Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?
I convert my MP3s to flacs so I can get better audio
>>54436282
If you can't tell the difference, why not?
>>54436307
I don't want to be that person.
>>54436307
Thats genius anon, doing this now!
>deprecated mp3 for storage opus
Is this bait?
Opus you nigger.
>>54436307
>retards from /mu/ actually believe this
>>54436556
instead of opus*
>>54436556
>Opus
Isn't this for streaming?
>>54436793
128kbps vbr opus is pretty transparent and half the size of a mp3 v0
>>54436282
something something rotational velocidensity
>>54436282
No, but one could wonder why you're even downloading FLAC in the first place, you can get MP3 encodes with full logs...
>>54436307
i think some of mine are mp3s converted to flac. is there a way to find this out?
>>54436577
you just need to decompress them like zip
>>54437316
Listen with your eyes.
And by that i mean check it with something like spek
>>54437316
https://www.whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/
>Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?
Not at all, just make sure you choose a low bitrate, so you get that warm, rich crackling sound.
>>54436282
>Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?
Yes, because storage is cheap and there is no way you have so many songs that the only way to store them is to compress them.
>>54437338
>>54437376
so like this ?
right one is not really flac?
>>54437447
it is, if there's nothing @ the top is the red flag
>>54436307
That's funny.
I personally like converting my mp3's to flac and then torrenting them!
>>54437620
Doing /g/od's work, anon.
>>54437447
Both are fine. Not all FLACs look the same.
You need to look for shelves (rough but we'll defined lines near 18 kHz) in the song
Just buy moar hard drives
>>54437595
>>54437688
thanks bunches
Jesus christ, I had no idea MP3 was so bad.
>>54437834
>160kbps mp3
well no shit
Opus is better anyway.
>>54438042
The Vorbis file is only 128k. MP3 has way less frequency range even at a higher bitrate. How embarrassing.
If storage space is the concern, consider Vorbis instead.
It's a libre audio format that compresses better than lame.
>>54438099
MP3 is deprecated.
>but muh compatibility
This stopped being an issue in 2015.
>>54438155
>MP3 is deprecated.
brb converting mp3s to opus
Good taste in animu music senpai.
>>54438466
are u talking about? >>54437447
>>54438337
>Lossy to lossy
anything at or above an MP3 at 256kbps or so and it's extremely unlikely anyone can tell the difference. by the time you hit your 20's, your ears are already shot beyond hearing things above 14khz. CD quality is probably already beyond the range of the hearing of any of us on this board.
if we're talking classical music, or maybe orchestral shit, sure, go nuts. but your fall out boy discography will sound exactly the same as decently encoded mp3s, and sadly, now most mainstream music (yes, even your super obscure indie fuck band) is now mastered to sound good on earbuds and mp3s.
>>54437316
Flac is a placebo, if the format is flac then believe they are the flac
>>54438337
Now you wish you had saved flac
>>54436282
Yes, you should be converting them to Opus instead.
>>54436854
>is pretty transparent
is transparent*
>>54436793
It's a general-purpose codec.
It can be low latency for streaming or high latency for efficiency.
>>54437834
>96 kHz
why?
>>54437447
>right one is not really flac?
It says “FLAC” right there in the image. Are you fucking blind?
FLAC iS FOR ARCHIVING AUDIO WITHOUT LOSS OF QUALITY
IT IS NOT BETTER FOR LISTENING
FLAC EXISTS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO LOSSY > LOSSY CONVERTING WHEN THE WORLD MOVES ON FROM MP3 TO OPUS
>>54440285
>PLEASE DON'T LISTEN TO FLAC, IT'S NOT ALLOWED, ONLY EVER LISTEN TO MY SHITTY LOSSY FORMAT FLAVOR OF THE WEEK
Nah cunt, I'll just listen to lossless audio.
Even better, I'll have it ALAC too, because iTunes is fucking great.
>>54440233
Problem gov?
>>54440533
>192 MHz
for what purpose?
>>54436282
Can anyone here actually distinguish flac from high rate mp3? I keep a lot of flac for the best stuff, but I could never really tell them apart.
