I have a bunch of cd's /g/, what software would you recommend for ripping them to flac and what conversion software would you recommend to copy/convert them to mp3?
>>51898290
>ripping
EAC
>converting
ffmpeg
>>51898302
This, but use opus.
>>51898365
right, forgot to mention that
>>51898290
use opus, or ogg incase device you're converting to cannot into opus
>>51898491
>converting to
s/to/for/
fuck me
>>51898302
I think sox is better than ffmpeg for converting music. Or even lame.
>>51898698
haven't personally used sox, but ffmpeg can use LAME as backend (and it actually does in my system)
why is sox better?
EAC
use Opus and FFMPEG. Or if device does not support opus try AAC. If that is unsupported too try vorbis. After that comes mp3
>>51898365
>>51898491
what would I gain from a less widely supported format? how is opus better for lossless than flac? why would I use it over mp3 when mp3 is (ever so slightly) better at >~90kbs?
>>51899144
I didn't said that opus is better than flac, opus is lossy, flac is lossless
and mp3 isn't better than opus at any bitrate iirc
>>51899144
Use flac for archiving, i meant that you should use it instead mp3. Also they have better quality than mp3
>>51899144
Freedom.
Unrelated. Is there an audio comparison website similar to screenshotcomparison.com?
>>51899265
>>51899276
so the data loss charts people post are wrong? I know they're exaggerated logarithmically because their y axis is lineair but still are they just trolling/being retarded? Don't have the pic atm
>>51899418
Seems bretty good to me
>>51899418
>>51899477
spectrograms of opus looks lot better to me than of mp3
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_codec)#Spectrograms_in_comparison
>>51899477
this is not relevant because it shows >90kbs. I will of course be using 320kbs, there's a graph that shows opus being worse than 320kbs mp3
anyway thanks for eac+ffmpeg, I'm probably just going to stick to flac+320kbs mp3 unless someone has scientific proof of another format being better (or practically the same but smaller file size!)
>>51899574
I doubt you need to go higher than 160kbps.
>>51899574
>>51899574
Opus on lower bitrate or opus on an average of 320-ish bitrate?
>>51899602
>Storing music at 160kbps
>>51899625
>pretending to be able to hear the difference between 160kbps and 320kbps
>>51899616
320ish
>>51899572
tops out at 158kbs; not relevant either
also how's the opus vs mp3 filesize? 256kbs opus vs 320kbs mp3 and 320 vs 320?
>>51899665
being deaf
anything under 256kbs is /trash/
>>51899691
nice meme
>>51899672
naturally, for same constant bitrate you'll get around same filesize
these numbers don't randomly tell you quality ratio, they tell you exactly how much kilobits per second will it cost to store, do your math
>>51899672
I think you dont get what kbps means
>>51899780
>>51899788
right. but also I'm going off me somehow remembering 256opus being insanely close to 320mp3 but this makes no sense since mp3 is less worse at higher bitrates (keep in mind opus was designed specifically for low bitrates) so uh yeah this was kind of dumb.
320kbs mp3 will serve me just fine, thanks
>>51899862
ffs at least use AAC. Made by same guys who made mp3 so they probably improved it, and every video and audio streaming site uses it.
>>51899934
>streaming
>>51899955
Streaming uses CBR, you can use VBR so even better
>>51899934
doesn't aac have a much bigger filesize?
>>51900148
kbps means KiloBits Per Second and is not just a random ratio. Same bitrate and same length = same size
