Lossless audio or lossy audio?
>>53766791
I don't have autism ears so I don't care.
>>53766791
can you repeat the question
>>53766802
You are a retarded poorfag.
Just transcode a lossy to lossless. Problem solved.
>>53766813
Looks like someone got triggered.
Take care.
>>53766791
for listening? lossy. it is impossible for a human to distinguish between transparent lossy codecs and lossless. we've achieved transparency many years ago with 320kbps CBR MP3 and later more efficiently with v0. plenty of other codecs achieve transparency at even lower file sizes.
don't believe the 'audiophile with expensive setup and golden ears' myth. nobody has ever demonstrated this ability in a double blind test.
the only reasonable arguments for lossless are:
> want to convert your music to an uncommon codec
> paranoid that your music isn't properly ripped (kinda funny because plenty of FLAC files circling around are fake and have been upsampled)
> want to archive your music if at some point in the distant future some extremely efficient, popular codec replaces mp3 and you want to losslessly convert to it
>>53766791
lossless if you're autistic.
>>53766873
>want to archive your music if at some point in the distant future some extremely efficient, popular codec replaces mp3
opus
I prefer lossless, but I can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless most of the time so I just settle for lossy. Any songs I want to keep for a long time and move between devices I get the lossless format.
>tfw fell for audiophile memes
Lossy
Keep 512 vbr complexity 10 Opus rips for archive copies and 128 vbr complexity 10 Opus rips to listen to on your phone.
Lossless audio formats are now obsolete except for music production.
Lossless for archiving, lossy is enough for listening.
>>53766791
lossless audio FTW
lossy for archiving and listening
Stallman prefers lossy
>>53766818
Hahah good one you fooled them!
which codec has the lowest transparency rate?
>>53769011
Opus, it's audibly transparent around 96 -128 kbps for most
>>53766802
this
For burning music cds. FLAC.
Lossless for archiving and whatever new efficient lossy format comes for listening, using Opus right now.
>>53766813
Toppest of keks
>>53766791
Audio is already lossy.
Every time you hear something you damage your ears a little bit.
>>53769820
>>53766873
Can you post a study comparing human ability to differentiate between lossy and lossless audio formats?
Lossless vs lossy anything.
If you are a designer, editor, or some other reason you would re-encode or modify the stuff, lossy is the best.
If you plan to consume the content, you want it lossy since at the highest quality levels lossy is indistinguishable from lossless while consuming the content, most of the time.
If you can save the content at a smaller filesize in lossless (PNG) then that's superior.
This applies to music, movies, pictures, etc.
I always download lossless so I can convert to my preferred format and codec (Ogg Vorbis) and tag it properly
I just don't like how most of the lossy releases are done (320k MP3 with embedded images and dubious tagging)
>>53770322
>dubious tagging
Tell me about it
>>53770203
>applies to pictures
yeah why do those idiots insist high resolution photos are anything but a placebo?
my 320p images look fine.
>>53770457
Nice hyperbole you fucking retard.
A better example is PNG vs JPG for a photo. At the highest quality setting for JPG saved in photoshop in the same resolution, it's indistinguishable from a PNG, but a fraction of the file size.
>>53770457
One half of this image was saved with lossy jpeg compression, the other with lossless png compression, from a png source. Which is which?
Report frogposters.
>>53770543
>Inb4 you claim you saved both as JPEG
I saw 3TB hard drives for $99 the other day. The only reason to use lossy audio codecs is for your cellphone. Given that, I don't even bother compressing to FLAC. All of my audio CDs on my computer are WAV because it just werks on everything.
>>53770555
by default
>>53766791
I convert all of my mp3s into FLAC, for a good reason.
>>53770543
You tell me.
Both have been exported as their respective filetypes 20 times then combined into a single PNG.
lossy, lossless is a meme except for music production.
>>53771188
Dank opinion friendo. What else is a meme?
>>53771215
your posts, this website, the internet
An image being resampled 20 times isn't unlikely. Audio being resampled multiple times is.
I believe you can't hear the difference. That's why I often do the following: I upload 96 kHz/24 bit music to torrent trackers and whatever. The clue: I just upsampled them from some shitty 128 AAC file. Now, there are some really smart people that look at the spectrum of the files. You would immediately see the sharp cutoff at 16 kHz. So I do the following: I cut it off even further, to 15 kHz. Then I calculate the cubes of the data: That gives me a lot of harmonics to work with. I high pass those at 15 kHz and than I add the signals. Some adjustments to make sure you can't here the new harmonics and the spectrum looks clean and done. You objectively can't tell whether you have the real deal or not. Nobody ever called me out on it. They often comment stuff like "WOW! Great sound!". I even add some analysis of the spectrum I created to the files. I'm proud of my work.
>>53771466
This is bullshit because no one comments "wow sounds great" on private trackers, or even mentions the quality unless it's shit.
>>53771535
No shit. It's copypasta.
Also adding a tonne of data at 15kHz and making it both audibly and visually transparent would require hours of work per track. Try it yourself.
>>53770836
Left is PNG right is JPG?
Just mainly a guess but in clover the preview is just a tiny picture with added compression so the JPG one seemingly has a bit more "noise" to it.
Once loaded I can't see a difference though.
>>53771585
It's pretty fucking easy. I even described to you how I do it. It's works completely automatic, It's just a low pass some random mathematical operation (usually cubes) and a high pass. No idea how long it takes exactly because actually encoding the file to FLAC takes a lot more time.
>>53771708
Good commitment 7/10.
>>53771708
Would this be useful on Codecs that remove a lot of audio data I wonder?
>>inb4 use better codec
Just curious about lower bitrate MP3 files.
>>53771686
Holy fuck did I ever get that backwards. Loaded the image and holy fuck
>>53766791
Lossless for storage, lossy for portable listening
>>53770374
Lol, my version had the same tagging
>>53766791
I download FLAC then convert it to Opus.
