how do you store your audiophiles? i use flac

>>59508828
me too

192 kbps mp3 files

>>59508863
cuck'd

>>59508828

7zip

File: image.bitmap.xz.png (7KB, 119x112px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 119x112px

the only patrician format

I decipher the audio data from a YouTube bitstream dump in Wireshark (after capturing the entire video in there of course) and masturbate my dick in such a manner that the vibrations replicate the exact sounds. You should see it as it's really quite amazing.

flac for archive and opus for portable use.

>flac tracks
>hires scans in tiff
>fat16 filenames
>front cover in 256x256 jpeg
>md5 checksum
previously used wavpack images with embedded cuesheets, but preserving the audio cd structure seemed kinda pointless, as the reebok standard has declined.

makes it easy to transcode into opus for your mobile phone, or burn audio cd's for elder relatives

32-bit/384KHz FLAC with bitmap scans of the cover artwork.

Transcode to 512KBps Opus and PNG for my mobile phone.

>>59508972
/thread

>>59508972
>using a format without 44.1 kHz support

Kek

>>59509036
But anon, 48KHz is more than 44.1KHz.

>>59509051
But most audio sources are available in 44.1 kHz and you must convert them to 48 kHz, losing quality in the process.

>>59509036
Resampling to 48khz is indistinguishable from native 44.1khz.

>>59509058
>losing quality in the process
It is a lossy codec, you know. There are going to be losses either way.
Also, I highly doubt you can tell the difference between a 44.1kHz source resampled into 44.8kHz.

>>59509069
>44.8kHz
48kHz*

128kbps wav files. The human ear can't hear anything above 130kbps, so "HD audio" is just a cuck meme.

>>59509076
>Referring to uncompressed PCM or anything lossless in terms of bits per second
What an unhelpful thing to say.

I have my whole collection for my music player in 192kbps vorbis. would I save a lot of space for comparable quality in opus? or even aac?

>>59508828
ogg and 128kps

>>59509171
Unless you have a lossless source, NEVER transcode.
All you're going to get is generation loss.

>>59509171
opus is better than aac. you won't hear any difference unless you got golden ears. It's the perfect portable format

>flawless autism codec
no thanks
128kbps vbr

>>59509184
usually its not really audible if its done only once. tried this with 320kbps mp3 to ogg

>>59509288
You're stupid.

>>59509295
t. someone who never actually tried that

>>59508972
>flac for archive and flac for portable use because storage is literally a non-issue

fixed that for ya

>>59509307
How is it not stupid?
If you weren't stupid, you would download everything in FLAC, and then you can transcode it to whatever damn format you want to as many times as you want (unless you're stupid and delete the originals). That means you can enjoy all of the advancements is audio codecs as they come out, instead of being limited to whatever you started with. Just think of all of those MP3s from the 90s/early 2000s which are pure garbage, due to MP3 encoders being way shittier back then.
I don't even really claim to be able to tell the difference between lossless source and a stupidly high bitrate encode, but in principle, lossy to lossy transcodes should never be done.

>>59508863

This.

Any higher is for sneauflakes.

>>59509355
some things arent available in flac tho. many older things may only be available as 192kbps or less mp3 if its not some popular american thing. and you cant get the original cd or if its possible it will cost 500€

>>59508876
> Actually believes this will make a noticeable difference.

File: pøtrük.png (303KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 480x359px

>>59508972
This

>>59509425

you must BE FUCKING DEAF YOU FUCKING PEASANT

V0 MP3

>>59509487

You are imagining things. You're just riding the placebo train.

File: Picture20.jpg (84KB, 539x818px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 539x818px

>>59509488

hey /g/

What software do you use to convert FLAC to MP3 V0?

>>59509536
easiest is using foobar2000 (mass conversions), but you can also use LameDropXPd, which supports FLAC input and is easy to setup.
>rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php

>>59508828
I keep my audiophiles in a dark room full of screaming babboons like everyone else. I let them eat the babboons, making refills every now and then

why do you ask?

