Currently convering my 580GB all FLAC library to ogg

>currently convering my 580GB all FLAC library to ogg
honestly question why i thought lossless was a good idea

Other urls found in this thread:

recording.org/threads/oversampling-explained.48087/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>i thought lossless was a good idea
What's wrong with it?

Are ogg and opus basically the same thing?
All if my music is opus, no complaints
Xbox hueg files for 'better quality' that 1% of people can hear

>Converting to deprecated ogg
>Not superior Opus
Waste of power.

FLAC are for archive, Ogg/Opus/m4a are for listening. If you can ear frequencies above 21kHz you are an idiotphile/placebo. With the lastless codecs at an high biterate: no difference.

But lossless is great.
Listening to it is cool (assuming you have good audio gear), but the main advantage is that you can convert it to lossy formats to listen to your favourite tracks on portable devices without noticable drops in quality.

Also, a 1TB HDD is like $60.

Ogg is a container. Vorbis is what you were probably refering to. If your receiver can decode Opus, use it.

>not converting to lossless instead
enjoy your quality loss

.ogg is a container. Vorbis (which is what most people mean when saying ogg) and Opus are compression formats, both of which can be stored in .ogg files.

>Are ogg and opus basically the same thing?
No, ogg is a file container storing mostly Vorbis audio which isn't the same as Opus.
>Xbox hueg files
No way around that, lossless media takes space no matter how you try to compress it. FLAC is quite good at compression.
>for 'better quality'
It is better quality, it is lossless.
>that 1% of people can hear
Nobody can hear when the comparison is a good lossy encode* It's not about getting audibly better quality unless you totally fuck up your encodes or are purposefully encoding audio where the encoder used fails.

Nobody has a golden ear which can tell the faintest levels of file compression without rigorous training to do just that. It's a learned trait, not some inherited hearing anomaly or a feat of your audio gear.

Most adults fail at 19 KHz or below. This isn't where the important bits in music lie or where you start to hear the quantizer fail and nasty file compression artefacts. Frequencies this high are very easily masked away if the audio band below it has some information.

>Are ogg and opus basically the same thing?
No. Opus has lower latency and smaller filesizes than ogg vorbis.

Opus is basically what is supposed to be the new upgraded ogg vorbis. It's made by the same people.

>Listening to it is cool (assuming you have good audio gear), but the main advantage is that you can convert it to lossy formats to listen to your favourite tracks on portable devices without noticable drops in quality.
Or I just keep it in lossy without noticeable drops in quality without the need of requiring more hard drives.

>Most adults fail at 19 KHz or below
I know but I don't want triggered delusional people who claim they can.

So you're telling me you haven't installed a supertweeter into your system?

>'better quality' that 1% of people can hear
>Nobody can hear when the comparison is a good lossy encode
you either have shit hearing or you're using shit listening equipment
>If you can ear frequencies above 21kHz you are an idiotphile/placebo.
>people think lossless audio is preferred because it has more high frequency material
honestly just look it up instead of writing any more shit

no, I'm a cat :3

>honestly just look it up instead of writing any more shit
I'm russian

You do what you want.
If you feel that lossless music isn't worth the space it takes, convert it to lossy.
But don't fuck up the encoding.
Be also aware that if you need to reconvert from that lossy source (eg. Opus -> AAC), you'll degrade the quality again.

>speakers able to reproduce audio at frequencies higher that 22kHz are useless
>what is aliasing
I'll spoonfeed you even - recording.org/threads/oversampling-explained.48087/
are you using that as an excuse to write stupid stuff on the internet?

Do you troll?

Look, people used to listen to music on pic related. If you NEED perfect flac to enjoy music, you probably don't even like music that much to begin with.

>you either have shit hearing or you're using shit listening equipment
I think I already covered that file compression artifacts are very poorly related to both of these, disregarding extreme examples such as deaf people or highly distorting narrow band loudspeakers in reverberant space.

I think you have never tried to compare a high quality lossy file into a lossless one in an environment where you aren't constantly under numerous of cognitive biases.

Do you think aliasing is in some way related to loudspeaker HF extension?

>people think lossless audio is preferred because it has more high frequency material

It is.

GO KILL YOURSELF NOW

It certainly can be, both in listening and in production. However you do not need lossless files to achieve transparency in listening.

