>currently convering my 580GB all FLAC library to ogg honestly

>>58179930
>i thought lossless was a good idea
What's wrong with it?

Are ogg and opus basically the same thing?
All if my music is opus, no complaints
>>58179994
Xbox hueg files for 'better quality' that 1% of people can hear

>>58179930
>Converting to deprecated ogg
>Not superior Opus
Waste of power.

File: idiotphile cable.png (4MB, 1980x850px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1980x850px

>>58179930

FLAC are for archive, Ogg/Opus/m4a are for listening. If you can ear frequencies above 21kHz you are an idiotphile/placebo. With the lastless codecs at an high biterate: no difference.

>>58179930
But lossless is great.
Listening to it is cool (assuming you have good audio gear), but the main advantage is that you can convert it to lossy formats to listen to your favourite tracks on portable devices without noticable drops in quality.

Also, a 1TB HDD is like $60.

>>58180012
>>58180028
Ogg is a container. Vorbis is what you were probably refering to. If your receiver can decode Opus, use it.

>>58179930
>not converting to lossless instead
enjoy your quality loss

File: acovaco.jpg (172KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x768px

>>58180012
.ogg is a container. Vorbis (which is what most people mean when saying ogg) and Opus are compression formats, both of which can be stored in .ogg files.

>>58180012
>Are ogg and opus basically the same thing?
No, ogg is a file container storing mostly Vorbis audio which isn't the same as Opus.
>Xbox hueg files
No way around that, lossless media takes space no matter how you try to compress it. FLAC is quite good at compression.
>for 'better quality'
It is better quality, it is lossless.
>that 1% of people can hear
Nobody can hear when the comparison is a good lossy encode* It's not about getting audibly better quality unless you totally fuck up your encodes or are purposefully encoding audio where the encoder used fails.

Nobody has a golden ear which can tell the faintest levels of file compression without rigorous training to do just that. It's a learned trait, not some inherited hearing anomaly or a feat of your audio gear.

>>58180049
Most adults fail at 19 KHz or below. This isn't where the important bits in music lie or where you start to hear the quantizer fail and nasty file compression artefacts. Frequencies this high are very easily masked away if the audio band below it has some information.

>>58180012
>Are ogg and opus basically the same thing?
No. Opus has lower latency and smaller filesizes than ogg vorbis.

Opus is basically what is supposed to be the new upgraded ogg vorbis. It's made by the same people.

>>58180051
>Listening to it is cool (assuming you have good audio gear), but the main advantage is that you can convert it to lossy formats to listen to your favourite tracks on portable devices without noticable drops in quality.
Or I just keep it in lossy without noticeable drops in quality without the need of requiring more hard drives.

>>58180109
>Most adults fail at 19 KHz or below
I know but I don't want triggered delusional people who claim they can.

>>58180130
So you're telling me you haven't installed a supertweeter into your system?

File: disappointment and lack of agreement with what you just said is all Hanekawa feels right now.png (595KB, 617x967px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 617x967px

>>58180012
>>58180109
>'better quality' that 1% of people can hear
>Nobody can hear when the comparison is a good lossy encode
you either have shit hearing or you're using shit listening equipment
>If you can ear frequencies above 21kHz you are an idiotphile/placebo.
>people think lossless audio is preferred because it has more high frequency material
honestly just look it up instead of writing any more shit

File: 40kHz.jpg (31KB, 548x349px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 548x349px

>>58180138
no, I'm a cat :3

>>58180147
>honestly just look it up instead of writing any more shit
I'm russian

>>58180116
You do what you want.
If you feel that lossless music isn't worth the space it takes, convert it to lossy.
But don't fuck up the encoding.
Be also aware that if you need to reconvert from that lossy source (eg. Opus -> AAC), you'll degrade the quality again.

