>actually downloading FLAC >implying most of them

>>47313623
> downloading FLAC
> not making them yourself from the physical media you own for archiving purposes.

DICK BUTT

>fake FLAC
>on what.CD

:)

>>47313651
but I have, anon

there is no reason not to download FLAC in 2015. internet speed is fast enough for it, disk space doesn't cost much anymore.

>>47313623
Sometimes I'll make fake flacrips of highly anticipated albums and add mlg_sonic.wav halfway through the album.
Several of my flacrips are on what.cd, amazingly enough.

It gets under people's radars because they only ever spot check the first song to see if it goes up to 22KHz, which can be faked easily using some goldwave plugins.

>>47313706
what's with this fake bullshit here?
as if it would stay on what.cd

>implying you can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 320kbps

>>47313733
I didn't upload them myself, they just ended up on there.

My theory is that people don't really listen to flac rips and they're just keeping them on their hard drives for the autism points.

>>47313667
Same here. Though I have found lots of flacs with logs on WCD that were identical to those on RuTracker. And I'm not sure if I trust the Russians.

Its nice for archiving then converting them to opus

>>47313754

There are lots of guys on rutracker that they upload stuff from what.cd. You can see in the description of torrent. I always check rutracker first before downloading from what.cd to not waste my ratio at what.cd

>>47313748
maybe if you can hear

>he can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless

File: flac.png (43KB, 732x222px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 732x222px

>>47313623

>>47313748
I'm not deaf so yes
>Implying

>>47313623
>Implying my bandcamp flac downloads are fake

Please go ahead and show me your bind test where you can consistently identify a FLAC from a 320kbps MP3. Oh wait you can't.

>>47317796
are people really that fucking stupid? holy shit, 32kbps sounds like utter crap

>>47319757
I think he meant 320kbps
It's fake btw

>not having a what.cd account

Lel what a shitter

File: edgewot.jpg (25KB, 261x323px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 261x323px

>>47313690
>now that we have the required capacities to do so, let's start wasting space!

>>47313754
What.cd says it's completely cool with people taking shit from it's site and uploading it to other places.

>>47313690
My audio equipment isn't good enough to notice a difference. I would need to make sure all the following is up to par:

Mp3 player
Car Alpine
Car speakers
Computer headphones
Computer sound card
Computer speakers

I don't think a 2012 ipod classic and a $150 Alpine is going to be enough.

So if I take 320kb/s mp3 and convert it to FLAC, will that stop it from degrading? I know it won't sound any better, but for longevity will it work?

>>47321361
how can I make an account?

I trust the Russians.

>>47321568
Yes! Exactly!
Ever notice how old MP3's sound like shit? That's because they use lossy compretion and degrade over time! Think of it like food, if you leave meat in the fridge too long, it goes bad! Same story here!
Convert all your MP3's to FLAC, it may take up more space, but it will ensure quality listening in the future!

File: 1398824649998.png (13KB, 638x561px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 638x561px

>rip CDs in FLAC
>slow all tracks down by 0.01% on Audacity
>save and upload them at what.cd

>>47313753
This some people are ratio whores.

>>47321675
How should I convert them?

File: 1418149472671.png (131KB, 292x293px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 292x293px

>FLAC is not placebo!

>>47321714
https://www.vlchelp.com/convert-audio-format/

>>47313623
will Tidal be donating anything back to Xiph.org for the use of flac?

>>47321725
Cool. Thanks man

File: notplacebo.jpg (226KB, 1920x729px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1920x729px

feels_good_man.flac

>>47321627
you need to have an interview
i haven't done one
personally i think it's a waste of time
just use rutracker

>>47313748
You can tell when there's stand alone kicks and 320kbps has resonating cracking at the end of the kick and flac doesn't.

Most songs you won't be able to tell though.

>mp3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVvoQIdD80U

>flac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncJ8FCvCofw

Don't tell me you can't tell the difference.

>not buying CDs and making your own FLACs
>being that poor

>>47321999
>youtube
You do know that there's no lossless audio in youtube videos, don't you? Youtube HD videos encode audio in 128 - 192 KBit/s AAC, so your comparison is pointless...

>>47322068
>buying
stopped reading there

>>47322110
you're probably right but it's the thought that counts

>FLAC from bought CD's

i see what you did there.

>not downloading in mp3 and renaming to FLAC for best filesize/placebo

We got another one
Good work guys

>>47321442
It's not a waste to store the media as it was meant to be. Having an encoded music file with all sorts of information removed is not a good base if you want to re-encode it to other formats later, hence the need for a lossless format.

speaking of flac..
>on all the shitty torrent sites (TPB, Kickass.to, what.cd, etc.)
>upload 240 kbps music converted to FLAC
>people often comment how it sounds better than 320 mp3

How would one use a spectrum analyzer to detect fake flacs?

I understand it theoretically. What is the cutoff point for, say, a 240kbps FLAC?

>>47322504
It's really hard to miss because during loud parts you'll see these chaotic bars which all cut off at exactly the same level. But you don't really even need a spectrum analyzer. Something like auCDtect will usually be able to tell you if it's fake or not with 99% accuracy. Unless you specifically figure out what it's looking for and purposely cook your files to fool it. Most lazy flac re-encoders don't bother.

