Why do people say .flac is better? I always avoid it, because the volume is usually too low, and album art is always missing.
>volume is too low
You mean they haven't been compressed? You know you can just amplify them if they got extra headroom brah.
Flac is the best format for storing your music.
It's not that hard to get a HDD big enough for thousands of albums in flac.
Mp3 is only useful on mobile devices where the storage space is limited.
And don't tell me that there are no audible differences, this only proves that you never heard music on a proper system.
there shouldn't be a difference in the volume of an mp3 or a flac
your mp3s have probably been ripped with normalization and/or dynamics compression (which could equally be done to flac), which means your mp3s are shit
Some of us enjoy having archival backups of our music. I like to have FLACs sitting on a hard drive. I batch process MP3s from them
>search for a classical album
>there are just torrents in meme codec flac
>literally 1 GB for 9 songs
>download with my shitty internet
>them have to CUT the fucking ONE file
>have to convert to VBR Level 0
>try to listen the difference
>sounds the same
>delete the flac files and the proof that are flac
>Tags are like shit so use MP3Tag
>no tags found
>have tag myself
I never know if my computer will go to shit. I like having a backup external of important stuff.
I also listen to the FLACs sometimes because I can hear the difference. High frequencies are slightly less garbled and the peaks aren't clipping past zero because of the MP3 compression distortion.
Every single double-blind test ever performed, even on extremely high-grade equipment, even with participants who worked as sound-engineers/musicians/composers/etc has found that above 320 bitrate, the ability of participants to correctly identify lossless files from lossy files is within the ranges of random selection.
itt: poor people trying to convince themselves that being poor is better than having money to afford quality music gear
I probably couldn't hear any difference between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC, but I sure can if it's 192kbps (at least in 70% of cases), even on low price Sennheiser(of course, it depends on what album you are listening - I probably wouldn't notice any difference on Twin Infinitives, but on Pretty Hate Machine it's very obvious)
Also, you don't download FLAC because it's better sounding than mp3, you do it for archival purpose, so you can convert it latter if you want without any loss of quality(for example, OGG in 192 now sounds like MP3 in 320, but it useless to convert MP3 to OGG...)
>muh burden of proof
you made the initial statement that something that is an objectively quantified superior codec didnt produce better listening results so producing the evidence in your favorite lies on you buddy
The section on it links to 4 very scientifically conducted studies, all of which come to the same conclusion.
What is the purpose of archiving if you already have a filetype that recreates as accurately as you can hear?
Bull. That's a range of 96dB, and unless your room is soundproofed and your stereo system is comparable to that of a movie theater, you're not getting that in your system. The only reason people record in 24 bit is to allow for more headroom in the editing process.
As I said, along the way better algorithms of conversion are developed, so instead of putting 50 albums of 320kbps MP3, you can put 100 albums of 192kbps OGG on your portable device...
99,5% of my music is lossy, because I care more about dynamic range of an album than its bitrate, i value more a vinyl rip with good mastering in 256 than FLAC cd that is compressed to hell...I am just saying that if you have space, better download lossless
I'd rather have fewer albums on my device at any one time, than have too spend the time converting and storing a lossless file and a lossy file separately. Also, if your lossy file is truly transparent, then there is no reason you cannot then convert it to a similarly transparent codec with a better algorithm so that it takes up less space without any audible loss of fidelity.
>Also, if your lossy file is truly transparent, then there is no reason you cannot then convert it to a similarly transparent codec with a better algorithm so that it takes up less space without any audible loss of fidelity.
I am not sure if I understand you, but are you saying that you can convert mp3 to ogg without losing fidelity?
If the starting file is transparent (meaning that any loss from the original lossless audio is inaudible), and you're up-converting, while you can never retrieve the lost data and go back to a lossless format, and your transcode may not be as absolutely efficient (in terms of file-size) as a pure lossless -> new format conversion would be, no extra data should be lost in the conversion, and therefore the end result should still be a transparent file.