are flac files a meme? I know it matters to jazz because of the

Biggest meme since rage comics

You'll only notice if you have a decent setup. I wouldn't call them a meme though.

resonance is a meme

why does it matter more to jazz? ive never heard that before

>>69740984
and a decent setup isn't really that much to begin with
24 bit flac is a bit of a different story, you'll need a sound card that supports 24 bit audio (and even then you can get that for under 70 bucks)

jazz is a meme

I wouldn't call them a meme. The quality is objectively better. However, 99% chance you can't perceive it, and no it doesn't have to do with your setup.

but is it worth the extra 40 MB?

>>69741272
24/96 is most definitely a meme of stale HiFi industry, designed to attract technically illiterate people. Increased sample rate does absolutely nothing for anyone and increased bit depth only really affects resolution on very low gain levels, i.e. writing the sound of a fly 5 meters away from the mic.

Lossless overall is not a meme though.

>>69741754
The point is to covert flac to something not shitty like ogg vorbis or opus which have better filesize:quality ratio than mp3. Then when something better comes out, if you still have the flac files, you can convert to it from them without any loss of quality. Listening to flac files is a meme.

>>69741838
storing both flac and ogg vorbis is the real fucking meme

if you're storing flac you can just listen to those

>>69741838
>opus
Opus has no advantages over MP3/AAC/OGG for bitrates higher than 192Kbit/s. Stop being an illiterate nigger.

Only you can protect against velocirotational rotodensity loss

>>69740886
>are flac files a meme
Everything is a meme, OP.

Somebody post the rotational velocidensity pasta

>>69740886

>it matters to jazz because of the resonance

what.

Look up lossless vs. lossy compression

>>69741882
Smaller files for portable players.

>>69742023
>>69741954
this meme had me going for like 2 years

>>69740886
What kind of dumb question is this?

mp3s deteriorate over time

>>69742023
that troll has been seriously successful, people have told me about it with a straight face multiple times

>>69740886
no if you don't listen to popular music on your iphone

>>69741838
If you still have the flac files why not just listen to them instead of worse ones lmao

>>69740886
it's more for archival purposes so you can convert to other lossy formats, without distorting anything

>>69741882
you transfer it to your PMP idiot

its more about transfer quality. if you're not moving your flac files anywhere there's really no point in using that format.
in any case you shouldn't need to worry about it because your vinyl record should have come with a download card.

>>69743864
Size matters when you listen to music on a portable device.

>>69740886
Nah, I got 80% pf them right when I tested myself once, it was over 25 trials. It's extremely subtle and "hard" to tell the difference, though, you really need a good setup and ears.

>>69744807
How did you test yourself? That's an interesting idea, I'd like to see if flac files are worth the time on my current setup.

When I get rich, I will buy an audiophile setup and pay someone to download FLAC versions of all of my current mp3s.

>>69742023
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.

>not listening solely to .wav files
how do you guys access the actual music if you even want to sample it?

>>69744874
It was this ABX test online which pre-loaded the files so you don't have the problem of WAV taking longer to load than the mp3. Here it is: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html

Moving from 320CBR to FLAC today. It seems like the only downside is storage size, but I have enough to spare and I can convert everything to V0 for my phone. Don't even have audiophile equipment, just want to be as close to the original copy as reasonably possible.