>>47322565
Give me a minute
I want to post a screenshot, but on phone atm

>implying most of them aren't fake

This is why we have Exact Audio Copy, AccurateRip and CUETools. You can compare the checksums of anything you've downloaded with AccurateRip's database to verify the legitimacy of the rip. If something you've downloaded doesn't appear in AccurateRip's database with decent confidence, then it's likely fake.

Always check for included EAC logs, and verify the checksums with CUETools. Don't even bother to download something that doesn't include an EAC log.

>>47322504
https://www.whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/

File: Untitled.png (432KB, 1180x397px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1180x397px

>>47322565
>>47322687
So I'm not smoking too many trees when I see this right?

>>47313623
I use spek to verify.

It really peeves me off how the anti-flac fags on /g/ don't understand the reason for accumulating music in lossless format.

You don't hoard music in lossless for the miniscule quality benefit. I can reliably discern 320k CBR from FLAC in A/B tests, but the difference is so extremely subtle that you won't hear it during normal listening, and it's not even a quality difference, MP3's just sound brighter than FLACs.

You do it to avoid unnecessary quality degradation and artifacts during transcoding to lossy formats. I need to encode my music to 80k VBR Opus to save space on my phone.

>>47323809
most folk haven't done enough with audio to have heard the 'speaker sounds like its in a washing machine' noise

I know this feel

>>47323198
All that means is it was a lossy master.

File: 900x900px-LL-0c3fb65d_rotational_velocidensity.png (237KB, 900x213px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 900x213px

>>47321675
>degrade over time!
rotational velocidensity
I remember that meme

>>47323960
>How do avoid listening to argument provided with academical evidence?
>That's right... I'll call it a meme! Perfect!

>>47321695
So what? I don't get the problem

>>47313623
You don't choose FLAC to brag on /g/ about your 10TB SSD rack, you choose FLAC for audio editing, transcoding and for archiving. Converting FLAC to a 96 kb/s lossy format for example, will generate a much better result than converting a 320 kb/s lossy to 96 kb/s lossy.

What's the difference from FLAC and lossy? Take for example a photo, print it on paper. Now, scan this photo you just printed (with a scanner) and then compare the original picture file to the new scanned picture file, it looks different: blurry and the colors are washed out, even if you used the best printer and scanner out there, it would never look like the original. The same happens converting FLAC to lossy, the bit rate doesn't matter, information is always lost during the transcoding process.

>>47323198
That's right, this file is a fake FLAC.

>>47321675
Can you lost an mp3 that has degraded? This sounds like bs

>>47324452
That's a troll, is a reference to a old copy pasta/meme.

File: b8.png (10KB, 680x324px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 680x324px

>>47324235

>>47321834
Is that 24 bit flac?

It's funny chinese file sharing sites have better quality control now than the western one's. I usually see albums with a lossless audio file+.cue+log on most lossless uploads.

>>47324576
KAT has forum threads dedicated to original and fake releases, I don't know about the other trackers though.

>>47324498
I think those are 32 bit. None of my 24/192 files is half that big.

>>47313748
you can hear it it's just so little a difference that it isn't worth the extra space

File: key.png (432KB, 1272x398px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1272x398px

>>47323198
yes

>>47321675
Shut up retard

>>47324235
Epic

>>47323854
>speaker sounds like its in a washing machine
Esplain yourselv.

>>47325169
>replying to maymays

>>47313623
>implying the FLAC albums I download don't have detailed log files generated by the program used to rip them and that the tracker I download them from doesn't automatically trump albums without log files or with bad log files

>>47313651
>Using FLAC for archival
>Not using CUE/BIN.
Look at these plebs.

>>47323198
>>47325091
What tool is that?

>>47325215
Just convert a file and see for yourself, try for example converting a FLAC to 64 kbit/s MP3, you'll notice what he's talking about. The only difference at 320 kbit/s is that the sound distortion is less audible, because there's less compression, but the distortion is still there.

If you want another example see >>47324401

>>47325331
Bacon

File: 1427309728856.png (122KB, 261x219px)

122KB, 261x219px

>>47325310
>not using Monkey's Audio

>>47325367
Literal hipster of lossless audio codecs

>>47325349
>Bacon
w-what?

>>47325376
This.

While this thread exists, is flac to ogg encoded at q5/160kbps the best for portable listening?
Need a codec that's considered "transparent" at the lowest filesize possible for my phone.

I keep a lot of my music on google music/drive but T-mobile doesn't have the best reception everywhere.

>store library in FLAC
>iPod doesn't support FLAC
>have to keep 2 copies of my library

First world problems. Seriously, though, why the fuck doesn't Apple support FLAC?

>>47325331
Doesnt it say on the whatcd site

>>47325385
Spek

>>47325395
Just transcode it to ALAC.
It's all lossless, so who fucking cares?

>>47325395
Because it's free.

>>47325331
Spek.

>>47325393
Opus is the best codec.
While 96Kbps, isn't transparent on higher end hardware, it still sounds pretty fucking good.

>>47325393
160 vbr opus, if your phone or device supports it.