>1982
CD's come out, enabling you to listen to uncompressed digital audio
>2018
People still listen to compressed files like mp3s and AAC instead of FLAC
There's literally no reason to use anything but FLAC. (or WAV if you need it) HDD space is cheap and even phones and DAPs have pretty heug memory sizes now. I'm not even going to respond to streaming peasants, imagine being such a pleb that you actually listen to music with Youtube-tier quality.
Other urls found in this thread:
my.mixtape.moe
my.mixtape.moe
twitter.com
Enjoy your 100x file size with no noticeable difference in sound quality
Because it's more convenient.
Convenience overrules many things. Like how you will pay more to buy from a vending machine or convenience store than bother going to a supermarket.
256 aac is indistinguishable from flac at a twentieth the filesize. There's no reason to use flac (except maybe in production). The real question is why do people stick to mp3 when aac is twice as efficient? The answer is no one cares.
>100x file size
so? that's no longer an issue, as storage space is dirt cheap.
Storage is dirt cheap but I'm not gonna bother switching multiple 128 gb in my phone just to listen them in FLAC quality.
>inb4 phone
Yeah, I'm gonna bring my fucking laptop and link it to the car's stereo.
you keep lossless backups and transcode to lossy formats for portable use. you want hi-res listening, you listen at home
Not him, but FLAC isn't about placebo audio quality, it's about archiving and getting the best quality from every format. 320mp3 to 128kbps opus loses more data than FLAC to 128kbps opus. On your phone you can definitely listen to 320kbps mp3s or 192kbps Vorbis that's fine (not like your phone DAC will be good enough for you to tell the difference between FLAC and 320mp3), but in the current year with storage being so cheap there's no excuse to not keeping FLAC files on your computer.
>100x
Moar liek 4-5x, if we're talking quality MP3/AAC/OGG/Opus to begin with.
mp3 will never be replaced among normies because it's good enough and people are lazy. AAC, OGG and OPUS are examples of trying to solve a problem no one cares about except streaming services. It's the same situation as .jpg.
opus is fully transparent at 160k. no hi-faggot can tell difference between 160k opus and original.
>listening to digital music
My friend you arw retarded. So much is lost when recording, not even vinylfags can truly capture the sound of music. Go and listen with your own ears, for sound waves travelling through the air from vibrating strings and resonating chambers.
>what is a synth
I have 500gib in 64kbps audiobook mp3s. I'm not going to bloat that shit x 10 the size just for autism.
>not like your phone DAC will be good enough for you to tell the difference between FLAC and 320mp3
Oh, yeah, you sure have golden year allowing you tell apart a -86db DAC and -94db DAC.
*ears
What is analog synth
So, how do I get FLAC versions of albums?
CD rips
Bandcamp
HDTracks
Soulseek/private trackers
The digital audio signal isn't being stored in a square-wave function like on the pic. It's just a series of measurements represented by dots on the graph. Why are audiophools such brainless? This pic is misleading.
Wait a second. I know people constantly argue about lossless vs. lossy for music, but surely nobody recommends FLAC for audiobooks and the like.
HDD space isn't unlimited and you can't tell the difference
Because it's deminishing returns.
Sure I can hear the difference with flac but ssd/data storage is still a premium and even if we get 1tb+ phones and cheap ad cards morons will still stream/download 128-320kbit/s MP3
Haven't you ever heard hissing with nothing actually playing through your phone?
It's a bit weirder than that.
You CAN make an device that outputs a square wave like that.
But the ears can't hear it, no matter how much of an audiophile you are.
because anything higher than 320k mp3 is placebo.
Beacuse MP3 is the format that nearly all music torrents use
Spotted the guy who doesn't play an instrument.
>i've only got a 20GB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
>i've only got an 80GB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
>i've only got a 200GB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
>i've only got a 640GB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
>i've only got a 1TB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
>i've only got a 4TB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
>i've only got a 12TB hdd, i'll stick to 320kbps mp3's
...
