Confessions of a new audiophile

>>62338989
Yeah, I was amazed at the quality increase when I converted my library from mp3 to FLAC format.

My ears are in heaven and will stay there

I listened to a FLAC today and it cured my autism.

>>62338999
that's not how it works

Now do an ABX test with AAC192/Opus 144 and FLAC. Oops, it was all in your imagination

>>62339055
retarded mp3-listener detected

>>62338989
OPUSOPUSOPUSOPUSOPUSOPUSOPUSOPUS

>>62338989
This is an advertising thread.

>>62338989
there is a huge difference in audio quality if you listen to a track on a streaming service and listen to a lossless cd rip after that. its like listening on a completely different track.(you can have good sound quality with lossy formats too but its easier to get good sound with lossless if you dont know the right settings for the lossy encoder)

Your all need to go back to school and learn how the brain and your ears respond to sounds and understand how retarded audiophiles are

flac loves you all anon

Just deleted my 40+ gigs of MP3 files that I've bought over the years. Probably around 5k, but screw it.
I'm a FLAC purist now

>>62339089
i am saying you can't convert mp3 to flac and get improvements

>>62338989
I cried when I first heard Stairway to Heaven on my audiophile system. I sense great autism on this thread.

File: Vlcsnap-2014-12-13-22h44m20s126.png (227KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 512x384px

>>62339141
True, you can't get back lost data (mp3 compression)

File: imageproxy.jpg (82KB, 1360x924px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1360x924px

>>62339122
tfw i cant do this because i have many rare mp3 files that arent available in any other format. many of them arent even 320 and you cant get the cds anywhere and some of them werent even released on cd.

File: 1491786184802.png (174KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 358x358px

>>62338999
Nice my dude
Checked

File: DJUWMtzXcAEjcNz.jpg (133KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x1024px

straight rip from a CD

on a related note... has anyone had EAC start crashing on startup? The thing just won't open well on an XP machine anyway did it drop support for XP and not tell me?

>>62339247
The question is why are you still using XP? You want to get a ransomware so bad?

If you just don't want to be spied on get Seven or the Win10 Long Term Support Branch (that has about as many features as XP).

>>62339107
For a board that calls shill at the drop of a hat, why did no one else notice this

File: avHnbUZ.gif (241KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 300x300px

>>62339055
Fuck me, dense!

>>62339285
Because literally no one is falling for it, we're just hijacking the thread to shitpost.

It's not like there aren't other shill threads on the catalog.

mp3 has been linked to cancer, so I listen to FLAC just to be safe

>>62339281
I was using the machine as an audio server and did a kernel hack to disable windows file protection so I could run MINLOGON.exe in place of Winlogon.exe by renaming the files It may have done other things but EAC had always worked fine it just started crashing yesterday

I un/reinstalled it but still crashes

I tried EAC on a Win 7 laptop and its OK so its just my machine

File: 1504658694830.jpg (214KB, 500x563px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 500x563px

What are some good places to torrent music from? I now know that youtubetomp3.com is not the best place for that

>>62339326
buy used CD s from Amazon. rip and resell/.

File: smug vietnamese cosplayer.png (62KB, 373x380px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 373x380px

>>62338999
verified. fpbp

>>62339326
>>>/ptg/

>>62339326
what.cd ;^)

>>62339316
maybe downgrade it then? theres nothing important in new eac releases

>>62339341
>>>/g/ptg/
or >>>/pol/ptg/

>>62338989
>Thank you Chirnu.no

Shill harder faggot

I'm such an audiophile that I literally stopped listening to prerecorded music as soon as I learned how to play piano. acoustic waves off acoustic instruments is the only way to listen.

>>62339530
I bet you don't even have a grand piano.

That's nice. Retard.

File: 1487165215813.jpg (201KB, 1023x768px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1023x768px

>>62338999
Witnessed

>>62339731
you bet wrong
I'm an eccentric instrument collector, I even have a hammond b3 organ

>>62339882
>Electric instruments
Yeah that sure is eccentric, just not in a good way

File: 8583453353.jpg (56KB, 720x398px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x398px

>>62338999
Every time

>>62339904
It uses ferous tonewheels and magnetic pickups. I don't think its that different from an electric guitar, its certainly not a digital instrument. Hearing a b3 in person is something to behold, and that sound ripping around the room from the high speed rotary horns of a leslie amplifier is truly a unique experience no acoustic instrument can match.

The grand piano is really nice, even when the weather is off season and my tunings are at their worst, it still rings like a living instrument. never bad, always alive somehow. always slightly different than the last time you heard it. you can hit the same note ten times in a row and each one rings slightly different than the one before it. you just can't replicate real world interference patterns and string entropy in a digital instrument.

