Music collection sounds like shit

When i save an image on Jow Forums, i always save it as .png instead of .jpg. My images are always much higher quality as a result. pic rel.

Attached: 1v9oc1iaf8zx.jpg (563x529, 35K)

WOW YOU'RE RIGHT WTF

Attached: 1524971202896.jpg (566x532, 74K)

>not one post mentioning the floor

this

i see darth vader

>convert all my MP3 files into flac

Attached: 1471513832251.jpg (246x250, 8K)

Good bait

I had a fried who seriously (not even in the slightest bit joking) did that. He even argued with me that I was stupid for not doing it, even when I explained to him that the missing info is gone forever.

It's even better if you convert from FLAC to .wav since it's uncompressed. FLAC is compressed and digital compression tends to add harmonic distortion. FLAC is still lossless but there is added spectral content that shouldn't be there. Wav doesn't have that problem since it's lossless and uncompressed.

Some audiophools will argue that the added harmonic content gives FLAC a "warmer" and "more open" sound. This is bullshit. Don't fall for it.

>fell for obvious bait

Get out

Found the FLACfag.

nice

Attached: smug.png (116x74, 8K)

>Jow Forums raves about flac and how much better it sounds
Hopefully no one does this sincerely. Sure, it sounds better than 128 kbps MP3s, but not 320 kbps.

>convert all my MP3 files into flac
2/10, only because people will respond

Opus for lossy (or aac if yuo need the compatibility), flac for archiving

FLAC is bloat and a terrible meme

Obvious shitpost but I give it 6/10 anyway

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.

Attached: peak audiophile.jpg (3010x2000, 1.7M)

I save mine as midi. Sounds great!

This could easily be tested with a hashing algorithm.

hmm i've seen this pasta somewhere

your a wise person, op.

It's a pasta, numbnuts

How's your first month on Jow Forums?

i save my midis as jpegs
mpv --force-seekable --demuxer=rawaudio --demuxer-rawaudio-channels=1 --demuxer-rawaudio-format=u8 --demuxer-rawaudio-rate=32000

Attached: out.jpg (1728x1728, 1.36M)

Fucking this

You crazy fucker, that actually worked

/Thread

192 --vbr although I could get away with less, but don't want to bother too much so I set it at 192. All of it from flacs.

Attached: Screenshot_20180429-102548.png (720x1280, 97K)

Now convert it back to and play it

Nice floor

The floor is drawn faggots, in real world objects don't have a black contour.

newfag

You need to go back

Attached: wonka.jpg (225x225, 10K)

rustle'd

but what about rotational velocidensity? will it affect my .WAVs?

>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…
That's because MP3 encoders that were used back then were complete crap.

Yes, the encoder used actually make a difference, it's not a meme.

kek'd

It's true

Attached: png.png (2000x2000, 2.26M)

shit Jow Forums-x duplicated my name field from a thread I just made, because I'm such a brainlet I forgot to put it in the title box and put it in the name thread

>fell for flac meme
>literally no difference
and I have pretty good headphones, they are closed back tho, but I doubt open backs will do anything either

i used to have a pair of MDR-XD200s until something happened to them, then i got the hd558s in 2014. they're pretty nice sounding for open backs, comfortable, still holding together. its said to help the sound a little

It won't make a real perceptive difference.
Personally I just really enjoy the knowledge that it's lossless, I want my archived data to be as good as I can get it.

People claiming 320kbps mp3 is Good Enough are the fedora atheists of audio

would marry #3

>blasting your music into the atmosphere where anyone can take it
>not trapping it between two sheets of lead for safe keeping

Attached: liar liar.jpg (222x226, 73K)

I only keep my favorite, every day listens as FLAC (ALAC if I put it on my iPod) Everything else is 320kbps

gave me a big think

CD quality (16 bit/44.1KHz PCM) has beentge standard since the 80's, how the fuck is it bloat? You're free to come up with a better lossless codec.
>inb4 ALAC

No you are misunderstanding, converting to flac doesn't make it sound better right away, it will sound the same.
The benefit is that when you convert to flac, the music become "lossless" so it doesn't degrade with time. You shouldn't notice the difference right away, but 3 years down the line you can compare it with your mp3s and they will sound just as good as when you converted to flac, while the mp3s will sound like ass.

You seem to be a newfag
Atleast you know what a hashing algorithm is, so please stay, you're already better than neo-Jow Forums

>convert all my MP3 files into flac
>notice how much better my music sounds immediately
I'm a filthy fucking audiophile and this is some quality bait. 10/10, well played.

what's with the antennae?

mp3 -> opus
lower size, lower quality
mp3 -> flac
same quality, bigger size
mp3 -> flac -> future highly advanced lossless compression

same (shit) mp3 quality, but at a lower filesize than the original mp3
mp3 -> opus -> future lossless
you have a shittier quality than if you used flac as a (useless) placeholder

flac isn't totally worthless as a placeholder format if you have 'tism and feel the need to constantly transcode your music so that everything has the same filetype.

That's some major retardation here, why would you ever do this if you can download 100% quality FLAC from rutracker or assfaggot-cd? And then convert them to OPUS 128 because there is no fucking audible difference.

MP3s are lossy, but "lossy" just means that the MP3 file loses quality compared the original when it is created. They don't lose quality over time.

MP3 files, or any other digital files do not degrade over time. The only risk is due to hardware failures, such as bad sectors or total disc failure. This is where backups come in.

FLAC does indeed have better quality, but that has nothing to do with degradation.

Have you seen picrelated?

Attached: neet.jpg (3072x2304, 575K)

I knew someone who converted 128k MP3s to 320 to make them sound better. (late 90's)

property is theft