What's so good about .flac /g/?

>Songs on a retail CD and lossless songs have frequencies that extend all the way to 22 kHz. Since lossless to lossless transcoding preserves all of the data in a music file, the spectral of a lossless song will look the same in FLAC, WAV (PCM), ALAC, etc.

>Different types of MP3s have different frequency cut-offs. MP3s also tend to have a “shelf” at 16 kHz (you’ll see it in the spectrals).

wew that was hard. You could argue "b-b-b-but you can't hear the difference!", but it's still good for archival purposes so you could encode the file in various lossy formats without fucking everything up.

>>56641174
>ou could encode the file in various lossless formats**
I keep stuff in .flac on my music player for some files but a lot of stuff is in other quality lossy formats like .ogg

>>56641011
.flac are much higher in file size

>>56641011
>lossless
Why the fuck do you even need to ask?

>>56641011
>free
>lossless
>audio
>codec

What's good about it is you can preserve a CD's audio in its entirety, with tags, at less than 700MB. It can be an album you really like or something rare and out of print.

Better audio quality is just a meme.

>>56641011
It's lossless
It's widely implemented

>>56641174
>>56641011
The difference between 320kpbs MP3 and Loseless is virtually negligible unless you have very specific type of music playing through a decent audio system and through a decent pair of headphones aka relevant to 0.2% of audio setups.

>>56641011
Consistency.

A proper rip will always sound 100% as the artist intended, this will not vary based on the settings of the encode or the person ripping it.

The same cannot be said for any lossy format.

>>56642715
Classical and jazz sound way better on FLAC than it does on 320kbps MP3. MP3 is only good for normie music and grindcore, to be honest senpai

File: Guide-MP3-320-CBR.jpg (655KB, 1000x385px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1000x385px

>>56641174
>shelf at 16kHz

If you have golden ears, why do you lie?