Is FLAC a meme?

my dad, who worked at velvet underground say that in this picture, lou reed point at us.

>>62037157
yeah, its placebo, just get 320 kb/s mp3 and you wont hear a difference, disregard all those idiots saying flac sounds better, they wouldn't be able to tell them apart in a blind test.

>>62037157
For casual listening, yes

>>62037157
you need a good audio ic to notice the difference

Is there a way to export raw 192khz 32bit audio to 192khz 24bit flac without quality loss?

>>62037294
44 khz 16 bit is plenty

anything higher wont be heard unless you have dog ears or something like that

Post funny audiophiles. Specifically requesting that one picture.

flac is for archiving

my dad, who works at velvet underground, say lou reed in this picture he point at us

>>62037157
>>62037208
Lou Reed was into Tai Chi

In this picture he performs "White Snake Spits Out It's Tongue"

>>62037157
If you can get it, do it. If you can't, don't worry. Objectively it's better of course. Oh and don't be an autist that converts FLACs to lossy formats - any phone can play FLACs directly and space is never an issue.

>>62037256
this. 320kbps mp3 is all you need. Only use flac if you have 500$+ audio equiments

>>62037337
On the other hand, if you use flac for archiving, and are too lazy to transode to a more compressed lossy format because storage space, flac won't sound any worse.
>provided you're not using some shit tier device that can't deal with the slight increase in overhead.

>>62037256
That's not entirely true though, I can almost always tell if something is on wav, flac or mp3, if I never listened to the song is hard to tell though(i.e. if the song sounds like shit from the start it will sound like that on every format that exists), but basically if you listen to a .wav you'll heard more space and less compression, and it doesn't sound as loud as an mp3 sometimes, that's because there's more dinamics on an .wav and doesn't sound as highended (if this verb exists) as the mp3 if it's an original .wav of course, there's more dynamics then you hear more clearly what's going on here and there. I'm not an autistic audiophile but I prefer alway .flac or .wav if possible, however, all this bullshit dissapears when you start to feel lots of shit listening to music. I'm sorry for my're bad english, i'm an argentinian nigger.

>>62037337
Lossy is fine for archiving, as long as you don't modify or convert the archived files.

FLAC only if your casual listening is actually critical listening and you have a solid setup

Label me a bullshitter but I've listened through plenty albums at both 320kbps mp3 and flac

There's a reason why my musical library consists almost exclusively out of flac.

That said the difference is pretty miniscule

>>62037577
Every faggot who unloaded the shit you just did was proven wrong via blind test.
Every, single, one.
You would be no different my deluded friend.

>>62037337
this.

>>62037312
What about digital volume control?

I recently converted my mp3s to FLAC and it's totally worth it. It's like hearing the songs for the first time again.

>>62037701
>converted mp3 to flac
how stupid are you? there is no difference because you can't make the output sound better than the source

>>62037688
I can hear a difference also.

>>62037736
Blind test observed by a 3rd party would prove you wrong.

if you perform any kind-of audio editing, you should use .flac

For just listening, 320kbps mp3 is fine

>>62037157
I download FLAC then convert to V0 and listen to that because I get my stuff from private trackers and I don't know how to manage my music library that I'm also seeding. Renaming and moving is a hassle.

>>62037755
Its subtly differences like hearing Maracas more detailed ya know

What is the point of compressing a flac to MP3 if you still have space on your device.
I'm using flac on my shitty smartphone with crap audio because i still have plenty of space on my phone.

>>62037755
Doubtful. All you have to do is turn the volume up to hear change.

>>62037788
All the faggots who did blind tests said doubtful, and then were proven retards.

>>62037256
FLAC or WAV for archiving purposes, 320kb/s mp3 for your otg listening, you're going to hear jackshit anyways and chances are the music you're listening to is fucked up with mastering anyways. I've given up on trying to get good equipment because I've realised literally all music is compressed into oblivion with no dynamic range juts for "teh volum :D". The monkeys that do the mastering need to be gassed.

>>62037803
I know what I hear. Not every track is the same pop like Keisha will sound like shit irregardless of bitrate. I know a shitty encode when I hear it. You still haven't addressed digital volume control.

>>62037968
>I know what I hear.
You don't, which is why retards like you always go with a frowning face out of blind tests when they are proven to be deluded retards in the most scientific manner possible as preached by Newton - scientific practical experiment.

>>62037983
Keep telling yourself that sweetie.

