You keeping your music .flac right user?

you keeping your music .flac right user?

Attached: flac-logo-5c194bf8c9e77c0001d9fb79.png (2000x1334, 23.54K)

I didn't but I'm transitioning over to flac
Can't understand why there are different formats for lossless or how one can be better than the other. Lossless is perfect, right?

Always

yeah I transcoded it all to flac

Just take my advice, ignore music from Deezer, Spotify, Youtube.
Keep .flac files, or at least get 320 kbps .mp3

based

For archival purposes, yes. I use mp3 on a daily basis, tho.

I am now but had to learn the hard way. Should have listened to the flac threads a decade ago, my mp3s all got holes in them

Hell no, Apple lossless, always go proprietary, Apple will never go under

>my mp3s all got holes in them
what that mean?

There is compressed lossless (flac, alac) where it is compressed without losing any of the musical information. Moderately large file size
And there is also UNcompressed lossless (wav) where the musical information is not compressed at all. Very large file size


Now what should you really use? Lossy OPUS at 128kbps. (if you use wired headphones and file compatibility old players isn't an issue)
It will decrease file size by around 80-90% over FLAC while being indistinguishable from mp3 320kbps (both signals cut off at 20KHz)

We're talking reducing a 50MB song to 4MB without any loss in perceivable quality

Also, if you like organizing files as well, .wav has less options for metadata

Why would you ever want uncompressed, for editing reasons?

Yeah, I'm assuming there is less load on the CPU to decompress that FLAC data vs just reading the raw WAV

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.

>less load
Meant to say more

Basically this: . I converted all of my MP3 files to FLAC with an MP3-toFLAC software converter program and they sound a hell of a lot better.

Yes. Been using a YouTube audio to flac converter for years and haven't looked back since.

Attached: selfie.jpg (1170x1426, 174.58K)

yep since 2014, still working on getting the stuff I got 2000-2014 in FLAC

>always go proprietary
ask me how I know you can't code

yes lossless is perfect, compressed or uncompressed. WAV, AIFF, APE, FLAC, ALAC, Wavepakc etc etc are all interchangeable,
it's fine to transcode between them
(as long as you keep the same bit-depth & sampling-rate whenever you transcode - note this is not the same as bit-rate, which will normally vary between formats)

this guy is right about Opus @128kbps for listening purposes but for archival purposes, lossless is the only correct choice

I'm not autistic no. I have actual physical copies of the music I enjoy.

>Opus @128kbps for listening purposes but for archival purposes, lossless is the only correct choice
Yes. I have a central library made up of mainly FLAC, and I have a duplicate of that library re-encoded into OPUS for use on the Phone, laptop, usb, mp3 player, etc

Great way to never lose the full original sound