Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.57044672 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
57044672

I am fucking done with Pandora.
These fucking NIGGER NIGGERS keep playing fucking Mexican music and accordions in my metal station.
I went and rage bought a 200gb msd card, and am now torrenting entire fucking discographies of music that I actually fucking want to hear.

But what's the best music player app? Preferably one I can setup sort of a profile for different sets of songs, and I can weigh songs so less good ones are played less often
Of course all in /flac/ too

Tl;Dr, what's the /g/ rated music app? I lost the infograph.

>> No.56815854 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, placebo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
56815854

ITT: Memes that you fell for

>> No.56511107 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
56511107

>> No.56411371 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
56411371

So are the iPhones confirmed for having shit sound quality?

Bluetooth is shit and doesn't have the capability of sending high audio bitrates.

The built in DAC on their adapters will probably be shit as well.

So Apple users wil be stuck with 128kbps youtube tier audio quality?

>> No.56006942 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
56006942

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.

>> No.55993284 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
55993284

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.

>> No.55578669 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector_svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
55578669

>tfw when you listen to Pet Sounds in FLAC 24 bit 192 kHz 5788k for the first time

>> No.55397346 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
55397346

Okay /g/. I'm not here to argue whether or not FLAC is a placebo, but how can you tell if your FLAC files haven't just been converted from a lossy format before they were uploaded to whatever site you got them from?

>> No.55145264 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
55145264

>>55144417

>> No.55010229 [View]

>>55010181
What about lossless encoding?

>> No.54783933 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, flac.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
54783933

I'm going to set up some networked storage with audio. My source will be FLAC but I really need to bring down the size of these files. I simply don't have 15 TB of space ready just for music.

So what's the go-to lossy audio format these days? The resulting files need to be as small as possible without evident loss in quality.

>> No.53818518 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53818518

Literally placebo.

>> No.53494664 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53494664

There is literally no advantage in using flac over mp3, and I proved it. I converted some of my flac files ripped from CDs and there was no loss. I measured, and here are my results:
>Track 1 - flac duration: 4:26, mp3 duration: 4:26
0 seconds were lost. If you still don't believe me, as I was sceptical too, I did another test.
>Track 2 - flac duration: 3:47, mp3 duration: 3:47
0 seconds lost

Mp3 is confirmed as a lossless format. /g/tards will argue with this

>> No.53414443 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53414443

>> No.52303516 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
52303516

btw opus is better :3

>> No.52298048 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, placebo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
52298048

>> No.51897423 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51897423

>> No.51884168 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51884168

>> No.51839156 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51839156

flac or fuck off

>> No.51704517 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51704517

>> No.51283772 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51283772

Reminder to to delete your files if you're listening to FLACs on $100 headphones off your motherboard

>> No.51216491 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51216491

Sorry, I can't hear you opus nerds over my real files.

>> No.51197471 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 2000px-Flac_logo_vector.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
51197471

This is a meme, right? I mean, I seriously hope you aren't trying to listen to lossless audio off of your motherboard with sub $150 headphones. You're literally wasting hard drive space on nothing.

>> No.50804599 [View]
File: 86 KB, 2000x992, 9e920093-4461-4ca1-9573-a92b5aa1422e..png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
50804599

Tell me, /g/, are flac files purely placebo? I can distinguish audio files from 64kbs up to 320 and that's about it. However, a friend of mine downloads nothing less than flac quality if he can, and has three separate headphones for that specific thing.

Looks pretty retarded if you ask me. Convince me, /g/.



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]