>5x file size for tiny nuanced difference most people are never going to hear
Holy shit how can you stand this bloat?

>>105726288 (OP)
flac isn't about audio quality, it is about preserving the quality of the audio over time.
inb4 rotational velocidensity copypasta

holy fuck you're retarded.

>>105726333
>holy fuck you're retarded.

>>105726288 (OP)
>bloat
its not 2001 anymore we have terrabytes of space

>>105726358
i do in fact look like that and yes i did also say that.

I'm sure I'll just get called retarded but I notice when listening to flac and dsd I can play music louder without getting the "audio fatigue" problem. It feels like there is an absence of weird pressure that I get from listening to something that's been compressed

>>105726288 (OP)
>difference most people are never going to hear
well i am not most people

>>105726395
Yes, it is absolutely possible for someone to experience less "audio fatigue" when listening to FLAC and DSD compared to heavily compressed audio formats like MP3s, even at louder volumes. While individual perception varies, there are several technical and psychological reasons that can explain this phenomenon:

1. Loss of Information and Artifacts in Compressed Audio (Lossy Compression):

MP3 and other lossy formats achieve smaller file sizes by discarding some of the original audio data that is deemed less noticeable to the human ear. While clever algorithms try to mask this, the missing information can still be subconsciously processed by the brain.

The "Loudness War": Many commercially produced tracks, especially in pop and rock, are heavily compressed during mastering (dynamic range compression) to make them sound louder and "punchier." This reduces the dynamic range (the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of the music), making the sound consistently loud and dense. This lack of variation can be incredibly fatiguing because the ear and brain are constantly stimulated without any "breathing room." It's like staring at a bright light without blinking.

Introduced Artifacts: Lossy compression can introduce subtle, unnatural sounds or distortions (artifacts) that weren't present in the original recording. While these might not be immediately obvious, the brain might expend extra effort trying to make sense of these anomalies, leading to mental fatigue over time.

>>105726288 (OP)
Depression and mental illness is not a nuanced difference. Lossy audio is one of the main causes for the rise in mental conditions. Lossy audio causes cumulative brain damage.

Also, its 2025, there is no excuse for lossy to still exist.

>File Size complaints

>>105726459
fuck off chatGPT you boring cunt

>>105726288 (OP)
your 120GB hard drive cant take it!

>lol just get a larger hard drive what are you poor???
You're the reason why 100+gb games exist.

>>105726528
wrong. 100GB games exist because if you want high frame rates with very high quality graphics you cant compress the textures.

if your game was compressed to 30GB to save space then your game would run at 10 FPS as it decompresses them in real time while you play.

>>105726288 (OP)
you store flac and encode THAT to flavor of the year decode, I imagine that would be opus nowadays?
That way you avoid generational loss caused by past's inferior codecs

>>105726582
Oh shit, a rare /v/ermin "hold my beer" moment.
Neat

>>105726603
I'm glad I educated you to avoid your future embarrassment.

>>105726582
yeah and 30fps is cinematic and totally not caused by shit code

>5x file size for tiny nuanced difference most people are never going to see
Holy shit how can you stand this bloat?

>>105726737
this but unironically

>>105726400
Did you check your audio equipment then, majority filter frequencies like phones

>>105726626
>I'm glad I educated you
How did you do that with information I already had?

thoughts on AAC?

Let me guess

>>105726459
Kys stupid nigger

>>105726902
>guess
That is all you can do, though.

>>105726288 (OP)
Audio files are super tiny by modern standards so 5x the file size is still small. Might as well store an exact representation of the music on the CD or whatever source. It's not like video where lossless compression would still result in impractically huge files.

>>105726924
I dont get it

If you're an audiophile with a halfway decent setup you can easily tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 on your own equipment, with music you know well. Easily.

The problem is the heckin' science fans set up listening tests with arbitrary equipment and music and people who are randomly selected. Most people don't give a shit, and don't have a trained ear. Most people don't listen to music critically, it's just a type of noise to them that happens to be pleasing or not. It's amazing that people actually prop these types of tests up as scientific. I can easily hear the difference between different DACs in different devices. Whether or not their output stage is class A or AB or the dreaded D makes a difference too.

