What is the best audio format and why is it Free Lossless Audio Codec?

Not that guy - but-
It's not needing more, it's just 48khz is easier to mix.
44,1 is perfect for shannon-nyquist, sure - but we're also using almost exclusively digital mixers and powers of 2 are easier to work with than a no better than arbitrary number.

The file size ain't good. I'm hoping there will be new lossless audio format that are small in file size.

Hard drives are cheap, buddy.
Lossless audio will always be on the larger side in terms of filesize simply due to the amount of information that is in the file. The reason compressed/lossy audio is so small is because most of that information is removed.

Attached: BS0.gif (285x508, 1.98M)

>I want to have my cake, eat it, and not get fat.

> Lossless
> As small as lossy
Pick one.

It isn't, because WavPack actually preserves all your metadata, compresses better, and has a hybrid lossy + lossless option that saves space because the lossless files are essentially patches on the lossy ones.

And is supported by basically nothing.

It isn't nearly as widely supported as FLAC, but it works on any desktop OS, Android (AIMP, jetAudio, probably others) and Rockbox, so you can play it on your Clip+.

Does the lossy part patch on top of opus?

>best
>holds onto a bunch of literally worthless audio data that cannot be detected by human ears

Choose one and only one

No, it has its own lossy format. I don't think any hybrid compressor uses a popular format like Opus, Vorbis or MP3 for the lossy part.

>he can't hear 22khz
it's like you want to be old

They should. And it should be opus.

If you decide to just get rid of 22Khz data, you're actually not only affecting the 22Khz range. You're making the lower frequencies less accurate too.

how true is this? any sources?

When I extract a raw FLAC track using mkvextract, and compress said raw FLAC data using gzip, I usually get a 5-15% filesize decrease. What gives?

>raw FLAC track
flac -8?

--raw
Extracts the raw data into a file without any container data around
it.

Wav pcm. Use Ffmpeg to convert audio. Don't be a flac hipster.

>48
lol

I either play them in my .iso image or direct via discs. Stay pleb.

What a massive placebo peddling retard. Fuck off.

Correct answer

Less accurate, sure, but to whom? Dogs? Not humans. Bass frequencies can be felt, but extremely high ones don't serve much purpose.

Kys

Maximum sample rate is 655.350 Hz, not 44.100 Hz...

based

FLAC for lossless.
who_gives_a_fuck for lossy.

No need to fight. Opus, Vorbis, FLAC, they're all free and open codecs from Xiph.

>If you decide to just get rid of 22Khz data, you're actually not only affecting the 22Khz range. You're making the lower frequencies less accurate too.
Uh, no.

>opus

Great android game but horrible sound codec. the thing isn't compatible with anything and its only advantage is having a lower file size

d'ya know you can DOWNLOAD YOUTUBE AUDIO RIGHT from VLC? online tools CAP the FREQ at a DETRIMANTAL 15kHz... but with VLC, you can RIP the ORIGINAL AUDIO STRAIGHT from the video! lossy? 'course. but it's good for RARE JAMS that you can't find ELSEWHERE, & subsequently EMPLOYING them in TRANSFORMATIVE WORKS, instead of AGONIZING over the theoretical PERFECTION of whichever shitty band's album you ABSOLUTELY MUST archive. VLC unto infinity!

Lossless is useless. audiophiles are tards.
youtu.be/IiZqYnd5g8M

Tldr

audiophiles are absolute retards who fall for marketing schemes.

>,

>lossless audio

Attached: MOMMY-02.jpg (1280x1823, 435K)

how much computing power would you need to compute the wave function of a song?
what about parts of a song?
is this viable?

Don't hate us because we have golden ears.

Attached: CopyQ.Ti2130.png (1920x1080, 1.04M)

Burn music cd from mp3's. Play on good stereo.
Burn music cd from flac. Play on good stereo.
Who's the tard now, tard?

FLAC - perfect for lossless, not supported by iTunes (wow, fucking really?), FOSS

MP3 V0 - guaranteed compatibility on toasters from 2001, FOSS, hardly larger than Opus at equivalent quality

fuck off nerd

>the wave function of a song?
wat

>not using 64 kbps MP3s you downloaded from limewire in the early 2000s
plebs

If you are not a child and you do not have a $10K setup, then why bother?
I am 100% sure none of you can tell the difference between a 44.1Khz mp3 and some meme flac-like lossless format
Kys degenerates stop keeping this snakeoil business alive

>not converting all your tracks to 8bit 11025Hz mono PCM for that sweet sweet 90s vidya nostalgia

Attached: 2015-10-11_00035.jpg (1600x900, 180K)

My experience with lossless codecs on a Clip is that it absolutely destroys battery life. Using FLAC for instance, makes a Clip run hot and laggy. Audio plays just fine but seeking, changing tracks, and browsing the menus suffer.