320kbps mp3 is already placebo
not because it's basically lossless, but because you're well past the rate at which mp3 has diminishing returns, and you probably should just be using layer 2 instead
320kbps mp3 wasn't some number people decided on because it was "the best" or anything, it's simply as high as the format supports
320 kbps MP3 is transparent.
so is 128kbps opus
>what is modern audio codecs and decompression
>what is quality dac
>what is good headphones and or speakers
Mate there is obviously a noticeable difference between 320kb and flac but imho it's just not worth it and I have 12tb of hdds u can shove it all up ya ass while I stream shit for free on yt/soundcloud
Only for hard drives
Nah, you can still ABX 320kbps and FLAC with tricky samples and songs that actually fill out the high frequencies with high intensity samples.
i prefer to listen to my music in jpeg format
ffmpeg -i out.jpg -pix_fmt rgb24 -f rawvideo - | ffmpeg -f u8 -ac 2 -ar 32000 -c:a pcm_u8 -i - -f matroska - | ffplay -
>2018
>still using lossy image formats to store audio
Go with the time, gramps. Modern lossless formats are superior.
my.mixtape.moe
flif -d out.flif - | ffmpeg -i - -pix_fmt rgb24 -f rawvideo - | ffmpeg -f u8 -ac 2 -ar 32000 -c:a pcm_u8 -i - -f matroska - | ffplay -
how about ancient lossless formats?
>gif isn't lossless!
pff
ffmpeg -i out.gif -pix_fmt y8 -f rawvideo - | ffplay -
>gif
Bloat. APNG is where it's at for storing your music as animated image sequence.
my.mixtape.moe
>APNG doesn't have as much support!
pff
no
APNG? 4channel doesn't even support that!
then again, it doesn't support audio in webm's here, either... right?
ffmpeg -i out.webm -f rawvideo - | ffmpeg -ac 2 -ar 32000 -f u8 -i - -f wav - | ffplay -
I don't really care for listening but I do think that music services giving you lossy files when you buy an album is a scam. If you bought it you should be getting nothing but the original.
You can't get the original. At best you can get a digitized and quantized sampling.
so, the original? or do you think people still record and mix using analog equipment/media?
most audio is shit and by audio i mean music
You don't understand how digital music or sampling works.
256? What is this, 1998?
>You CAN make an device that outputs a square wave
No, you fucking cannot. Square waves are impossible constructs, because they involve division by zero by definition.
You can, however, create a very rough approximation - but that is actually a trapezoid, not a square.
>brainlet detected
If you think it is possible to generate a real square wave, you are a brainlet by definition.
Once again: square waves are purely theoretical.
>VP8
Fuck. Can't argue with that. That's the peak of modern video compression efficiency.
Ringing get in your way, correct?
FLAC is a meme
128 mp3 is all you need
the problem is that the rising/falling edges of a true square wave are vertical, which is just physically impossible
for a digital signal to capture it, you would need literally infinite bandwidth, and for a speaker to reproduce it, you would need a cone which can move literally instantly between two positions
No. 128kbps MP3s have audible compression that makes cymbals (and mostly inaudible harmonics) sound like shit.
Digital is mathematically perfect.
hiro on suicide watch lmao
literally earlet
Though CD's still BTFO flac with 1411kbps. They don't record at higher fidelity, so you either get the same quality as cda or worse. Take the compact pill.
>I have a 2Tb HDD
>therefore I must only download or take pictures of 100 megapixels or higher
How do you make this?
>mp3 will never be replaced
this. even more so now that most of the MP2L3 spec is patent-free (which basically covers what LAME does)
>1982
>sonething happens
>2018
People still do something
Nice thread OP
FLAC is lossless compression, it works in a similar way to ZIP or RAR, you don't actually lose any data. So a WAV CD rip can be converted to FLAC, which can be converted back to WAV, and the data should be 100% accurate. This is different than mp3, AAC or OPUS, which are lossy. You permanently lose some info when converting to mp3.
Yeah, so? CDA is no compression at all. Pure 1,4 mbps of uncompressed 16bit 44100Hz audio. That can't be beaten by anything less than SACD. Yeah sure you could convert DSD to flac (probably), but then it just reduces it to a container, much like a zip archive. So what's the point of doing this? Reducing the range of players being able to work with your file?
>using folders in 2018
>not turning your boot ssd into a large branching zipfile
The biggest mistake the industry made was calling it an mp3 player instead of a digital music player.
Now mp3 has all the market share the same way Band-aids, Jetskis and Jello do.