>>62338989
>First be like "MP3 ftw"
>WOW FLAC SO BADASS
>Now be like "FUCK MP3"

Dumbass "audiophile".

>>62339980
>always slightly different than the last time you heard it. you can hit the same note ten times in a row and each one rings slightly different than the one before it.
>interference patterns and string entropy
Tbqh that just sounds like bad tuning. It's mathematically impossible to get a perfect sound on a piano, and that's what makes it beautiful, but if you can't get consistent sound out of it you either play randomly, failed to tune it, or have something in your ear.

>>62339731
>implying an upright piano sounds is bad somehow

Imho a grand and an upright are two different beasts and they can't even really be played the same. If you play an upright with the same attack you would a studio grand you'd be over hitting like a mother and probably just kill you own sustain because of it. If you play the grand like you do an upright you'd never open up the higher end, and probably the lowest end also, in terms of velocity. different instruments for different occasions.

File: 1363372055534.jpg (19KB, 399x281px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 399x281px

>people call themselves audiophiles when they don't have perfect pitch

>>62340019
you can get a single note to ring without beating for sure. but even then it interferes with every tiny movement in the air

In my perception it feels like my ears are coming into the note at a different point in the wave phase. As if the start of the note is not always at a null amplitude, sometimes its like I hear it peaking first.

an extremely subtle characteristic. I've been tuning my own piano for about 3 years now and i'm definately not getting her perfect, but I can tell even when all the notes except the one I'm tuning are muted, repeated strikes never sound 100% identical. If you record them on a mic and look back at the waveforms they're extremely varying. you can line up the waveforms of all 10 strikes and they'll all look different

>>62340063
Personally of all the pianos I have played, nothing rivals the sound of a classic parallel strings grand. My Erard has such a clear, distinct sound instead of the almost blended together sound of a modern Stenway.

Of course it's a matter of taste, there's nothing wrong with a modern homogeneized standard piano, or even a quality upright, it's just not as colorful.

File: hd flac.png (39KB, 618x594px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 618x594px

>>62339247
>>62339333
>CD's
>16bit

lol... wew lads its like your not even trying get gud

https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5407471

>>62338989
Lol kek, FLAC was only noticeable in the mid 00's. Noone cares anymore, get yo snakeoil outta'ere

>>62340206
where do you live?
In my neck of the woods an instrument like that would be extremely rare

The only piano I've ever seen that had parallel strings belonged to a piano professor that specialized in period instruments. and had a house full of pre Steinway instruments, mostly fortepianos and harspi's, but one parallel string Pleyel piano and it did sound good, if not a bit thin for my modern ears. I never got a chance to really play it and hear it though

Do you remember when MP3 first came out? It was revolutionary. Just like cassettes were.

>>62340292
What is this witchcraft?

File: 1eac6ce98a0a460151329c35e38dc66f.jpg (76KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x450px

>>62340463

its the future... its here already - its just not widely distributed

My new monitor has audio jack, I'm on displayport. Should I use it, or should I stick to the mobo jack? Very old machine, I wonder if it will sound any better.

>>62338989
It's honestly all about the mastering, not the 320kbps mp3/FLAC. When you get good audio gear, you find that it's much harder to find an album you like that was decently mastered instead of halfassed or terrible. I like Blind Guardian but damn some of that stuff was terrible. So glad they remastered stuff like Nightfall in Middle Earth.

Goes basically mastering>distribution source>rip quality>file format

I grab FLAC usually for archiving and because usually the person who puts up FLAC rips cares more about doing a good rip most of the time.

>>62340292
What a waste of data.

>>62341815
Depends entirely on the DAC/amp quality of the motherboard vs the monitor. I find monitor/tv internal DAC's are usually complete shit while your motherboard probably isn't as long as you don't have hiss from the ground plane.

>>62341862
I see. I guess I'll have to go for it and see which one is shittier.

>>62341862
Just tested. It's pretty shitty indeed, will stick to the default mobo jack, thanks.

>>62341862
>>62341997

thats because digital audio over display port / hdmi has terrible terrible jitter - here is a good science based article

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-deep-dive-into-hdmi-audio-performance.56/

i have been arguing with a alot of 12 year old faggots about jitter here lately..

>>62341834
What is FLAC btw?

>>62343425
A lossless audio format.

>>62343425
Reminds me of a nonprofit I work with that archives and scans photos at high resolution but some of the photos in the collection are off the web and screen capts etc which are jpg's and pngs. Every once in a while someone will request tiffs because 'highest quality' and they just convert the jpgs and pngs to tiffs rather than explain that if they have jpg's or pngs then they don't have any higher quality of that photo. If they have tiffs you'll get a tiff. It's pretty funny. When the folks are sent their tiffs they are happy. Makes the day go smoother rather than having to explain.