Most people are just poor and there are lots of Amazon ad-bots out there selling shitty bluetooth soundbars and then there's a bunch of chinks and poos and other thirdies who are DESTRUCTIVELY EQ'ing their headphones and pretending this results in better audio... lots of disinformation out there.

I will teach you plebs. Ask away. And try not to sound TOO mad.

>>105726798
this is false

>>105727059
What's ur favorite anime ost

>>105726288 (OP)
i can hear a difference between flac and lossy formats, and i have huge amounts of storage
sorry you're a hearing-impaired poorfag
also, your mother is bloat

>>105727074
LOGH.

>>105726288 (OP)
Worth it
I don't get why every audiophile shits their pants over flac though, sure it's nice and has very good sound but it can't top the wav

>>105727154
>I don't get why every audiophile shits their pants over flac though
storage. space.

>>105727161
8tb drives are like a hundred bucks
you can get 10-14 tb used drives for that same price

you are using a worse format for no good reason. literally the same as mp3fags. muh storage space is a fucking meme

>>105727180
>8tb drives are like a hundred bucks
well, yeah.
>you can get 10-14 tb used drives for that same price
again, i'm well aware.
>you are using a worse format-
explain.
>literally the same as mp3fags
wouldn't that be opus (me) and vorbis users?

>>105727161
>>storage. space.
>$300
>can store enough FLAC encoded music to play continuously for 6 years and 7 months
get. a. job.

>>105727264
if you would please consult the post above you.

>>105726627
Learn to read

>>105727284
if you would please consult indeed.com and find gainful employment

>>105727434
that is a good idea.

>>105726288 (OP)
>how can you stand this bloat?
bloat? I mean 10cm is pretty big I guess

>>105727477
>I mean 10cm is pretty big I guess
that's not what she said

>>105727161
Are you a beggar or something?
I use SD cards for my music. 64gb for 20 bucks. A 64gb card can hold around 4266 15mb music files, so 213 hours of music (assuming the average length of a song is 3 minutes).
This is incredibly generous. Do you not have 20 bucks? 20 bucks gives you enough space for 4000 songs of pristine quality.

>>105727508
>Are you a beggar or something?
not a beggar. i just don't think it's worth going further than my current setup.

i am jobless, so there's that. i always use lossless compression on stuff whenever possible besides a few cases where i don't care.

>>105726288 (OP)
says the person posting a png

>>105727264
yeah lemme carry a 24 terabyte 3.5" drive around to use with my phone

>>105727508
These days, you can find high endurance microSD Cards with 512GB of storage for around $50, so honestly that should be enough if it's purely music being stored. It likely isn't, although there's still various other options depending on whether you are bringing the data around with you or not.

>>105727675
you need to carry around over six and a half years worth of continuous music on your phone?

>>105727264
>can store enough FLAC encoded music to play continuously for 6 years and 7 months
>drive dies after 1 month of continuous use

>>105728010
Works on my machine

>>105728018
for now

>>105728010
Yeah I had a 4TB barracuda for a music server and after year it started erroring out on me never again learned my lesson buy cheap buy twice never trust seagate

>>105728010
>has no local/offsite backup system in place because then it's not cheap anymore
>all songs lost
so lossless isn't actually lossless now is it?

>>105728068
the virginity of flac haters is lossless

>>105728024
For 3 fucking years already

>>105728207
3 years is nothing, that's still a baby harddrive. i have 30 year old drives still going. i predict your drive will die before it reaches 5 years, sorry bud

>>105728196
yeah data hoarding audiophools have lots of sex i'm sure

>>105727223
>explain
flac is objectively worse then wav because:
1. removing "redundant" info from the lpcm stream to reduce file size creates unfixable errors in the data
2. asking hardware to decode the information from the flac file and interpolate the missing data for real time playback introduces more errors because computers cheat at floating point math

flac is objectively better then wav because:
1. its (much) smaller
2. it can be turned back into a mostly okay wav file if you convert it before playback

it is a tradeoff. file compression is all about tradeoffs. you are trading quality for file size. the mp3fag mentality is trading quality for file size. it is the same argument made for the same reasons. it is the same thing.