OGG Opus (which deprecated OGG Vorbis) is the only format you should use for mobile music libraries.

>what is resonance and amplitude, Alex?

Daily reminder that "what is the best X and why is it Y?" threads are stupid bait posted by fourteen year old boomers.

bunch of fucking dolts

Lossless music files aren't that big and hard drives are so large now that there's literally no reason anyone shouldn't store music losslessly on a PC. It doesn't make sense to transcode to mp3 or Opus anymore unless you have an older mp3 player that doesn't have much memory.

>doesn't really say anything about the difference between lossless and lossy
you're the tard here that thinks converting lossy to lossy 25 times is going to retain the original sound quality

U can't put FLAC in mp4

>still using mp4 in 2018

mp4 niggers deserve to get shot

Who is the biggest fag and why is it OP?

because it's RMS approved

Wavepack
Saved 16 gigabytes after converting my flacs to it on max compression

>44.1Khz mp3
That's not how mp3s work

Either a troll or an idiot, but I'd bet on the latter.

Lowpass filters aren't perfect, but the damage they do to the lower frequencies is largely irrelevant compared to what the subsequent quantization stage does to the sound.

mp4 is the best supported video (non-disc) file format. literally anything can play it. hating on mp4 is as retarded as hating on mp3.

its hardly a format. more like a compression algorithm.

My car audio system can’t play FLAC. I make playlists on usb drives and they have to be mp3s. Plus I’ve done extensive A/B testing on myself and never heard a difference between FLAC and V0.

Percussion sounds loads better desu

It's actually both.

what?

>mp3
>mpeg 2 audio layer 3
>mp4
>mpeg 4 part 14

Attached: 1414600052149.jpg (900x900, 161K)

Whoops, I meant mp3 is mpeg 1.

>implying you want lossy compression
>implying you want to compress

.WAV
W
A
V

>mpeg 4 part 14 audio layer 3 volume 2 return of the jedi

I'm gonna go with you're an idiot.

>lossy

Attached: 1459915759065.jpg (450x720, 48K)

resamplet

Opus was developed by the IETF

It was developed within the IETF, primarily by Xiph, with help from (pre-Microsoft) Skype and Broadcom.

>compared to what the subsequent quantization stage does to the sound.
um... it quantizes it.

>entheogen
Based
>Calabi-Yau
Double based

>thinking this still holds true
If you're looking at 5 year old devices, sure. Even the cheapest TV box produced nowadays can play mkv files. Meanwhile, new audio chink shit still gets produced that can only support mp3 and WAV.

He talk about it at the end and put a link to his lossy vs lossless test.

romaco.ca/blog/2015/03/23/experimental-differences-in-audio-compression-formats/

I'm a bit dubious about his claims of detecting the formats in the blind test but it's not too unbelievable as a trained ear (or mind rather) will know what to look for. That's half the problem with audio. On one end you've got the audiofools who make themselves believe they can tell a difference with the magic bead cables attached and on the other the audiolets who can't hear blatant compression artifacts and think YT music played through their bluetooth speaker from their phone sounds great. So much of it is to do with the listeners mental wellbeing than their ears.

quantization noise has less to do with sampling and more to do with bit depth. Even then, the quantization noise of an undithered 16 bit signal is still way lower than the best reel-to-reel signal that can be produced.

>being able to hear 22 kHz
Do you also bark?

>has a hybrid lossy + lossless option
That sounds nice from a technical perspective but 99% of people don't store both lossless and lossy encodes of the same music on the same system so it's actually kinda useless.

quite odd since on my clip+ FLAC files (compression lvl 8) run snappy and when seeking and not much different battery life wise than MP3's.
Oh yeah I run rockbox on it too.

Attached: 1531608106469.gif (1221x768, 915K)

Lossless = lossless, doesn't matter if it's .wav, .flac, .alac, or just CDs. The only difference is filesize and license.
4/10, made me reply.

mp3
sounds perfectly fine and is supported by every single device

thanks brudder

Attached: 1531021330732.jpg (1280x720, 150K)

Are you a maths major too or just a hobbyist?

Aerodynamic physics

Attached: tempest_future_cockpit_01.jpg (4900x3466, 2.78M)

compressed lossless formats can require a lot of extra steps to decode and play