Flac Vs. Mp3?

>>70667865
Ian Curtis?

>>70667865
ROTATIONAL

File: fdfddffdfd.jpg (9KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 320x240px

>>70667865
WAV

File: brian_fireman.jpg (85KB, 380x389px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 380x389px

>>70667865
vinyl

>>70667926
i got the spirit
but lossless feeling

File: 80b7103e678022c82710.png (38KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 200x200px

>>70667865
Cassette

>>70667865
dvd with the sound off

File: 170px-Abraham_Lincoln_O-116_by_Gardner,_1865-crop.png (59KB, 170x213px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 170x213px

>phonograph

>>70667865

FLAC if you even slightly desire sound quality, MP3 if you just need to store a bunch of albums. FLAC any day though, you especially notice the difference when you're on a quality pair of headphones.

>>70667865
buy a cd

>>70668551
I fucking love u anon

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.

>>70667865
live

>>70667865

Do you have over 1 TB of memory on your computer?
Do you have good powered speakers?
Do you have a good quality sound card?

If no to any, then go mp3. You won't be able to appreciate .FLAC unless you have the most high quality sound system.

>>70672509

If my mp3's start to degrade can I just rip them again from the CD to restore the quality?

>>70672544
Who the fuck has 1tb of memory

>>70672605

People who like doing lots of multimedia stuff or hoarding videos/pictures/music.

80% of /mu/ users have more than 1 TB external hard drive just for storing music.

>>70672605
who the fuck doesn't

HDD's are basically free nowadays

>>70672637
>>70672652
What do you guys call RAM?

>>70672685
RAM

>>70672685

RAM is for running applications. You don't need more than 8GB of RAM unless you're a videogame developer or something.

>>70672652
>$60
>free

>>70672715
>60$
>not free

pls embrace the wageslave mentality more heartily

>>70672705
What if I have 64GB of memory

>>70672685
A mediocre Daft Punk album

>>70672749
best*

>>70672560
You can, but be aware that multiple rips begin to affect the disc itself. You can get maybe 2-3 good rips out of a disc before sound degradation begins.

>>70667865
Because OP is a faggot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6A59NOFyHo

>>70672509
Sorry but the human ear can't hear more than 24fps.

>>70672605
wtf is wrong with this bait

>>70673381
What do you mean

>>70672652
I have a 500GB SSD in my laptop.

and 3 external hard drives. 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB. I'm running out of room on my 2TB and I'm about to buy a 4 TB external.

>>70673449
shit. wrong person. meant for >>70672605

File: wojaksmug.png (129KB, 724x611px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 724x611px

Who else /listeningtomusicintheirheadmasterrace/ here?

>>70673476
In your imagination, the bitrate is infinite.

File: embarrassing.jpg (19KB, 334x393px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 334x393px

>>70672637
>>70672652
>>70673381

you do realize memory and storage are different, you fucking moronic Homunculus

>>70673557
Finally. Someone who isn't a fucking retard

>>70672544
Damn dude that must be a crazy MOBO you have if you can have 1TB of memory

File: images (3).jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>70667865
OGG

>>70673557
do you want to know how I know youre a virgin

>>70673823
Because it takes one to know one?

File: 14794017_1064174350361723_1730267248_n.jpg (14KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x500px

>>70673857

>>70673361
this

>>70668530
the nigga got a hat on but he aint no shirt wtf

>>70673857
amongst other things, correct

>>70673872
eric?

File: herooreh.png (2MB, 1004x1300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1004x1300px

M4A

>>70674379
Why does that look like Jerry Seinfeld?

>>70673823
wew lad, projecting much?

Vorbis

File: tbhh.jpg (100KB, 1204x844px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1204x844px

MP5
t. /k/

File: 1477762006779.png (501KB, 455x568px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 455x568px

i went through a big FLAC phase years ago. had over 2TB of it, well organized and archived too. plus good headphones + headphone amp. all of it.

these days i rip tracks off of youtube with some youtube downloader and listen to it on my ipod with cheap earbuds.

it's bullshit hassle and i've stopped caring about it.

>>70675051
I don't know that feel but I'm looking forward to it

>>70667865
I appreciate a FLAC, I really do, but a 320 mp3 does the job for me. I got the kind of personality that if I started listening to FLACs I'd probably get obsessed with having everything in FLAC and I just can't afford the hassle.

>>70672509
I don't know if you're serious or not... how is it possible for a file to degrade?
Your 320kbps mp3 from 2001 sound like shit probably because the encoding wasn't as good as now back then.

if you listen to flac you automatically contract autism and start listening to king crimson and rush. i refuse to listen to higher than 192 on principle

>>70675179
>encoding wasn't as good as now back then

While this is definitely true, mp3s STILL degrade. The advances in encoding has done nothing to fix the lossiness of mp3s.

It will be sad to see people's music collections turn to nothing in 20 years' time.

Is there a quality difference between FLAC and WAV even? I checked them in notepad and it showed absolutely no difference, can we say that it's the superior format?

>>70667865
FLAC is good for archiving. So that in case you want to change it to another more compatible format you won't be degrading the audio quality like you would if converting from MP3. A properly encoded 320kbps file will sound as good as FLAC, only on the rare occasion where you have hi-fi equipment in a sound treated room will FLAC vs MP3 make a difference. If you have the storage space FLAC, if not then MP3 is perfectly acceptable.

Anyone who can actually perceive the quality difference between a FLAC and a properly made Mp3 320 has my admiration, but I think these people are VERY few in the world.
I just like FLAC because I know for sure that whether I perceive it or not, there is no quality loss whatsoever. Assuming I got an actual good FLAC download, of course. My phone has ~100 gigs just for music which is more than enough, and I have about a whole terrabyte on my PC clear for downloads, so FLAC being a bigger size is a non-issue.

Ogg Vorbis nigga it's open source

Just in case anyone here is actually delusional enough to think that FLAC is worthwhile, here are some facts

The human ear can't hear higher than 20khz.

The majority of adults can hear up to 14 - 17khz.

No audible part of the frequency spectrum is lost in conversion to a high quality lossy audio file.

No one has ever been able to prove in a controlled test that they can reliably tell the difference between lossless and high quality lossy audio files.

Compression artefacts are hard enough to detect even in lower quality lossy audio files, many people cannot even reliably tell the difference between 320 and 128kbps audio files.

Without audio equipment of at least a decent quality, even the audible compression artefacts in lower quality lossy files become inaudible.

>>70675428
Yeah but if you have the room (and most people in 2017 do when a 2 terabye HDD costs 100 bucks at the absolute most and a 128gb micro-SD card isn't particularly expensive either), why not ensure that you are absolutely getting the best quality audio you can possibly? Even if you can't consciously perceive the difference, you ARE listening to a higher-quality file.

>>70675428
> Compression artifacts are hard to find
Cymbals, bro. Cymbals. If they sound like they have a lot of chorus on them, it's poor quality.

>>70672544
I only have 4 GB of memory :/

>>70672509
>>70672560
>>70675179
>"""""rotational velocidensity"""""
>people still actually believing this meme

newfags

>>70675527
This. Cymbals are the easiest way to check for shitty compression.

>>70668551
underrated