Mozilla adds FLAC support decades after chrome does it

>mozilla adds FLAC support decades after chrome does it
>THIS IS THE FUTURE OF HIGH QUALITY AUDIO

Unless you can pass an ABX test (tell the difference) between 320kbps MP3, 192kbps Opus and lossless, post the log here, and you upload the files files that you tested (the FLAC, MP3 and Opus files) you're full of shit.

More importantly: What do you think that happened when VP9 was introduced? Did they raise the quality by keeping the same bitrate, or did they lower the bitrate to keep the same quality?

Other urls found in this thread:

hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112572/topicseen.html
my.mixtape.moe/kslmdz.flac
my.mixtape.moe/tqrsus.flac
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

VP9 video now lags on baytrail atoms

well played, israel, well played.

I should've known, bait rail

What is with you MP3 shills? Are you proud of inconsistency in sound?

You don't use FLAC for audio quality alone, you use it because you know for a fucking fact it sounds 100% like intended.

Lets see your .log for your MP3 rips that ensure 100% accuracy in rips.

even Internet Explorer has FLAC support

Is there anyone out there that listens to music in a goddamn web browser and gives a shit about that?

Just ripped 200+ songs from YouTube onto mp3.
Can't tell much difference between it and Spotify Premium's version.

Have a torrented 320 kbps mp3 to compare one song with. It's slightly better. That's all.

Will carry on enjoying my music now to the detriment of audiophile society. kthxtc

>mp3
lmao fucking luddites

Opus master race

>Just ripped 200+ songs from YouTube onto mp3
You're not very bright.

Doesn't sound very free

What else does one do for 200+ individual artists worth of songs?

You know, you could just have left them in the opus/aac file that they came in.

Grab format 22 if >128kbps. Otherwise 251.

AAC-HE 80 KBit/s is pretty epic.

Sounds like 128 to 160 KBit/s MP3, which is still shit, but if you need to compress lots of music for some shitty bluetooth speaker garden party it's good enough.

Because 80 KBit/s is extremely smol.

However, MP3 master race. MP3 is the vinyl of the digital music world.
Everything supports MP3, it's like FAT32. Even toasters can read it.

Tsk, you can make playlist and use youtube-dl to dl it

>caring so much that you train yourself to hear the difference between formats
I use opus

>

I don't want to run a line for each video. Have made a playlist and used a playlist downloader site out of desperation (long train journey tomorrow).

Is there a smarter alternative that I can run to rip all of it, perhaps from a playlist?

>Tsk, you can make playlist and use youtube-dl to dl it

literally
youtube-dl [URL Playlist]
and eventually
--extract-audio --audio-format

>Unless you can pass an ABX test (tell the difference) between 320kbps MP3, 192kbps Opus and lossless, post the log here, and you upload the files files that you tested (the FLAC, MP3 and Opus files) you're full of shit.

I use FLAC because it is archival quality and I never have to worry about whether the fag who made the mp3s ripped from his original disc or converted a 320k rip to 192k Opus. Having FLAC means I have the original disc, as far as music quality goes.

I can also convert it to V2 VBR for my portables, and save a lot of space and get great quality. Can't do that with 320kbps mp3 or 192k Opus - it would either take twice as much space, twice as bad sound output (lossy transcoded to lossy), or wouldn't be able to play (Opus has fuck all hardware support).

I don't give a fuck about ABX testing.

-i

What do you use to listen to music?

Thank you. It's very kind of you. I'll try not to be as noobish on this matter again.

>3.72MB for a short video with shit quality

what the actual fuck

I ripped 20 CDs to FLAC files just this afternoon. I honestly don't know why people are aroused by lossy formats. I'm not poor, then I can afford a decent amount of storage for keeping flac files and not having to worry about lack of storage anyways.

>192kbps opus
why

128 vbr opus is more than enough

I can't tell the difference between Lossless, MP3 v0, or vorbis q6.0 (192kbps), yet I have almost exclusively flaces.
It is because I use v0 and ogg everywhere but my computer, which is my main storage centre.
Is it only so that in the future, when better codecs will get created, I can start using it then.