>>62338989
Yeah, there's a barely audible difference between properly encoded 320kbps MP3 and FLAC. Even less audible if you use more modern audio formats.
It'snice that you fell for high quality music, but lossless is a meme

gimme that sweet flacc

>>62343913
Depends on the content.

If it's 2017 nigger music you will hear no difference after 128kbps MP3.

I prefer highest quality VBR over 320. Sometimes 320 makes drums and hi-hats sounds grainier than VBR.

>>62339081
As long as mp3 isn't included, that is.

>>62340292
I literally rolled my eyes

File: 1000x1000.jpg (233KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1000x1000px

I think I might be going about this wrong - I have the entirety of Bolt Thrower's discography in FLAC. I'm guessing death metal isn't really the genre to really show off the benefits of flac over mp3.

>>62339141
That's why he said he's gonna convert this library, not files.

File: masons.jpg (220KB, 1520x1024px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1520x1024px

>>62338999

>>62338989
Opus 512 or 256 - Tons smaller than Flac, almost the same sound quality, even if Opus it is a lossy codec :P

Flac only makes sense to archive files. Every normal reasonable person uses Opus in the meantime for general usage :P

>>62347827
My car stereo only supports mp3, so opus is out of the question.

>>62347903
sorry, i mean general usage on Desktop or Android machines. Cars and Apple related products are a different case :)

>>62348049
Also, does opus support gain?

With mp3 I can apply a gain flag of -X which doesn't change the actual bytes of the music but makes that specific file playback quiter by X db. And it can be removed without hassle.

I like to automatically apply this to all my files so I won't have to adjust the volume for every song.

>>62339081
Upload the files and will put my HD600 to the limits.

>>62348049
>usage on Desktop
If you have the FLAC files, why even use the Opus ones.

File: 1499027958895.jpg (32KB, 360x345px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 360x345px

>>62338999

>>62338989
Glad you like it, bro

Check this for more info

https://gitgud.io/chiru.no/chiru.no

File: 20151005_235733.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>62350693
Posting my setup

>>62350693
>eurobeat
Do you have eurobeat cool vol. 1-4?

>>62339247
>straight rip from a CD
>CD
why aren't you ripping from vinyls, m8?

File: IMG_20170808_160837.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Sound card

File: 20151005_235740.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>62350745
Try searching. Looks like I don't though

>>62339081
Opus 144 is "YouTube quality", right?
Because every person I know with good iems can spot that shit instantly.

File: c78cff35647b2bd897830caad33c08e8912c4f02.png (512KB, 952x477px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 952x477px

>>62338989

Can anyone confirm if FLAC is actually noticeably better than AAC encoded with variable bitrate?

ffmpeg -i FLAC_FILE.flac -c:a libfdk_aac -vbr 5 OUTPUT.m4a

There is no frequency cutoff, and as far as I can tell sounds pretty much the same.

>>62351146
>AAC

why would you use an inferior proprietary version of Vorbis

>>62351393
Damn, I didn't know it was proprietary. But still, same question. Is it?
Or if vorbis has a variable bitrate option is it noticeably any worse than FLAC?

Every time I look up information on comparisons all I see is people talking about 320kbps compared to lossless.
I want to know how VBR compares. I don't have great hardware so it's hard for me to confirm, but the audio spectra look fairly similar

>>62351500
VBR is always better than constant framerates.

>>62351584
What is the highest quality lossy encoding you can do? I trust /g/ more than google because google searches tell me it's aac vbr, and now searching for vorbis and opus I can clearly see that's not the case.

>>62351659
Depends on the track, I'd say opus vbr 256k is pretty safe.

>>62351698
Opus seems to have a frequency cutoff at 20kHz
I thought that was something which should be avoided

>>62338999
nice trips you troll faggot

>>62351659
Vorbis has quality settings, which is pretty much like crf in 264

-q-2  32 kbit/s
-q-1  48 kbit/s
-q0     64 kbit/s
-q1     80 kbit/s
-q2     96 kbit/s
-q3     112 kbit/s
-q4     128 kbit/s
-q5     160 kbit/s
-q6     192 kbit/s
-q7     224 kbit/s
-q8     256 kbit/s
-q9     320 kbit/s
-q10     500 kbit/s

-q10 is like pseudo-lossless

Vorbis' VBR is also highly variable. For example, you have two different 5 minute songs and you encode them with -q5, it's possible that they can be megabytes apart.

When I want to get a file within an 8MB limit, I encode it with different -q settings until it's 8MB. It's just like encoding something with different crf values until it's under 8MB.

>>62346999
It most certainly is. This shows how much you don't understand any music or any technicalities behind mastering albums.