all that being said it is up to the end user how much quality loss is acceptable even if in the vast majority of use cases there is enough storage space available that compressing audio makes zero sense. yes, even when quality loss is minimal. high quality audio files are small without compression and large storage drives are very, very cheap

>>105728390
>flac is objectively worse than wav because: 1. it's lossy 2. it's lossy
bait post, do not engage

>>105726288 (OP)
storage is cheap

>>105728390
You are correct that storage is cheap, and for many users, the file size advantage of FLAC over WAV might not be a primary concern if they have ample storage. However, the premise that FLAC introduces errors or compromises audio quality is a misunderstanding of how lossless compression works. FLAC provides the exact same audio data as WAV in a smaller file size, making it objectively superior to WAV for storage and distribution where bit-perfect fidelity is desired. The "tradeoff" with FLAC is generally negligible (a tiny amount of CPU for decoding) while providing a significant benefit in file size.

who are you quoting?

>>105726288 (OP)
>>105726358

I love how easily AI can just debunk /g/ pseuds nowadays

If you didn't read the spec, gtfo.

>>105726395
Don't use trash tier low pass filters, simple as.

>>105726288 (OP)
We have so much storage and bandwidth nowadays, there's no point in budgeting it. Might as well get the best quality.

>>105728428
>slopgpt being right and based for once
crazy

>>105726288 (OP)
Don't care, still spending 2 freeleech tokens to snatch the 24bit flac

>>105726318
fpbp

>>105726288 (OP)

>not using opus
kek!

>>105726318
Sir, you are aware of the alien technology known as file hashing? Get the SHA256 of your file and then check it again in the future if you're worried about it getting corrupted over time.

>>105728390

>>105728759
I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about bitrot, but instead having an uncompressed source so that you aren't compressing already compressed shit when you need to change format

>>105728800
>need to change format
cope, mp3 is still the only thing you can play on anything
and there's 0 reason to reencode for the miniscule gains from better codecs unless you're something like spotify or jewtube

>>105728852
>Y-yeah well despite your reasoning being entirely correct, /I/ don't ever need to change format!
Yeah anon, I don't need to transcode either, but the point still stands.

>>105728868
reminder to buy out your local walmart, just in case those chinks (or jews, lately) throw some nukes your way
it's entirely valid logic, you see

>>105728937
Oh gosh, you're retarded, aren't you!
Have a good evening anon :3

>>105728852
>mp3 is still the only thing you can play on anything
aac exists

Its for archival purposes, still I like to bring my flaco collection on my phone

>>105727059
>it's just a type of noise to them that happens to be pleasing or not
thats what music is though.

>>105727059
what speakers should i buy for my PC for under 200 dollars

>>105728937
>>105728972
the sexual tension...

>>105728852
how did you get past the captcha?

>>105726528
>schizo logic
Nah it's incompetence nothing to do with people buying bigger drives. Look at this trash for example.

>>105728800
bitrot isnt a thing nigger

>>105728972
finally you see how retarded your "point" is? congratulations, we got there at the end, that's what matters
>>105728975
old car stereos would like a word with you, anon

>>105729012
I already have a cute wife, unfortunately for the losslessly challenged anon :(

>>105726459

>>105729067
>old car stereos would like a word with you
if your car stereo doesn't support a format that works on a nintendo dsi and first gen ipod you need a new car stereo

>>105729343
i'm fine just using a format that works everywhere

>>105726288 (OP)
>Holy shit how can you stand this bloat?
i don't, i converted my entire library to 320 aac
256 aac would've been just as good but i went for 320 just in case

>>105729496
>he combined the disadvantage of mp3 (filesize) with the disadvantage of aac (slightly lower compatibility) "just in case"
yeah you're retarded

>>105726288 (OP)
I can fit 400 albums in flac on 136GB, just checked.
I carry around my music on my iphone cause fuck spotify.
Op is ignorant (or retarded)

>>105729536
i've never encountered "desktop software" or "mobile applications" that cannot play aac or even opus.

