Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?

Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?

Other urls found in this thread:

whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/
onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Nyquist_sampling_theorem
xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I convert my MP3s to flacs so I can get better audio

If you can't tell the difference, why not?

I don't want to be that person.

Thats genius user, doing this now!

>deprecated mp3 for storage opus
Is this bait?

Opus you nigger.

>retards from Sup Forums actually believe this

instead of opus*

>Opus
Isn't this for streaming?

128kbps vbr opus is pretty transparent and half the size of a mp3 v0

something something rotational velocidensity

No, but one could wonder why you're even downloading FLAC in the first place, you can get MP3 encodes with full logs...

i think some of mine are mp3s converted to flac. is there a way to find this out?

you just need to decompress them like zip

Listen with your eyes.

And by that i mean check it with something like spek

whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/

>Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?
Not at all, just make sure you choose a low bitrate, so you get that warm, rich crackling sound.

>Is it wrong to convert my flacs to mp3 for storage purposes?

Yes, because storage is cheap and there is no way you have so many songs that the only way to store them is to compress them.

so like this ?
right one is not really flac?

it is, if there's nothing @ the top is the red flag

That's funny.

I personally like converting my mp3's to flac and then torrenting them!

Doing Sup Forumsod's work, user.

Both are fine. Not all FLACs look the same.

You need to look for shelves (rough but we'll defined lines near 18 kHz) in the song

Just buy moar hard drives

thanks bunches

Jesus christ, I had no idea MP3 was so bad.

>160kbps mp3
well no shit

Opus is better anyway.

The Vorbis file is only 128k. MP3 has way less frequency range even at a higher bitrate. How embarrassing.

If storage space is the concern, consider Vorbis instead.

It's a libre audio format that compresses better than lame.

MP3 is deprecated.

>but muh compatibility
This stopped being an issue in 2015.

>MP3 is deprecated.
brb converting mp3s to opus

Good taste in animu music senpai.

are u talking about?

>Lossy to lossy

anything at or above an MP3 at 256kbps or so and it's extremely unlikely anyone can tell the difference. by the time you hit your 20's, your ears are already shot beyond hearing things above 14khz. CD quality is probably already beyond the range of the hearing of any of us on this board.

if we're talking classical music, or maybe orchestral shit, sure, go nuts. but your fall out boy discography will sound exactly the same as decently encoded mp3s, and sadly, now most mainstream music (yes, even your super obscure indie fuck band) is now mastered to sound good on earbuds and mp3s.

Flac is a placebo, if the format is flac then believe they are the flac

Now you wish you had saved flac

Yes, you should be converting them to Opus instead.

>is pretty transparent
is transparent*

It's a general-purpose codec.

It can be low latency for streaming or high latency for efficiency.

>96 kHz
why?

>right one is not really flac?
It says “FLAC” right there in the image. Are you fucking blind?

FLAC iS FOR ARCHIVING AUDIO WITHOUT LOSS OF QUALITY
IT IS NOT BETTER FOR LISTENING
FLAC EXISTS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO LOSSY > LOSSY CONVERTING WHEN THE WORLD MOVES ON FROM MP3 TO OPUS

>PLEASE DON'T LISTEN TO FLAC, IT'S NOT ALLOWED, ONLY EVER LISTEN TO MY SHITTY LOSSY FORMAT FLAVOR OF THE WEEK

Nah cunt, I'll just listen to lossless audio.
Even better, I'll have it ALAC too, because iTunes is fucking great.

Problem gov?

>192 MHz
for what purpose?

Can anyone here actually distinguish flac from high rate mp3? I keep a lot of flac for the best stuff, but I could never really tell them apart.

>Can anyone here actually distinguish flac from high rate mp3?
Assuming the MP3 was properly encoded? No, nobody here can

most built in soundcards cuts at 20khz
so no need for flacs

>2016
>still using built in
Yeah, nah, I'd rather not listen to my mouse moving or fans RPM signal.

>He bought a shit PSU
lmao enjoy your rosewill ticking time bomb

No. You can't expect them to sound any better though they will last for as long as you want them to.

AX760

>Replacing the word "free" with "Apple"

Listening pleasure.

44.1hz is like 23.976hz - the outdated bare minimum required for good entertainment that some old fogeys won't let go because nostalgia and fear of change.

but the human eye can't see more than 16 fps

onlinetonegenerator.com/hearingtest.html

How high can you hear?

we can atleast all agree that 96 and 192khz is a meme
and actually gives worse quality than 44khz

Left doesn't have any frequencies over ~20k, could be due to mp3.

The human eye doesn't see in frames period.

Why are you linking me this?
It wouldn't matter if I could only hear to 10khz, sample rate doesn't define either static nor dynamic range of audio...

Just convert the mp3 back to flac if you need the flac again.

One great reason to get an i7 or xeon is the ability to convert to flac and back to mp3 in realtime while listening to your music.

Different guy. 29 years old.

At my usual listening level (~1/10th output) I can hear up to ~17kHz, if I increase the volume to a level that would drown out all background noise (~3/10ths) I can hear up to 18.5kHz. I don't usually listen to anything louder.

Higher sample rates equal worse quality.

Fact.

if you convert mp3 to mp4 and then back to mp3 and repeat with same "quality" settings will there be any artifacts like resaving jpg images?

>It wouldn't matter if I could only hear to 10khz, sample rate doesn't define either static nor dynamic range of audio...
Sampling rate defines the range of representable frequencies

No more, no less

Vacuum tubes also equal worse equality yet some people prefer them for aesthetic reasons or due to the placebo effect. (Mostly the latter)

It's pretty much the same with high frequency audio, except for the part where aesthetic effects are negligible. Nonetheless, even a pure placebo effect is still not to be discounted. If you can trick the human brain into enjoying the same thing more, you've accomplished your goal of making it sound better.

