Flac VS 320kbps
inb4 v0fags
users:
FLAC = patrician
320 cbr = mouthbreathing retards using deprecated encoding tech
>>60363224
Flac. Unless you don't have much storage, then 320
v0
flac. cant hear the difference between it and 320 95% of the time but its basically an archive of the cd so thats kickass.
>>60363330
This
v0
>>60363224
320 almost always. If I must, v0.
Sometimes I've downloaded flac and encoded to 320 if that is the only copy of an album I could find, or if I want to ensure quality.
for purely listening purposes there is no reason to use FLAC. mp3 320 is audibly identical unless you are a superhuman
i am a sound engineer and i have to explain this to you window lickers every day
>>60363283
FLAC = retarded format for hipsters
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/FLAC
>>60363478
That's like saying don't buy vinil because cd sound the same
>>60363478
It's good that I'm superhuman then and can tell the difference. #dealwithit
320 and burn them to CDs duh
>>60363478
yes but flac isn't loseless and unlike mp3s they won't lose quality the more they sit on your hard drive
>>60363546
multiple abx tests for real or bullshitting?
>>60363224
im a poor itunes pleb. download flac > 256kbps on the phone
>cant hear a difference with my shit earbuds anyway
V0.
>encoding silence at 320 kbps
>>60363549
>burn to cd
>cd
Why the fuck would anyone want to do that?
whenever i download flac cd rips, if its a whole thing thing i convert it to v0
so v0 to put it short
>tfw I have 105GBs in 120kbs music
v0 is the best.
>>60363628
because I'm patrician duh
>>60363478
Then why get 320 if you can't tell the difference? Flac has more permanence and if it sounds the same then it has a leg up over 320 anyway
people that vehemently defend 320 are people that don't want to feel bad about amassing their entire library in 320 and realizing flac is better
GET FLAC
AT WORST ITS THE SAME, AT BEST ITS BETTER THAN LOSSY
>>60363632
>thing thing
>>60363666
>Wasting time burning music to CDs
>patrician
U fucked in the head?
>>60363666
>patrician
>burns one third of the data of a cd rip onto a burnt cd
>>60363754
never said being patrician was easy
actually i prefer vinyl
>>60363890
>2015
>buying music
you can't be seriuos
>>60363685
flac = a waste of space. and give me a break with archiving shit: you're not going to live forever.
>>60364402
Oh you need room for you animes and porn right
you can get multiple terrabytes for next to nothing, stop being pathetic
FLAC but v0 is fine too desu
>>60363224
AAC
>>60363303
320 is useless, if you don't have the space for flac use v0, they sound exactly the same and v0 is tiny compared.
>>60364004
>2015
>pirating music
If you like the band so much, just kidnap them and force them to play for you
>>60365143
That was my point f@m
>>60363478
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.
>>60366263
actually, the man knows what he's talking about, albeit, petty or nonsense to most people. when i've gone back to some really old mp3's from way back 'in-the-day' (90's, Napster, 56k modem) most of my mp3 library sounds like crap, mostly due to the technologies available at the time. i notice an unusually large amount of "pops" in a lot of songs and a 128k rip sounds more flat than a new 128k rip (both sound terrible regardless). anybody who knows how data is written to a disc would know that bits do get lost over time.
i'm an arrogant, elitist, analog snob with 2 vintage hifi systems (1 solid state/1 tube based) that can expose every imperfection in an mp3 file. it absolutely cracks me up when people think their crappy OEM soundcard, crappy best buy cables, and crappy desktop speakers are suitable benchmarks for judging sound quality.
it's pathetic how nowadays people have allowed themselves to compromise quality over convenience and cost. i'm only 34 but just as bitter and scornful as someone twice my age. just wait until i get my FLAC vinyl rip blog up and running!
Not gonna pretend I read the whole thread but if you seriously can't hear the difference between flac and mp3 I feel sorry for you and your audio equipment.
>>60366398
nice meme!