>>105729656
yeah but the average /g/ user is running a 2003 car stereo which only supports mp3 and wma and buying a new 30$ head unit off aliexpress or playing aux through the phone apparently isn't a viable solution

>>105729536
>disadvantage of mp3 (filesize)
well below flac with a better compression ratio
>slightly lower compatibility
the year is two thousand and twenty-five, anon

>>105729669
my vw golf onboard stereo plays flac straight from usb, even shows me embedded jpg covers

>>105726288 (OP)
>have thinkpad t420 with a 500gb ssd which cost 50 euros
>have shit tons of music saved in flac
>music directory still just 40 gb
why, yes i can stand the "bloat"? i only care about my software being minimal because of low cpu overhead, low ram usage, much easier maintainability and better security. storage doesn't matter as much in today's age, regardless of how old the computer is. old computers as old as 25 years can easily be retrofitted with a modern ssd (+IDE adapter if applicable)

>>105729840
forgot to add how cheap storage is.

>>105729721
plenty of the later sony head units also play flac, dunno about other brands
and if opus isn't supported, but your library is all opus, you could just transcode to flac for the car where you keep a 512 gb usb stick
>inb4 why would you do that
you'd still have the benefit of cheap convenient offsite/local backup and low storage requirement on your phone/computer
but to be fair you could just make yet another lossy transcode to like 320k mp3, it's not like you're going to notice that miniscule second degree generation loss while doing 80 mph on the highway or sitting in traffic, but of course audiophools would get very mad if you suggest that as an option

>>105729840
>yet another retard admitting he has no backups for his music
why do you care if it's lossless or not when it's all gonna get lost soon anyways

>>105729904
Where the fuck did I say that? Of course I backup my shit.

>>105729840
>music directory still just 40 gb
my 96k opus music directory is like 8 gb for about 3000 songs
40 gb in flac is less than 150 albums / about 1500 songs
...it's not that the format takes little space, you just have an unusually small music library, your argument makes no sense

>>105729946
...so it's not just a 50 euros ssd anymore is it?

its an archival format stupid
>download artist's discography in flac from rutorrent
>reencode to opus for my personal collection
>imperceptible quality difference at a fraction the file size

>>105726288 (OP)
>most people are never going to hear
It’s for studios and loudspeakers at concerts you fucking retard. You bet your ass you can hear those minor imperfections when it’s loud enough to be heard from blocks away.
>>105726318
fpbp

>>105729954
i backup my stuff to a 1tb external hard drive and i don't know how much that cost new, it's around 20 - 40 euros on ebay

>>105730035
so what about offsite?

>>105728852
That's cool, but I've had to convert audio hundreds of times including from MP3 to MP3 (file size restriction). I don't love converting from lossy to anything.

>>105726288 (OP)
>>105728759
> this shit bait
kill yourself, thanks.

>>105730040
i don't have any friends unfortuantely. i'm also not putting my data (even encrypted) on some random kike's computer who only wants to extract money from me. this is commonly incorrectly referred to as a "cloud"

>>105726902
Why choose OGG over OPUS?

>>105726582
>you cant compress
you can with lossless compression, devs just being lazy

>>105727298
Learn to cope better, redditor. My filesystem already compresses slop like games down to 20% of their size, and decompressing transparently uses less than 1% of my CPU. It in fact loads faster, because my poor SATA SSD needs to send less data.

>>105729954
If 100 euros is too expensive for you, it's time to get a job...

>>105727059
>easily tell the difference
Maybe if you're still listening to shitty encodes you downloaded from Napster in the 90s. You cannot tell the difference with modern 320kbps LAME encodes:
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html

>>105730190
No forced resampling, making it easier to avoid clicks between tracks.

>>105726288 (OP)
I’m still recording shit off FM radio.
The flacc people are like modern audiophools.
“Hey, I went to that Roger Whittaker concert last night, but it wasn’t as good as my flacc file I recorded off FM radio, so I put on my noise cancelling headphones and pulled out my thinkpad, and listend to the flacc during the concert. Way better.”

>>105729036
https://youtu.be/qAbPi0malGg

>>105726288 (OP)
The average flac song is like 30-40 MBs, That means you can literally store tens of thousands of them for 20$ or so imagine how meaningless your shit is. Yes I'll download flac to hear better and not lose the quality ever, stop whining nigger.