>>54440605
>Can anyone here actually distinguish flac from high rate mp3?
Assuming the MP3 was properly encoded? No, nobody here can
most built in soundcards cuts at 20khz
so no need for flacs
>>54440629
>2016
>still using built in
Yeah, nah, I'd rather not listen to my mouse moving or fans RPM signal.
>>54440640
>He bought a shit PSU
lmao enjoy your rosewill ticking time bomb
No. You can't expect them to sound any better though they will last for as long as you want them to.
>>54440651
AX760
>>54440517
>Replacing the word "free" with "Apple"
>>54440600
Listening pleasure.
44.1hz is like 23.976hz - the outdated bare minimum required for good entertainment that some old fogeys won't let go because nostalgia and fear of change.
>>54440760
but the human eye can't see more than 16 fps
>>54440760
http://onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html
How high can you hear?
we can atleast all agree that 96 and 192khz is a meme
and actually gives worse quality than 44khz
>>54437447
Left doesn't have any frequencies over ~20k, could be due to mp3.
>>54440786
The human eye doesn't see in frames period.
>>54440797
Why are you linking me this?
It wouldn't matter if I could only hear to 10khz, sample rate doesn't define either static nor dynamic range of audio...
>>54436282
Just convert the mp3 back to flac if you need the flac again.
One great reason to get an i7 or xeon is the ability to convert to flac and back to mp3 in realtime while listening to your music.
>>54440797
Different guy. 29 years old.
At my usual listening level (~1/10th output) I can hear up to ~17kHz, if I increase the volume to a level that would drown out all background noise (~3/10ths) I can hear up to 18.5kHz. I don't usually listen to anything louder.
>>54440760
Higher sample rates equal worse quality.
Fact.
if you convert mp3 to mp4 and then back to mp3 and repeat with same "quality" settings will there be any artifacts like resaving jpg images?
>>54440818
>It wouldn't matter if I could only hear to 10khz, sample rate doesn't define either static nor dynamic range of audio...
Sampling rate defines the range of representable frequencies
No more, no less
>>54440863
Vacuum tubes also equal worse equality yet some people prefer them for aesthetic reasons or due to the placebo effect. (Mostly the latter)
It's pretty much the same with high frequency audio, except for the part where aesthetic effects are negligible. Nonetheless, even a pure placebo effect is still not to be discounted. If you can trick the human brain into enjoying the same thing more, you've accomplished your goal of making it sound better.
I don't have much of a problem with audiophiles in principle due to this. It's only when they try and find scientific reasons for it sounding better (other than the placebo effect) that I get annoyed.
>>54440927
>Sampling rate defines the range of representable frequencies
No it doesn't, at all.
It defines how OFTEN a sample is taken.
Sample Rate in Audio == Frame Rate in Video
>>54440863
I'd like to see a peer reviewed source for this 'fact'.
I'll wager any source you have is subjective analysis by someone who would equally believe that 'The Hobbit' in 48fps was bad since it wasn't 'cinematic'
>>54440982
>'The Hobbit' in 48fps was bad since it wasn't 'cinematic'
hobbit in 48fps was bad because the perception of motion and sorrounding is radically different than in 24fps movie.
48fps movies demand a lot less camera movement or even camera being entirely stationary and more theatre-like approach from the actors
>>54440982
>No it doesn't, at all.
Yes it does, completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Nyquist_sampling_theorem
>>54440982
>I'd like to see a peer reviewed source for this 'fact'.
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.
tl;dr it's demonstrably true that increasing the sampling rate degrades fidelity
>>54440982
>Sample Rate in Audio == Frame Rate in Video
Your eyes don't see in frequencies
Your ears hear in frequencies
The two are incomparable
If you're transferring it onto a device with a small amount of storage or something it's not wrong. If you don't care about having the original files, archival etc... Sure knock yourself out. If you pay for flacs and just keep mp3s you're a retard though.
>>54441164
>Your eyes don't see in frequencies
oh... wow.
