>get a couple of albums in flac to try it >3 albums is

>>61789285
dbpoweramp

Decent storage is cheap as fuck now, what's the problem?

>>61789285
High speed internet, and a 1TB hard drive.

Download it. The experience is worth it if you've got the correct equipment.

>>61789328
>>61789329
i am poorfaging this year. it is the JUST phase of my life.

>>61789329
ignore this retard btw op cuz he clearly doesn't know what the purpose of flac is

>>61789329
>1TB hard drive
that's only room for 3000 albums, then, if you have absolutely nothing else on your hard drive
fucking plebs

>>61789345
op here. What is the purpose of flac if not to listen and experience the 'resolution' with good headphones?

>>61789342
Don't bother until you have the space then. FLAC is only really useful for archival anyway, 320kbps MP3 easily suffices for actual listening.

>>61789363
it's for archiving
you can convert to almost any format you want with flac and it won't drastically fuck up the quality
you're not supposed to *listen* to flac and anyone that tells you this is a moron
of course you can listen to flac but if you think it's any better than listening to 320 or a high quality vorbis encode you're an idiot

>>61789376
I have a pair of akg k550 and was wondering. I am dl a few things now to test.
Some LORN, flac & 320 and NIN to test , see if I actually hear anything more.

Is 320CBR the next best thing after flac?

>>61789411
Technically speaking it is, yes.
If you genuinely want to find out whether you can hear a difference, do a few ABX blind tests between lossless and 320. Personally I struggle to hear major differences until around 192.

>>61789485
i will look into it. that is why i am getting some NIN now to see. Because I have literally listened to some albums a million times (and the remastered versions).

I remember the first time I discovered 192 after listening to 128 and it did have a difference. Like it was more clear. I haven't tested 192 to 320.

Bet you can't even tell the difference between FLAC and a decent lossy format.

>>61789589
will test today and report back. I don't see that it will worth it desu famm. Too much space.

I've tested the difference between FLAC and MP3 a couple of times, when downloading albums that are only available in FLAC and then converting to MP3.

FLAC does sound *a bit* fuller. But it being so unwieldy, and the fact that my ipod doesn't take FLAC makes it not worth the hassle to store it.

>>61789362
Who's ever going to have the time to listen to 3,000 albums?

File: 1449473687362.png (199KB, 467x433px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 467x433px

>>61789767
>mfw I listen to at least 1000 albums a year

>>61789393
on a side note, which converter do you think is the best? So far I've been using foobar2000's audio converting feature. Does it matter as long as the bitrate is good?

>>61789851
Three albums per day on average is pretty normal desu. But if all of those are new it sounds more like compulsory hoarding of music than genuine enjoyment.

>>61789744
convert the flac file to alac

>>61789393
Archiving for the afterlife?

>>61789345
>>61789393
I'm poor and I have a shitty audio system: The Posts

>>61789411
Better use V0 instead 320. It's variable bitrate so it's more efficient. 320 keeps the seme bitrate even on less complex parts or where it's silence.

>>61789376
>>61789485
I have terrible ears: The Posts

>>61789889
i highly recommend dbpoweramp. if your processor is good (i have an i7 on my comp) you can convert full albums in like 40 seconds

>>61790207
yup

>>61790240
spoiler: you're gonna sell all that useless equipment to make rent

>>61789329
>experience
topkek. most people can't and will never hear the difference between flac and 192+ kbit/s mp3 or equivalent quality lossy formats (ogg, aac, wma), because they're fucking TINY.

I've got studio headphones (DT770), a seperate headphone amp and very trained ears as I love to listen to music analytically for hours. And seperating lossless from lossy is often impossible for me. If you disagree, just do a blind test and be surprised (or proud of your ears)

>>61789851
How many times do you listen to each album?

And how many before you decide you like it?

do you always listen to albums from beginning to end?
is it like a /mu/ sacrilege to put your player in 'all shuffle' and just listen?

>>61790298
>enjoying music

>>61790285
>spoiler: you're gonna sell all that useless equipment to make rent
I'm so poor that I think everyone else is as poor as me: The Post

>>61789543
The difference between 128 and 192 is big, but after that, no so much. Diminishing returns that get worse the higher the bitrate.

>>61790373
we'll see about that; Friend...........

File: FORCStormtrooper-trailer.jpg (427KB, 763x739px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 763x739px

>>61790328
>mu
>not enjoying music: the board

>tv
>not enjoying movies: the board

>v
>not enjoying vidya: the board

Am I seeing a pattern there? I propose mu migrates to tv, tv to v and v to mu to fix the discussions.

