▲ 1809 ▼ Respect to anyone still managing a library of mp3s (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world [M] to c/memes@lemmy.world 489 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 152 points 2 years ago (6 children) Go FLAC or go home. permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 102 points 2 years ago (25 children) FLAC is a meme for 90% of use cases out there. The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent. The file size is drastically different, though. Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the "lossless" versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd. Not to say that I don't prefer to download FLAC when possible, but I also don't avoid non-lossless albums either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments replies: [–] apochryphal_triptych@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago Um, .wav is a lossless format. It's just raw PCM with no compression. An upscaled FLAC from a lossy source is not lossless, even though it's stored in a lossless compatible format (FLAC). A properly encoded and compressed MP3 file will sound very close to the lossless source, but when procuring those lossy files from third parties, you rely on whoever compressed them doing it properly. I prefer to store my music repository in a lossless format, and stream/sync in lossy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (4 children) Yeah, but that argument was compelling in 2005. With storage as cheap as it is nowadays, a 15 MB FLAC audio file vs. a 3 MB MP3 really doesn't matter anymore. Those 12 MB cost nothing to store. And to be honest, in cases where storage does matter, a 320 kbps MP3 is just a waste of space. A VBR MP3 with average bitrate around 200 kbps makes way more sense and nobody can tell the difference between that and 320 kbps in a double blind test. So just maintain FLAC or other lossless for sharing music and transcode down when needed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 2 years ago (3 children) file size absolutely matters when you have thousands of songs lol, my music is a significant chunk of my phone's SD card capacity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children) That's why you should transcode to 200 or even 160 kbps for your phone. But the master archive should be in flac if possible. A 2 TB disk is less than $100 nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago the master archive Now that’s dedication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Perfide@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) But like, why? I'm going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn't matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don't wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (14 children) This is my take as well. Storage is cheap. I have thousands of albums and about 40,000 tracks currently and it consumes about 400GB. It's really not that much storage, considering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments load more comments (14 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] RandomPancake@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (2 children) In my case I use FLAC because when Plex transcodes, FLAC > Opus sounds better than MP3 > Opus. Almost all my media was ripped by me direct from CD, with some coming from Bandcamp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) FLAC Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the "lossless" versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd. Yeah, this isn’t how that works. “Lossless” refers to a mathematical property of the type of compression. If the data can be decompressed to exactly the same bits that went into the compressor then it’s lossless. You can’t “synthetically upscale” to lossless. You can make a fake lossless file (lossy data converted into a lossless file format) but that serves zero purpose and is more of an issue with shady pirate uploaders. Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist. That’s really all. And you want lossless for any situation where you’ll be converting again before playback. Like, for example, Bluetooth transmission. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist You're bang on with everything but this, if you're getting FLACs from the source, you may be getting higher quality than CD which is 16-bit 44.1khz. I've got many 24-bit 96khz FLACs in my collection Your last point about Bluetooth is such a great one though. Recompression of already compressed audio is a much worse end result than compressing uncompressed audio one time (and before anyone says it, basically no one is listening to lossless Bluetooth audio) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Fair point with the higher bit depths and sampling rates, I just figured there was no point in overcomplicating it when it seemed there was already some form of misunderstanding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the “lossless” versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd WAV and FLAC are both lossless, the reason people use FLAC is because WAV doesn't (or didn't) have good support for tags and FLAC has lossless file compression while WAV usually is uncompressed. There isn't any sort of "upscaling" that is done. Personally, I think a quality v0 or 320kb/s MP3 is perfectly fine for listening but I'm always going to prefer storing lossless audio so I can convert the files to whatever format I want/need. I've moved around between MP3, AAC, and Opus for different devices and if I didn't have the FLAC files I would either have to redownload files or do lossy to lossy transcodes permalink fedilink source parent [–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent. I would disagree with this. It isn't really a matter of equipment cost. It may be a matter of not having ever heard a direct comparison between versions of the same track, though. What I've noticed is that you really need e.g. wired headphones to be able to hear this difference. The compression artifacts of MP3 are quite distinct, but since Bluetooth tends to compress audio as well, this eliminates a lot of the difference between lossy and lossless sources. I can hear the difference clearly with cheap (≈$50) wired headphones on my android phone (which is nothing special and a few years old). It is particularly noticeable with high frequency sounds, like hi-hats, which tend to sound muddy with a kind of digital sizzle. