flac or fuck off
>>51839156
i only use raw PCM for superior quality
I agree but it's not something to get up in arms over, just silently look down on those who don't use it exclusively
>>51839177
Why would you waste file space?
>>51839191
the milliseconds it takes to properly decode a FLAC file for playback degrades the experience
>>51839191
I think he was joking, making fun of braindead audiophiles.
>>51839198
May I have some data to confirm it is in the milliseconds?
>>51839156
Is there any audible difference?
>>51839156
Can anyone recommend a good flac player for iphone? I'm using VLC at the moment, but that shit crashes constantly.
Alternatively, what's the best FLAC->ALAC converter?
>>51839198
kek.
Hope you got that $300 gold cable plugged in.
I use spotify on low quality.
>>51839215
nevermind, just realized Foobar can do that.
Disregard my posts, I suck cocks.
>>51839215
i can do you one better and recommend you stop using iphone instead
>>51839228
if foobar can play it, it can convert it. that goes even for any file type / codec added as a module.
>>51839215
>Has iphone
>Wanting quality audio
>>51839191
nothing is wasted. unlike flac, PCM preserves the REAL audio.
if you can't afford the properly calibrated hard drives to store such high quality music, you probably don't have equipment worth doing it for anyway.
How about this baby guys, is MQA the way of the future?
http://www.whathifi.com/pioneer/xdp-100r/review
>>51839242
Not him and I hate iOS for being a featureless piece of shit.
But iPhones have pretty good audio outputs. Not the best, but up there.
how do i download song off youtube into flac?
>>51839215
xrecode II
Genuine question.
I try to use flac for music, but, is it really better if I use some shitty speakers and not some pro ones?
>>51840152
It's better for archiving. But even WITH high-quality equipment, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between FLAC and high-quality MP3. But hey, it's not like HDD space is expensive.
>>51840209
Fuck, forgot to remove the name AGAIN.
>>51840152
Just get 320kbps mp3. It's a file type that anything can play and doesn't take up nearly as much space. My girlfriend and I did a blind taste test between FLACs and Spotify and half the time we couldn't even tell the difference on Bose QC15's. Which aren't the best headphones, obviously, but it goes to show.
If you have shitty speakers there's no way you're going to be able to tell the difference.
le audible difference??????????
>>51839156
Post autism score /g/.
>>51840152
Yes.
People have this "it's garbage anyway, so I might as well mindlessly make it worse". If you look at it for what it is, it clearly doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you rather play back the most high quality source to start with, and make sure that supposedly shitty equipment has the best signal to attempt to reproduce?
Lossy compression schemes rarely improve perceived quality. If you're not on a mobile device, might as well just have flac if you value the experience.
>>51840410
MP3 (79.3%)
FLAC (20.2%)
WMA (0.3%)
AAC (0.2%)
Vorbis (0.1%)
avg bitrate: 369 kbps
>>51839156
>>51839177
>>51839183
>>51839191
>>51839198
>>51839204
>>51839213
>>51839214
>>51839215
>>51839218
>>51839223
>>51839228
>>51839234
>>51839237
>>51839242
>>51839377
>>51839554
>>51839571
>>51840103
>>51840130
>>51840152
>>51840209
>>51840218
>>51840230
>>51840283
>>51840410
>>51840470
>>51840646
>>51841916
How to trigger mp3/lossy autismo with JUST one (1) simple youtube video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoS3-zIhZHI
The reason why I don't use mp3 is because Richard Stallman told me not to use any .mp?'s
>>51842229
Good boy.
>>51840103
Just download the highest quality you can find and convert to flac
Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is "lossy". What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.
I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of South Carolina. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then.
Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view.
Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.
>>51839156
OPUS
P
U
S
>>51842639
>>51842669
Pasta
>>51842669
But unlike mp3s, flac files have little robots that travel in your headphones. These robots are not only able to dust off the audio packets., but also make sure they don't get lost. Hence the acronym "Fully Lossless And Cleaned"
Every time you play a mp3 or flac, it degrades from bitrot.
How do you guys fight audio decay? I want my FLACS to be in supreme condition. I actually rar all my flacs, uncompress them, listen to them once, and delete them. Then when I want to listen to them again, I uncompress and start over.
>>51842880
>>51842927
Pasta part 2
>>51842927
I took out a sizeable loan and purchased 1500 acres to fight this very problem. I logged out all the trees, filled in the wetlands with sand and gravel, dammed up the streams, and bulldozed it relatively flat. I hunted down all wildlife, then fenced it off in its entirety. It felt terrible, but I knew it needed to be done.
I spent 5 years straight placing rocks in long chains at regular and precise intervals, to represent each bit of my extensive collection. File by file. I was determined to prevent bitrot at all costs.
I ran out of space sooner than I thought, and took out another loan to build a subterranean complex underneath the property. Mining was difficult, the surface could not in any way be disturbed. Took to using shaped charges for blasting. After a few levels I hit water. Wanted to divert it away, but ended up just going with it.
When this 10 level structure was complete, I resumed placing rocks. My collection is now 10% preserved, and I'm still working hard every day. I managed to take out another loan / sell my soul, and launched a few satellites last year (for redundancy, and to ensure every stone is correctly read.) When I want to play back my music I access it via satellite and convert the image back into a bitstream. I engineered robots to go through and read from the lower levels. Some of them are swimming robots.
Can't quite playback in realtime, but it's bitexact guaranteed. Immediate plans are to replace the rocks with lumps of solid platinum. The universe itself conspires to compromise my playback.
>download anime
>it uses flac
>>51842040
MP3 FAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>ctrl+f placebo
>no results
>>51842040
is that guy seriously boasting a 2 out of 3 success rate on a blind test?
1 and 2 are tied for the most likely result at random chance
>>51842040
I'm more triggered by the complete lack of dynamic range on the audio files he's using than anything else.