>>105726288 (OP)
Why would anyone in 2025 use lossy compression when even phones have gigabytes of storage?
Listening to lossy audio is like adding a small portion of shit to your breakfast every morning and someone would tell "hah see, if you can't see the difference why don't you just shut up and keep eating shit?"
Inb4: food analogy

>>105726737
As a matter of fact I can't and I only use this format for transparency. I would've used AVIF/HEIC every other day if I could

>>105727059
>Whether or not their output stage is class A or AB or the dreaded D makes a difference too.
you are a fucking a retard. the different classes are just referring to efficiency and how good or shit they are depends on their sinad, crosstalking if stereo and general noise handling. old amps were especially fucking dogshit because they couldn't handle a linear response across the 20hz-20khz range and so you got amps that messed with the sound so now we have to deal with retards like you that think amps impact sound while they shouldn't have, but this has been solved now and modern class ds with tpa3255 and pffb have way better efficiency and noise handling with a load independant frequency response.
i bet you think shit like op-amp rolling works too despite not producing any measurable difference.
>>105729004
if you want good speakers, expect to pay around 400+ and you should also get a sub with whatever speakers you buy because they make a lot of difference.
but for desktop use, look for neumann, kali and genelecs. neutral sounding, not so great bass extension, but they are active speakers so you dont have to buy a separate dac and amp for a pair of passive speakers.

>>105731954
Every active speaker I've heard has annoying hiss even when turned down to reasonable levels.

>>105732022
buy better speakers, idk. havent heared anyone complain about any hissing sound from speakers from those companies.
going the passive route is worth it but can be quite expensive, starting at around 600/700€ for a good stereo setup, sub exluded. you could maybe get away with 200-300 for a budget passive setup, but believe me, the difference between 100 bucks speakers and 500 bucks speakers is pretty massive.

>>105726288 (OP)
>t. deaf 2-digits IQ who doesn't understand audio frequencies work.

>>105731954
thanks

I hope flac gets 32bit float support. then wavpack becomes obsolete other than for compressed DSD

>>105726288 (OP)
It's not about not being able to hear it now, it's keeping it as a source in the future. This way, you can convert your music to lossy formats like Opus or OGG or AAC to use on limited-storage devices or weak devices and always have the original at hand.

If a better lossy format comes out that makes use of harmonics you don't hear to somehow improve the audible frequencies, you're shit out of luck if you only kept your audio in lossy formats.

Lastly, if an even better lossless compression format came out, you can shift your FLACs to that to save even more space and not degrade the audio.

>>105731504
>No forced resampling
jesus fucking christ, ok, i'll copy-paste the response to this retardation once again in case someone falls for this bait and really decides to stick with vorbis because of it:

But won't the resampler hurt the quality? Isn't it better to use 44.1 kHz directly?
Not really. The quality degradation caused by any reasonable resampler (SoX, libspeexdsp, libsamplerate, ...) is far less than the distortion caused by the best lossy codec at its highest bitrate. If you can't tolerate the quality degradation caused by a good 44.1 48 kHz resampler, then you shouldn't be using a lossy codec in the first place. Similarly, the extra CPU spent in the resampler is small compared to the rest of the codec. Not only that, but many soundcards only support 48 kHz on playback, so players can directly play the output rather than resample it to 48 kHz (e.g. for a 44.1 kHz MP3). So effectively, Opus is only shifting the burden of resampling from the decoder side to the encoder side.

One advantage of supporting only one internal rate is that it makes it possible for Opus to support many features, including efficient speech compression (through SILK) and real-time applications. It also means all the quality tuning effort can be spent on a single configuration, which helps bring even better quality.

>>105731683
>when even phones have gigabytes of storage?
most phones, even high end ones, have 128 gb of non expandable storage
...that's way too little for a decent size flac library

>>105731628
>I can have hundreds of gigabytes of local+offsite storage for 20$
sure pal, lemme guess, another retard preserving his music losslessly... with no backup strategy?