>>62338989
not too long ago i was a flactard aswell , i was like "man this flac is great"
i looked on the file details
>mp3 320kb/s
i promptly changed all my flac to mp3 320 to save alot of space and load even more music onto my phone

use flac to archive , not to listen to as it makes no fucking difference to a good MP3

>>62357197
If you are on the go, MP3 is more reasonable. But when you are sitting at home, surrounded by this esotherical audiophile gear and getting power from your own electric pole...only choice is FLAC.

File: FLAC will eventually replace MP3.png (243KB, 970x1088px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 970x1088px

Mp3 is proprietary patented software

FLAC is free

I think it's obvious which is the better choice here.

>>62350747
Vinyl is garbage for hipsters.

FLAC is 100% placebo.

I tested it by converting some of my 32 kbps MP3 files to FLAC. I couldn't hear any difference, even on nice earbuds. All it did was blow up the file size.

>>62358815
>Mp3 is proprietary patented software
Except it's free now. Doesn't change the fact ogg is superior though

>>62359057
I'll take the bait.
That's not how it work.

>>62359057
You didn't EQ your earbuds, silly. You need $3 earbuds AND EQ.

>>62340292
SACD btfo

>>62359128
Ogg is a container. I'm going to assume you meant Opus is the superior Lossy codec rather then Vorbis.

>>62359876
Opus is bloated with its forced upsampling and lack of proper VBR. Vorbis should be used for music

>>62360189
If you mean bloated as in file size I think you need to check your eyes again when encoding and comparing both formats. Opus is the most versatile format out there to date and Vorbis is considered obsolete to it. Why you are still using it is beyond me. Of course for archiving purposes I use flac.

>>62360189
I don't understand how Opus and audio works - the post

>>62360189
>forced upsampling
Literally doesn't matter at all.

>he fell for the opus meme

>>62361540
he fell for the mp3 meme

>>62359362
There is literally no difference between 16 and 24 bit audio for 99.999999999999% of music unless you're using it for production.

As a side note, is Opus and Vorbis love a meme or? Look at the spectrals for these formats, listen to the high and low end frequency placement and the accuracy of the midrange. They're objectively terrible in comparison to m4a or even mp3, at every single bitrate level.

>>62350755
>>62350788
Does that transformer say 120v 50hz on it?

>>62338999
keked and checked

>>62341734
Woa man. Just Woa. 32/768 ?

We actually have final boss types browsing /g/

>>62351393
Support you fool. Support. While it's worth arguing that hires lossless brings something new to the table the AAC vs OPUS argument is literally the worst of /g/ autism. Unless you are shooting for stupidly low bitrates MP4 sounds just fine much better than MP3 and pretty much every device from the last 10 years supports it. My fucking iPhone can only do opus via one app: VLC and that is not appropriate for navigating even a small library.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 599x245px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 599x245px

>>62361711
Yes there is in the real world. More bits = more SNR = more dynamic range = more punch at your ears

It's right here in these measurements between 16 and 24 and that 3db difference is exactly the level I hear

Stop talking about things you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about kiddo.

>>62362793
Just use Vorbis, idiot. It's patent-free and better than both of them.

>>62362793
>My fucking iPhone can only do opus via one app: VLC
foobar2000 mobile?

>>62362849
Point me to a song which can actually utilise that additional dynamic range, I'll wait.
As I said, the vast majority of mastered music does not have more than 96dB of dynamic range (indeed most music from the last 20 years has less than 10dB).
Moreover, you're cute table illustrates either an inability of the author to make measurements, a poor DAC implementation or a poor software implementation. Both 16 and 24 bit files should both max at 0dBfs and therefore have the exact same max volume, and again, unless someone has made a recording which actually has some musical component at -96dBfs, which, shall we say is difficult given this is below the SNR of most audio equipment, and not even remotely in the realm of where a producer/master would put musical content, they will have the exact same dynamic range.
To this end, you could simply convert a 16 bit file to 24 bits, gaining no additional audio information, and still get this "greater volume output" on your setup.

tl;dr Just because your shitty hardware makes a difference between 16 and 24 bit doesn't mean there's a difference between the actual wave that is estimated from the bits in the file.

>>62338999
>999
You cant fool me, tripsfag!

Don't get me wrong, I love Opus for what it is, but it wasn't designed to be a good codec for music.
The whole point of Opus is low latency, cheap (as in CPU cycles) conversion, and good intelligibility at low bitrates. In other words it's designed for real time encoding, stuff like communications. It's terrible for encoding music and "long-term" audio precisely because of these design goals and the limitations they bring.

>>62362849
>Muh ears
You don't have golden ears, placebo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPbF4GhMZ6c

Opus is a meme

>>62366103
ur a meme