BEST AUDIO CODECS OUT THERE
- Home
- Board: /mu/ - Music
- Reading: BEST AUDIO CODECS OUT THERE
what's the best audio codec to output onto? What are your opinions? i prefer .APE or of course .FLAC . any other beast codecs out there?
>>64806433
.m4a
>>64806433
OPUS
>>64806520
pretty crap tier imo
>>64806579
haven't heard of OPUS before. need to give it a look. what software you have that would output it?
>>64806433
Mp3
>>64806433
FLAC a shit.
FLAC and opus. ape takes much too long to uncompress and convert. too intensive on a lapop
There is no best lossless codec morons.
As for lossy, AAC is best if you don't have a third party player. Otherwise, go Vorbis.
>>64806712
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.
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.
>>64806681
Foobar.
>>64806684
maybe for streaming, not for a private file. i want high quality, not garbage 320kbps
>>64806729
nice pasta
>>64806729
i definitely hear the difference between mp3 and flac. mp3 320kbps CBR sounds like garbage. The lows are crap and highs get static. FLAC i can hear the lows and the highs never get static.
SHN masterrace reporting in
>>64806838
I've been on here for three years and I've never heard of SHN.
>>64806729
>rotational velocidensity
lmao this pastas don't even try anymore
When you pirate music, you take what you can get. Most rips, especially the ones posted here, are in 320kbps or V0 MP3.
I have nothing against FLAC, I take it when I can, or when I rip my own shit, but it's not that common.
anyone listen in 32bit compared to the usual 16bit?
>>64806899
What are you listening to that's recorded in 32 bit?
WavPack
The 7z of audio compression
>>64806818
Good job; you fell for the bait.
Is there really difference between FLAC and 320 MP3? Can someone explain really how much more beneficial FLAC is.
>>64809545
Listening to flac makes your dick even bigger
>>64809545
If you have good equipment the difference is REALLY fucking obvious between lossless and lossy.
Listening to the new Radiohead album for example, you pick out so many more subtle effects that are very hard to hear in the lossy version.
I've compared a 256AAC (320MP3) and my own 24bit Lossless purchase. No comparison.
>>64806747
>garbage
>320kbps
Pick one. That is assuming the mp3 was encoded from a high quality wav or flac file with the newest lame version.
APE? is that how you store negro hip hop?
get it? because their craniums resemble the ones found in monkeys LOL.
>>64806729
I remember when I genuinely believed this.
Am still angry about getting trolled