>>61789376
Don't listen to this faggot, FLAC is noticeably better-sounding even on cheap speakers or headphones

that being said, if you don't have the space 320 is good enough. I usually only keep FLAC rips of my favorite stuff, stuff I just like is fine in 320

>>61790435
I'm poor: The Post

>>61790465
I converted a FLAC to 320kbps MP3 and could not tell the difference between them, whether through speakers, earbuds, or over-ear headphones.

>>61790460
>Vidya
God, I fucking hate you, people.

>>61790465
Stop spreading lies. FLAC isn't noticeably better. Anyone can do an ABX test for proof.

https://www.apple.com/support/ipodnano_replacement/

>>61790518
>>>reddit

>>61790465
Placebofag detected.

i use 192-320kbps for most things because i only have a 16gb ipod nano but if a particular band or album has god tier production i bite the bullet and get it in lossless

for most things i can't tell the difference but if the recording itself is audiophile grade it's worth it

>>61789285
being a richfag helps to pay placebos

I have 34 GB library of music in FLAC only

>>61792246
oh and I have 94 albums in total

>flac
>no wav
Fucking plebs

>>61792312
FLAC = WAV with better supports for tagging and lossless compression to save some space

File: 1422917383307.png (2KB, 137x148px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 137x148px

Unless you actually NEED lossless formats, just use OPUS you fucking posers.

File: standards.png (24KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x283px

>>61792511
>poser calling other people posers

>>61789285
I have an external hard drive with only music on it. It's not all flac though. I only download flac for album I really enjoy

>>61792511
>>61792582

Poseur, you illiterate fucking pricks.

Also, 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.

but really you do not need to use lossless formats for casual listening, it's only necessary for production and archival purposes. Just download v0 or 320.

>>61792617
GTFO prick and take your pasta with you

>>61792617
How about that you fuck off with the pasta mate

>>61792511
>capped at 20K
>noticeable smudges at low bitrates
>unable to compete with existing standards at high

>>61792645
I'm sorry, but why did you think that calling people "a difficult question" was an insult?

Poseur is the word you're looking for.

>>61792676
Poser is good too: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poser

>>61789285
what kind of poorfag thinks 1GB is a lot? You can get a 1TB HDD for $40 and it takes two minutes to install.

>>61792617
I love this pasta lolz

>>61790288
>blind test
Audiophiles will claim that the switch (if physical) or the ABX software degrades the signal

I download in FLAC and then convert to 256VBR for my iPod. Flac is for my PC.

File: guide.jpg (41KB, 594x347px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 594x347px

once you go FLAC you never go back

The only reason I use FLAC is to tell people I use FLAC.

>>61792813
The only reason I use mp3 is to tell people I use mp3.

Alright .flac bros, a question for you guys.

So I was trying to use Exact Audio Copy to rip from .flac CDs but everything just came out in .wav format even though I thought I specified to come out as .flac.

Someone then said to put "-6 -V -T "ARTIST=%artist%" -T "TITLE=%title%" -T "ALBUM=%albumtitle%" -T "DATE=%year%" -T "TRACKNUMBER=%tracknr%" -T "GENRE=%genre%" -T "COMMENT=%comment%" -T "BAND=%albuminterpret%" -T "COMPOSER=%composer%" %haslyrics%--tag-from-file=LYRICS="%lyricsfile%"%haslyrics% -T "DISCNUMBER=%cdnumber%" -T "TOTALDISCS=%totalcds%" -T "TOTALTRACKS=%numtracks%" %hascover%--picture="%coverfile%"%hascover% %source% -o %dest%"
in the additional command lines options, and .flac files were created, but they were a jumble mess filename wise and didn't play.

So I then noticed foobar has a .flac rip option and used that extremely easily.

I was wondering the quality of foobar vs. exact audio copy. the latter seems like it would be higher quality than foobar but I'm not sure.

>>61793218
show your eac log file to see if you have ripped properly the album

I follow this guide and have no problems
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_Configuration_Wizard

Is the difference really noticeable between 192 kbs and 320 kbs?

>>61793784
192 is the lowest I consider acceptable for listening but it definitely is the point where you can start to hear artefacts. Obviously depends on the music in question as well, because some styles can be less forgiving of lossy compression.

>>61793784
Of course not.

>>61793784
MP3 192 and 320 is easy. Vorbis 192 on the other hand is more bitrate than you'd ever need.