>>58180138
>>58180158
>speakers able to reproduce audio at frequencies higher that 22kHz are useless
>what is aliasing
I'll spoonfeed you even - http://recording.org/threads/oversampling-explained.48087/
>>58180166
are you using that as an excuse to write stupid stuff on the internet?

>>58180199
Do you troll?

File: products8-500x500.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

Look, people used to listen to music on pic related. If you NEED perfect flac to enjoy music, you probably don't even like music that much to begin with.

>>58180147
>you either have shit hearing or you're using shit listening equipment
I think I already covered that file compression artifacts are very poorly related to both of these, disregarding extreme examples such as deaf people or highly distorting narrow band loudspeakers in reverberant space.

I think you have never tried to compare a high quality lossy file into a lossless one in an environment where you aren't constantly under numerous of cognitive biases.

>>58180199
Do you think aliasing is in some way related to loudspeaker HF extension?

>>58180147
>people think lossless audio is preferred because it has more high frequency material

It is.

File: 1482716123780.jpg (41KB, 470x469px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 470x469px

>>58180199
>>58180147

GO KILL YOURSELF NOW

>>58180237
It certainly can be, both in listening and in production. However you do not need lossless files to achieve transparency in listening.

>>58180227
>I think you have never tried to compare a high quality lossy file into a lossless one in an environment where you aren't constantly under numerous of cognitive biases.
I have and I could tell the lossless file from the lossy compressed one some 8 times out of 10
>Do you think aliasing is in some way related to loudspeaker HF extension?
no the speaker thing was separate, I should have phrased it differently
>>58180237
>It is.
I mean it can be, but it's far from being the only thing
>>58180250
>I can't hear the difference so everybody who claims to be able to is trolling

i keep everything i know i'll listen to decades from now in flac, rest in ogg

>>58180176
Yeah I'm not getting anything but bunch of annoying shit by having it lossless. I know I can't hear a diff unless I focus an awkward amount with side by side comparisons.. and that's only for specific tracks

>>58180049
>FLAC are for archive, Ogg/Opus/m4a are for listening.
If you keep FLAC for archiving, why not listen to it too? Converting it to something else just wastes even more space.

>>58180322
>8 times out of 10
Statistically pretty irrelevant. Why did you fail every fifth time? Lossy file can be anything from extreme potato GSM call quality of very high quality full band audio. Codecs act different on different audio content, settings and bitrate. There are multiple encoders for common codecs such as mp3 or AAC alone with some pretty significant quality differences. If you ever decide to do a simple ABX again, use Opus with compression level 10 and 128 kbps bitrate. You could be surprised.

>>58180199
Frequencies above 20 kHz are useless

>>58180322
You can listen sounds higher than 20kHz?

>>58180395
>>58180420
Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well.

>>58179930
>honestly thought you had hardware good enough

>>58180497
flac

File: 1.png (2MB, 1593x843px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1593x843px

>>58180435
>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well
>live in 1999

The MP3

File: 2.png (1MB, 1595x859px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1595x859px

>>58180435
>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well
The AAC

File: 3.png (2MB, 1587x853px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1587x853px

>>58180435
>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well
The Vorbis/ogg

>>58179930
Maybe you should question why are you spending hours downgrading quality of your music.

>>58180560
>>58180576
>>58180593
Lossless source material please...

>currently convering my 580GB all FLAC library to OPUS

FTFY you moron.

>>58180602
>spending hours
I spend about 1minute to start the batch conversion, actually. Well, few minutes more as I had to google how to copy the mp3s as windows command line is like japanese to me
>>58180635
yeah converting to opus 196, thanks /g/

File: nigga try harder.png (2MB, 1597x851px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1597x851px

>>58180618
From Discogs.com

>>58180602
Storage space.

>>58180661
>I spend about 1minute to start the batch conversion
Put the goalpost back.

>>58180695
Is never a problem.

File: 4.png (1MB, 1593x853px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1593x853px

>>58180435
>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well

The Opus

>>58180709
UUUU

>>58180701
what they werent even placed initially, it takes me a few minutes never said otherwise

>>58180560
>>58180576
>>58180593
>>58180711
What's this supposed to prove?

