First things first /g/, every single one of you who says that you can't tell the difference between 320kbps MP3/other related lossy formats and lossless ones like FLAC is a total fucking faggot.
I downloaded my first FLAC album to day, and I can confirm that there is a _massive_ difference in quality of audio, you can easily notice it.
MP3s are now painful to listen to, every second of FLAC is pure aural joy - the channels aren't mashed together, everything sounds hundreds of times clearer, the audio isn't flattened, you can tell the difference between instruments and vocals; no "psycho-achoustic" bullshit - you hear the music exactly as the artist intended.
So, thanks a lot faggots, I spent years having to suffer lossy formats and missing out on whole swathes of the audio experience without realising it.
I am now in the process of transferring my whole collection to FLAC (re-downloading, CD ripping, whatever), thanks a lot for the wasted time (who cares about HDD space, I have 6TB total).
So, to the rest of /g/ - I urge you to reconsider who's actually doing the trolling - it's not FLAC users, it's the people who are recommending lossy formats. Seriously, try downloading your favourite album in true FLAC (not some fake "re-encoded from 128kbps MP3" bullshit floating around on torrent sites) and listen to it; I promise to you you *will* notice a difference.
>>53600935
This bait is pretty long.
As one who has listened between 180kbps mp3s, 320kbps mp3s, as well as ogg and flac, I could not hear any difference.
I bet you also have a dedicated sound card.
Kill yourself you audiophile.
Now watch me whip, now watch me may may
You have finally graduated from being a pleb, congratulations. Beware of resamples, there are a surprising number of retards that resave mp3 as FLAC, because, you know, it's higher quality!
>>53601074
Thanks mr anonymous us audiophiles have to stick together haha!! xDDD btw will you poop my bunghole
>>53600935
>still giving a shit about outdated MP3 codec
Any device you're using to read this thread can play AACs or OGG vorbis which sounds transparent at <190kbps
FLACfags should be killed.
>>53600935
fuck off with your FLAC shit, the only acceptable digital audio format is uncompressed WAV ripped directly from audio-cd with EAC and Paranoid mode enabled. Anything else is pure trash and sounds like shit
>>53600935
Almost all FLAC albums on torrent trackers are actually re-encoded from MP3. Enjoy your placebo
>>53601224
>Rip a CD by using EAC with proper settings
>Check Audio MD5 checksum both for WAV and FLAC
WAV = 4258ECDD2C8B931C7700057AA41FDC55
FLAC = 4258ECDD2C8B931C7700057AA41FDC55
>Your problem was?
>>53601224
>Paranoid
Are we back in 2007 again? You are aware there is EAC v1.1 with Secure mode right now, right? R-right?
>>53600935
My entire library of music is from ripped CD's encoded to FLAC and your post is bait, I don't support you or want to have anything to do with you at all. Fuck off, die, and go back to /b/ shit poster. Goodbye.
>>53601042
>frogposting
>>53601224
cd's don't use wav
>>53602983
>ripped directly from audio-cd with EAC
>>53602998
how does that correlate?
>>53603120
the output from ripped CD by using EAC is WAV you retard
>>53603142
>not compressing with flag right after
Why?
>>53603165
Because I'm retarded.
>>53600935
Stop shitposting.
Have you done proper ABX test, OP?
>>53601155
>"sounds transparent at <190kbps"
>encodes audio at 1kbps
>sounds like shit
how to use operators
Enjoy your autism. I myself use 128kbps Opus. It's transparent in 99,99999% cases.
>inb4 muh killer samples
>>53603939
There is no Autism if you want a 1:1 copy of your CD content. Autism begins with hdtracks.com or vinyl rips
>>53603963
>I am now in the process of transferring my whole collection to FLAC
>not autism
pick one
>>53603939
Depending on how the psychoacoustics and shit works to make it seem transparent, it looks like a tonne of data actually gets chucked out when using Opus.
https://soundcloud.com/kingo64-1/opus-192kbs-vs-reference
Need some audio nerd here with good/placebo gear to confirm if it makes it sound less 'full' or something as a result OR Opus is actually just god tier encoder.
>>53603939
>Implying that you can get Opus transcodes without downloading lossless and transcoding it yourself
>>53603992
Autism would be storing a written copy of your CD data.
>>53604017
what the fuck is this? it sounds like garbled noise
>>53604017
Taking anyone's word here instead of looking at the already done listening tests is pointless. I can say that I have good gear and I can listen somewhat well. Other than some problem samples Opus it gets completely transparent around 128kbps. Our hearing process is very lossy and perceptual coding like lossy audio codecs make use of this.