Pretty much. Either go balls out with .WAV of use 320k MP3/192 vbr Opus like everyone else.

>>62038016
There's nothing to vocally fart about like you do, scientific experiments are the law.
They say you are a deluded retards who avoids blind tests because you know you are a retarded hack.

>>62037688
I don't want to be rude but I clearly said that I wouldn't guess blindly (thst shit is tricky) if I never listened to it before BUT the difference is clear when you listen to a more dynamic version of the song bro, just open your favorite daw and make your own sounds and then listen to it on both formats, you'll clearly see what I mean. Maybe I'm autistic but not crazy, I can hear the difference, As I said before, it doesn't matter if you don't want to have a song reference or a to listen to certain details that you WON'T hear in an mp3 version or it will be really hard to get a good sound, but fuck, you know what I mean. the high quality sounds are on .wav or .flac.

File: Tux 3.jpg (27KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 512x512px

YFW you finally hear your favorite album on a really good stereo system and are startled you can hear the singer's lips brushing against the microphone.

>>62038079
hot

>>62038044
How many bits does -3db in volume reduction take?

>>62038202
10 bits in retardation and 22 bits in take a blind test fraud.

>>62038226
Digital volume control takes bits away, did you know that?

>>62038246
Blind tests take your retardation away, did you know that?

>>62037577
>wav, flac
Be less obvious next time.
It's /g/, most people here know that both are lossless.

>>62037636
What if next year the greatest music codec of all time is released and your source is already lossy?

>>62038079
>Listen to Taylor swift on good set of headphones
>Realize most of her music has a guy singing along with her

It's mixed so well it's hard to notice, but once you do you'll never hear her music the same way again.

>>62038260
And? Every format is different in my opinion, of course original flac or wav sounds (if well recorded or programmed) are high quality.

>>62038252
How many bits in a 320kbs mp3?

i download flac accuraterips of stuff i really like just so i know im not listening to some low bitrate, blown-out troll transcodes ripped from youtube/stereo mix recordings or recordings from several or more sources just slapped together like mp3 plebs often do. and you _know_ they fucking do this and often.

FLAC is not just for audio superiority, or that it's "better" than MP3 or whatever else: it's quality assurance.

>>62038252
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

The ability to hear a difference in sound is high program dependent. You have to listen over time, as there are discrete incidents that give the game away for lossy codecs. The best source for finding it out is music from UK cathedrals. The high boys voices against the controlled restraint of the deep bass of the British cathedral organs is an absolute torture test. Even at 320 kbs AC3 this type of programming will catch the codec out, with frank and obvious twinking and bass artifacts you could never miss. Although with that codec and bit rate gross incidents are far and few between, but quite common at 180 and unlistenable at lower bit rates. On this rig it is not hard to find the shortcomings of these codecs, although in the main, and for most orchestral program 320 KBs AC3 produces a very enjoyable listening experience, but it still does not sound like a good CD, and especially not a good BD. I admit my rig is very high resolution and above that of the speakers shown in that study, especially the bass definition, where MP3 has particular problems, which is why BBC engineering have ditched it. For reference quality there is no substitute for loss less recordings, especially if they have a lot of sustained deep bass high HF content and a hue ambient envelope. That type of program will catch out any lossy codec I'm familiar with.

>>62038252
How much time in a day do you spend arguing on anonymous imageboards

>>62038246
Analog volume control reduces the SNR, did you know that?

>>62037157
320 kbps mp3 should be fine for humans.
If your a bat who listens to music at 100khz or a cat/dog who listenst at 40khz then switch to flac

>>62037813
NO NIGGER

OPUS FOR OTG

READ A BOOK SOMETIME

>>62037294
Are all 32 bits of audio used, or is there 8bits of padding? If the latter, you can convert to 192khz 24bit flac losslessly.

>>62038672
Not advocating for that either. Current volume control is the way forward, Mark Levinson realized this also.

Sometimes I enjoy a low quality (like radio) version of a song more, because the song sounds busier.

It's very rare but it has happened at least once.

>>62038708
The volume control is implemented into the digital stage. The major drawback is that 1 bit of the D/A conversion is lost in every 6DB volume reduction. So, even though the built-in DA chip is 32 bit, in fact, only 16 bit may be left at low volume level. Now extrapolate that to a 44/16 redbook.

>>62038678
mp3 is the most widely supported file format, any potato can play it. Opus is of course superior but that wasn't the point.