>>59509575
i need a LAME (MP3 codec?) plugin for Foobar it seems, but when i try to download it nothing happens, its a clusterfuck

and that LameDropXPd has no options for V0

File: Untitled.png (12KB, 385x582px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 385x582px

>>59509662
you can download lame at rarewares too. then just drop it in your foobar2000 directory and point the program to it if it can't find it by itself.
>rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

also, lamedropxpd does support v0
>pic related

>>59509692
thanks bruh

i downloaded that LAME shit and put it into my Foobar direcotry and now it works perfectly

i think im gonna conver all my FLAC shit to V0 and save like 500GB space

ALAC

File: spurdocopter.gif (13KB, 250x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x194px

>risking irrecoverable distortion for the sake of a few megabytes in an age where terabyte drives are $50

Whatever the half dead torrents for obscure synthwave are in.

>>59509058
the windows mixer resamples 44.1 into 44.1

>>59509741
if you want to store your archive as mp3, it's better to go for 320 kbps cbr, as it's perpetually lossless (but not really). If you're willing to go as high as V0 you're better off with 320 since there's a very small difference size-wise.

V2 is more than enough for human ears & stereo playback.

the best of course is to buy a cheap 1TB usb drive an stash all your flac files there. that way you're future proof.

the year is 2030

people will still have MP3s on their PC
you just cant kill it

>>59509973
i know several people who don't know what mp3 is. all they know is spotify & youtube

>>59509985
>i know several people who don't know what mp3

this is a 18+ website, fuck off kid

>>59509993
i'm 36 and i'm not joking. Those people are tweenies at my work

>>59509993
Not everyone is a 1337 computer savy badass like you that watched Mr Robot.

>>59509973
Yeah. MP3 is already dead as the audio track of a movie file, though. Nobody distributes MPEG-1 or DivX AVI videos anymore.

>>59509985
its true tho. most people do not know how their devices work. would expect that people here know but any normalfag you can meet outside does not.

>>59510198
i'm considered a hacker because i have a my music on a 64GB micro-sd

>>59510223
Maybe you consider yourself a hacker, but nobody else cares really. Even normal people.

>>59510249
i'm not a hacker. just dumbass who's somewhat interested in tech & linux

I create clay urns on a 33 ⅓ rpm potter's wheel placed next to my transistor radio tuned to a 80's pop station. My philes are stored within.

>>59509076
Hurr i can't differ 1080p from 4k.
Try to save a mp3 file 5 times in a row
Now do this with uncompressed wav file.
You'll hear the difference

>>59508828
Me too.
On both external drive and some DVDs (sneakernet and music club purposes).

>>59509058
More devices have trouble playing back 44.1KHz files then they do 48KHz.
Also resampling from 48 to 44.1 rarely poses a problem on a modern resampler

>>59508828
APE Masterrace faggot

>>59511032
1080p vs 4k is more comparable to 96khz vs 44

and no, you can't tell the difference

>>59509838
>that way you're future proof.
What do you even mean with future proof? What have to happen in the future?

>>59511274
formats change, you have a lossless source to transcode from

>>59511286
But mp3 and opus are already perfect to the point you can't hear any difference from flac

>>59511341
1. you can
2. what are second generation losses

>>59511341
it's about preservation. would you throw away a comic or a book just because you've read it and now you can remember it forever?

>>59508828
I use the best format available which is at most 24bit FLAC at whatever simple rate. I do tend to resample add truncate "high resolution" files to save space.

>>59509058
You sound like a perfect fit for a staff position at redacted.ch

>>59509425
The difference between 192kbps mp3 and lossless (or higher bitrate mp3/opus) is somewhat noticeable for certain genres.

>>59510270
You gotta be 18+ to post here

>ITT people with 99 dollar ATH-m50s telling others what they can and can't hear

>>59508828
> .wav

I have gotten my hands on some JBL coupons to get 40% discount on some of their latest gear, just looking if anyone is interested in buying them, thanks

>>59508897

wtf i hate your mom now

I make a hexdump and print that out and laminate the paper. I have yet to find another format that doesn't suffer from bit degration.