>192 kbps Opus
don't have much faith do you?

I want to see an ABX between 96 kbps Opus and FLAC. It's possible, but I want to know if Sup Forums is capable of it.

everyone knows theres no audible difference between 320K mp3 and lossless, even on fairly good audio equipment
I still prefer FLAC if I can find it, since I've plenty space, but 320 mp3 is totally acceptable if its what I can find.
Anything under 320K MP3 though, even the mid 200s, god no.

It's really easy once you do a few tests and start understanding what every codec is weak on: high frequency sounds. Opus cuts shit off the 12.5-15.5KHz range and makes the 15.5-20KHz range inaccurate for some songs at that bitrate (easy to hear in an ABX test, but everything still sounds good, I use this bitrate for music on my phone)

This guy can hear the difference between Opus at high bitrates and lossless in one sample: hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112572/topicseen.html though I can't hear it myself even at 144kbps, which is the highest bitrate where I've passed ABX tests.

>flac browser support
for what reason?

I don't see the point in fighting mainstream FLAC support, it already has more hardware support than other open formats like ogg. Firefox having support just means you can upload flac files to mixtape.moe, share them and link them around. FLAC should be a first class citizen just like MP3 is.

>4MB for a shit quality 3 second gif
what the fuck is wrong with you

source

FLAC is fucking stupid for general use

it only makes sense in production and remastering

proponents tout it as 'lossless' but you are already dealing with a digitization of the true audio wave form: you already lost. For that reason it's equally good in terms of sound compared it a high quality lossy compressed audio file... and it's far far worse in terms of file size.

Therefore nobody should be using FLAC in the browser for your ping sound effect when you get a message or something like that. It's wasteful.

how does it feel to be deaf?

how does it feel to have downs syndrome?

Also AAC, but mostly this

litterally iqdb

...

see: steganography
see: cheese pizza

The important thing is FLAC's next step in replacing MP3 as the dominant normie format. They don't have or require 10k libraries in their phones, nor do they have remorse over watching a cat video on youtube in 1080p. The time for perfect audio is now.

I used to not care about audio quality that much. Ripped all my music from YouTube.

Then I got a used car, and the original owner upgraded it's audio to a Bose system. Holy shit did it make the YouTube rips sound like shit. I updated all my music (took months) to 320 mp3 and it sounds amazing.

Point is, if it sounds the same, it's because your speakers or headphones just aren't good enough. It's not autism or audiophilia.

>The important thing is FLAC's next step in replacing MP3 as the dominant normie format
no it's not

This whole pointless argument is akin to going into the Louvre with colored sunglasses on, walking around looking at Picasso, Monet, Van Gogh, Michelangelo... and thinking, yeah, good stuff. You're just not opening your brain to what's there.

sub v0 mp3 is not autism
flac is autism

Who plays FLAC in their web browser?

my.mixtape.moe/kslmdz.flac

>this triggers the firefags

I bet that you use cable levelers too.

Stop using outdated bloated shit.

Maybe the difference between flac and mp3 320 is noticeable to anyone with a sound system designed for a concert.

FLAC is fucking stupid for general use

it only makes sense in production and remastering

proponents tout it as 'lossless' but you are already dealing with a digitization of the true audio wave form: you already lost. For that reason it's equally good in terms of sound compared it a high quality lossy compressed audio file... and it's far far worse in terms of file size.

Therefore nobody should be using FLAC in the browser for your ping sound effect when you get a message or something like that. It's wasteful.

I've yet to met someone who can pass a double blind ABX test

...

Anime is called Kanokon. One of my favourites.

>a digitization of the true audio wave form: you already lost

Not really. You're getting 100% of what the microphone picked up. A microphone is an instrument too.

ty

stop reposting retard

I want to shag that wolf.