>>58180711
>>58180687
>>58180593
>>58180576
>>58180560
>he thinks the loudness of frequencies denotes the level of quality
Oh anon...

>>58180741
New lossy codecs DON'T degrade audio below 20 kHz

>>58180012
>Xbox hueg files for 'better quality' that 1% of people can hear
Only retards seek FLAC for that reason. Lossless is for archival.

>>58180368
I keep my shit on my PC as FLAC, but convert to something else more lightweight for my phone.

>>58180768
Can you elaborate please?

The source>>58180687

>>58180810
You can't tell how good the quality of a song is by looking at a spectrogram.

>>58180840
So it's your feeling? You don't trust spectrograms?...seriously

>>58180768
If the frequencies top out like that, different parts of the audio track will no longer have the correct volume relative to other parts that did not top out. It absolutely does indicate quality.

>>58179930
>580GB
>FLAC
What's it like listening to the same 20 songs over and over?

>>58180883
Yeah but the bitrate is still a third of what it originally was. There is obviously a loss of quality.

>>58180808
This is the most retarded thing I've read all day

>>58180883
Nevermind, I thought I was looking at something quite different from that.

>>58179930
>converting flac to ogg
What the fuck does this even mean?

Do you mean Vorbis or Opus?

>>58180979
back when i followed anything audio related at all opus didnt exist so there was no ambiguity

>>58180916
>Yeah but the bitrate is still a third of what it originally was

Not related

>>58180391
I converted some flac albums to max quality aac using fraunhofer fdk aac and did a blind test with a friend as help
my guess is that the pieces I couldn't discern simply were very highly compressed (dynamic range compression), simple stuff
>>58180785
>>58180879
>these spectrograms look very roughly the same so the audio will sound the same
do you honestly believe yourself?
I understand you might not hear a difference, but even if you can't, your reasoning is very idiotic - try compressing something to a 192kbps mp3 and then compare spectrograms, these too will look roughly the same but will sound noticeably (I hope to you too) different
>>58180785
so you're saying that reduction in size from a flac file to an aac file is only discarding audio info over 20kHz?

>>58180919
>580GB on a phone

>>58180808
>Lossless is for archival
Where did that meme come from? From rotational velocidensity? Every phone and player supports FLAC. I understand converting to save space, but this phrase is utterly ridiculous.

>>58180919
not him but lossless is for archiving while lossy is for using.
it's the same for video and for images.
imagine if in 20 years a different format is gonna be #1 and you want to switch to it
your options are
>convert your lossy to the new lossy (fucking casual)
or
>convert your lossless to the new lossy (A E S T H E T I C)

>>58181061
>192kbps mp3 = 320kbps mp3

Nigger what?

>removing higher frequencies doesn't affect the sound
You mean Fourier transform is obsolete and you can safely remove all overtones?! Quick, grab dem Nobels.

File: 1454108868739.jpg (796KB, 764x1023px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 764x1023px

>hey guys the size is bigger so thats better XDDDD

'Audiophiles' are the most stupid people on earth

>>58181161

>>58180785

>>58181172
>files with more DSP applied are better than files with less DSP
Synapses status: stimulated.

>>58181075
>imagine if in 20 years
yeah, and in those 20 years you could've had a lot more space if you just converted to lossy right away

>>58180051
>paying 60 dollaridoos for 1 terabyte
You shouldnt be paying any more than $35/terabyte

>>58181188
You didn't even understand what I said. The waveform is affected by all frequencies, including those you don't hear.

>>58181161
this shithead only wanted to point out he heard of fourier, congrats

>>58179930
You won't understand why we use FLAC until you'll start having to transcode all of your opus files to another codec in the future

>>58181007
Well, saying you're converting from a codec to a container is meaningless regardless.
Like saying "I converted these gifs into mkv".

