FLAC as Vorbis does. I would Opus, but unfortunately my device doesn't support it. Vorbis is FOSS, uses the exact same metadata as FLAC, more efficient and is a breeze to encode. There's no reason not to switch.
>>50795179
So you asssume somewhere down the line there's going to be another format that is better than Opus or Vorbis enough to justify transcoding to them again because Opus and Vorbis will then clearly be obsolete and unusable?
>FOSS
>nonfree
You freetards really need to off yourselves.
>>50795203
FOSS is good. I keep an archival copy because I don't know what the future holds (what if everyone drops support for format x?). It's simple to do and preserves the integrity of your collection. There's no reason not to do it.
>>50795132
Okay maybe it's unfair to assume that all lossy is as terrible as Facebook compression.
But it is perfectly fair to assume that you will want to change your mind on your transcode at least one point in the future. I know I've performed many transcodes in the past. Your expectations in a transcode can change when you buy a new music player, or if a new encoder develops. You are ignorant if you really believe nothing will change in the future.
>>50794712
but V0/V2 are the same quality as 320 cbr if not better
>>50794685
I can tell the difference between MP3 320 and 128 with $100 Turtlebeach headphones. Whether I can tell the difference between MP3 128 and Vorbis 128 is something I'm trying to find out now.
>>50793809
But then... what is the point of having maximum available quality music archive when you only use common mp3 daily and leave the original file on your archve drive?
In digital age we can create the exact same copy of a file infinite amount of times. Having a special occasion original high quality copy makes no sense if the original cannot be damaged by copying.
>>50795656
Say a new standard in lossy compression comes around. What are you going to do, transcode that shitty MP3 file?
>>50795656
>have FLAC on your HDD at home
>also listen to FLAC at home because it's on your HDD
>transcode to something else for portable usage
I don't get why this is so hard to understand.
Headroom. You may not be able to hear more than 15kHz, but I can. It's like listening to music in a hobbit hole.
>>50795706
This.
>>50795867
Lossy formats typically cut off at 20kHz.
>>50795867
You have to be 18 to use this site child.
>>50794728
Should I move to opus? Is this the new meme?
just use V0 mp3
>posting in a shitposting thread
>lol flac is snake oil
Dumb boy, get a DAC and some decent (not overpriced) phones and come back.
>>50796015
>using nonfree, outdated proprietary codecs
>>50796030
DACs are snake oil.
>>50795949
Interesting notion. Here's an item from my library in Q5 Vorbis.
>>50795706
H-How do you organize this? My music files are a mess. Anything good to sync with my phone?
>>50796043
>DACs are snake oil.
Why? Did I get ripped off?
>>50796043
>DACs are snake oil.
You listen to your music directly from the digital file? Are you a robot?
all formats sound shit because most albums are mastered by retards .. theres usually more audible distortion in lossless music
>>50796010
Definitely. It's more efficient than MP3 compression and even if you do hear artifacts they are less "violent". Actually you can literally use mono 8 Kbps Opus and still understand what someone is saying. Try doing that with shitty MP3. Just make sure you use a complexity of 10 on all your encodes (should be set by default).
>>50796123
>>50796223
Sorry, standalone DACs are generally snake oil.
>>50796110
/Music/Artist/Album/*.flac
>>50796527
But how do you manage a FLAC and MP3 library? It gets annoying to manually drag and drop the MP3s on my phone
>>50796507
I'll look into it. What's the Opus equivalent to V0/320?
>>50796917
Probably 192kbps, nobody has passed an abx test against that and original source audio (that I know of). Again assuming a complexity of 10 was used.
I took one of my favorite albums that I had in 320kbps and downloaded it in FLAC. Noticed no fucking difference.
Granted, my bacground in music includes eight years of choir and a year of piano. I doubt I have the hearing or equipment necessary to notice.
>>50797080
>>50796917
I would say 128Kbps is all you really need. If you're on a shitty device like a phone, you could even go as low as 96Kbps.