>I think you have never tried to compare a high quality lossy file into a lossless one in an environment where you aren't constantly under numerous of cognitive biases.
I have and I could tell the lossless file from the lossy compressed one some 8 times out of 10
>Do you think aliasing is in some way related to loudspeaker HF extension?
no the speaker thing was separate, I should have phrased it differently
>It is.
I mean it can be, but it's far from being the only thing
>I can't hear the difference so everybody who claims to be able to is trolling

i keep everything i know i'll listen to decades from now in flac, rest in ogg

Yeah I'm not getting anything but bunch of annoying shit by having it lossless. I know I can't hear a diff unless I focus an awkward amount with side by side comparisons.. and that's only for specific tracks

>FLAC are for archive, Ogg/Opus/m4a are for listening.
If you keep FLAC for archiving, why not listen to it too? Converting it to something else just wastes even more space.

>8 times out of 10
Statistically pretty irrelevant. Why did you fail every fifth time? Lossy file can be anything from extreme potato GSM call quality of very high quality full band audio. Codecs act different on different audio content, settings and bitrate. There are multiple encoders for common codecs such as mp3 or AAC alone with some pretty significant quality differences. If you ever decide to do a simple ABX again, use Opus with compression level 10 and 128 kbps bitrate. You could be surprised.

Frequencies above 20 kHz are useless

You can listen sounds higher than 20kHz?

Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well.

>honestly thought you had hardware good enough

flac

>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well
>live in 1999

The MP3

>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well
The AAC

>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well
The Vorbis/ogg

Maybe you should question why are you spending hours downgrading quality of your music.

Lossless source material please...

>currently convering my 580GB all FLAC library to OPUS

FTFY you moron.

>spending hours
I spend about 1minute to start the batch conversion, actually. Well, few minutes more as I had to google how to copy the mp3s as windows command line is like japanese to me
yeah converting to opus 196, thanks Sup Forums

From Discogs.com

Storage space.

>I spend about 1minute to start the batch conversion
Put the goalpost back.

Is never a problem.

>Lossy codecs degrade audio below 20 kHz as well

The Opus

UUUU

what they werent even placed initially, it takes me a few minutes never said otherwise

What's this supposed to prove?

>he thinks the loudness of frequencies denotes the level of quality
Oh user...

New lossy codecs DON'T degrade audio below 20 kHz

>Xbox hueg files for 'better quality' that 1% of people can hear
Only retards seek FLAC for that reason. Lossless is for archival.

I keep my shit on my PC as FLAC, but convert to something else more lightweight for my phone.

Can you elaborate please?

The source

You can't tell how good the quality of a song is by looking at a spectrogram.

So it's your feeling? You don't trust spectrograms?...seriously

If the frequencies top out like that, different parts of the audio track will no longer have the correct volume relative to other parts that did not top out. It absolutely does indicate quality.

>580GB
>FLAC
What's it like listening to the same 20 songs over and over?

Yeah but the bitrate is still a third of what it originally was. There is obviously a loss of quality.

This is the most retarded thing I've read all day

Nevermind, I thought I was looking at something quite different from that.

>converting flac to ogg
What the fuck does this even mean?

Do you mean Vorbis or Opus?

back when i followed anything audio related at all opus didnt exist so there was no ambiguity

>Yeah but the bitrate is still a third of what it originally was

Not related

I converted some flac albums to max quality aac using fraunhofer fdk aac and did a blind test with a friend as help
my guess is that the pieces I couldn't discern simply were very highly compressed (dynamic range compression), simple stuff
>these spectrograms look very roughly the same so the audio will sound the same
do you honestly believe yourself?
I understand you might not hear a difference, but even if you can't, your reasoning is very idiotic - try compressing something to a 192kbps mp3 and then compare spectrograms, these too will look roughly the same but will sound noticeably (I hope to you too) different
so you're saying that reduction in size from a flac file to an aac file is only discarding audio info over 20kHz?

>580GB on a phone

>Lossless is for archival
Where did that meme come from? From rotational velocidensity? Every phone and player supports FLAC. I understand converting to save space, but this phrase is utterly ridiculous.

not him but lossless is for archiving while lossy is for using.
it's the same for video and for images.
imagine if in 20 years a different format is gonna be #1 and you want to switch to it
your options are
>convert your lossy to the new lossy (fucking casual)
or
>convert your lossless to the new lossy (A E S T H E T I C)

>192kbps mp3 = 320kbps mp3

Nigger what?

>removing higher frequencies doesn't affect the sound
You mean Fourier transform is obsolete and you can safely remove all overtones?! Quick, grab dem Nobels.

>hey guys the size is bigger so thats better XDDDD

'Audiophiles' are the most stupid people on earth

...

>files with more DSP applied are better than files with less DSP
Synapses status: stimulated.

