FLAC

>>57472410
yes very nice, I hope you're using real speakers

>>57472410
enjoy your placebo

>Not just ripping music from Youtube like everyone else

Everyone I know who downloads flac listens through mediocre headphones/speakers connected directly to their pc/laptop

Yeah, I'm sure it's a world of difference for you.

>>57472921
>72921▶
>>Not just ripping music from Youtube like everyone else
enjoy your 2kbps

Placebo meme format. Literally indistinguishable from 320 MP3s or even v0

>>57472410
I pretty much do the same, if I can't find something in FLAC I can live with mp3 320 kbps.

FLAC with a 100% Log + Cue Sheet.

If the upload doesn't have this, I go on eBay, buy it, and trump it.

>>57472968
I will do!
Enjoy your assburgers

You do realize 192 vbr Opus and flac LITERALLY sound the same to human ears right?

>>57472968
If you can get the music from a YouTube video with ID3 tags, you can upload them to Google Play Music and they'll replace your 2Kbps version for their 320Kbps one, same as paid, but for free.
It's not FLAC, but it's better than just ripping from YouTube.

File: vlcsnap-00004.png (839KB, 1023x576px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1023x576px

>>57473074
this

>>57472410
Im not a placebo autist

>>57473095
> Not having golden ears with the same hearing range as a dog
Filthy plebeian. There's so much more than what you listen. The soundstage in particular gets amazingly open once you start hearing beyond the 25khz range. The attack and defense of the bass also increases by a lot.

File: 1474747932275.jpg (69KB, 500x487px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x487px

>>57472448

Torrent or CD rip: Flac
Burning cds to play on a hifi stereo: ~~Flac
Transcode flac to....
You're shitty android with earbuds: ~~mp3
You're computer with half assed decent speakers: ~~opus

I have some flac CD's, but not many. Mostly because: they are harder to find, I don't have the equipment to get any real benefit, and for me storage IS a problem.

Nope, I can't be bothered to constantly sync things with my phone, so I stream it, and streaming FLAC would eat my data. I do have some music on my phone, but that's in Opus because I wouldn't be able to store my entire library in FLAC on my phone.
Also, I listen with shitty bluetooth headphones anyway because it's way easier, so it's not like I'd be able to tell the difference between a poorly encoded MP3 and FLAC anyway.

File: FLAC vs MP3 VBR vs MP3 CBR320_.png (2MB, 2766x647px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2766x647px

>>57472410
Nothankyou. MP3 VBR is just fine. FLAC is if you want further processing, for listening only it makes no sense. Do you also store all your photos is raw? What about videos?

>>57474136
>Do you also store all your photos is raw? What about videos?
That's not a correct comparison. FLAC is compressed, raw isn't. A correct comparison would be .png for pictures. Which I personally (not him) do for pictures that I actually care about, because chances are I want to edit them in some way.

>>57472410
No noticeable difference between it and mp3 or ogg.

>>57474136
Opus has better efficiency but I can see it being a problem for itoddlers.

>>57474179
PNG is also compressed you mongoloid. BMP or TIFF is what you're looking for.

>>57474245
>PNG is also compressed you mongoloid.
That's my point, it's compressed just like FLAC. Raw isn't compressed, like LPCM in wav. Nothing wrong with compression in itself.

>>57474179
>I personally (not him) do for pictures that I actually care about
Well, so could be said about flac. You can have a few albums in flac, but I don't see why the entire library needs to e flac.

>>57474245
>Opus has better efficiency but I can see it being a problem for itoddlers.
I'd rather stick with something that is more commonly used.

I rip all my CDs to FLAC. I like to keep lossless backups around in case the CDs get scratched and I have to burn new copies. I mean, I may as well keep FLACs and CUEs around so I can burn 1:1 lossless copies of the discs.

Some other formats probably compress better than FLAC, but storage is hardly an issue. High-compression formats also tend to eat CPU cycles like no tomorrow.

>>57474305
>Well, so could be said about flac. You can have a few albums in flac, but I don't see why the entire library needs to e flac.
I care about my entire library. If a new format comes along with better compression or whatever, I want to be able to use it on my entire library without compressing artifacts. I convert my entire library consistently for portable usage.

>>57474136
>Do you also store all your photos is raw?

FLAC isn't a raw audio format, you retard.

>What is lossless COMPRESSION

It's like putting your audio in a ZIP file, except the algorithms are specifically designed to handle audio files, therefore they compress better and decompress faster.

>>57474305
>I'd rather stick with something that is more commonly used.
So you'd rather have audio files that are 50% bigger for the same audible quality despite Opus having massive support in Android, Winblows, and Linux just because MP3 is more commonly used?