>>50793988
Uhh
>Wav is uncompressed PCM data (typically 16 bit @ 44.1KHz)
>CDs store 80~ minutes of music as uncompressed PCM data in 700MB~ (again, 16 bit @ 44.1KHz)
keep your hyperbole in check
>>50793648
PROTIP: FLAC is just a Huffman coded WAV
>>50797634
Some people have passed ABX tests measuring 128 vbr kbps opus and original source. I'm sure a few have beaten 160 kbps vbr opus. 192 kbps vbr is a safe bet you will never find audible artifacts or a different sound than the original. I've personally failed every 128 Kbps opus ABX test with shitty $20 earbuds. So I guess someone with a good pair of headphones should use at least 160 kbps opus.
>>50797820
If you were using equipment good enough to actually notice the difference, I'm sure you would be listening to FLAC and not some lossy shit.
Opus is good for portable devices where DACs and headphones are usually shit, or for internet streaming where you want a low bitrate but not to sound like complete ass.
>>50797807
no it's not, it uses golomb-rice coding and waveform prediction
I'm going to sell you a brand new car. I'm also going to remove some random bolts and screws throughout the vehicle. I won't tell you which ones I removed, but I made sure that you probably won't notice. I mean, you might notice, but the car will still be functional.
This is what lossy encoding is. You may hear artifact, but you may not. You probably won't know if it was artifact. It's fine for sampling music, but for things I really like or albums that I actually buy, I won't take any lossy formats.
>>50797874
ok so ADPCM, nearly the same thing
>>50794771
fuck you it's a warm soothing distortion
So what size and bitrate would an audio file be if it came 100% fresh from recording?
>>50798025
That depends on the quality of the recording
>>50798025
192KHz 32-bit uncompressed PCM.
So basically: fuckloads.
>>50797848
Ok mr.audiophilefag, go do an ABX test proving you can tell the difference between 192 kbps opus and a 16-bit FLAC from a CD. And no cheating, use a complexity of 10 on opus.
Go ahead, we'll be waiting right here. I'm sure you will have no trouble proving us you can tell the difference with your magic stones and overpriced headphones.
>>50798121
A/B with a repetitive song and I'm sure you'd notice eventually (not knowing which one is A or B ahead of time)
>>50798170
So are you going to post your abx test or not? You don't sound like you're poor. I genuinely want to know if people can tell the difference between opus with X bitrate and the source audio.
>>50798246
I wasn't that anon, sorry for confusion
>>50798289
oh ok. I fucking hate people who talk shit but can't prove jack shit. Saying 192 kbps opus is audibly inferior to a flac file is a huge fucking assertion. Nyugguh you better have some proof to back that claim up.
>>50797994
What? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea how this stuff works or are you just trying to say words that make you look clever? FLAC has nothing to do with any pulse-code modulation at all.
I can explain the basic design of the algorithm to you because I wrote my own implementation of it years ago.
You feed the encoder a stream of integers with a specific number of bits per sample (usually 16 or 24). The encoder divides the stream into small chunks and tries to find an approximation based on a fixed linear predictor or finite-impulse response (i.e. it tries to guess a mathematical formula that describes the waveform of that chunk). It stores the coefficients of the approximation, which are just a couple of integers instead of encoding every sample in the chunk (like WAV). Of course, the waveform is only an approximation and there are differences to the original samples (i.e. errors). The differences between the predicted and the real samples are stored using Golomb-Rice codes, which are somewhat optimal for geometric distributions. The better the approximated waveform fits the real waveform and the less errors you need to encode, the better the compression ratio. Stuff like white noise won't be compressible at all, while simple waveforms and patterns will achieve very good compression.