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AceQuorthon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Jokes on you, I have thousands of dollars in listening equipment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I totally agree, I was just perpetuating the meme permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (17 replies) [–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 23 points 2 years ago (3 children) I fucking love my 100gb flac collection permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do you know a reliable tracker? I have lidarr set up to find lossless versions, but it's pretty terrible at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 14 points 2 years ago Im using Soulseek permalink fedilink source parent [–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (8 children) Orpheus for torrents, Usenet gets like 90% of the stuff out there though. And don't forget to sort your favorites bands but buying their albums when they provide them as FLAC. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] pudcollar@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* I made a XSPF format list of lossy versions, imported into qobuz and deezer using soundiiz, and downloaded from there using qobuz-dl and deemix, fwiw. Got about 1.2 TB this way permalink fedilink source parent [–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Look for the Redtopia torrent. About 6tb of flac albums and another half terabyte of .mp3s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Exusia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Where does one begin to find flac? I am taking the first steps beyond "finding a movie to play for free" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) [–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I use FLAC for albums I love and mp3s for everything else (including copies of the flacs in mp3). It's a nice balance. Fucking love my collection of music. I use Spotify as well, but nothing can compete with literally owning a music collection of my own I can listen to without the Internet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (7 children) This is the way. Also, FLAC for high bit rate audiophile vinyl rips. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children) I literally got goosebumps reading that. Take my Iron Maiden collection for example: I have mp3 versions of all albums. Different release versions of FLACs and then a vinyl FLAC collection as well. It's nice exploring the difference in sound, but somehow, vinyl always makes me feel the best. Man I miss what.cd. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I miss Oink's :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) BUY ME BIGGER STORAGE BROTHER permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (5 children) looks at his 42TB NAS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago That's a lot of hip-hop 😂 permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies) [–] dezmd@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Listen up, all you young whippersnappers and your FLAC collections, we downloaded our lossy but 'high enough quality' 128kbps mp3s from those IRC DCC Fserves back in the 90s using our dialup internet and we didnt complain! Unless of course someone picked up the house phone and caused our internet to disconnect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [–] CentreForAnts@aussie.zone 4 points 2 years ago It's all about the 64kbps .wma's. I could fit so many songs on my 128mb mp3 player back in the day permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 102 points 2 years ago (25 children) FLAC is a meme for 90% of use cases out there. The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent. The file size is drastically different, though. Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the "lossless" versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd. Not to say that I don't prefer to download FLAC when possible, but I also don't avoid non-lossless albums either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments replies: [–] apochryphal_triptych@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago Um, .wav is a lossless format. It's just raw PCM with no compression. An upscaled FLAC from a lossy source is not lossless, even though it's stored in a lossless compatible format (FLAC). A properly encoded and compressed MP3 file will sound very close to the lossless source, but when procuring those lossy files from third parties, you rely on whoever compressed them doing it properly. I prefer to store my music repository in a lossless format, and stream/sync in lossy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (4 children) Yeah, but that argument was compelling in 2005. With storage as cheap as it is nowadays, a 15 MB FLAC audio file vs. a 3 MB MP3 really doesn't matter anymore. Those 12 MB cost nothing to store. And to be honest, in cases where storage does matter, a 320 kbps MP3 is just a waste of space. A VBR MP3 with average bitrate around 200 kbps makes way more sense and nobody can tell the difference between that and 320 kbps in a double blind test. So just maintain FLAC or other lossless for sharing music and transcode down when needed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 2 years ago (3 children) file size absolutely matters when you have thousands of songs lol, my music is a significant chunk of my phone's SD card capacity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children) That's why you should transcode to 200 or even 160 kbps for your phone. But the master archive should be in flac if possible. A 2 TB disk is less than $100 nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago the master archive Now that’s dedication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Perfide@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) But like, why? I'm going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn't matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don't wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (14 children) This is my take as well. Storage is cheap. I have thousands of albums and about 40,000 tracks currently and it consumes about 400GB. It's really not that much