>the problem is that the rising/falling edges of a true square wave are vertical, which is just physically impossible
>for a digital signal to capture it, you would need literally infinite bandwidth, and for a speaker to reproduce it, you would need a cone which can move literally instantly between two positions
This.
I listen to music on youtube fite me
>listening to music on your phone
absolute cancerfag
>yeah, so?
spotted the brainlet
>t. 20 years old who has the 100 albums /mu/ told him it's "patrician" and can't comprehend how large the library of an actual adult music lover is
>CD's come out, enabling you to listen to uncompressed digital audio
That's when it shows you're retarded
CDs are in fact compressed digital audio
I don't have supreme next level autism, sometimes I'm walking with earbuds in and want to hear a song immediately on a whim. I literally cannot tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless formats unless I go home where it's nearly silent and play music loudly through expensive headphones. It isn't fucking worth it for anyone except audio engineers to waste all that disk space, network bandwidth, etc. for this shit you can barely detect at all.
I guess lossy formats degrade over time so lossless would have a use case for archives too, that's it
No they're not. CDs are uncompressed digital audio at 16-bit/44.1KHz. Compressed audio is stuff like mp3s.
Spotify works on my machine ;^)
i did
>Doesn't listen to vinyl records
/mu/let
>CDs are 700MiB. (most are smaller, but let's assume they're all maxed out)
>FLAC efficiency depends on the song itself, but let's just say that FLAC files are roughly 70% of the file size of an uncompressed WAV CD rip
>This means each album is about 490MiB.
>Approximately 3892 full albums can be stored on a standard $60 2 TB HDD
>In reality you'll fit a lot more
You faggots drastically overestimate music storage requirements. You average person has no where near 3892 CDs worth of music.
>what is a Studio Master File
When people refer to compression of a digital file they usually mean running it through a codec such as FLAC or mp3. Using a low pass filter to cut off frequencies above 44.1KHz or downsampling to 16-bits to meet Red Book specs isn't the same thing.
I have 6300 albums and that doesn't include around 1000 compilations of music from late 40s to early 60s where Singles were kings
And I'm not even a hoarder, that's just albums I listened and liked, half a life of enjoying music
I'm not an average person but you get the point
I stream digital FLAC.
This, use OPUS as it's fine for even audiophile DACs. If you don't own a dedicated DAC or deal with RAW audio for editing/preservation then you don't need FLAC.
music CDs aren't digital you fucking mong
Just stop it and admit you're wrong
Talk to any studio engineer
>pits and lands (i.e. 1s and 0s)
>not digital
shit I was thinking of vinyl for some reason. That's what I get for browsing Jow Forums while waiting for the 10mg of ambien to kick in. I'm just gonna go pass out now
You're factually incorrect though. Red Book CD Audio specifies for 74-80 minutes of 44.1kHz 16 bit uncompressed audio. Sure, you CAN burn compressed mp3s on a CD but that's kind of retarded.
>compressed files like mp3s and AAC instead of FLAC
FLAC is also compressed. It's a lossless audio codec, that's what it does. It compresses audio losslessly. The difference is that MP3 and AAC are lossy while FLAC is lossless.
He's not though.
Uncompressed/compressed doesn't say anything about the quality, just about how the data is stored. I can butcher audio by encoding it as 64Kbps MP3 and later decode it and store it as uncompressed audio on a CD.
My hearing cuts out at 12kHz, I could encode everything at 24kHz and not notice a difference, at 24kHz I could probably compress down to 128kbps easily with no artifacts that I could discern .
>the absolute state of "audiophiles" in 2018
Normies hardly use mp3 now. Normies use Youtube, Spotify, iTunes (don't they use alac or something), etc.
In all fairness you're not accounting for the possibility of portable usage. Someone may only want to use say, 16 gigs of a 64 gig microSD card in their phone for music.
True, but normie-adjacent music pirates and mixtape downloaders almost exclusively use mp3.
I ripped the stack of CDs I owned into FLAC before selling them. I download new music in FLAC whenever I can.
I stick to 320 vbr mp3s whenever i can, because fuck if im going to convert/DL the file more than once.
mp3 will ensure its compatible with everything.
I find it amusing that audio output devices have a higher slew rate capability compared to mechanical transducers yet people worry about slew rate when selecting opamps. Kek.
They took our CD's
They're coming for guns.
flac is compressed, but no lossy compression :)