>imagine if in 20 years
yeah, and in those 20 years you could've had a lot more space if you just converted to lossy right away

>paying 60 dollaridoos for 1 terabyte
You shouldnt be paying any more than $35/terabyte

You didn't even understand what I said. The waveform is affected by all frequencies, including those you don't hear.

this shithead only wanted to point out he heard of fourier, congrats

You won't understand why we use FLAC until you'll start having to transcode all of your opus files to another codec in the future

Well, saying you're converting from a codec to a container is meaningless regardless.
Like saying "I converted these gifs into mkv".

>The waveform is affected by all frequencies, including those you don't hear.
Yes, and all of the frequency components you don't hear result in overtones at frequencies you can't hear either

Genius

ah so if I understand what you're saying, the spectrogram of a 320kbps mp3 would look the same as the spectrogram of an uncompressed file, and the spectrogram of a 192kbps mp3 wouldn't
well try that yourself and see if you're right
be sure not to use a log scale for the y axis as well, you wouldn't want to be able to see any change in the frequencies below 1kHz
>people who are able to enjoy high quality stuff are stupid
>also ferrari's are snake oil, my fiat 500 full optional is just as good, btw I'm 16 and have only driven 3 cars in my life
>The waveform is affected by all frequencies, including those you don't hear.
and you are saying that, with everything else being equal and without distortion from too high levels and with equipment capable of perfectly reproducing everything, a 1kHz sine and a sum of a 1kHz sine and a 40kHz sine would sound different to a human?

>a 1kHz sine and a sum of a 1kHz sine and a 40kHz sine would sound different to a human?
Yes. And to perfectly reproduce music you need an infinite number of sine waves.
Clueless.

>all overtones
Why should I care if 44100 Hz is enough for all the audible frequencies

>people who are able to enjoy high quality stuff are stupid

(you)

forget the pic

>Yes.
I'm with the other guy that's going for no, but please do tell me how and why it would be different and make me learn something today
>to perfectly reproduce music you need an infinite number of sine waves.
>you need an infinite number of sine waves.
what?
you read this as well - recording.org/threads/oversampling-explained.48087/
>but what does it matter if I'm only listening to stuff and not recording it?
depending on how the original material is downsampled you may incur in artifacts, aliasing for example
apart from that it's useless to go higher than 44.1kHz, but that's hardly the advantage of lossless audio

>be sure not to use a log scale for the y axis as well, you wouldn't want to be able to see any change in the frequencies below 1kHz

It's the same because lower frequencies take less size than treble on the files. That's how lossy work.

well if you don't have the space to archive shit you don't archive shit

it's not that hard

>artifacts
please stop

>how
The amplitude will change differently.
>what
Are you a dropout?

>people who are able to enjoy high quality stuff are stupid

Good Goy

>It's the same
the percieved difference between 17 and 18kHz is much less than the difference between 0.2 and 1.2kHz, which is why, if one was doing something so stupid as comparing the look of spectrograms thinking they will have a correlation with compression artifacts (beyond the plain removal of material at a certain frequency), one might want to have a close look at the frequencies below 2kHz as well

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact
>The amplitude will change differently.
the signal amplitude will be reflected in a change of pressure at the same frequency that will be unnoticeable to the human ear tho
>Are you a dropout?
now you're changing the subject
why are you even posting the pic of a square wave when my example was about two sine waves, and why would you mention you need to be able to reproduce an infinite number of sine waves (I'm guessing you were missing the "to reproduce" part) when I made an example concerning two sines
I mean you are right but what does that have to do with anything?
why are you not considering everything in between €20 headphones connected to an integrated soundcard and €20k tube power amps plugged into €50k speakers with 5cm thick gold-core cables?

why would i want to do that

>the signal amplitude will be reflected in a change of pressure at the same frequency that will be unnoticeable to the human ear tho
Wrong. Ears percieve the waveform, not individual frequencies - this is precisely why effects like "missing fundamental" are possible.
>why would you mention
Read my post again, you need an infinite sines for MUSIC, not for two sine waves.

>you need an infinite number of sines
fuck off, we aren't trying to analytically replicate it and you need a very finite amount to make it guaranteed indistinguishable to human ears

>good enuf for me!
Sure. It IS possible, but cutting out frequencies is just asking for trouble.

>but cutting out frequencies is just asking for trouble.
Not if they are literally inaudible, you don't need your television to show you infrared either

/thread

You learned absolutely nothing. Wow.

>Lossless is for archival purposes*
>Lossless is for archiving*
>Lossless is for archives*