>>105726288 (OP)
>5x file size
the average flac file is 1100 kbps (thanks to almost every single song being mastered brickwalled to shit, and that's actually an optimistic estimation)
compared to 128 kbps Opus/qaac that's 9x the file size
compared to 96 kbps Opus it's 12x the file size
OP is being rather conservative here or sticking to mp3 v0

>>105734379
I never said it harmed the sound quality. The problem with forced resampling is that it complicates gapless playback. You can't just encode one file then the next because 44.1 is not an integer multiple of 48. The only way to get perfect gapless playback without clicks is to resample the whole album at once.

>>105732144
>nooo you dont know [pseudoscience]
Why are audiokeks so fucking delusional?

>>105734445
Why would you choose 128k/96k over 320k mp3 which has been the fucking standard of high quality music for decades

>>105731497
I can. YOU can't. And maybe random people listening to random music on random setups can't.

But I can.

>>105731954
Output stage amplifier class 100% affects the total sound system in fundamental ways. You don't even know about angle of conductance. This reads like LLM slop, kek.

>>105726385
>its not 2001 anymore we have terrabytes of space
Not me.

>>105726460
>Lossy audio is one of the main causes for the rise in mental conditions.
LOLWHAT

>>105735260
>But I can.
Post your ABX results.

>>105735121
96-128k opus is identical in quality to 320 mp3, using a modern format with better compression will do that

>>105735308
I do that here all the time, with music I know. There are no 'results' to post.

You're just unaware of fundamental elements of audio technology and basic electronics. It's not surprising. You ever been to Audio Science Review? Those chinks all have dry earwax.

>>105735328
You're unaware of fundamental elements of psychoacoustics. Your ears are not an oscilloscope. If you're extremely skilled at detecting compression artifacts, and have excellent hearing, and excellent playback equipment, it's theoretically possible you could find something that breaks MP3 encoding even with 320kbps and modern LAME ("killer samples"). You haven't actually done this in a blind test, because if you actually tried to ABX it you would not be deluding yourself that you can do it "all the time". Killer samples are vanishingly rare in actual music. And nobody has ever demonstrated ability to ABX 160kbps OPUS.

>>105735121
>which has been the fucking standard
for retarded consumers that don't know any better?
literally nothing uses mp3 anymore, it's shit
at 320k you're still better off using aac-lc, mp3 suffers from killer samples even at 320k lame

>>105735328
>i do that all the time
>there are not results to post
???
what

>>105735283
I can tell by your reaction that you've been listening to cbr mp3, 128 - 160 kbps to be precise.

>>105735430
I don't understand why that would even matter
let's say you are the only person alive on earth that can abx 160 kbps opus... that still means you gotta sit there, listening back to back to some specific audio samples, with a perfect audio setup, and dedicating 100% of your brain power to every single detail in the music
...that's not the same thing as regular music listening or even critical listening, you don't regularly listen for artifacts to nitpick while actually listening to music.
it's like the good old "audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment while regular people use their equipment to listen to music" argument

>>105734445
What’s “brickwalled” ?

>>105735536
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
with flac, the quieter the sound, the higher the compression ratio.
since most music is mastered so fucking loud, you barely save any bitrate compared to regular pcm wav.
lossy formats on the other hand aren't affected by this at all, actually, they usually require more bitrate to reproduce quieter sounds or sounds with an high volume difference compared to constantly loud sounds (high dynamic range).

>>105735430
>You're unaware of fundamental elements of psychoacoustics.
Wrong, I've read the book on it. The fundamental science is all in my head now. I can easily tell the difference. Easily.

YOU can't but you have dry earwax.

>>105735451
I don't do it on the Internet. I have my wife blindfold me, and I sit in the nude (so my clothing doesn't cause early reflections) and ABX all day. I don't do it on some gay web site full of incels.

>>105735536
Heavy dynamic range compression so the waveform looks like a solid wall. Makes it sound like shit and makes it harder to losslessly compress. See https://dr.loudness-war.info/
>>105735576
>I have my wife blindfold me
Not double blind unless she's also ignorant of what she's playing, and even if she is there's no way you can be sure. Automated ABX test is the gold standard here. You can't ABX modern lossy formats at reasonable bitrate.

