What is the best audio format out there and why?

>>69094113
PNG

>>69094138
>actually using loseless
what kinda fucking photophile do you think you are, are you one of these motherfuckers with $1000 dollar color calibrated monitors so you can see everything perfectly just like you were there where they took the shot? wow, you guys are so ridiculous. just use .jpg like the rest of us.

FLAC/WAV or you know any lossless format obviously

>>69094196
Is there any reason to use WAV over FLAC?

>>69094234
As far as I know, nope, losseless is losseless

320 or V0, ripped from lossless
no audible difference and much smaller

>>69094234
wav is 3 letters while flac is 4 letters
typing ".flac" takes longer
wav>flac

File: image.png (391KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 576x432px

>>69094196
>>69094244
>>69094251
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

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.

File: 1463107673336.gif (11KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 408x408px

>>69094329
shit man, it checks out
gotta invest in some SDD externals, pref those with minimal rot. velodensity and flac up my library
thanks based techanon

AAC because more flexibility between audio quality and file size. I swear I'm not an Apple fag.

is M4G good?

File: 084.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>69094329

>>69094329
You poor delusional retard. It's obvious that your headphones are atrophying and it has nothng to do with your hard drive. Stop trying to start shit because you're mad people are using a format without sounds that you can't even hear.

>>69094329
wtf I HATE .mp3 now

>>69094329
I wish I knew about this earlier, all my music has decayed to around 8kbps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwLq7Q4J5tw

>>69094329
god, i love this

>>69094329
wtf I hate mp3 now

>>69094329
wew lad

Lol @ people believing in the rotational velodensity pasta

>>69098418
what are you talking about, retard?
it's real, just look a bit deeper than wikipedia
even without articles, are you deaf? have you heard old lossy files? or are you 8 and you do not possess any?
shithead

>>69094113
there isn't a "best," they're situational. FLAC and WAV objectively have the best sound quality if that's what you mean, because they're lossless, but portability is also a consideration. that's why I archive in FLAC and use OGG on the go

>>69098418
>implying it's not 100% true