FLAC is the best audio format

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

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.

>audiophiles

Nigga I just use Spotify for Linux, and pay $10 a month for access to the high quality version of every song I could ever possibly want... I also get to keep a local offline copy on every device I own

Who the fuck still has a music collection in 2016

rm -rf ~/Music

It's technically not as good as FLAC. It's apparently as good or virtually as good, but not technically.

>paying for music
>paying spotify

>being poor

Sorry but $10 is the equivalent of ten minutes of my time

You're poor.

>letting big daddy charge you 10$per cd for shitty music

>all the more time to shitpost on Sup Forums!

Spotify's too expensive, you're right. Better invest in a NAS for that music collection, and start working out a plan for backups, and maybe get working on your application for that private tracker

>'free'

that's not wav

>velocidensity

These kind of threads and posts make me think that most of the please around her use Spotify and such paid service to show off.
Now, you just claimed that Spotify > Flac files, which is just ridiculous. Also, botnet but who cares, 10$ is 10min of work.

>Trying to correct an obvious troll
Seriously, what were you hoping to achieve?

>look mom I'm projecting
typical poorfag

>sperging out
Stop being in denial

>POOOOOOOOOR

Nice pasta :^)

>being so pleb to be able to find all the music you want on spotify

>the music I can listen to is dictated by what's on someone else's server
>b-but I can download it
>implying you do
>implying you didn't rm -rf ~/Music

>paying for something you can get for free
>2016
shiggy

Actually FLAC files are more susceptible to over time degrading than 320kbps mp3's are. Random bit flips and silent data corruption does sometimes happen and is more likely the larger the file size, unless you are protecting yourself against this with something like RAID-Z of course

PCM WAV is the best format you retard

Yeah, after it is compressed with reference libFLAC.

We could also pit in AIFF, MAUD and 8/16SVX but nobody uses those so...

> mfw reading OP

fucking neckbeards retards

>every song I could ever possibly want
>my taste is shit

The amount of people who havent seen this pasta before worries me...

Hahahahaha, spotify only had 60% of my library, spotify and iTunes are the goyims of music.
Pay 10$ every month to listen to music with 30% better quality than YouTube for 1 month.
Or pay

>Hahahahaha, spotify only had 60% of my library, spotify and iTunes are the goyims of music.
Not only that, but they constantly remove music because they lose the rights.

Why would I ever pay for this crap?

>Spotify only covers ~30% of the music that exists in this world,
I bet it's lower.

It's probably

saying spotify is good and you're poor because you can't afford it doesn't make sense

that's like saying netflix is OK when you rip off mkv torrents in 60fps

FLAC is superior to all, even wav which doesn't support tagging. I've had some fortune CD library collections ripped for jazz musicians, people actually do checks on this using conversion software and then comparing files.

In summary, I did this:

alac --> wav --> alac --> wav --> flac --> wav

All of the wav files are identical

The entire chain is not in exactly the same state when each format is playing. So an audible difference is possible even if not at all likely. It is possible some players do show a difference.

However all the digital bits output to a dac from any of the lossless formats will be EXACTLY the same. All of the lossless formats can be converted between each other with no change in the audio stream. The only changes will be tagging compatibility.

If you really wanted to be weird about it; rip everything as ISO and use a drive emulator to play all your music as virtual versions of your original CDs.

this

Spotify is for poorfags and will always be.
It costs less than a music album per month at its most expensive plan.

If you think by using Spotify you're not ripping off artists, you're kidding yourself.

I steal music, burn it to CD and then let the arists sign them at live shows.

And this is better than paying for Spotify in every way, because 90% ends up wasted by those Swedish hipster cucks.

this

Buying their album once gives them more money than constantly listening to their music for 3 months so...
Taking in mind that out of the 10$ you spend on Spotify each month, if you solely listen to one band on Spotify, the band gains 1$ for one month compared to the 3$ ( in case you paid 5$ ) directly. Most companies goes by 60/40 standard so.

Yung Lean is Swedish, maybe hipster but definetely not cuck

...