>>105735576
>I don't do it on the Internet
...you don't have to "do it on the internet" for you to archive some results you know
what's even the point of doing abx tests if you don't save results afterwards? literally just wasting your time for no reason at all?
I mean you are clearly trolling and shit here, but I do sometimes hear this argument that "i do abx tests and can pass 320 kbps anything but I just don't have any result saved I can share" and it makes no fucking logical sense when the entire point of doing an abx is to prove that you aren't full of shit

>>105735590
>Not double blind unless she's also ignorant of what she's playing
So? Doesn't make one difference.

>Automated ABX test is the gold standard here.
Wrong, they still pick the Apple adapter as being "good." It's not lol. I have program material that it falls apart on.

>>105735599
>for you to archive some results
It's all in my notebook. But I can't post it, I have very fancy distinctive handwriting.

>>105735575
>>105735590
> Running everything through a compressor
Huh… that’s interesting!
So apparently, If I’m going to do anything, I should use rip from older, original CDs.
Didn’t expect that level of enshitification.
I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the reason was to harm copying (not sure if the industry is that smart though, might just be “more louder is more better”)

>>105735646
>Doesn't make one difference.
How can you be sure there's no subconscious information leak? If you knew anything about experiment design you'd go with the reliable method of automated ABX testing.
>>105735843
Loudness war is older than Napster so it's not to harm copying.

>>105730586
read anon's post again

>>105735956
>How can you be sure there's no subconscious information leak?
I'm naturally psychic, that's possible no matter what technical matters are taken.

>>105735121
I don't care about standards.

>>105735843
>I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the reason was to harm copying
in what way does this harm copying?
because it slightly increases the file size of flac files? but flac didn't even exist back when the loudness wars were at their peak...
it's all explained in the wikipedia article I linked to you, it has to do with playback on the radio and stuff like that, and if anything, this problem isn't getting any worse, the situation is slightly improving now since most people listen on streaming services which have their own audio normalization built in.

>>105736241
>which have their own audio normalization built in
How is that good?

>>105726318
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.

>>105726288 (OP)
Nigger

>>105726288 (OP)
Think of it as..........futureproofing

>>105736921
Windows users won't notice the bug

>>105736535
...did I ever say it's good?
it's just that producers don't have a reason to brickwall shit anymore when the platform normalizes every song to be the same loudness anyways, you'd just lose audio quality for no reason
plus, it can often turned off, so normies can keep it enabled so music sounds better on their 15$ jbl blueslop speaker while audiophools and autists can turn it off and enjoy the extra dynamic range, how's that worse than having every song be mastered like shit with no way of undoing that?
so yeah hhhhh it actually is good, yes.

>>105738020
>while audiophools and autists can turn it off and enjoy the extra dynamic range
OR buy the CD and again, get a less raped audio quality, should've specified that before someone comes in and is like "who gives a shit about streamslop services!!!", it still helps cause usually the master that's uploaded for streamslop is the same exact which ends up on CDs

Ape Chads rise up

>>105729004
anything big from the goodwill plus a nice amp

>>105726395
>"audio fatigue"
Kek

>>105736591
Thank you.

I really hate digital music collectors. Constantly coming up with new buzzwords to explain away their placebo

>>105735461
Preach brother. Don't forget 440Hz tuning.

>>105735575
You seem very knowledgeable. May I ask if you work in the industry or all that just comes from being an audiophile?

>>105735536
Watch that xiph.org video on digital audio and you'll become enlightened

>>105728852
I only use opus because I'm not a brainlet like you. Hard drive space is cheap as fuck, why would I download a shitty proprietary format?

>>105726288 (OP)
I can definitely hear the difference but I save everything in mp3 anyway to save space.

>>105726288 (OP)
I only use it for archival, I actually listen to Opus.

if you use FLAC for anything else than sound engineering or playing classical music over a high quality audio chain you might actually be retarded.
imagine having all your music in FLAC format and then it's some shit like nigger rap, boomer rock or weeb trash soundtracks. anything above 192kbps .mp3 and 25$ speakers/headphones is overkill for this type of pleb shit.
>t. patrician listening to the crisp sounds of his several TB classical music collection every day

>>105743228
do they even use FLAC over WAV in audio production?
>inb4 le same thing

>>105743251
good question. i just reckon there are still some that work with it from time to time, that's why i listed it as a use case.