>>58181214
>The waveform is affected by all frequencies, including those you don't hear.
Yes, and all of the frequency components you don't hear result in overtones at frequencies you can't hear either

Genius

>>58181102
ah so if I understand what you're saying, the spectrogram of a 320kbps mp3 would look the same as the spectrogram of an uncompressed file, and the spectrogram of a 192kbps mp3 wouldn't
well try that yourself and see if you're right
be sure not to use a log scale for the y axis as well, you wouldn't want to be able to see any change in the frequencies below 1kHz
>>58181172
>people who are able to enjoy high quality stuff are stupid
>also ferrari's are snake oil, my fiat 500 full optional is just as good, btw I'm 16 and have only driven 3 cars in my life
>>58181214
>The waveform is affected by all frequencies, including those you don't hear.
and you are saying that, with everything else being equal and without distortion from too high levels and with equipment capable of perfectly reproducing everything, a 1kHz sine and a sum of a 1kHz sine and a 40kHz sine would sound different to a human?

>>58181261
>a 1kHz sine and a sum of a 1kHz sine and a 40kHz sine would sound different to a human?
Yes. And to perfectly reproduce music you need an infinite number of sine waves.
>>58181254
Clueless.

File: cap1.jpg (361KB, 1311x643px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1311x643px

>>58181161
>>58181214
>all overtones
Why should I care if 44100 Hz is enough for all the audible frequencies

>>58181261
>people who are able to enjoy high quality stuff are stupid

(you)

File: 0c2bb72b_attachment.jpg (308KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 2048x1536px

>>58181336
forget the pic

>>58181293
>Yes.
I'm with the other guy that's going for no, but please do tell me how and why it would be different and make me learn something today
>to perfectly reproduce music you need an infinite number of sine waves.
>you need an infinite number of sine waves.
what?
>>58181306
you read this as well - http://recording.org/threads/oversampling-explained.48087/
>but what does it matter if I'm only listening to stuff and not recording it?
depending on how the original material is downsampled you may incur in artifacts, aliasing for example
apart from that it's useless to go higher than 44.1kHz, but that's hardly the advantage of lossless audio

>>58181261
>be sure not to use a log scale for the y axis as well, you wouldn't want to be able to see any change in the frequencies below 1kHz

It's the same because lower frequencies take less size than treble on the files. That's how lossy work.

>>58181203
well if you don't have the space to archive shit you don't archive shit

it's not that hard

>>58181417
>artifacts
please stop

File: FourierSeriesSquareWave_800.gif (10KB, 363x224px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 363x224px

>>58181417
>how
The amplitude will change differently.
>what
Are you a dropout?

File: optical gold pidif cable.jpg (76KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 700x700px

>>58181261
>people who are able to enjoy high quality stuff are stupid

Good Goy

>>58181440
>It's the same
the percieved difference between 17 and 18kHz is much less than the difference between 0.2 and 1.2kHz, which is why, if one was doing something so stupid as comparing the look of spectrograms thinking they will have a correlation with compression artifacts (beyond the plain removal of material at a certain frequency), one might want to have a close look at the frequencies below 2kHz as well

>>58181457
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact
>>58181477
>The amplitude will change differently.
the signal amplitude will be reflected in a change of pressure at the same frequency that will be unnoticeable to the human ear tho
>Are you a dropout?
now you're changing the subject
why are you even posting the pic of a square wave when my example was about two sine waves, and why would you mention you need to be able to reproduce an infinite number of sine waves (I'm guessing you were missing the "to reproduce" part) when I made an example concerning two sines
I mean you are right but what does that have to do with anything?
>>58181488
why are you not considering everything in between €20 headphones connected to an integrated soundcard and €20k tube power amps plugged into €50k speakers with 5cm thick gold-core cables?