Soundcloud transcodes everything to 128kbps mp3 btw. Do you think Soundcloud content sounds good?
ABX-log and audio-files, please.
>>53604096
Audio difference between 192kbps Opus file and the original FLAC file I think. That garbled noise is everything the Opus file is missing/added from the original audio.
All memes aside, if an audiophile wanted to listen to music from his phone, what would be the best codec to use?
>>53604718
Opus.
Best quality and smallest filesize of all the codecs. 128kbps should be transparent, but you can go a little higher if you're paranoid.
>>53604718
For lossy, I would go like this.
1st place: itunes AAC format in 256 VBR mode
2nd place: mp3 v0 encoded with LAME 3.99
3rd place: for Opus 192 kps
For lossless its pretty much narrows to the FLAC only, unless you like funny named lossless codec like "Monkey"
>>53604775
>MP3
Why on earth would you do that to yourself?
>>53604775
Size wise test:
>Song "Moody Stix" by Ulver from album ATGCLVLSSCAP
FLAC = 40 MB
mp3 v0 = 12.8 MB
Opus 192 kbps = 9.25 MB
>>53604819
Compatibility issues, unless thats not a problem then go for other two
if flac is lossless, how come the flac file is smaller than the raw wav file it was encoded from?
clearly something is removed from the wav when you make an flac, and therefore calling flac "lossless" is a fraudulent description.
>>53604955
>clearly something is removed from the wav when you make an flac, and therefore calling flac "lossless" is a fraudulent description
You can encode lossless file into another lossless format how much times you want, the Audio MD5 checksum will be the same as as with original WAV (or with properly ripped CD as well)
The more complex file with less Dynamic range, the less compression is added to save space for FLAC format. This is a very short description.
Here is an example:
>pic related
Song: Con No.1, Op.11 - II. Romanze (Laghetto) from album Chopin: Piano Concertos Nos. 1 & 2
See all that black area? Its what FLAC compress and uncompress on the fly when playing the music.
Size test:
WAV = 107 MB
FLAC = 33.4 MB
MP3 v0 = 17.8 MB
>>53600935
>>53604955
>>53605074
And another example, the opposite:
Song: Subterranean Homesick Alien from album OK Computer
WAV = 45 MB
FLAC = 30.4 MB
MP3 v0 = 8.55 MB
>>53600935
nice blog post faggot
>>53604955
Because lossless compression is a thing.
>>53602945
your taste a shit
>>53605173
Dude, that's genuinely really interesting.
Thanks for explaining!
>>53605074
>>53605173
Who cares about deprecated mp3
>>53605204
>a trip fag said that my taste is shit, oh no better buy some Japanese weeb soundtracks next time to impress you desu
>>53605217
mp3 was just for keks to have a bit of overview of the size of lossless files to more common known mp3 lossy format
>mp3
>I downloaded my first FLAC album to day
Welcome to 15 years ago lol
>>53600935
Good luck running out of HD space.
my opus is bugged
>>53600935
You're full of shit, I converted some of my mp3's to flac and I couldn't hear a difference
>>53604192
And it's completely masked while you listen to them. That difference file is easy to create by nulling the two files in any decent audio editing software.
>>53604955
Lossless compression.
>clearly something is removed from the wav when you make an flac
Clearly not. You can try this yourself. Get a lossless file in any format and transcode it through any kind of lossless encoder to another and then encode it back to the original. All data is still there, the original file will have the same checksum to verify this too.
Same thing as compressing files into a zip archive which you then extract later on. It includes all data when its extracted in the exact same form as it was before compression even if the file size was smaller during the archival.
Or pic related, I just losslessly compressed anon's spectrogram posted here >>53605074
About 10% smaller than the original with all bits of data still intact.
>>53605547
>that line at 16khz
What's this?
>>53605677
No clue, some strong harmonics maybe as 16kHz goes way beyond fundamental tones of instruments or vocals. I don't have the file myself. I'd create a high pass filter and crank up the gain to hear what that is.
>>53605710
I read somewhere that CRT monitors or similar device can cause shit like this, if music is recorded in non-isolated room.
>>53605677
>>53605710
>>53605740
An electric inference. The album was originally recorded on analog tapes back in 1979 then transferred on CD from master tapes in 1990.
>>53605740
It looks more like an artifact to me rather than musical content of any kind.
>>53605763
interference*
>>53600935
use lame to convert a song to mp3 v0, do you still hear a difference?
