I have a fairly large hard drive and I never have any trouble running out of space for music, so I generally rip all my cds as .wav, and when the option is available, when I download music I generally download it as .wav. But recently I've been trying out Foobar200 and some other music players and it's hard to find a lot of my music in facets or whatever because .wav files don't have the same kind of metadata as mp3 or flac (Title, artist, album, album art, etc.)
Should I convert/re-rip my .wavs/cds to flac?
>>66454534
If you want a ~20% saving in HDD space.
>>66454534
It's been proven by researchers at UC Berkeley that FLAC is nothing more than an auditory placebo for pretentious pseuds
yes. I immediately convert my wavs to flacs when i rip because flacs are about 2/3 the size of wavs. when you have gigabytes on gigabytes of music, that smaller file size is important.
besides, there is no advantage of wav over flac.
>>66454534
reminder that even the most geeky audionerds really can't hear a distinct difference between a 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, it's all placebo really
google it
>>66454563
source
>>66454730
If you're too stupid and disconnected from intellectual circles to routinely keep up with what Berkeley's working on, I'm afraid any source would go over your delicate little brain. The best you could hope for is a pop science article in some British tabloid, meaning that this post is of equivalent credibility to anything on your reading level
>>66454823
>sorry I can't find it
The only use of FLAC's is archiving.
It's not that it sounds better, but that if you want to recode your file to another format, you won't lose more quality, as you would with the 320 files.
Anyone who says that he listens to FLAC because it "sounds better" is an uneducated pretentious idiot.
>>66454838
Did you not read my post? I explained in very clear detail why I didn't event try to find it. Please don't use image forums if you are illiterate
>>66455264
>Putting down someone's intellect on a Belorussian fly-fishing image board
>>66454823
>Berkeley is at the forefront of intellectual thought
wew laddie
>>66454943
I've heard a few tracks that I converted from lossless CD/vinyl ripped albums into MP3 320kps that had degraded audio quality. Granted I'm using extremely high-end gear to listen to music so 99% of people wouldn't ever notice, plz stop memeing that "archival only" bullshit. During the downconversion process (sometimes eve rips to lossless, I'm sure) things can go wrong and cause audio quality to degrade ever so slightly.
>>66454823
>I'm offended that someone called me out on my bullshit, better try to sound as pretentious as possible. That'll show them.
>>66455813
samefagging, but here's a comparable study
http://esl.cise.ufl.edu/Publications/audioTR.pdf
>>66455854
ignore this that's on the quality of compression not audio quality
oops
>>66454534
Definitely. FLACs support embedded CUE files, meaning that you can store an entire album as a single file while preserving access/labeling of individual tracks AND avoiding gaps between tracks. And sticking with hi fidelity flac/wav is a good policy in case you ever decide to go with high quality listening gear (where it does make a difference.)