>>58181232
why would i want to do that

>>58181623
>the signal amplitude will be reflected in a change of pressure at the same frequency that will be unnoticeable to the human ear tho
Wrong. Ears percieve the waveform, not individual frequencies - this is precisely why effects like "missing fundamental" are possible.
>why would you mention
Read my post again, you need an infinite sines for MUSIC, not for two sine waves.

>>58181741
>you need an infinite number of sines
fuck off, we aren't trying to analytically replicate it and you need a very finite amount to make it guaranteed indistinguishable to human ears

>>58181787
>good enuf for me!
Sure. It IS possible, but cutting out frequencies is just asking for trouble.

>>58181938
>but cutting out frequencies is just asking for trouble.
Not if they are literally inaudible, you don't need your television to show you infrared either

>>58180221
/thread

>>58182032
You learned absolutely nothing. Wow.

>>58180808
>Lossless is for archival purposes*
>Lossless is for archiving*
>Lossless is for archives*

>>58182186
not the same guy, just not finding any logic in your reasoning

>>58180082
Is that an oggvocado?

>>58182383
Sets of frequencies can be percieved as completely different frequencies. You can't just "delete" some frequencies, you'll after the rest of the signal. What's so hard to understand. Compression can be achieved other, less harmful ways. Yes, in lossy codecs as well.

>>58179930
>thought lossless was a good idea
it is, for long-term archiving.
For regular listening 320kbps MP3 or AAC is enough

>>58180049
>f you can ear frequencies above 21kHz you are an idiotphile/placebo
only teenagers and kids can hear over 21kHz.

>>58181261
Why do people making this kind of argument immediately jump to cars? Only the underclass care about cars.

>>58183147
>Only the underclass care about cars.
nigger please

File: 1482495713570.jpg (254KB, 736x804px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 736x804px

I got over my autism and started converting everything to 128kbps Opus. If there's a better codec 10 years from now, then so be it

>>58183248
Converting IS autism. Use your files the way they are.

>>58180221
this

>>58183187
He's right though. Nobody in the upper-class actually gives a shit about (at best) middle-class status status symbols.

>>58183335
Who do you think purchases the actually expensive cars?

I stopped keeping my music in FLAC when I realised that Vorbis, despite being a lossy codec, is a good enough source such that it doesn't seem to produce any noticeable artifacts of generationally lossy transcoding.

My music is archived as high bitrate Vorbis on my desktop, and transcoded to 100k Opus for my phone.

The same wouldn't be doable if you downloaded all your music in MP3 in the first place, which is a poor source.

>>58183506
>My music is archived as high bitrate Vorbis on my desktop, and transcoded to 100k Opus for my phone.
cringe

>there's no difference in quality
>but I bothered converting it anyway
Explain.

>>58183984
please be real

>>58179930
Because you were smrt enough to download flac, you can burn lossless files to music cds, you can convert to transparent opus for you're breddy gud laptop/dac, and you can also convert to 128kbs mp3 for you're 8gb phone with dollarama earbuds.
Aren't you glad you have huge flac library?

why wouldnt you want lossless
this isnt 1998, we have plenty of storage space now

I want an exact 1:1 copy of what was on the original audio CD

File: f4fe942234c0e9e30dfe542d122ee610f5d7df70.png (9KB, 468x60px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 468x60px

I guess for some people it's simply a part of the experience to make the quality of their music as shitty as their taste. Like, "I can't hear the difference so I don't deserve listening to flacs".

>there are retards who think lossy files are smaller than flac just because the frequency was cut off
phew

>>58183482
People who can't afford them.

>>58181172

Wow is that table even 5 axis shock mounted? What's the point in having all that equipment playing music when it's bottlenecked by that table.

>>58184397
It's funny because it's the opposite of what people think.

the point of lossless is not listening quality or any of the other shit /g/ spasts bring up

the point of lossless is to not throw precious data away if there's no need to, so you can re-use it for possible other things like reconverting to lossy for a portable player or using it for editing. The only counter-argument is storage space, which for most people is abundantly available. So use lossless if storage space allows it, there's no reason not to.