>>50798425
Sorry, meant for >>50797951
>>50798371
I failed an ABX test between 96 opus and flac rip both from a cd. Should I just kill myself? ;_;
>>50798538
Not really, Opus is very good even at moderate bitrates. I'd argue that 96kbps is on the same level as 192 or 256kbps mp3
>>50798371
>Saying 192 kbps opus is audibly inferior to a flac file is a huge fucking assertion
If there is a measurable difference in the resulting waveforms then the difference is audible to at least somebody
>>50798538
It sounds like you need to stop buying 1$ chink headphones from ebay. You get at least a $100 pair of good headphones and you could probably pass an ABX test between a flac and a 192 kbps opus file.
Though I have to admit Opus is scary good without headphones. 48 kbps and 96 kbps opus music sounds literally the same to me if played from my laptop speakers.
>>50793667
>>50794035
128kbps trolls pls go
>>50798538
It could be because you're not young anymore. I always kek when real life audiophiles feel smug about listening to flac and have their fancy DACs and magic stones yet are over 40 years old. They fail to realize they can't even hear above 16 KHz let alone tell the difference between lossy and lossless encoded audio.
How old are you?
>>50797951
ADPCM is lossy
>>50794624
can we have one audiophile thread without a category 5 spergout
>>50796043
Oh boy, I love that constant hiss from my onboard DAC or sound card! The local talk radio that magically gets picked up by the speakers sometimes are fun too.
Hand me the aux cord..
It's pretty good, offers undistorted very near 1:1 CD ratio. Line out, high quality DAP
>>50794103
>To me FLAC and 192 Mp3 sound exactly the same.
>I don't care anyway, if people want to download, seed, store FLAC it's their choice
First non-retarded reply inna "FLAC EL PLACEBERONO" thread
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>50793667
nah man u gotta go at LEAST 192, 256 to be safe. anyone talking about the difference between 256 and 320 is horsesh*tting u
![266px-Opus_logo2.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/9y1r9aU.png "266px-Opus_logo2.svg[1].png")
Literally 144 kbps OPUS
Them people at Hydrogenaudio say so.
>>50793648
only if you have a really nice set of speakers and turn the volume up more than you probably should
>>50798538
opus is simply that good. The reason you failed the abx test is most likely due to how opus masks artifacts. If you listen real carefully you can hear soft "smudgy" sounds. Try the test again but use a volume a little bit higher and concentrate real hard.
>>50799039
>listening to flac music through speakers
Go die in a fire.
If you have the equipment that could allow you to tell a slight difference, maybe.
But for me, I've never heard a difference.
>>50799135
>Listening to garbo mp3's with ear dildos on a crowded bus
Go die in an ice.
>>50799139
Meaning you've never spend $10 on a pair of headphones?
>>50799271
I can't tell the difference between 192 MP3 and FLAC.
I'm using AKG K553 Pros and they aren't /bad/. I mean I'm not running HD 800s or anything, but I'm not using Apple earbuds either.
>>50799271
O wow anon you have superhuman hearing!? I can't wait until you posts abx tests proving that! :^)
>>50798887
>having a shit motherboard
>tfw using Koss Portapros on my Sansa with a small dildo in my ass on the bus
The best.
>>50799318
The HD 800 really aren't anything too special.
>burning disc with 256kbps mp3
>they all won't fit
>convert them to VBR to save some space
>files end up bigger, average bit rate is over 256
what's happening here, is my encoder inflating the files with emptiness?
>>50799432
What kind of shit encoder are you using?
>>50799432
Your music source is too complex for the encoder to use lower bitrates often. Either use another more efficient codec like opus or bite the bullet and use a lower mp3 bitrate.
>>50799486
This. You can also observe this nigger behavior in video encoding as well.
Conclusion: 320kbps .mp3 is enought
>>50799642
>2015
>still using mp3
>>50793648
it is limited from the hardware standpoint
for example:
combo 1: sansa clip + $40 headphones
combo 2: hd player + $300 headphones
combo 3: combo 2 + portable headphone amp
combo 4: mid tier stereo receiver + not-so good speakers + low end source (combo 1)
combo 5: mid tier amplifier + mid tier preamp + mid tier speakers + well-powered source (FLAC stream into powered DAC)
combo 6: high tier speakers + high tier amplifier + high quality powered source
you would probably not hear much difference until combo 5 or 6, but combo 6 would deliver substantial improvement if the media is also well-recorded
high tier doesn't mean expensive either, since you can find pretty good stuff for 1/5 msrp when its used but well cared for
>>50798121
>magic stones
>>50799879
Audiophile snake oil detected. A sansa clip is a "high-tier" source and amplifier.