File: 1502874148760.jpg (55KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x375px

>not converting all your mp3 files to glorious flac

FLAC = good if you have 1k dollars equip
320kbps = enough for any casual with a Sennheiser headphone

>>62038044
>scientific experiments are the law
I hope none of you retards actually go through life believing this.

>>62038252
Did you get done reading the study I posted? I can summarize it for you if you want.

>>62038794
Power is power, lrn2 Shannon-Hartley theorem

>>62038817
Some radio stations have good processing, others just add moar bass and fuck up dynamic range.
Pretty much everyone has a multiband compressor (Orban Optimod) and exciter for extra (sub)harmonics (Aphex Aural Exciter/Big Bottom).
FM usually needs some EQ'ing, AGC, limiting and stereo enhancements too to feed a "good" signal into the transmitter.
They just want to make it sound more pleasant, web streams have presets for earbuds and FM gets presets that sound "best" on shitty car radios.
There's a lot more to tell about this, broadcast engineering is pretty interesting stuff

>>62038397
This holy shit

If you listen to the Karaoke tracks you can hear the guy as well..
Only 2 songs I think off Red had this
none on 1989
Almost all on S/T
Most on Speak Now and Fearless

Kinda ruins it for me.

>>62038991
You know damn well that anon didn't read the study. He is already convinced of his correctness, and will dip out when he starts to doubt himself so as to not ruin his world view.

>>62038992
Lol no. The best form of volume control applies I/V conversion volume control, the volume control is just a variable passive I/V conversion being placed at the amplifier output, where the output is current signal but not voltage signal. I/V conversion is to change the volume level from the current (I) signal to the voltage (V) signal. (Like R-2R D/A chips output passive I/V conversion) It can keep the signal frequency band flat while not losing any detail. It does not degrade the sound quality in every volume level. In front of the volume control, there should be non-feedback buffer output stages that offer very low output impedance.

>>62038991
Nobody is interested in reading pseudo-intellectual shit,
but everyone is interested in seeing retards shame themselves in a blind test when they realize they can't hear shit and don't have hearing superpowers like their capeshit comics would have them believe.

>>62039068
compared to other attempts at blind listening tests I've seen in the great audio debate, this was very good. They proposed a question that could be put to the test, and their main conclusions were reasonable. Some people may be disappointed in what it didn't do or say, but that always is true with good science, it's not for the impatient. They tested 13 individuals, 4 musicians and 9 studio engineers, who they described as "trained" listeners. And they performed 150 repetitions of the various trials (5 short musical passages and 6 different digital formats), on average a little more than 10 trials per person. The people who ran this study were in an academic psychology department, seemed to understand concepts of blind randomized studies of human perception, and knew how to apply statistical analysis, all without making any obvious errors. They presented the results in a clear fashion, and although I didn't work through the statistics myself, their statistical analysis did not look unbelievable Overall their conclusions looked valid to me, especially their first one:
Trained listeners can hear differences between CD quality and mp3 compression (96-192 kb/s), and prefer CD quality.


Nothing too surprising there, but they really did have the data to back up those conclusions.

Their second conclusion was fine, until the last part:
Trained listeners cannot discriminate between CD quality and mp3 compression (256-320kb/s), while expert listeners could.


Because they had so few individuals (13) they can't compare results from experts and non-experts. It might take at least 10 times as many individuals before they could make statistically valid observations about that. And they never defined what makes for a trained listener and what makes for an expert trained listener. Other than that somewhat minor quibble, I liked this test. Moral of the study? People can hear a difference, just not
>(You)

>>62039186
Moral of the story, every person who claims to be able to hear a difference has never done a proper ABX

>>62039186
>Because they had so few individuals (13) they can't compare results from experts and non-experts.
>If we keep adding more retards who think they are dogs and cats, maybe one will catch onto the hook
FLAC retards need to hang themselves with their sound cords. That's the only good thing those cords will ever do for Humanity.

Might as well say
>they had so few individuals in testing the flying ability of gravity deniers, that we can not disprove yet that humans can't fly
>we need more retards who think they are pigeons

>>62039235
>>62039268
It was double blind, and some listeners could tell a difference.

>>62039326
They couldn't tell a difference, they could only hope on luck and call it skill.
Like retards always do among fraudulent and very retarded humans.

>>62039037
Do you even know about electronics or are you just parroting audiophile bullshit?

>>62039348
Oh so you just don't like the results? That "luck" goes both ways also.