storage, considering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments load more comments (14 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] RandomPancake@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (2 children) In my case I use FLAC because when Plex transcodes, FLAC > Opus sounds better than MP3 > Opus. Almost all my media was ripped by me direct from CD, with some coming from Bandcamp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) FLAC Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the "lossless" versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd. Yeah, this isn’t how that works. “Lossless” refers to a mathematical property of the type of compression. If the data can be decompressed to exactly the same bits that went into the compressor then it’s lossless. You can’t “synthetically upscale” to lossless. You can make a fake lossless file (lossy data converted into a lossless file format) but that serves zero purpose and is more of an issue with shady pirate uploaders. Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist. That’s really all. And you want lossless for any situation where you’ll be converting again before playback. Like, for example, Bluetooth transmission. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist You're bang on with everything but this, if you're getting FLACs from the source, you may be getting higher quality than CD which is 16-bit 44.1khz. I've got many 24-bit 96khz FLACs in my collection Your last point about Bluetooth is such a great one though. Recompression of already compressed audio is a much worse end result than compressing uncompressed audio one time (and before anyone says it, basically no one is listening to lossless Bluetooth audio) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Fair point with the higher bit depths and sampling rates, I just figured there was no point in overcomplicating it when it seemed there was already some form of misunderstanding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the “lossless” versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd WAV and FLAC are both lossless, the reason people use FLAC is because WAV doesn't (or didn't) have good support for tags and FLAC has lossless file compression while WAV usually is uncompressed. There isn't any sort of "upscaling" that is done. Personally, I think a quality v0 or 320kb/s MP3 is perfectly fine for listening but I'm always going to prefer storing lossless audio so I can convert the files to whatever format I want/need. I've moved around between MP3, AAC, and Opus for different devices and if I didn't have the FLAC files I would either have to redownload files or do lossy to lossy transcodes permalink fedilink source parent [–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent. I would disagree with this. It isn't really a matter of equipment cost. It may be a matter of not having ever heard a direct comparison between versions of the same track, though. What I've noticed is that you really need e.g. wired headphones to be able to hear this difference. The compression artifacts of MP3 are quite distinct, but since Bluetooth tends to compress audio as well, this eliminates a lot of the difference between lossy and lossless sources. I can hear the difference clearly with cheap (≈$50) wired headphones on my android phone (which is nothing special and a few years old). It is particularly noticeable with high frequency sounds, like hi-hats, which tend to sound muddy with a kind of digital sizzle. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AceQuorthon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Jokes on you, I have thousands of dollars in listening equipment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I totally agree, I was just perpetuating the meme permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (17 replies)
[–] apochryphal_triptych@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago Um, .wav is a lossless format. It's just raw PCM with no compression. An upscaled FLAC from a lossy source is not lossless, even though it's stored in a lossless compatible format (FLAC). A properly encoded and compressed MP3 file will sound very close to the lossless source, but when procuring those lossy files from third parties, you rely on whoever compressed them doing it properly. I prefer to store my music repository in a lossless format, and stream/sync in lossy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago (4 children) Yeah, but that argument was compelling in 2005. With storage as cheap as it is nowadays, a 15 MB FLAC audio file vs. a 3 MB MP3 really doesn't matter anymore. Those 12 MB cost nothing to store. And to be honest, in cases where storage does matter, a 320 kbps MP3 is just a waste of space. A VBR MP3 with average bitrate around 200 kbps makes way more sense and nobody can tell the difference between that and 320 kbps in a double blind test. So just maintain FLAC or other lossless for sharing music and transcode down when needed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 2 years ago (3 children) file size absolutely matters when you have thousands of songs lol, my music is a significant chunk of my phone's SD card capacity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children) That's why you should transcode to 200 or even 160 kbps for your phone. But the master archive should be in flac if possible. A 2 TB disk is less than $100 nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago the master archive Now that’s dedication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Perfide@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) But like, why? I'm going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn't matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don't wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (14 children) This is my take as well. Storage is cheap. I have thousands of albums and about 40,000 tracks currently and it consumes about 400GB. It's really not that much storage, considering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments load more comments (14 replies) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 2 years ago (3 children) file size absolutely matters when you have thousands of songs lol, my music is a significant chunk of my phone's SD card capacity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children) That's