>>50799879
Holy shit , that's a cool recommendation bruh. What type of magic stones and ceramic cable lifters should I get?
>>50799904
>>50799955
>mfw they are a real thing
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
>>50794771
vinyl has SO many problems
1. dust
2. static discharge
3. warp / woof
4. rotational velocity changes in the turntable (not to be confused with rotational velocidensity)
5. shit bumping the turntable and making the expensive cartridge bounce all over the surface of the record
6. skipping
7. the part of the beginning of the track that sometimes collects finger poo and does track the needle resulting in the first minute being skipped
8. accumulation of crud in the grooves making the recording sound like feces being sieved through a mosquito net
9. the dulling of the cartridge needle
10. damage to the magnet of the cartridge
11. problems with moving magnet/moving coil preamplification
12. the fucking preamplifier introducing too much noise through a sensitive phono circuit
its really not fucking worth it
Nah man my 12kbs copy of Feelin this by blink 182 is good enough for me.
>>50799995
Jesus christ I can't breathe.
>>50799927
a. sansa clip is a low end source
b. if you ever get a chance, find someone with a decent high end system, and try out some media -- the difference will make you feel like you've been walking around with a bag on your head
c. you can put together a high end system with about $1000 bucks if you know what speakers you're looking for, and you hit it just right on the amplifier, assuming 10 to 15 year old components in good condition
>>50793648
No, do you now know how lossless audio works?
That being said, I use FLAC for archival/backup purposes and Opus for listening.
Wave64 is the only format you should be using for uncompressed audio, CAF is proprietary garbage and RF64 isn't a true 64-bit format.
>>50800070
i run flac files through wavelab to obtain WAV files
i can't hear the difference but WAV is more accepted by some music players than FLAC
>>50800065
Dam you're not even trolling - I even gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Enjoy your DACs, magic stones, and other placebos you fucking mega retard. Bet you'll be claiming you can hear above 20 KHz even when you're 40+.
>>50799995
>$39 - $159
>>50800065
Nonsense. Plugging in a sansa clip to high quality speakers is just as good as plugging it in to your computer through a good DAC.
>>50800114
let me ask you: what kind of set up are you using?
>>50800100
WAV is uncompressed PCM audio. FLAC losslessly compresses that same audio. Of course there wouldn’t be a difference. Look at the -V option in flac:ENCODING OPTIONS
-V, --verify
Verify a correct encoding by decoding the output in parallel and
comparing to the original
>>50794103
This tbh
I just download my music in whatever format. I used to only download 320kb/s mp3s, but then my phone's 32gb storage got full, so I decided to just let MusicBee transfer my music, while also converting to some 190kpbs variable format on the go. Which led me to downloading flac more often as it's a better source than already lossy stuff and my PC has enough space anyways.
>>50800144
it's really not, since the circuitry that outputs the signal from the player may have limitations, one of them being low gain -- this doesn't mean you have to get expensive equipment, just good quality equipment
and how would you plug a sansa clip into real tower speakers with 6 ohm resistance -- that would sound really thin
>>50800157
the difference for me is really that some of my media players don't have the FLAC codec; WAV is pretty universal
>>50800222
>that some of my media players don't have the FLAC codec
Which ones? Now I'm curious.
>>50800222
What shit player are you using that supports WAV but not FLAC?
>>50800240
>>50800236
this old motorola mp3 player from 2008 or something -- i use it when i go jogging
i also have some other older mp3 players that don't comprendo FLAC
taking a pic of it nao
>>50800153
JVC ham55x headphones. That's it, no magic stones or placebo DACs. All my music is either FLAC or 256 kbps opus.