Learn2light son...
>>54441153
>tl;dr it's demonstrably true that increasing the sampling rate degrades fidelity
Indeed it is, it always has and always will be, however the quality of amplifiers in 2016 is better than the quality of amplifiers in 1970 or 1990 or even 2005.
The quality of ADCs and DACs have improved too, hell we even have semi digital amplifiers and even fully digital to the output stage digital amplifiers now...
Should we hold back audio just becuase something at one point in time was 'good enough' or that going any higher at that time was 'bad' since regular equipment wouldn't handle it as well?
Should we not have moved from 1024x768 because 17" CRTs were slightly blurry at 1600x1200? Even though better CRTs came and then were replaced by LCDs?
>>54441253
>Learn2light son...
Visible light is on the order of several THz. Your 24 Hz signals have nothing to do with this.
>Indeed it is, it always has and always will be, however the quality of amplifiers in 2016 is better than the quality of amplifiers in 1970 or 1990 or even 2005.
But even in 2016 adding ultrasonics degrades quality therefore the rest of your post is invalid
>>54441284
We're not adding ultrasonic audio though.
You are again confusing sample rate with actual audio simply because both use Hertz.
>>54441284
>Visible light is on the order of several THz. Your 24 Hz signals have nothing to do with this.
Also it's funny because I don't see you claiming to be able to perceive infrared or ultraviolet light, yet you claim to be able to perceive ultrasonic audio.
>>54441296
>We're not adding ultrasonic audio though.
You can only hear up to 20 kHz though, therefore everything above it is ultrasonic. Feel free to disprove this and demonstrate your mastery of the waveforms, though. >>54440797
>>54440957
>Vacuum tubes also equal worse equality
It's apparent you don't know what harmonic distortion is...
>>54441253
You're very confused.
>>54441253
>however the quality of amplifiers in 2016 is better than the quality of amplifiers in 1970 or 1990 or even 2005.
One word:
"No".
>>54438920
>by the time you hit your 20's, your ears are already shot beyond hearing things above 14khz
uh, that's a low figure
not all of us spent our entire youth listening to pneumatic drills up close
>>54436282
to back up your music ? no.
to put it on a device without a lot of storage like a phone ? yes.
>>54436307
I convert my mp3s to FLAC because FLAC respects my freedoms
>>54441346
>It's apparent you don't know what harmonic distortion is...
Solid state amplifiers in 2016 will beat any of your vintage tubes by an order of magnitude or more in every statistic you can be bothered to measure.
>>54441471
I think what he was trying to say is that yes, vacuum tube amps are imperfect, but their imperfections distort in a way that many people like.
I think, but then again this is /g/ - they could just be a fucknugget that thinks hurr vacuum tube amp == 100% perfect amplifier
>>54436282
it really doesn't matter if you're listening to awful shit anyway
>>54441471
>...vintage tubes...
I'm still using a "budget" amplifier (cost around £800) manufactured in Germany by Harman Kardon in 1987. It's a solid state integrated amplifier and has a better noise floor than today's consumer hifi audio products.
You get what you pay for.
>>54441528
>You get what you pay for.
Yep. You pay for placebo, you get placebo.
>>54441528
>and has a better noise floor
Does it have a noise floor of -110 dB so you can distinguish between the sound of falling snow next to a jackhammer at 1m distance?
>>54441491
>I think what he was trying to say is that yes, vacuum tube amps are imperfect, but their imperfections distort in a way that many people like.
But then he wouldn't be in disagreement with >>54440957
>>54441621
you'd be amazed at what people argue over when in fact they agree on something
>>54436307
Reminds me of my friend that back in the napster days could find some songs only in mp3 128, and converted them to 320 for better quality, saying "music is a curve, if you add kbit/s you add points to that curve, so quality is better"
>>54441647
The sad thing is that grown men in 2016 still believe digital audio works this way
I bet they also upscale all of their 1080p videos to 4K to make them look better on their 1080p monitors
>>54441594
>Yep. You pay for placebo, you get placebo.