>>105743251
I can only imagine it being used in production for its metedata feature.

>>105743512
yeah, that's why i have them in flac format. like half of my stuff was from a classical music torrent and all the naming was in italian (very patrician, as italy was the birthplace for modern classical music) but i wanted the filenames and metadata in my language. i just wrote a few python scripts to batch rename them and change the metadata via ffmpeg, FLAC was actually great for that, zero complications. most of the renaming was just mapping strings and changing the format like "Concerto No.5 in RE minore" into "Concert No. 5 in D minor" and for the metadata i added the composition year where it wasn't already in.

>>105743697
Nice. I also enjoy classical music, but I gave up decades ago caring about filenames and sorting my playlist library in any way other than folder trees.

>>105743095
apparently your brainiac time is worthless, so you don't mind wasting it on encoding to opus and replacing everything that doesn't play opus in your life
good for you, but some people's time is valuable, hence they don't want to spend it on unnoticeable "improvements" from something better than mp3 - a format which, to this day, every single album is available in by default
mp3 is literally just plug'n'play on every device that can play digital music, absolutely 0 time wasted

>>105743784
I literally don't own a single device that won't play OPUS, and >download album >auto transcode when sent to phone

Wow such time wasted.

>>105743791
>my only devices are phone and a computer, but let me tell you why opus is better than mp3
i kekd at least, thx zoomie

>>105743815
>my time is so important I listen to music on old ass shit that won't play opus

What a retard.

>>105743095
nta but
mp3 patents have expired like 10 years ago and it's now a completely free format

>>105741031
>You seem very knowledgeable
i'm not
>May I ask if you work in the industry
i don't
>or all that just comes from being an audiophile?
i'm clearly not an audiophool considering i'm advocating for lossy formats, kys.

>>105743822

>>105743820
>this guy doesn't waste his time buying shiny new shit every season
>haha what a retard
thanks, rabbi

>>105743898
Genuinely what are you even using to play audio that doesn't work with opus?

>>105743744
hah, yeah, it's probably part of my borderline autism, but i absolutely can't stand if the naming is not "proper", at least in a media collection, because in almost all media players, when you sort by the tag "artist" or "composer" you will get like 5 different subcategories for one person, like "W.A. Mozart", "Mozart", "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart", "Mozart, W. A." etc. and as i have quite a lot of subfolders and files for most composers a little order and proper naming convention is much nicer for browsing and playing the music, especially on my phone. sure, it costs a bit of effort and time to initially change the filenames and metadata, but for me personally it's worth it. forgot to mention: FLAC also let me put in 512x512 px .png files as "cover art". in my case these are just pictures of the composers or an orchestra or something, nothing special, but the display looks much nicer in a media player than the default grey note that most audio players show if there is no cover art.
>inb4 just use jpg instead of png that's overkill for album art. you think i give a shit at 5 more mb in a audio file that is already 250mb in the first place? if you go for high quality might as well go all the way

>>105726395
Just tested this. No such thing exist the sibilance and piercing is the same in flac and other compressed formats

>>105743956
If you had autism/ocd you'd be re-tagging everything you rip or download (you can easily script this) or you'd not be sorting by tags in the first place because it's always been like that.

There are solutions to your issue.

>>105734446
>The only way to get perfect gapless playback without clicks is to resample the whole album at once.
Like are you supposed not to do that?

>>105726318
audiofools actually believe digital files can degrade over time

>>105743989
yeah i think with full blown OCD you'd do this. i mean media libraries are a special case as i want to be able to sort by tags, so meticulously naming is a must. for storage of important documents or other files i "finished" working on and stuff i also try to use a kind of clear naming and sorting them in properly named folders/path structure also, but there is no clear format and i don't care about typos. but for temporary needes files for working on stuff i just let the OS call them new_file(2).txt or name them the classic "dassdfda.txt" type of stuff, as they are deleted later anyway, so who gives a shit.

>>105736591
they sound like shit because you downloaded them in fucking 2001 and aren't actually 320 kbps

what i hate the most is how all repackers keep flac in their bloat games.
>you need to download this 6gb of extra files because ost

>>105726288 (OP)
great thread, definitely did not expect those replies at all