>>59509058
You actually gain quality in that process.

>>59511770
Is this a new meme where you try to make fun of the ridiculous extents audiophiles go through with their music?
Cause literally nobody in the thread is doing this, you're just shitpost I guess towards yourself

>>59509076
In that case your music should be in 1hertz, because we only have 1 heart

FLAC for storage and transcoded to opus for streaming to my phone.

File: record player skateboarding 1446144613166.jpg (93KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 540x960px

I only listen to pure analog vinyl records.
I hook them up to my Crosley, put it on my lap, lay back and then play it through my computer and its speaker. Anyone saving things as giant files on your mp3 player are plebs.

I an even take my classic Crosley record player on the go.

>>59512104
>enjoying distortion

>>59512104
>>59511770
>>59508897
It's not funny
I really don't understand what you think you're doing but everyone in this thread has just said they have their shit in FLAC and you are pretending like everyone is trying to peddle you cable rocks

I buy most of the music I like I buy it on whatever format it's available on, with LP/Vinyl>CD>Digital>Cassette(If it's really cheap) as my order of preference. Most of the time brand new LPs and CDs come with a digital download code which gets you 320kbps MP3s, which I'm fine with. If they don't come with a digital download or I'm not happy with the digital mastering, I just rip the CD or transfer the LP to my computer, and save it as FLAC. I still convert it to 320kbps MP3 for use in playback devices, though.

>>59512521
And I missed a stop. Now I look like a fucking teenager, great. (polite sage)

File: winamp-logo.jpg (80KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x1024px

>>59508863
That's so 1997.

>>59509036
Opus doesn't really have a native internal rate. Everything is turned into a frequency representation that spans 0-20kHz.

>>59508828
storing data is for luddites

File: RealPlayer[1].png (11KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 256x256px

>>59512750
ampcucks out

I lock my audiophiles in the basement with ballgags and blindfolds

File: yotsuba-no.jpg (90KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x600px

>>59512949

24 bit 192khz 4000kb/s+ FLAC or >>>/out/

>>59513032
Josef Fritzl?

>>59514445
>integer bit depths
32 bit IEEE at the very least

What's the best place to find flac? Any old torrent site? It's been almost 2 years since I've actually downloaded music.

>>59514870
ffshrine

File: 1306786253720.png (398KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 800x800px

I used to be obsessed with FLAC.
I would have all my shit in FLAC and be elitist about it etc.

But then one day i listened to a simple MP3 in 320kb and realized that i could hear every single detail all the same.
I started cross checking and indeed, suddently my ears got accustomed to picking up all the minutiae i used to obsess over when i only listened to FLAC.
So i realized FLAC was nothing but a magnifying glass upon the tracks, a crutch i needed to evolve my hearing and appreciation of the details in music, and now i simply didn't need it anymore.
Been listening to 320kb MP3s ever since and haven't looked back once.

I actually personally know a musician that these days listens to music exclusively at a VERY LOW volume, and he can pick up everything all the same.
It seems like there's different "tiers" of training your ears to pick up and understand music and the less experienced you are with it, the more crutches you need.

>>59514979
if you had actually good hearing you would realize that mp3 smears all the details

bet you never listened to a diff of mp3 and lossless

>>59508828
i upload my FLACs to youtube and then listen to them there. saves me quite a lot of disk space. :^)

>>59509258
>128 kbps
>vbr
Pick one.

>>59514979
FLAC is for archival purposes only. Anyone who actually listens to it and thinks that they can hear a difference deserves only scorn.

>>59515097
Youtube encodes them (at best) as 192Kbps and you are a fa- oh yeah... obvious bait is obvious orz

>>59515264
why have two files? why risk poor encodes? just listen to flac and don't worry if it's more than you need, because whatever the case it's all you need

>>59515304
The point being, you archive the highest quality versions of the song and trans-code them for mobile listening or other uses. You only make another copy when you need to listen to it on a different device.

File: ogg-vorbis.gif (6KB, 375x120px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 375x120px

>>59515255
reminder that this was the original logo

>>59515752
why is he killing a snake with a hammer

>>59515752
he's compressing a periodic waveform.