>>53605710
>>53605677
It's usually the sound of the flyback transformer of a CRT monitor or television somewhere in the studio. NTSC horizontal scan is about 15 KHz.
To your ears maybe, I'll stick with 192k mp3s.
>>53604955
i think you need to get some brains.
>>53605978
Even faggots wearing $10 buds from Walmart can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps mp3.
In fact, I'm honestly believing that mp3 is utter shit.
Theoretically speaking, if 192kbps Opus is better than 320kbps mp3 (let's say it is) will it consume less power on mobile devices?
>>53606046
Nice bullshit blanket statements.
>>53606086
>blanket statements
Sorry that your hearing is shit. MP3 at that quality is shit, and there's a hearable difference.
>>53604955
when you factorize the expression (x + 1)*5 -(x+1)*4 to the shorter expression (x+1), did you lose any information?
>>53603963
>There is no Autism if you want a 1:1 copy of your CD content
Sure, but if you can't hear it what's the point?
>>53606046
>Even faggots wearing $10 buds from Walmart can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps mp3.
No and like >>53606086 said that's one heck of a dumb blanket statement. Not only is the bitrate only one factor in codec quality, it's also dependent on what is being encoded and the encoder used. 192kbps MP3 with a new LAME encoder nears transparency and achieves it on some content.
Listener skill is more important than the gear you use although earbuds are probably the worst thing you can use for critical listening as their bandwidth is shit and distortion very audible.
MP3 is the least compression efficient codec widely used for encoding full band stereo audio but it's still very good on modern encoders and with suitable bitrates for the content. The v0 setting is essentially transparent which is about 250 kbps VBR.
>>53606117
Nice ad hominem to back your bullshit up.
Now read up before you post anything more:
http://www.musicaememoria.com/docs/Hamburg_Technical_Report_CD_MP3_2011.pdf
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf
Better yet, test your hearing by actually ABX testing these. Fairly easy to do.
>>53600935
>_massive_ difference
No.
What would be a good bit rate to transcode my flac albums to opus to listen to on my phone?
>>53606310
128kbps vbr
>>53606187
FLAC is an extension of CD PCM WAV format that meets the standards since 1982 when first CD was released on the market. But it is more accessible and handy for PC rather just to burn on CD itself.
44.1 kHz and 16 bit is the magic perfect combination for general use to listen music, human race will never gonna need nothing more beyond that.
mp3 and other lossy formats were the answer back 10+ years ago when HDD was still expensive to store perfect rips of CD's.
If you can hear the difference between mp3 320k or lossless vary on your own overall health, ears, sound equipment and even mental health.
The difference on paper is more upper frequency detail and no masking or artifacts that can cause.
So the point to have FLAC in your collection in 2016 is to archive the stuff you enjoy the most, listen and encode to Opus/mp3/AAC for mobile devices in most cases.
>>53606222
>reading through it
>listeners are able to distinguish between CD quality from bitrates ranging between 96-192kbps
Thanks for proving yourself wrong, what a waste of my time.
>but muh new LAME encoder
>honestly trying to justify using MP3 at all
>>53606331
Yeah some listeners on some samples. If you look at the stats on acoustic music there were many samples where listeners couldn't consistently differentiate 128kbps mp3 from lossless and even at 96kbps there wasn't a clear winner in quality even if the difference was audible. Expert listeners who were familiar with codecs were able to differentiate even the highest mp3 bitrates from lossless in some samples but the average "sound engineer" couldn't differentiate v0 from lossless and musicians did worse than that.
You missed my entire point as does every retard ever asking this shit in these threads. It's dependent on more factors than just the format and bitrate and the transparency is impossible to see from just the encoder or settings used past a certain bitrate. Only way to test it is to double blind the listening test yourself as listener skill varies greatly. A person not experienced with the codec listening does very poorly on average.
Your claim also was comparing 192kbps to 320kbps where the difference is smaller than between 192kbps vs lossless.
>but muh new LAME encoder
>honestly trying to justify using MP3 at all
Shitposting won't get you anywhere. I'm not justifying anything, I'm trying to actually explain how this shit works to maybe actually make some people learn.
>>53606318
The 44.1 kHz is an oddball sampling rate which requires creating a cutoff filter before Nyquist very hard. 48 kHz gives you more headroom to do that and generally makes more sense as a value, too.
>>53602945
Great album, anon
>>53605074
>>53605173
Are you using spek for that spectrum analysis?
>>53607011
Yep
>>53606801
>48 kHz gives you more headroom to do that and generally makes more sense as a value, too.
