>get a couple of albums in flac to try it
>3 albums is 1GB
how do you do it /mu/ ?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
>mfw I listen to at least 1000 albums a year
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
spoiler: you're gonna sell all that useless equipment to make rent
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)
>not enjoying music: the board
>not enjoying movies: the board
>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.
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
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
Unless you actually NEED lossless formats, just use OPUS you fucking posers.
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.
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.
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.