File: IMG_1357.jpg (20KB, 340x191px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 340x191px

>>59515778
he is compressing the internal organs of a snake and it's going to die I'm calling PETA

>>59509076
>128kbps wav files. The human ear can't hear anything above 130kbps, so "HD audio" is just a cuck meme.
Implying bitrate has anything to do with frequency range

>>59514979
>But then one day i listened to a simple MP3 in 320kb and realized that i could hear every single detail all the same.

You can't hear what is no longer there

File: image.jpg (52KB, 750x701px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x701px

.wav
On SSDs at that
Name one reason not to

>>59516311
wav is to bmp as flac is to png

I only listen to SACD rips

>>59516893
Pretty sure you meant
"FLAC is to wav as png is to bmp"

>not just using wav
why would space be an issue in 2017?

also 90% of your flacs are just inferior formats to wav resaved to flac

>>59517797
nope

>>59509184
>12hrs ago
oh well. I do store my stuff in FLAC and use vorbis on the go. worded it badly.
free bump

>>59508897
>not just writing a fourier analysis of the wavelenghts with your semen
I don't get why you autists must make life so hard for yourselves.

>>59509575
Is pazera extractor any good?

>>59508828

I use google play music because spotify has terrible sound quality. The moment what.cd died and I could not find another music tracker was the day I went full streaming

File: chipmunks record14x-big.jpg (92KB, 800x793px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x793px

>>59512407
I was mostly kidding here>>59512104

Though if there is an album I really care about, I would get it on cd or vinyl. Though some CDs can be iffy quality due to poor mastering. I supposed I should download flac files ones ones I really like for digital copies.

>>59509076
Honestly audiophiles are some autistic fucks, so I get you disagreeing with. However, you're so wrong it's painful.

>>59508863
128 kbps mp3 files, my dial up aint got time for that shit

File: 26e[1].jpg (59KB, 500x620px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x620px

>>59516311

>>59509535
hey look youre still posting. Thanks for the chuckle ya dumb fag.

>>59508828
I store my audiophiles in a cage

>>59509495
This

Why is it that in every one of these threads an argument breaks out and nobody still seems to have made the effort to actually read about codecs, lossy or lossless encoding and the possible effects on sound they can have? Worse yet there are so many people who think they know but are actually just spreading misinformation.

The usual nonsense:

>you can't hear past x bitrate
>humans can't hear above frequency y
>but i can hear up to 20 KHz in this non verifiable test
>upper frequency hearing sensitivity being all important in listening
>mp3 is bad, won't elaborate
>flac is a meme and not worth it based on my subjective criteria
>i can easily tell flac and lossy from one another but won't state the conditions or prove it
>questions someone's audio system
>1. if it didn't impress the anon asking: you have a poor system, spend at least n amount of money
>2. if it did: you have shit ears and hearing, go to a doctor
>im an engineer/musician so i must know my stuff
>audiophiles are idiots and there's only one type
>rotational velocidensity pasta which is someone falls for
>someone thinking driver types, DACs, amps or money spent are important to the subject matter
>nobody realizing that codec artifact listening is
1. a skill which you can train but always requires a double blinded test
2. not really related to hearing loss or nominal hearing
3. not really related to the gear you use to listen
4. rather complex matter due to the nature of perceptual coding algorithms used. you have to state encoder(the exact version) used, settings used(bitrate, compression level etc) and then provide the sample you tested with to make a claim.

I stream it from chiru.no

>>59508828
I make ISOs from all the audio disks that I purchased back in the day. I convert FLAC into uncompressed OGG which respects my freedoms.

Fuck all of you

>>59509058
depends on your resampler software/converter or if you have a really good DAC or really advanced audio processing software like dolby then it doesn't matter.

