What's really the difference between FLAC and MP3 besides

The rotational velocidensity

>>150236069
It's looses compression so it packs better quality, you need high end headphones to even notice a difference, if the size bothers you, you can always re encode it. Now take down this thread.

MP3 degrades in quality every time you listen to it

it has a set number of plays in it's lifespan so every tiem you listen to it it sounds progressively worse, though your pleb tier ears might not realize this.

FLAC preserves the original quality and has an infinite life span so if you aren't a complete retard you will always get FLAC over MP3.

>>150236148


What high end headphones would you recommend? Also, how big would the difference be?

>>150236229
Stop with the bullshit. I already know that MP3 does not degrade.

>>150236262
If you spent under $1000 on a dac, amp, and cans, you literally could not tell the difference between 320kbps, v0, and flac or alac. Flac was never meant to be listened to, it's for archival purposes. It's like the audio equivalent of uncompressed avi or raw jpeg.

>>150236577
Why do so many anime torrents use flac then?

>>150237105
He just said it you fuckimg brainless retard

>>150237105
Did you miss the part where I said archival purposes?

>>150237296
>was never meant to be listened to

So bloat?

>>150237373
XD

>>150236229
>>150236262
>>150237296
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.

>>150237438
This is why FLAC is a meme. You are relying on others being generous enough to sit on bloat and upload it to you.

The fact is, there's no reason for anyone to distribute in anything but AAC. That's why all good groups use it.

File: poost.jpg (27KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x275px

>>150237510

>>150237510
Kek. I believe your copy and paste.

File: utw-underwater_tasogare_otome_x_amnesia_-_01_720p900e8404-mkv_snapshot_12-36_2012-05-29_23-50-12.jpg (104KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1280x720px

>>150237558
What's so great about AAC that everyone should distribute in only AAC?

>BD transcode
>shit bitrate
>bloated with fucking FLAC + dual audio

>>150238959
Because weebs have always been shit at this. They forced 10bit onto themselves and continue to eat up bloated garbage like CoalGirls releases. They only care about subs, not quality.

>>150239133
Some of the problems you have with that would be bad bitrate and file size, correct?

>>150237510
I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.

So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocidensity issue. I'm an audiophile myself and posses a vast collection of uncompressed audio files, but I do want to assure the casual low-bitrate users that their music library is quite safe.

I guess I'll be deleting all my FLAC files once I'm done seeding them at least to 1.000.

You will most likely not ever hear the difference between a FLAC (or other lossless format) and a properly ripped .mp3 (or other lossy format).

.mp3s that are ripped at 320kbps or in v0 (variable kbps) maintain pretty much all the information and frequencies that the human ear can detect, so you won't be able to hear an audible difference. With that said, I maintain an archive in FLAC because: 1) hard drive space is not that expensive and albums in lossless format are still relatively small (compared to things like movies), and 2) having them FLAC allows me to rip and transcode music however I want in the future, whereas the reverse would not be possible with lossy formats like .mp3.

It's more that I am an concerned with quality than expecting to hear an audible difference. FLAC rips with 100% logs (such as those on what.cd, RIP) ensure that the files were properly ripped from CDs.

File: shounen.jpg (97KB, 864x482px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 864x482px

>>150236069
Amanee I mean Sakurako a qt

>>150236069
Still mad there was no /ss/

>>150240414
What is /ss/? Second Season? Maybe they'll do one eventually.

File: [HorribleSubs] Sakurako-san no Ashimoto ni wa Shitai ga Umatteiru - 02 [720p].mkv_snapshot_09.17_[2015.10.14_22.40.34].jpg (115KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1280x720px

>>150240414
That's because you're a retarded /v/ermin that can't tell the difference of true /ss/ and a story revolving around two characters with age differences.

File: 1477460355774.jpg (16KB, 396x389px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 396x389px

>>150237510

>>150236069
Slightly "fuller" sound but you'll really only notice with certain instruments without trying to. It's just bloat for tv shows.

I just came to this thread for the pasta.

>>150236577
Your analogy is a little off. I'd say it's the audio equivalent of x264 lossless (-crf 0) or PNG for real-life photos. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the source and decently-compressed media until its compressed to shit.

>>150236069
Reported. Fuck off to /g/.