>>62038418
It really depends if the Rock, John Cena and Richard stallman are all sitting on the toilet while listening.

>>62039368
Do you or are you spouting groupthink memes?

>>62039326
I noticed you still haven't posted your ABX results

Anything above 128kbps mp3 is a waste of space, your shit hearing can't tell the difference. Same thing with internal/external DAC, the extra bits are inaudible.
t. have most of my music in FLAC

>>62039378
The results show retards make mistakes, and when retards make mistakes, that means they don't have the skills but are fraudulent retards.
Kind of like a man who has eyesight will see 10 out of 10 rocks that fly by him, while a blind retard will get his head inflate from pain.

Does music sound better when you turn it up?

>>62038046
If you can better queue in to certain traits when you know beforehand how the audio is formatted, there is no way to know if you are experiencing a difference only due to placebo.

File: received_10208802026827862.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>62038678
>>62038913
>he fell for the opus meme

File: 10res5t16f218mk-1.jpg (332KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 2048x1536px

>>62039414
I do. Licensed ham operator, 2 years as an EE and broadcast enthusiast

>>62039456
Yes, pic related

You can transcode into the state of the art lossy for portables if you store lossless audio. I wouldn't be surprised if 160kbps Opus is better than 320kbps MP3 at some critical samples.

>>62039456
"Better" perhaps not. More noticeable, yes. That's the whole point of the loudness war.

>>62039655
160kbps opus is about the same quality (looking at the spectrogram) as 320kbps lame, the only difference tends to be some slightly more compression artifacts near the top, and opus has an unbiased cutoff at 20khz (which you can't hear above anyway)

flac is not a meme
its a lossless archival format

imagine you have a mp3 from 1990 and you moved it from a cd to a mp3 player(dap) to computer and then to your phone over the years

now its 2017 and that song has degraded between transitioning and if you were to rencode it or transfer it back to a optical media you would lose a lot of data

if you had that same song in .flac you could make a copy and re-encode the song to opus for portability

and in 5-10 years you can re-encode it to the newest format that has better sound quality with even better compression without any loss of data

understand?

>>62039655
"You can transcode into the state of the art lossy for portables if you store lossless audio."

This.
You said it beautifully.

>current year
>using mp3
Christ niggas step your lossy codec game up.
>what is m4a
>what is aac
>what is opus
>what is vorbis ffs

>>62040626
>archival format
exactly, audiophiles don't realize that there is no noticable difference between flac and a good lossy format except size unless they are retards and convert between loosy formats

>mp3
>tuned using glorious Stax headphones and used millions of dollars in German taxpayer money
>took two decades to be transparent at ~192kbps

>opus
>designed as a telephony codec and tuned with crappier monitors as a free software collaboration
>is effectively transparent at ~96kbps and good at ~48kbps, beating HE-AAC V2

Was Stallman right all along in preaching Free Software?

>>62041018
MP3 is gimped with subband + MDCT hybrid filterbank by Philips because of muh ISO politics. The next format they made(AAC) features straight MDCT, thus efficient.

>>62037157
Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

>>62037157
.FLAC for albums I love.
320kbps mp3 for everything else.
92kbps for limewire downloads.

>>62041878
seriously anon?

that shit is older than your mums crusty twat

>>62037157
He's pointing at us... i think we've been the meme this whole time

Unless you make music, don't bother with FLAC. If you make music, use FLAC instead of WAV, it's lossless and takes up less space.

>>62041878
>each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps,
Reading this tripe is costing me more brain cells than I can afford.

>>62038913
OKAY IF YOU HAVE TO USE MP3 DONT USE A CBR ENCODE USE V0 CBR IS FOR CODECLETS

>>62042257
>not knowing about rotational velocidensity
you must be new here

>>62037157
>2017
>people in this thread still using mp3
what the hell are you niggas doing?

It's the same as buying audio gear, if you can't blind test the difference then you're wasting time and space.

>>62042506
money and space* guess I got quantum physics on the mind

>>62037157
Talentless hack.

>>62044074
He's pointing at us

>>62037157
No. People say that they can't heard a difference between flac, and 320kbps mp3, but I can. I fucking can!

>>62037813
not true anymore with the vynil hype normalfags want dynamic range now

>>62037157
the real question is do you need the free space that compression gives to you ?

if no use flac

>>62037157
Wanna know a bigger meme than FLAC?
MQA, a lossy codec with DRM that sells itself as lossless just because it's louder than other lossy codes.