Fortunately that is not making our lives any more odd in any way as 20 kHz is the max hearing limit for humans when they are at age of 10.
I can't tell the difference between 320k MP3 and FLAC. On the other hand I can't hear frequencies above 15 kHz either.
>>53607253
how old are you?
>>53607288
then its ok
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.
>>53607361
>>53602779
>not using what.cd
Modern LAME encoder is pretty good desu senpai.
Even using v5 should be ok for portable use. There is a big difference between 128kbs VBR and those old 128kbs CBR mp3s.
If you are going that low then you're better of using vorbis, AAC or opus.
Personally I store digital backups in lossless format on my computer and use q2 vorbis for my portable media player.
>>53607224
>Fortunately that is not making our lives any more odd in any way as 20 kHz is the max hearing limit for humans when they are at age of 10.
If you don't cutoff the band before the Nyquist the remaining band above it will fold down back from the Nyquist and into the audible band creating nasty sounding aliasing distortion. This is why higher sampling rates are a thing. 44.1 kHz already covers everything we can hear but it makes designing a good low pass filter hard.
>>53608351
Is that why opus uses 48khz?
>>53608457
That and to simplify the codec having only even number sampling rates in use. Although the difference between 48 kHz and 44.1 kHz is not big, there's still a bit more headroom to play with the filter. 44.1 kHz never made much sense anyway and 48 kHz has been a standard for quite a while.
>>53605272
I consider this a-a-acceptable.
As a FLAC user, even I know that theirs is no real perceptive difference between the PCM source and lossless compression when at an optimal bitrate for the given codec. I prefer FLAC as a better archiving format, since it's basically ZIP compression that's suited for encoding PCM data more efficiently. I'd even say that encoding at MP3 @ 320kbps CBR makes you just as bad as those claiming that lossless sounds better. Even MP2 is superior than MP3 at bitrates higher than 256kbps due to being a non-MDCT based encoder but it's a very insignificant issue.
>>53608457
>48 kHz has been a standard for quite a while
Standard in what? Where?
>>53610008
Standard in video recording industry due to the compatibility with video refresh rates and also the standard for audio stored on DVD.
>>53610315
but we talk abut music listening in general here not movies nigga
>>53600935
The only reason for using flac (or shn), is bootlegs, cause of how delicate is the information in the recording itself. Things like hihats are lost in claps and ambience which mp3s usually destroy.
>>53610394
Irrelevant for the sampling rate. 48 kHz is also conveniently exactly half or a quarter of the sampling rates used in recording studios.
DVD Audio is a thing in music.
>people in thus thread copping feelings because they still listen to .mp3 and can't hear the difference between that and .flac
>even saltier peasants claim there's no difference
Yeah fags there's no difference, just like how HD video is a placebo I watch all my shit in 320p
>>53610460
There's other genres where chopping off the higher frequencies screws up the sounds and effects. Animal Collective for example
>>53610515
>DVD Audio is a thing in music
Look at all these albums!
>>53610519
> just like how HD video is a placebo I watch all my shit in 320p
If the screen is 320p then you can watch it at 4k and it wont make a difference.
>audiophiles think this ok
These people are literally mentally ill.
>>53610608
>using the hard-drive space you paid for is a mental illness
don't think so kid
>>53610608
this is bait
I know this because audiophiles fall for this shit EVERYTIME.
>>53610608
>big data
Soooooo, FLACtards still think the codec can make a difference if the engineer was a fuckass and can't mixdown worth a shit? No amount of loss-avoidance will ever repair the shitty compression that plagues the industry. What's the point of 64 channels if they all have nerfed dynamic range.
>>53610904
>No amount of loss-avoidance will ever repair the shitty compression that plagues the industry. What's the point of 64 channels if they all have nerfed dynamic range.
That's a totally different topic desu senpai. Also, I agree with you.
>>53600935
>>53610608
As FLAC user I think that all blu-ray audio rips, vinyl, hdtracks or SACD is snake oil for mental ill people. You are missing the key here anon, I have one of steven wilson album and its 324 MB in total.
>>53600935
First of all, you probably can't tell the difference. You probably aren't using 320kbps MP3's and you're definitely not using controlled double-blind testing. You probably also think you can reliably tell the difference without double-blind testing, which you can't, thanks to psychology.
That being said, there is a difference, and while it may be so small as to not realistically matter it's not zero, so why not go with FLAC if you have the space and bandwidth and get the unaltered sound quality.
As long as you're not using 24bit 96+KHz audio OP keep doing what you're doing.