>>57474363
Actually, I know an artist who stores his photos as raw. You can even change the iso settings and shit after the photo is taken.

>>57474335
Well, my library on the local disk consists in 6748 according to AIMP. I don't see it feasable reencoding these,ever. And I have a lot more on a external drive.

>>57474363
It's actually like using a wav inside a 7z. Yeah, the result is noy that impressive, from a 32MB wav you get a 28MB flac..

>>57474369
2MB/minute is reasonable. Yeah, it's a good trade imo.

I agree with OP desu. I don't hoard thousands of albums that I'll never listen to just for one song, so space is NEVER an issue. Basically I have no reason not to download FLAC, literally none. It's not even worth me getting an MP3 or Opus or whatever and comparing it. I don't care. It would be a waste of time and I 'might as well' use FLAC.

The only exception of course is if the music or rendition is unavailable in FLAC. It's also highly inconvenient when the uploader leaves each disc as one long audio file rather than splitting them.

>>57474369
>support
i don't get this meme

there are audio players on windows, android, and probably linux that support FLAC and every format imaginable

if i'm being retarded please explain

>>57474635
You can split them. There's cue splitter or something like that, also AIMP's audio converter can split. Take what you want, remov the rest.

>>57474464
>Well, my library on the local disk consists in 6748 according to AIMP. I don't see it feasable reencoding these,ever. And I have a lot more on a external drive.
My library seems to be about 4,5 times that, I also re-encoded that multiple times. It just takes some uptime.

>Yeah, the result is noy that impressive, from a 32MB wav you get a 28MB flac..
It's actually more like 25% smaller, from uncompressed wav to FLAC.

>2MB/minute is reasonable.
70% is reasonable? Wew lad.

>>57474668
Odk how many car stereos support opus. They surely work fine with MP3 though.

>>57473108
No they don't. You can try uploading two different ones and then download them.

>>57474668
I've had some issues with finding players that could handle the very specific use-case of me, that also had opus. It's rare, but it happens.

>desktop
FLAC

>on the go
I convert the FLAC to opus, vorbis, or mp3 depending on what the device supports.

>>57474684
>>2MB/minute is reasonable.
>70% is reasonable? Wew lad.
Sorry, I was wrong. That 2MB/minute is about 80% of the MP3's filesize. Only an idiot would find that reasonable.

>>57474822
7 to 8 MB a song, I think it's just fine.

I don't understand the excuse for lack of support. Even Windows 10 natively supports FLAC.

>>57474832
>7 to 8 MB a song
No, from 8MB to 1,6MB. That's what you get by reducing the bitrate by 2MB/minute (or about 266kb/s). I wouldn't compare 60kb/s Opus to 320 MP3, but that's what you proposed.

>>57472410
How does flac even work?

>>57474897
It compresses a WAV by assigning silence no bits per second; reducing the file size.

File: btfo.jpg (12KB, 191x182px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 191x182px

>>57472954
>directly to thier pc/laptop
>he fell for the usb dac meme

>>57474955
Does it improve the song quality?

>>57472410
Most of my music collection is FLAC. But I still use MP3s on things that don't support it, like my old iPod nano.

>>57475074
No. Compared to lossless wav at least. That's why it's called lossless, you can freely transcode between them without there being a difference in quality.

>>57475074
>>57475106
You can transcode between uncompressed lossless to lossless. They are both the same in quality.

>>57472410
Just use Spotify you poor nigger.

Audio engineer here. Scientifically, it has been proven that 256 and 320 MP3 are almost indistinguishable - close enough so that anyone who isn't ACTUALLY listening critically won't notice a thing. Anything higher, subjectively speaking, is likely placebo.

Similarily it has been proven that 192kHz sampling rate is objectively, scientifically worse than 96k and even 48k. Of course this is all assuming that what you're listening to comes from a quality source, not just Timmy's Scarlett 8i6 in his attic mixed with stock REAPER plugins.

But if i had the time and drive space, I would do what >>57472410
Is suggesting, rip high quality for archival purposes.

Another thing, yall need to gtfo with your expander and compression plugin threads. "Hurr durr but it just sounds betterrrrr, those crisp highs" yeah ok enjoy destroying a mix that someone probably put hundreds, thousands of dollars of gear and manhours into.

I store all my music in FLAC in case some new cool format comes along I want to convert too, and as a result I listen to music in FLAC on my computer.

In my car it only plays mp3 so I use XLD to convert stuff for that. :o)

>>57475265
kek'd