FLAC to MP3 - what works best?

Is it 1998?

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.

Ahhh the famed rotary velociraptor

Attached: HDD_MENACE.gif (256x256, 210K)

Don't forget a /s, bet some newfag will take this seriously and unironically listen to FLACs.

>rotational velocidensity
every time

Attached: 1563316441710.jpg (376x323, 11K)

Lossy audio formats, even if they seem "transparent", are using harmful psychoacoustic tricks to screw with your brain and ears, causing irreparable damage to your mental state and training you to perceive audio incorrectly. The opus format, in particular, likes to push the limits of just how much it can trick you into hearing when there isn't really any data there.

if you use windows, dbpoweramp or foobar2000 (requires lame.exe)
if you use anything else, ffmpeg

Well since you asked...I have a pretty good sized music collection. All my CDs have been catalogued and then a sizeable digital only database from downloads.
Id like to be able to carry as much as possible with me at all times.
However, the albums I have on FLAC take up space on a limited phone/micro sd.
For example, I have all Ozzy albums on FLAC...now on the off chance I might want to listen to Bark At the Moon while at the gym in its entirety, I want to have access to it, but that might be maybe once or twice a year...but the album clocks in at half a GB. So not worth the space, but I would like the convenience of having access to it.
Without cloud bullshit too.

Thanks for all the options listed in the thread. I'll get to work on it

convert to mp3 then back to flac. you'll get the size of mp3 but the quality of flac.

convert to mp3 then back to flac. you'll get the size of mp3 but the quality of flac

convert to mp3 then back to flac. you'll get the size of mp3 with the quality of flac

You'll inherently lose quality from the resolution dip but you can use MusicBee for converting to 320k I believe

>causing irreparable damage to your mental state
source?

Spirits of the past

>convert FLAC to MP3 but not lose the quality?
Are you retarded?

mp3 is dead move on user

My ass

>but not lose the quality?
Are you retarded?

You either use a lossless format or you use a lossy format.

just download mp3s in the first place and stop being a faggot

>Ozzy
based

>not lose the quality
You will always lose quality, it's just a matter of what's an acceptable loss for you with your audio setup.
I'd suggest not going any lower than v2 if you have a vaguely decent pair of headphones.

Software wise, install foobar, make sure its converter has the necessary files for MP3, make yourself a preset defining quality and file/folder structure then just select your albums and convert in bulk to a set destination, the output should organise itself just fine.

...

Any encoder that supports en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3HD

FLAC, AAC, MP3 are codings (that also have their own file formats and can be used standalone), but OGG is only a container format. You can use any of the previous (also Opus and Vorbis) inside OGG.

Containers aside:
>Most compatible but proprietary
MP3 (LAME with v0, easy peasy)

>Smallest size but proprietary
HE-AAC v2 (neroAacEnc, don't know the command from memory, but still easy)

>Compatible, better quality, free
OGG Vorbis (oggenc or ffmpeg)

>Smallest size, free
OGG Opus (opusenc or ffmpeg)

>FLAC: lossless, high compression, free

>MP3HD: lossy + lossless, two completely separate compression streams in one file, proprietary

He already has the lossless version, he just needs a lossy one, not both.

Alright you fags, we live in the SSD era, that means no "ROTATORY DAMAGE", "STORAGE DEGRADATION", "MODIFING VALUES" and "ROTTEN DISCS", whats the next fucking thing you gonna say to justify your entire FLAC and Vinil collections??

Attached: 250px-CD_autolev_crop.jpg (250x250, 11K)

man what the fuck is this shit

there's like 9 different codes called ogg, opus,, orbis and shit

which one are you supposed to use and which one is the latest and what do you use to convert songs to it?

Opus is the best but many players still not support it.
Use ffmpeg, it's hilariously easy to use.

How do I choose which files to convert, and how do I move those converted files to a new folder with the album's name?

Even before there was nothing that could justify it, unless you're a producer who's going to use it in a sample for something that will be played in a fucking movie theatre. Going beyond 256kb MP3 or 192 AAC is pure autism.

AAC is supported basically everywhere and AFAIK even Lagdroid improved how it deals with it.

I actually like this copypasta

>can't tell difference between 256K and 320K MP3
Might want to get your ears checked grandpa

Might want to get your brain checked over all the nocebo.

How come there are no better options MP3 wise than 320kbps?

V0

>it's placebo because you can tell the difference
Maybe if you didn't use the GAYMIN RGB XTREME HEADSET your mommy bought for you, you would be able to tell the difference.

I use a little utility on windows called "all2lame"

I have a small batch script with a single loop going over all files and so just run one command usually

Maybe if you didn't waste all your money on snake oil cables, you could've afforded a therapist.

>he thinks you need audiophile tier equipment to hear a difference
Jow Forums memes are rotting your brain, take a break. You just need decent headphones, and a decent DAC/Amp if you want to do even better, no more, no less. Any more than that is audiophile meme territory.

>he thinks you can hear a difference with any sort of equipment
Sorry, user, it's not how it works. You could be in a padded room in deep space, there still would be no difference for your human ears to hear.

gets me every time

Attached: 1482443263882.png (552x543, 358K)

blog.codinghorror.com/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment/

One of the few scientific approaches at this idiocy. 160kb/s gang wins.

human eye can see only 20 fps anyway

Thanks for proving that you are indeed a retard. Case closed.

Shitposting so hard you had to say it 3 times?

why has nobody recommended ffmpeg...?