why you should transcode to 200 or even 160 kbps for your phone. But the master archive should be in flac if possible. A 2 TB disk is less than $100 nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago the master archive Now that’s dedication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Perfide@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) But like, why? I'm going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn't matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don't wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children) That's why you should transcode to 200 or even 160 kbps for your phone. But the master archive should be in flac if possible. A 2 TB disk is less than $100 nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago the master archive Now that’s dedication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Perfide@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) But like, why? I'm going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn't matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don't wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheYear2525@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago the master archive Now that’s dedication. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago (3 children) But like, why? I'm going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn't matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don't wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (14 children) This is my take as well. Storage is cheap. I have thousands of albums and about 40,000 tracks currently and it consumes about 400GB. It's really not that much storage, considering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments load more comments (14 replies)
[–] RandomPancake@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (2 children) In my case I use FLAC because when Plex transcodes, FLAC > Opus sounds better than MP3 > Opus. Almost all my media was ripped by me direct from CD, with some coming from Bandcamp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) FLAC Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the "lossless" versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd. Yeah, this isn’t how that works. “Lossless” refers to a mathematical property of the type of compression. If the data can be decompressed to exactly the same bits that went into the compressor then it’s lossless. You can’t “synthetically upscale” to lossless. You can make a fake lossless file (lossy data converted into a lossless file format) but that serves zero purpose and is more of an issue with shady pirate uploaders. Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist. That’s really all. And you want lossless for any situation where you’ll be converting again before playback. Like, for example, Bluetooth transmission. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist You're bang on with everything but this, if you're getting FLACs from the source, you may be getting higher quality than CD which is 16-bit 44.1khz. I've got many 24-bit 96khz FLACs in my collection Your last point about Bluetooth is such a great one though. Recompression of already compressed audio is a much worse end result than compressing uncompressed audio one time (and before anyone says it, basically no one is listening to lossless Bluetooth audio) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Fair point with the higher bit depths and sampling rates, I just figured there was no point in overcomplicating it when it seemed there was already some form of misunderstanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist You're bang on with everything but this, if you're getting FLACs from the source, you may be getting higher quality than CD which is 16-bit 44.1khz. I've got many 24-bit 96khz FLACs in my collection Your last point about Bluetooth is such a great one though. Recompression of already compressed audio is a much worse end result than compressing uncompressed audio one time (and before anyone says it, basically no one is listening to lossless Bluetooth audio) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Fair point with the higher bit depths and sampling rates, I just figured there was no point in overcomplicating it when it seemed there was already some form of misunderstanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Fair point with the higher bit depths and sampling rates, I just figured there was no point in overcomplicating it when it seemed there was already some form of misunderstanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the “lossless” versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd WAV and FLAC are both lossless, the reason people use FLAC is because WAV doesn't (or didn't) have good support for tags and FLAC has lossless file compression while WAV usually is uncompressed. There isn't any sort of "upscaling" that is done. Personally, I think a quality v0 or 320kb/s MP3 is perfectly fine for listening but I'm always going to prefer storing lossless audio so I can convert the files to whatever format I want/need. I've moved around between MP3, AAC, and Opus for different devices and if I didn't have the FLAC files I would either have to redownload files or do lossy to lossy transcodes permalink fedilink source parent
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent. I would disagree with this. It isn't really a matter of equipment cost. It may be a matter of not having ever heard a direct comparison between versions of the same track, though. What I've noticed is that you really need e.g. wired headphones to be able to hear this difference. The compression artifacts of MP3 are quite distinct, but since Bluetooth tends to compress audio as well, this eliminates a lot of the difference between lossy and lossless sources. I can hear the difference clearly with cheap (≈$50) wired headphones on my android phone (which is nothing special and a few years old). It is particularly noticeable with high frequency sounds, like hi-hats, which tend to sound muddy with a kind of digital sizzle. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AceQuorthon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Jokes on you, I have thousands of dollars in listening equipment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I totally agree, I was just perpetuating the meme permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 23 points 2 years ago (3 children) I fucking love my 100gb flac collection permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do you know a reliable tracker? I have lidarr set up to find lossless versions, but it's pretty terrible at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 14 points 2 years ago Im using Soulseek permalink fedilink source parent [–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (8 children) Orpheus for torrents, Usenet gets like 90% of the stuff out there though. And don't forget to sort your favorites bands but buying their albums when they provide them as FLAC. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] pudcollar@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* I made a XSPF format list of lossy versions, imported into qobuz and deezer using soundiiz, and downloaded from there using qobuz-dl and deemix, fwiw. Got about 1.2 TB this way permalink fedilink source parent [–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Look for the Redtopia torrent. About 6tb of flac albums and another half terabyte of .mp3s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Exusia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Where does one begin to find flac? I am taking the first steps beyond "finding a movie to play for free" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do you know a reliable tracker? I have lidarr set up to find lossless versions, but it's pretty terrible at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 14 points 2 years ago Im using Soulseek permalink fedilink source parent [–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (8 children) Orpheus for torrents, Usenet gets like 90% of the stuff out there though. And don't forget to sort your favorites bands but buying their albums when they provide them as FLAC. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] pudcollar@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* I made a XSPF format list of lossy versions, imported into qobuz and deezer using soundiiz, and downloaded from there using qobuz-dl and deemix, fwiw. Got about 1.2 TB this way permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (8 children) Orpheus for torrents, Usenet gets like 90% of the stuff out there though. And don't forget to sort your favorites bands but buying their albums when they provide them as FLAC. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
[–] pudcollar@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* I made a XSPF format list of lossy versions, imported into qobuz and deezer using soundiiz, and downloaded from there using qobuz-dl and deemix, fwiw. Got about 1.2 TB this way permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Look for the Redtopia torrent. About 6tb of flac albums and another half terabyte of .mp3s permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Where does one begin to find flac? I am taking the first steps beyond "finding a movie to play for free" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments load more comments (3 replies)
[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I use FLAC for albums I love and mp3s for everything else (including copies of the flacs in mp3). It's a nice balance. Fucking love my collection of music. I use Spotify as well, but nothing can compete with literally owning a music collection of my own I can listen to without the Internet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (7 children) This is the way. Also, FLAC for high bit rate audiophile vinyl rips. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children) I literally got goosebumps reading that. Take my Iron Maiden collection for example: I have mp3 versions of all albums. Different release versions of FLACs and then a vinyl FLAC collection as well. It's nice exploring the difference in sound, but somehow, vinyl always makes me feel the best. Man I miss what.cd. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I miss Oink's :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (7 children) This is the way. Also, FLAC for high bit rate audiophile vinyl rips. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children) I literally got goosebumps reading that. Take my Iron Maiden collection for example: I have mp3 versions of all albums. Different release versions of FLACs and then a vinyl FLAC collection as well. It's nice exploring the difference in sound, but somehow, vinyl always makes me feel the best. Man I miss what.cd. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I miss Oink's :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (6 replies)
[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children) I literally got goosebumps reading that. Take my Iron Maiden collection for example: I have mp3 versions of all albums. Different release versions of FLACs and then a vinyl FLAC collection as well. It's nice exploring the difference in sound, but somehow, vinyl always makes me feel the best. Man I miss what.cd. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I miss Oink's :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I miss Oink's :( permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) BUY ME BIGGER STORAGE BROTHER permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (5 children) looks at his 42TB NAS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago That's a lot of hip-hop 😂 permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies)
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (5 children) looks at his 42TB NAS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago That's a lot of hip-hop 😂 permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago That's a lot of hip-hop 😂 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Listen up, all you young whippersnappers and your FLAC collections, we downloaded our lossy but 'high enough quality' 128kbps mp3s from those IRC DCC Fserves back in the 90s using our dialup internet and we didnt complain! Unless of course someone picked up the house phone and caused our internet to disconnect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CentreForAnts@aussie.zone 4 points 2 years ago It's all about the 64kbps .wma's. I could fit so many songs on my 128mb mp3 player back in the day permalink fedilink source parent