I don't have much of a problem with audiophiles in principle due to this. It's only when they try and find scientific reasons for it sounding better (other than the placebo effect) that I get annoyed.

>Sampling rate defines the range of representable frequencies
No it doesn't, at all.

It defines how OFTEN a sample is taken.
Sample Rate in Audio == Frame Rate in Video

I'd like to see a peer reviewed source for this 'fact'.
I'll wager any source you have is subjective analysis by someone who would equally believe that 'The Hobbit' in 48fps was bad since it wasn't 'cinematic'

>'The Hobbit' in 48fps was bad since it wasn't 'cinematic'
hobbit in 48fps was bad because the perception of motion and sorrounding is radically different than in 24fps movie.

48fps movies demand a lot less camera movement or even camera being entirely stationary and more theatre-like approach from the actors

>No it doesn't, at all.
Yes it does, completely.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Nyquist_sampling_theorem

>I'd like to see a peer reviewed source for this 'fact'.
xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

>Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

tl;dr it's demonstrably true that increasing the sampling rate degrades fidelity

>Sample Rate in Audio == Frame Rate in Video
Your eyes don't see in frequencies

Your ears hear in frequencies

The two are incomparable

If you're transferring it onto a device with a small amount of storage or something it's not wrong. If you don't care about having the original files, archival etc... Sure knock yourself out. If you pay for flacs and just keep mp3s you're a retard though.

>Your eyes don't see in frequencies
oh... wow.
Learn2light son...

>tl;dr it's demonstrably true that increasing the sampling rate degrades fidelity
Indeed it is, it always has and always will be, however the quality of amplifiers in 2016 is better than the quality of amplifiers in 1970 or 1990 or even 2005.
The quality of ADCs and DACs have improved too, hell we even have semi digital amplifiers and even fully digital to the output stage digital amplifiers now...

Should we hold back audio just becuase something at one point in time was 'good enough' or that going any higher at that time was 'bad' since regular equipment wouldn't handle it as well?

Should we not have moved from 1024x768 because 17" CRTs were slightly blurry at 1600x1200? Even though better CRTs came and then were replaced by LCDs?

>Learn2light son...
Visible light is on the order of several THz. Your 24 Hz signals have nothing to do with this.

>Indeed it is, it always has and always will be, however the quality of amplifiers in 2016 is better than the quality of amplifiers in 1970 or 1990 or even 2005.
But even in 2016 adding ultrasonics degrades quality therefore the rest of your post is invalid

We're not adding ultrasonic audio though.

You are again confusing sample rate with actual audio simply because both use Hertz.

>Visible light is on the order of several THz. Your 24 Hz signals have nothing to do with this.
Also it's funny because I don't see you claiming to be able to perceive infrared or ultraviolet light, yet you claim to be able to perceive ultrasonic audio.

>We're not adding ultrasonic audio though.
You can only hear up to 20 kHz though, therefore everything above it is ultrasonic. Feel free to disprove this and demonstrate your mastery of the waveforms, though.

>Vacuum tubes also equal worse equality

It's apparent you don't know what harmonic distortion is...

You're very confused.

>however the quality of amplifiers in 2016 is better than the quality of amplifiers in 1970 or 1990 or even 2005.

One word:

"No".

>by the time you hit your 20's, your ears are already shot beyond hearing things above 14khz

uh, that's a low figure
not all of us spent our entire youth listening to pneumatic drills up close

to back up your music ? no.
to put it on a device without a lot of storage like a phone ? yes.

I convert my mp3s to FLAC because FLAC respects my freedoms

>It's apparent you don't know what harmonic distortion is...
Solid state amplifiers in 2016 will beat any of your vintage tubes by an order of magnitude or more in every statistic you can be bothered to measure.

I think what he was trying to say is that yes, vacuum tube amps are imperfect, but their imperfections distort in a way that many people like.

I think, but then again this is Sup Forums - they could just be a fucknugget that thinks hurr vacuum tube amp == 100% perfect amplifier

it really doesn't matter if you're listening to awful shit anyway

>...vintage tubes...

I'm still using a "budget" amplifier (cost around £800) manufactured in Germany by Harman Kardon in 1987. It's a solid state integrated amplifier and has a better noise floor than today's consumer hifi audio products.

You get what you pay for.

>You get what you pay for.
Yep. You pay for placebo, you get placebo.

>and has a better noise floor
Does it have a noise floor of -110 dB so you can distinguish between the sound of falling snow next to a jackhammer at 1m distance?

>I think what he was trying to say is that yes, vacuum tube amps are imperfect, but their imperfections distort in a way that many people like.
But then he wouldn't be in disagreement with

you'd be amazed at what people argue over when in fact they agree on something

Reminds me of my friend that back in the napster days could find some songs only in mp3 128, and converted them to 320 for better quality, saying "music is a curve, if you add kbit/s you add points to that curve, so quality is better"

The sad thing is that grown men in 2016 still believe digital audio works this way

I bet they also upscale all of their 1080p videos to 4K to make them look better on their 1080p monitors

>Yep. You pay for placebo, you get placebo.

You can measure an amps noise floor.

You numpty.

>download MP3 album from KAT
>put some inaudible noise in the upper frequency range
>makes spectrograms look like they're actually FLAC
>upload to what.cd
>FLAC autists making comments like "Wow this quality is amazing"
Been doing this for years, never been caught. FLAC is a placebo and you retards fall for it ever time.

>what is EMC

you've been also using the same shitty bait for years user.

>It's measurable, therefore it's audible
Keep on defending your $800 placebo that you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a $50 product in a double blind listening test

Please go back to /ptg/

No. But use VBR