audio format

flaq
It's kinda like flac but extremely big files and very low quality at a deafening dB.

It depends. I rip my CDs in FLAC and download in 320kbps.

>>69941193
you mean the other way round, right?

FLAC if you're talking about a consumer media library. For audio production, that'd be WAV.

Im done with this flac meme
>>69941193
>>69941213

>>69941165
96kbps mp3 with bass boosted to brain-mushing levels

>>69941332
enjoy your placebo

>>69941210
No I don't. My internet is slow.

>>69941249
Stay mad faggot. I never said FLAC was significantly better than any other format. The reason I do it is because there are small details i've noticed while listening to FLAC files that I didn't notice on the same 320kbps MP3 files.

those minor minor differences doesnt worth the extra 40 MB. and most of the people cant hear the differences,frequencies that human ear almost can not hear.

>>69941380
>>69941493

>>69941380
>Stay mad faggot. I never said FLAC was significantly better than any other format. The reason I do it is because there are small details i've noticed while listening to FLAC files that I didn't notice on the same 320kbps MP3 files.
No you didn't

FLAC for archival, WAV for editing, and Opus is the current lossy format king.

>>69941493
Ok. That's a valid point. You got me there.

>>69941509
You don't know that, on Weezer's latest release someone in the studio said "Bitch" in the studio on Summer Elaine And Drunk Dori

>>69941493
Why are you so concerned with how someone is using their hard drive space?

>>69941493
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.

>>69941557
On the topic of data rot, I use a fiio player for my wavs and flacs, but for some reason they can be "overplayed" or something where they start stuttering. Any thoughts?

>>69941526
why do you use wav for editing instead of flac?

>>69941578
WAV is uncompressed, so for music production it's what you want.

>>69941557
Thank you for posting this, it was sorely missed

>>69941594
oh ok.

>>69941557
Lol

>>69941526
>Opus is the current lossy format king.
King? Opus is the new Ogg Vorbis, the perpetual challenger. MP3 is still the lossy format king.

>>69941578
WAV is uncompressed, so it's easily editable. FLAC is like a WAV put into a ZIP archive. Same data, but compressed in a lossless way to save space.

>>69941509
>No you didn't

If you'd like to test MP3 320kps against FLAC:
1.) take the same exact song in both codecs
2.) throw them in a DAW right next to one another
3.) invert the phase of the FLAC file, and playback both at the same time

What you will hear is everything that MP3 compression removes from the original, lossless source (some reverb, highs, lows, etc.)

mp3

Vinyl

File: yeahboi.jpg (107KB, 689x475px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 689x475px

Everything upsampled to 192kHz 24bit flac.

niggas

File: mp5.jpg (124KB, 700x362px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 700x362px

>>69944960
lol what a pleb why are you even on /mu/ if you listen to anything other than .mp5 files?

>>69945476
don't forget to convert to 8kbps mp3 first anon!

File: 1447951146897.jpg (47KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x650px

>>69945780
Shit, nearly forgot. Thanks busta