>You're getting 100% of what the microphone picked up
oh really? where do you get your stupid masters from?
kys familia

use webms instead of gifs
do it for her

Nozomu Ezomori
She is best grill fyi

Digitally mastered?

I want her to mark her territory by pissing on my face while Chizuru gives me paizuri.

shit, you're right. I am converting all my audio files to FLAC now.

meant studio masters
it was a typo
you're not getting everything the mic picked up is my point

MP3 VBR is fine. CBR 320 is shit: low performance, large file size, too lossy.

This is now a xebec appreciation thread

...

...

nigger do you really have to spam this shit in every thread

Literally different people

I wonder when they'll stop referring to 320kbit as --insane

More sample data isn't necessarily more quality, but compression is always compression. I'd rather have 44.1KHz flac than 192KHz opus

Never, because LAME is dead

>192KHz Opus
retard alert

LAME 3.100 will be released. Y-you'll see.

I use FLAC because I like to put Moon Man over some of the songs in my library and reupload so they can hear in the original quality without twice-encoding. It really gives a song a certain kkkick when used properly.

There is a place and time for FLAC and a place and time for anime. The place and time for FLAC is now and the place and time for anime is now.

my.mixtape.moe/tqrsus.flac

wtf i like flac now

I don't really care about web browser support for FLAC. I store my stuff in FLAC because hard drive space is cheap, and it's a kind of future proofing. What if I get better ears installed some day?

They still wouldn't hear a difference with your craphones

This
My car stereo can use wav and mp3 but not flac
Even stranger is that it has some convoluted thing where you can play music through USB from a ifone

Remember when OGG was the future?

Good times.

VP9 maxes out AMD's Puma+ cores too, whats your point?

AAC is good but OPUS is flat out superior to every mainstream lossy codec there is, especially in low bitrate situations.

The entire point of lossless compressed formats is that you can have a master file to convert to any other format for whatever the need. Instead of, for example, converting lossy 320k mp3 to lossy (format of choice), losing more quality in the process.

It's kind of comparable to using .png instead of resaving a .jpg a thousand times, but the degradation is much stronger.

320CBR is if you want a high shelf of quality retention, but in normal circumstances there was a cutoff in 19.5kHz (not sure if you're using LAME). That's the tradeoff for filesize.

In VBR (particularly V0, but again, OP isn't privy on details, you get less file size and more range but less quality throughout.

CAPTCHA: keck 4200

I'm a few minutes away from converting my ~20000 FLAC files to Vorbis q6 for my phone, am I doing the wrong thing?

Opus 128kbps vbr

>needing to transcode
That's why you use lossy. There's no reason to transcode since you're already lossy.

I'm not sure why people don't understand the idea of wanting to preserve and hear the original data 1:1. It's very simple if you stop dragging in all this unrelated emotional shit in that has little to do with the actual logical framework at work.

Either has packed data Sup Forums doesn't detect, or has been poorly compressed. Look at it in a hex editor and run it through gifsicle to see which. It's not uncommon to be able to improve the compression of a poorly encoded gif by 40-50%.

>not better than vorbis when bitrate is 128 or higher
>larger files for music with quiet places than vorbis
>no 44khz support
Seriously tho, why opus?

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUTIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMMMMM

Vorbis is better for music, esp.for bitrates higher than 128, whereas opus has artifacts noticeable in high quality record

What is he going to play it with on his phone?

A music player application?

Name one that supports opus

Poweramp alpha, foobar2k, Neutron, Aimp, GoneMad, VLC.

wtf i like firefox now

>CBR 320 is shit: low performance, large file size, too lossy.
>too lossy
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. 320kbps is the highest possible bitrate supported by MP3. V0, the highest possible vbr setting, will peak at 320kbps. 320cbr is constant 320kbps. By definition, it is less lossy than vbr.

That said, there is absolutely no reason to use 320cbr over V0 (or V2, really), because V0 is transparent at a smaller file size. You won't be able to ABX test V0 vs source any better than 320 vs source.