You can measure an amps noise floor.
You numpty.
>download MP3 album from KAT
>put some inaudible noise in the upper frequency range
>makes spectrograms look like they're actually FLAC
>upload to what.cd
>FLAC autists making comments like "Wow this quality is amazing"
Been doing this for years, never been caught. FLAC is a placebo and you retards fall for it ever time.
>>54440651
>what is EMC
>>54441774
you've been also using the same shitty bait for years anon.
>>54441769
>It's measurable, therefore it's audible
Keep on defending your $800 placebo that you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a $50 product in a double blind listening test
>>54436307
Please go back to /ptg/
>>54436282
No. But use VBR
>>54441774
is that the best use of your free time?
>>54441889
>But use Opus
ftfy
>>54436282
>tfw only download music from Bandcamp
>FLAC by default
>>54441930
No. Unless you don't care about compatibility.
>>54437447
Both look like FLAC to me at this resolution.
>>54437834
If you can't into spectral analysis and how it ties into perception, don't comment on it. What encoder did you use? That might not sound any different or at least not any worse than the other two.
>>54441816
>Keep on defending your $800
>$800
$800 is £500 in real money.
> that you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a $50 product
A noise floor can be measured very easily. I currently use an RME Fireface 800 interface to A/B audio equipment. A "$50" consumer product is unlikely to be worth testing. Its "quality" (or lack of) would be apparent.
>>54441954
>160kbps MP3 cut at 15kHz
>might not sound any different
>>54440629
As if bandwidth was ever the reason for lossless audio or discrete audio devices.
>>54441979
Learn into auditory masking and look at the content in the file. Goes slightly above 15 kHz. For music above 16 kHz has little to no importance.
>>54441942
>Unless you don't care about compatibility.
What devices/programs aren't compatible with Opus?
>>54441972
>A noise floor can be measured very easily
A double blind test doesn't typically start by plugging your oscilloscope into the amplifier.
Let me guess, you don't actually listen to music - you just measure your devices all day long while masturbating to the spec sheets.
>>54442033
Car stereos. I don't know even if all smartphones are compatible, also not really curious to be honest. MP3 VBR does a great job. Also I think Firefox and Chromium can't decode it (Chrome can).
>>54441979
https://0x0.st/NxB.flac
This is a 15 kHz sine wave. What musical quality is it adding to your typical audio file?
>Have entire collection in FLAC
>Convert it all to AAC for listening
>>54442061
I think you'll find it to be the case that Firefox can more often decode Opus than MP3, because the later is a proprietary codec.
>Car stereos
All car stereos I know are either old enough to only support playing red book audio CDs or new enough to support streaming music from your smartdevice. What kind of car stereo can directly play MP3?
>>54442086
>What kind of car stereo can directly play MP3?
Pretty much any that I tried so far and had a USB port. I'm not going to bother with streaming from my phone when I can just dump 64GB worth of music on a cheap USB flash drive and leave it inserted.
Never had issues with Firefox and MP3, though it could not play the OPUS audio inside a video container. The video ran fine.
>>54442048
As I said: cheap consumer audio equipment doesn't require testing; it's lack of fidelity is apparent to anyone with a pair of ears.
Higher end equipment requires tools to measure differences because audio colouration can impair perception.
>>54441253
I think your right, you definitely know more than those nerds at 'Xiph', whatever that is
>>54436282
> Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?
Yes.
If you must use a lossy codec, use opus as first preference, aac as second preference, and mp3 as dead last.
>>54441942
If it doesn't support opus, it's not worth using.
>>54442371
Isn't vorbis basically as good
>>54442454
No.
>>54441774
Where is proof?
>>54442187
>As I said: cheap consumer audio equipment doesn't require testing; it's lack of fidelity is apparent to anyone with a pair of ears.
Ah, the classic audiophile retort. “My ears are so good I don't need double blind test to confirm my placebo”
>>54442344
>>54442892
Situations where 48 kHz wouldn't be acceptable? Can't think of any.