>>62037157
Lossy is good for listening on the go. Every new lossy codec is obsolete after 10 years, but you can't transcode between them.
>2017
>using a 24-year-old codec unironically

>>62045389
>tfw vinyl masters are based off the awful cd masters and not the original recording
Normalfags BTFO

>>62038992
Why does FM sound so shitty on my car stereo system where I've dialed in the sound perfectly for SiriusXM?

>>62037577
ABX test ?

>>62037337
and future editing

the world realized we shouldnt always use jpg because with every incremental save the quality gets worse until it's just noise. why do autists on /g/ still need to learn this lesson for audio?

i make seamless loops and other edits of some of my music. always using lossless means I lose nothing even if I edited the same file 10 more times

lossy files of any kind should be considered fucking end of line, like a print or podcast. if there's any chance you'll want to modify the data again it should be lossless. i get my commissioned images in lossless so i can make awesome personal edits and not suffer jpeg compression garbage when selecting by color

File: page20-1030-full.jpg (107KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x480px

>>62046122
We don't really use digital satellite radio in the Netherlands, but we have terrestrial digital stations on DAB+.
FM stations used to have a tendency to decrease dynamic range to sound louder and make the bass sound more punchy.
Newer stations just want to make it sound good. Our national radio stations have separate processing for each distribution channel. The DAB+ channels are much clearer than FM, with the same music.

You should listen to this to compare it, they switched everything off while on air.
I know it's in Dutch, but you don't have to understand it to notice I think
https://www.radiofreak.nl/jeroen-kijk-in-de-vegte-zet-processing-uit-in-radioprogramma/

>>62037256
Not using ogg container with opus codec. What are you, some kind of pleb?

>>62037688
Send links to the articles pls

>>62046240
Listen to sample A, then sample B, then X is either A or B again randomly selected.

>>62037157
No. I just get everything in FLAC for if I ever get a good audio setup, that way I don't have to scour the internet for my obscure FLAC albums. I also can't be arsed to convert FLAC down to a lossy format either, so I keep my collection 100% FLAC.

I have a collection of concert DVDs with AC3 192 kbps audio, which is the best quality available for the collection. Is it the equivalent of 320 kbps MP3 or comparable?

>>62037813
Start listening to anything other than top 40 pop then.

>>62037266
>>62037285
>>62044453
And for actual listening, get yourself a pair of dog or bat ears.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.lame.html
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html

>>62037157
>FLAC
>is it a meme???
there's literally no reason to use your uncompressed, pure, unadulterated audio since you won't hear above 20kHz and below 20Hz

>>62037636
but what about that centrifugal termovelocity that degrades mp3 bitrate over the years on subpixel level?

>>62047946
kek amount: 'bout tree fiddy

>>62047837
I can hear 25KHz

>>62047837

>what is a discrete cosine transform
> why use bmp when you can use jpg

what a fucking pleb... i bet you dont even have any 24bit on your whole fucking computer

t. been recording 24/96 for a DECADE

With my expensive headphones I can't notice any difference between flac and mp3@320kbps

>>62047781
Anyone?

>>62048342

ac3 is a mp3 multi channel container format from the 90's

its 192kbps mp3 anon and if 5.1 channel and you are listening to it on headphones some crazy downmixing is going to be happening...abort

>>62048393
Certainly better than listening to it on YouTube. I'm listening on speakers 99% of the time anyway.

File: 1464815178318.jpg (10KB, 255x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 255x200px

>>62037157
FLAC is a codec for archiving

is ZIP a meme ?

>>62047837
if your music is in 44Khz, either with flac and mp3 it will be between 20hz-20kHz

>>62038397
it's not just the case with Taylor Swift, i hear this on a lot of songs.

>>62044110
Damn

>>62037577
>I can almost always tell if something is on wav, flac or mp3
>wav, flac

So you hear differences between two instances of the same data... Nice.

File: fraunhofer.jpg (47KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x305px

>>62048613

kinda but not really - the more you know

>>62048587

zip is just obfuscates media corp content scans..it does nothing to file size .. i have about 2tb of flac local... it beat out alac ape and wv

>all these plebs that can't hear the difference between FLAC and MP3
Jesus christ.

>>62049121
Neither can you or any other human for that matter.
>>62047832

>>62037157
For listening, it's placebo. If you want to keep your music collection a little smaller, download in flac and re-encode it in ogg opus.
If you work with music and audio, flac is certainly the best format.