Do you take photos at purposefully lower resolutions because "meh I can still recognize the people in it at potato resolutions"? When I get important photosets from people who used a fancy camera and the pics are 100MB each because they're some high-profile codec and an insane resolution, I still keep them that way, Because why bother throwing away quality if that gains you nothing?

>>58184609
>reconverting to lossy for a portable player
Tell me what player doesn't support FLAC.

>>58184609
PS: and in limited cases you actually can easily hear a difference. Just try anything with extremely high or low tones or very complex sounds. There've been times where I, with my shit hearing, could clearly hear a more defined sound in the lossless version because mp3 is ancient junk that sucks balls and was designed for the tin can audio equipment people used 3 decades ago. vorbis and opus at least do a better job.

>>58184674
portable players like mine (recently bought clip+) make up most of those rare situations where storage space is scarce, anon. My collection is 16k files and 110GB, and flac is not even a large part of it.

>>58184609
Photos I notice quality differences.
>>58184679
Honestly I have a hard time hearing any difference for V1, 320 CBR I sure as fuck dont notice any whatever I listen to.

>>58181353
You can literally use a coat hanger and have no perceivable difference. People who do shit like this don't understand how electricity works.

>>58184704
Your 300 favorite tracks will easily fit there, 16k is simply impossible to navigate on such a device.

>>58184798
I have a tag-based organization structure 6 levels deep, anon. I can very well navigate my entire collection. My set of favorite tracks is over 5000. Because of limited space even with vorbis at a very low rate I can only sync my "awesome" tracks (rating 5, where favorite is 4). I could get an sc card bigger than 8/16 GB but I don't trust those shitty, flimsy little pieces of crap at bigger capacities than that

>>58184881
*sd card

>>58179930
I also fell for this meme.

>>58180082
So what format is the actual audio?

>>58186415
are you blind?

vorbis and opus are codecs (formats)
ogg is the container where you can add metadata

>>58181072

How is it a meme?

>5 years from now
>New format that is superior to V0

Uh oh, too bad you already butchered everything into MP3s, now go wait for every single song you had to be re-ripped and compressed to the new format

Meanwhile, my FLAC collection is lossless to the original physical distribution, I can convert them as I please.

>>58180368
>If you keep FLAC for archiving, why not listen to it too?

I've never understood this. I have my collection in FLAC on my home server and just listen to it directly, I don't understand why people would convert it for local use when the FLACs are right there.

I only convert when I am sending the music off to something, like a phone or to friends who want it.

>>58179930
Share pls thx

>>58179930
Enjoy your rotational velocidensity.

>>58181007
flac can be placed in ogg as well, i'm not if ogg ever only supported one codec

>>58180049
those cables look like huge turds

I read a test in a science mag where they tested a $300 HDMI cable and a $12 one, results where about the same, with the $12 one averaging better......

fucking snake oil

>>58181172
he's listening to industrial music

>>58184881
How are you navigating tag system on a player?

>>58188270
Enjoy your down syndrome, retard.

>>58179930
I don't have any good audio hardware, I really only use lossless for archival reasons.

>>58186968
MP3 still works, while you're forever stuck carrying placebo FLAC.

>>58189465
>MP3 in current year
You have some ancient hardware player from 2004?

>>58189465
>mp3
When is your mixtape gonna drop nigga?

>>58189485
MP3 still works. There's no need to "wait" for an encode in a new format. It is still audibly indistinguishable from FLAC at 1/4th the space.

>>58189498
Why don't you use Opus or at least Vorbis then?

>>58189503
Learn to fucking read.

>>58189513
Learn to not be a nigger.

>>58189524
MP3 still works. There's no need to "wait" for an encode in a new format. It is still audibly indistinguishable from FLAC at 1/4th the space.