>>54442892
i thought opus was free as freedom too
>>54441816
>>54442048
oh wow, i've just experienced some highly-concentrated autism
>>54442892
Actually, flac and mp3 are the only reasonable choices. Flac, being lossless, for archiving original content, and mp3 for listening copies.
>>54445358
Okay I'll bite. Why would you willingly use an antiquated codec that is inferior in every way to modern codecs such as AAC, Opus and Vorbis?
>>54441889
Disgusting. MP3 must be banned.
>>54443784
Music is 44KHz, unnecessary loss from conversion.
>>54442879
>Ah, the classic audiophile retort. “My ears are so good I don't need double blind test to confirm my placebo”
Who said that?
Listen to a $50 sound system; then listen to a $5000 sound system. You don't need magic ears to tell the difference.
But, if you A/B'ed a $5k system and a $10k system, you probably would need magic ears to tell them apart.
>>54441730
if you don't use all the pixels you're basically wasting the screen
>>54437427
This, also...
>reencoding MP3 to FLAC improves quality
...my oh my, ignorance is bliss amirite
>>54437834
Listen with your ears anon...
>>54443784
Embedded device with an audio chip that only accepts 44.1 kHz and would require sw resampling otherwise
>>54445236
It is
>>54445358
Opus, Vorbis and AAC are all more efficient than MP3, some to a significant degree. Pic related.
i encode mp3 to flac, but just to make my library uniform
is this bad?
>>54446026
>unnecessary loss
This is actually a negligible concern in practice, unless your Opus encoder is terrible. (But if your Opus encoder is terrible, you have bigger problems)
Resampling is a mathematically lossless operation, the only losses incurred are due to rounding errors - which are completely negligible at 16 bit depth.
>>54440760
>>54448019
you're wasting space, but at least the audio quality won't be any different
>>54448019
Utterly pointless waste of space,
>>54448245
>>54448248
thanks, about what i expected
i have more empty space than music at this point, even with the extra flac
>>54448408
but why? there's no advantage
>>54448450
*.flac
>>54448465
if you really, really have to have the same extension on everything, then just mux them into a common container, like .mka (matroska audio)
>>54436307
Cool, I do this with my bread too. I crush it down and remove all the air, then when I want bread, I put it back in the original bread bag and it becomes fluffy and doughy again!
>>54448475
but why bother man?
with everything in flac, mostly originally, a couple transcoded, i use l~40% of my free space
>>54437397
best response
also, use JBL LSR 305s to get that flat frequency response, low bass, and pleasant elevated noise floor in all your listening media
>>54448513
>but why bother man?
WHY BOTHER CONVERT THEM FROM MP3
people, man. holy shit
>>54448571
consistent metadata format
>>54448583
you can get that by using a common container (that supports flac and mp3 data)
>>54448599
but that's an extra step onto the flacs
>>54448465
Just change their file extention, there's no need to convert them and they'll remain MP3 size.
>>54441933
>TFW ordered The Worst Compilation CD and still haven't gotten it
>>54448686
are you the guy who posted a photo of his collection yesterday?
Why is MP3 still so widely popular when so many seemingly superior alternatives exist?
>>54450828
Legacy devices like old MP3 players and iPhones don't support anything else that's worth a fuck.
>>54450868
It's mostly a case of "It works for most people, so let's not bother improving it", I gather?
>>54450911
Opus is generally an improvement over MP3.
Problem is compatibility, support for it is pretty scarce.
Android supports is since 5.0 (anything above KitKat has basically no marketshare)
Windows got support for it in 10 or maybe 8 (and we all know the adoption rate of those)
And then you have Apple that doesn't even bother to support it.
If you want to replace MP3 you need a device that's actually capable of using the replacing codec.
Can someone explain what black magic was used here? How is this possible for a MP3? This was straight from the record label, not a CD rip.
>>54440533
>Van Halen
for what purpose?
>>54451184
MP3 VBR. Use fre:ac. Also: >>54441889
>>54451184
320kbps is virtually lossless
>>54451281
CBR is officially deprecated
>>54451269
That image cuts off at around 21khz. Mine fills out 22khz with MP3 320kbps. It's much better than what that VBR is demonstrating.