>>50800295
>motorola mp3 player from 2008
Oh okay, then that's excusable.
>>50794514
The best mixes/masters of music are marketed towards audiophiles so they either get pressed to vinyl or released on a niche site with a ridiculously high bitrate.
I make an AAC copy for my iPod and a downsampled copy for CD.
>>50793648
but thats SSD. Definition of snake oil, you can also use SSD as the meme
>Is FLAC just SSD?
>>50800295
this one, lol
it cost like $98 dollars on closeout
since most music players could only store about 512mb on SD and digital cameras were just becoming the principal format
it was actually around 2005
when you guys were 11 years old and what am I looking at
95% morons
>>50798564
That is utterly retarded. Our ears and brains aren't some kind of audio analyzers. Our hearing without training is extremely poor tool for any kind of measuring or comparing and that's 95% of the people posting to this thread. Only way to listen critically is to double blind it and compare. Zooming in on the waveform in software or looking at spectrograms of lossless vs lossy files is obviously going to show differences. This absolutely does not mean they are audible to our ears.
Fucking hell. I wish one of you people claiming to hear differences between good lossy encodes and lossless would one day prove it. Because I've seen tens of tests and studies where nobody can tell a difference between v0 mp3 and lossless once the test has been double blinded. People who design these codecs would also appreciate you taking part of the development thanks to your golden ears.
>>50800420
i have to tell you, I think the quality of the recording (not bitrate necessarily, but how the music was recorded in the studio) has a huge impact -- i was listening to "Stuck in middle with you" on 128kps mp3 and the stereo separation and the fidelity of the drums and voice were better than some of the shitty CD recordings I have done by Capitol Records - probably one of the shittiest recording studios
songs like "Baby, come back" by Player have really good recording quality so even the 128kps mp3 has great output on a higher end system; compare to "Bat out of hell" by MeatLoaf, which has so much noise and dynamic compression in its original recording that it sounds even shittier on good systems
>>50798538
Opus is extremely good at low bitrates. 96kbps could be very close to transparency on some songs. I can tell the difference but I need to focus on it a bit.
>>50793667
I only have a pair of shitty Sennheiser HD429's and i can tell a massive difference between 128kbps MP3 and 320kbps.
128kbps sounds like fucking shit, 320kbps is almost indistinguishable from FLAC. but i still download FLAC whenever possible because it's not like I'm on a mobile device or have limited harddrive resources.
>>50800311
Those look like Warhammer 40K phones.
>>50800565
I've actually listened to those and they're absolute shit
Just ripped a shit ton of music in v2 mp3. How bad did I fuck up?
>>50800600
ah well
>>50800519
i think on better headphones with some good amplification, the higher bitrate on 320's and WAVs/FLACs is in the soundstage/background instruments, and the higher frequency treble or some aspects of bass that aren't just a thud but kind of a flutter of people walking in the next room -- the really subtle shit that gives a song that magic sparkle of convincing realism
hard to explain it but if you've heard the difference, it's substantial
in a system with really good speakers that are properly amplified, a catchy song that sounds kind of thin can transform into a totally amazing and awesome piece of music that has additional emotive feature
>>50800204
With rockbox, the sansa clip has plenty of gain.
>>50793648
Yes, and you're all a bunch of fucking morons. Lossless is a bit misleading here. Audio is inherently analog in nature. By definition, converting it to digital is creating an approximation of the analog waveform. So FLAC really isn't about perfectly preserving the original. If you think you are accomplishing anything other than chewing up a shitload of storage space, then you are a goddamn retard. Enjoy your moster cables while you're at it. Oh, and lifetime DSP engineer here, so yes, I know my shit. Fuck you and goodnight.
>>50793920
Bait.jpg
Daily reminder that mp3 is over 20 years old
>>50795382
they are the minimum
also how can they be 'better' than 320 cbr
>>50801446
data archival for later compression into different formats is a legitimate reason