>>58179930
ogg is the container.
what you're looking for is vorbis, but that is deprecated. go for opus instead.
if you want a more conventional codec, try qaac.
you will need to extract appleapplicationsupport.msi from itunes.
use 7zip or winrar to open itunes.
q127 for best result that you will not regret. you will get all frequency range. anything lower it will get chopped.

>>58186968
>New format that is superior to V0
FLAC is already superior. Just use it.

File: 00002.track_4352.m4a.png (165KB, 624x389px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 624x389px

>>58180576
which encoder did you use?

File: 00002.track_4352.flac.png (186KB, 624x389px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 624x389px

>>58189640

>>58189535
just enjoying my opus at 1/4 the space of your mp3

>says FLAC is superior and for archival
>wastes on both FLAC AND converted versions
I probably don't understand something.

>this alternative is clearly superior
>but let's shit on it and go with the inferior alternative instead
must be american

>>58189662
MP3 doesn't go to 800kbps.

> Not using deez and downloading everything in glorious 320 MP3
I don't even know if ogg is superior but it's nowhere to be found on pirate sites. Downloading from flac and converting to ogg is literally autism.

>>58180560
>still using spek in 2017

>>58180435
> Giving a shit about anything above 15k
If you can hear anything past 16khz you're underage and do not belong here.
If you think frequencies you can't hear make the music sound better you need to promptly buy a rope and neck yourself.

Then what format should I use?

>>58189869
Kidnapping the artists and making them play in your own studio
Alternatively if you're a poorfag master tapes

>>58182543

>current year
>not understanding Fourier space

>>58182543
>You can't just "delete" some frequencies, you'll after the rest of the signal.
By removing overtones your ear is incapable of hearing

Fun fact: Double-blind trials show that human listeners cannot distinguish between a 320 kbps MP3 and faggier shit, including but not limited to vinyl, lossless audio, and DVD audio.

>>58189966
You can tell the difference between vinyl and the rest because of all the popping and crackling

>>58180661
>>58180661

>196 kbs

TOP KEK

64kbs is enough for music. 96kps if you are suffering from autism.

Embrace the technology of the opus.

>>58189966
lossless is for archival, not listening. I like knowing i have the best file quality possible, which i can downconvert as needed.

>>58189974

Yes, but people can't tell the difference between the actual vinyl and a 320 kbps mp3 ripped from the vinyl.

>>58190006
Just stop.

>>58190011
>lossless is for archival
Yeah in case somehow suddenly we get ear implants that allow us to hear frequencies previously only heard by bats

>>58190011
Just think, if you stored in lossy you'd never have to convert since it would already be lossy.

>>58190035
Just read.

https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings

>>58190055
Just stop.

>>58190054

to be fair, if you host your own music server on a raspberry pi or something, you can transcode it at will for streaming elsewhere with several media server programs

File: thom.jpg (61KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 431x450px

>>58189465
I was going to call you a nigger and explain why you're retarded, but then I realized this is probably bait

>>58190167
I convert to AAC. I still have stuff in MP3. It doesn't hurt me.
FLAC however is nothing but bloat.

>>58179930
580GB isn't too bad., and 1TB isn't that expensive today. Size of storage keeps increasing and prices keep on dropping- except at Apple where 16GB still costs $99), so FLAC is perfectly fine today.

Unless you have a 20TB OGG library, no need to worry, just use that extra CPU to mine bitcoins and get yourself a bigger HDD.

>>58180049
>if you hear frequencies above
Well I do. And I'm not an audiophile.
I have fucking tinnitus that ruins everything but what you're saying here is like saying 144hz refresh rates are placebo and all we need is 24hz

File: Capture.png (11KB, 812x197px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 812x197px

>>58190407
Casuals don't belong here.

>>58190504
>~4.5TB
what a casual.
comeback when you have 15TB at least.

>>58180158
Best super tweeter ever made.
I had a pair for years, nothing ever sounded as crisp as these did.