>>54451281
Why is it that 99.9% transcodes from lossless to MP3 320 cannot achieve this kind of spectro, preserving the 21khz area?
>>54451184
>>54451269
>>54451281
>>54451323
Here let me post an even better example. How can I make my own person transcodes as great as this?
>>54436282
320kbps 48k 24bit MP3's are OK.
>>54451362
Expand your window vertically. In my picture >>54441889 VBR doesn't really cut higher frequencies (CBR does, above 16KHz). As for their loudness, it depends on the song as well. Can you upload that flac somewhere so I can try?
>>54436307
successful bait
>>54451525
Anon, I believe it's a joke not bait, please go get some fresh air for a change...
>>54451501
They're not flacs, they're just plain MP3 320kbps. That's why I'm so intrigued how they're topping out at 22khz. I picked out the most impressive MP3s out of these EPs and stuck them in a zip.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/1rmt8mtl73f0f6r/Weird_MP3s.zip
>>54437316
This flac download didn't sound up to snuff after I burned flacs to music cd.
Checked with spek, it's obvious they were mp3 converted to flac.
So fuck you to people who say there's no audible difference.
True they sound pretty much the same on my phone and earbuds, though.
>>54451657
As I thought. It's because of the music genre, it has strong highs. I reencoded it just for curiosity. Ofcourse there's a bit of loss because of that, but I could produce exactly the same MP3 if I had the FLAC
>>54451766
So you made a transcode while preserving pretty much everything? How? This could help me change the way I transcode from now on.
>>54451766
>>54451788
Oh wait nevermind, doing V0 does just that. That's weird I never bothered to check V0.
>>54451788
fre:ac with these settings
https://www.freac.org/
http://portableapps.com/apps/music_video/freac_portable
Gets better results than V0. The bitrate values are disabled (not set to 320)
>>54451842
Cool thanks. I transcode to AAC for my iPod, can I still get the same level of black magic using this tool? I'm obviously not expecting to hit 22khz, but anything helps. I currently use Foobar and Apple's CoreAAC to transcode.
>>54451900
Yeah, it supports many encoders.
>>54440760
In case you're serious...
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
tl;dr anything more than 44.1kHz/16 bit is bloat
FLAC ---- > V0
24bit High Res WEB FLAC --- > V0 + dether
keep repeating this anons:
320 waste of space
LAME master race
320 waste of space
LAME master race
320 waste of space
LAME master race
>>54441253
>Should we hold back audio
Except human ears literally cannot hear at those frequencies.
>>54447998
why is opus so gud
>>54436282
Yes.
You should use AAC.
>>54440797
I don't get it, i heard the whole track, what does it mean?
>>54456408
1. It's the most modern by far (technology-wise)
2. It's developed by people who know their shit when it comes to audio codecs
>>54456518
You can hear this?
https://0x0.st/NlQ.flac
>>54436282
>convert to 128kbps
wut
well i also did this back in the day and i always used MAX bitrate possible but it still cut out some portion at the top
ended up archivinglal my shit in VQF before flac was even a concept.
i can convert my vqf to wav any time i want to as well
>>54437834
>had no idea
you just have shit ears
>>54451184
Just about any lossless codec can be transparent if you throw shitloads of bitrate into it.
Spectrograms are not the ultimate truth. Frequency range is not everything. Just because an mp3 file has a higher/no cutoff it doesn't mean it will sound better given the same bitrate. Reduced bitrate VBR presets purposefully apply a low-pass filter for this reason.
>>54440760
There is no professional grade audio equipment designed for these kind of frequencies (both recording and replaying).
>>54436556
/thread
>>54436282
do a good v0 encode and you wont be able to tell the difference
just make sure you dont lose your seeding ratios by purging your torrents
the funniest people are the ones who say flac is too big, while they store mp3's at 320kbps for no reason other than that it's the highest available bitrate
if you're trying to be conservative, at least do it right
can sox generate opus spectograms