192/96/48kHz is preferred tho (multiples of six) than the pleb 44.1 because 60Hz AC utility frequency - that is if you plan on listening to them on AC powered device / speaker

If you use DC devices like portable CD player, very dumbphone with bad audio programming, PAL/NTSC tubes, or obselete DVD then just go for 44.1 because 48 kHz will cause it to be out of sync or wrong timings (like dvd videos with out of sync audio)

Conclusion? either works fine because smart phone, smart tv, and smart PC.

>>59508828
320kbps mp3s. FLAC is pointless for me because I don't need/intend to edit or re-encode anything, and even if I do once or twice the loss is negligible.

I zip WAVs. I don't trust FLAC. The files it makes can't be lossless: they're too small.

>>59523639
LOL WUT

>>59509076

the human eye can't see more than 30 frames per second

I torrent AAC iTunes shit, they are lightweight and sound better than most 320kbps stuff

>>59523710
I see what you did there.

FLAC and MP3 V0. i have considered switching to something like Opus or Vorbis out of principle but i don't want to run into unexpected format support issues. and MP3 just werks.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-22-14-10-00.png (2MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2560px

lossless only

>>59508828
cd's

>how do you store your audiophiles?

I put them all in an acoustically designed room and just let them hum and make noises to listen to like a bunch of autistic cattle. I feed them corn also.

>>59515638
Why bother? You can play FLAC on your mobile devices and you can fit a fuckload of them on a 16 GB microSD card.

>>59525257
Fuckload being a few dozen albums?

If it's lossless, always into individual FLAC files. Don't mind which level.
If it's lossy I just leave it whatever format it came in.

Some old niche stuff is hard to get in lossless. Like OSTs from 90s chinese cartoons - you sometimes just have to accept that the only release you can find is 192 kbps and that's better than nothing.

If the scans come as BMP I convert them to PNG. If they come as JPEG I leave them as-is.

>>59508974
I've slowly increased the resolution I save my cover artwork at. Now I usually aim for 1000x1000 because I can see compression on 500x500 on my phone and it tickles my autism.

>>59508972
>opus for portable use.
sigh. another idiot misusing the STREAMING codec opus. use vorbis or enjoy your much lower battery life, fool. opus is more laborous to decode and doesnt save much compared to vorbis

Difference between FLAC and MP3 is much more pronounced on high-end speakers, it's always really dependent on the quality of your output and the chain but having the best source possible allows that headroom

>>59526726
I do have some pretty high end stuff, but for me being able to reliably ABX I need to know the source material pretty well so I can spot a difference
just dropping random stuff I don't know into foo ABX doesn't really get me anywhere, i only works with stuff I've been listening to for a longer time
and that's not really dependent on the system, works the same way with almost everything I have, across different headphones and speakers.
so I guess that whole 'super high end to reveal mp3 flaws' is more a myth

>>59526726
it's most noticeable to me at high volumes

mp3 you just can't turn up without it starting to sound harsh, FLAC stays clean to whatever volume you care to reach

m4a

>>59525451
All audio digital audio is streamed and Opus decoding is very fast.

>vorbis
I enjoy my compressed audio to have no pre-ringing artifacts thanks. This means any other popular lossy codecs over Vorbis.

>>59526726
It is not. Perceptual coding has very little to none to do with your system. Actually, you can use a very low fidelity gear to make many compression artifacts more easily heard whereas a high fidelity system could mask them away.

There are way too many things that go into an mp3 that you simply can't generalize "mp3" as if it was a singular thing. There are tens of encoders, hundreds a of different options to create an mp3 file and the performance of the encoder always ultimately depends on the audio sample you throw at it. mp3 can be transparent at 128 kbps or it might not be at 320kbps. VBR often gives better performance despite lower average data rate. Sometimes using a lower quality option(e.g. from V1 to V3) can help with perceived quality as the encoder operation changes depending on the settings used and the lower precision could actually work better for the given sample. It's way more complex than the blanket statements here make it seem to be.

>>59527467
hissss....

>>59527489
>There are tens of encoders, hundreds a of different options to create an mp3 file and the performance of the encoder always ultimately depends on the audio sample you throw at it

that uncertainty alone is reason enough to throw it into the trash

>>59516311
rotational velocidensity