ITT We decide on the best audio format

What is the best audio format to use to listen to music Sup Forums?

Edison wax cylinders.

you haven't lived until you hear loveless on a music box

Playing the music in your head is the most patrician audio format

Does anyone regret not having lived when this was an actual argument? Physical media is completely obsolete, everyone just carries around these boring black rectangles that do everything

I haven't seen people carry Cassette players in years.

Opus

Best? FLAC
Most mobile? Streaming

Boooring

Legit question: do you guys really think FLAC sounds better? I honestly can't notice any difference.

It must be better because its a bigger file :^)

The difference isn't really noticeable on 99% of songs (for me atleast) but there definitely is one. Some audiophile will probably end up posting some convoluted chart to demonstrate why FLAC is OBJECTIVELY the best.

But what's the best way to play FLAC tracks? Aren't they not truly FLAC if they are in an mp3 player

i think yesterday we narrowed it down to edison cylinders or tefifon

Obviously it's the Tefifon we need to get so,e major artists to release albums on it, we need to revive the Tefifon

this

I only collect vinyl and cassette. But the majority of the time I listen to music it's streaming or .mp3

Is reel to reel any good?

CD > Vinyl > Casette, and I say this as a fact.

Feel_Good_Inc_Gorillas.mp3.jpg.exe

This.

I will say cassette's are pretty fun to collect, though.

Experiencing the musicians playing it live

I've got a FiiO X1 and there's a slight but noticeable difference between my mp3s and FLAC albums I have. Maybe on a phone or something it doesn't really make a difference.

I don't know, can any experts comment on this?

It's funny how CDs are actually the best but they're literally the least cool right now.

I find them just kind of boring compared to other formats, but CDs are defonetly way more interesting than a file or streaming

In what ways

Yes it could potentially be superior to vinyl if the tape speed is high enough and is sourced from the dub of the initial master (many reel2reels were not, and were inferior copies of copies). They are pretty rare but they used to be marketed to extreme audiophiles.

The music is more physical and you have artwork & packaging.

flacs are equal (or better) quality wise and vinyl has way better packaging

cds are a stupid middle ground

8-track

>Some audiophile will probably end up posting some convoluted chart to demonstrate why FLAC is OBJECTIVELY the best.
The numbers don't lie

Add digital files before CD because they don't have to be bound to Red Book limitations, and nobody buys SACD or DVD/Blu-ray Audio.

>flacs are equal
They are not physical
>vinyl
Not relevant

>comparing FLAC to 198 CBR
Anyways anything outside 20Hz - 20KHz is inaudible.

>he can't hear above 20k
kek

Is 8-track actually any good?

i notice a slight difference but i still prefer using v0 files usually so im not wasting storage

Good for power electronics releases

Apparently I can't hear above 19kHz.

Youtube, everything you need is on there. And you get visuals with it too.

...

>Implying your equipment is good enough to make a difference

8 - Track studio multitrack reel to reel

I'm in the same boat. I score 90% and higher on blind listening tests so apparently I'm some kind of freak that can -perceive- FLAC. I still use v0 for rips and 320cbr for downloads.

Yes I can hear the difference in my studio monitors

How about you?

I don't think flac really matters much from a listening perspective but I appreciate it from a preservation standpoint. distributing lossless audio instead of lossy rips of lossy rips of lossy rips over and over keeps music listenable and easier to track down in a high quality reproducible format, so digital audio doesn't get progressively worse like a terribly baked meme image that's been reposted 1000 times

I can't tell the difference from V0 and FLAC, but it's either because my equipment is bad, other than my STUDIO MONITORS, or I can't actually tell the difference.

Maybe you just can't tell the difference.

Right, but your graph doesn't specify a bit rate. You're just calling it MP3. I can tell the difference on lower MP3 bitrates, but between V0 and FLAC there's no difference.
I wouldn't keep FLAC for reasons other than archival purposes.

And I didn't mean the graph you just posted, obviously. I meant the spectral one that may or may not have been posted by you.

Cantata 700 only

>but your graph doesn't specify a bit rate.
Since it was a reply to a youtube comment, you should be able to use your logic and understand it's replying to youtube's standard bitrate of their streaming audio
>but between V0 and FLAC there's no difference.
There literally is a difference. Pic related, it's V0s

I know that objectively there's a difference. I was never arguing that.
>19kHz
Besides the data compression, it seems I'm good.

>Since it was a reply to a youtube comment
Yeah, sorry about that.

Are you being dishonest?

Laserdisc

Probably DBX Disk

Hello techmoan!

Boy I wish this technology had taken off. I mean, cassettes had NR, why not vinyl?

Stop falling for the CD meme. It's waves only reach to 40,000 while analog recordings reach 2,000,000. Sony has gotten digital a lot closer but has the system under an obscure patented model.

You guys are missing out.

I enjoy vinyl a lot, mostly due the ritualistic nature of it. However, I will say the sound quality can be very good, and unless the record is scratched or really dirty, the small clicks here and there are more endearing than anything. Compare a pop on a record to a scratched CD skipping in a player. No contest.

As for digital files, I don't bother with them unless I want to burn a CD to play in my car.

Analog as in Reel to Reel or what?

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.

You can still buy records. How you consume media is entirely up to you.
I grew up with records and tapes, and I still buy them. Don't be a "wrong generation" chump.

You're talking about 16bit PCM, right?
You do know it has a higher noise floor than Vinyl.

creepypasta

I have an OPPO DAC and AKG K712 Pro. Would I notice the difference between Mp3 or WAV/FLAC?

Also why is Flac superior to wave?

Higher or lower? Even analog master tapes barely reach equivalent to 13-bit depth in a good day

>Also why is Flac superior to wave?

Because FLAC is compressed losslessly, meaning that it's lighter than uncompressed WAV while being the same quality

I meant lower. Or that Vinyl has the higher noise floor.

Wouldn't you want something to have no compression at all so it stays closest to the original?

I'm blanking out on the name but i think it's SDDS

It's data compression. Since it's not lossy, the same audio comes out of your speaker, the file just happens to be a lot smaller with FLAC. WAV (PCM) stores every sample exactly as it is, while FLAC compresses it, and when decoding you can get back the exact same WAV file.

yea

CD waves at this moment still are formed by jagged lines and squares. there's no smooth curve like reel to reel

>SDDS
It's digital. But it seems like it has a higher bit depth.

That's what I said. It's the closest digital has gotten to analog's levels

>jagged lines and squares
That's what low pass filters are for.
Oh, as a physical format? I'm pretty sure floating point is also very good, as long as you have a decent bit depth.

so TLDR; flac is the same quality as wav. but smaller in size?

Yes. It stores the same information in less space. That's why it's called lossless since it doesn't lose information.

>everyone just carries around these boring black rectangles that do everything
>boring black rectangles that do everything
>do everything

You realize how unbelievably amazing that is, right? You can literally listen to ANY form of media, at any time, at any place, in any quality. If you showed this to people from the past, they would flip their shit and toss out every vinyl they own. Not mention, most people who say phones are boring are the same people who don't actually have to use vinyl on a regular basis. Want to hear that same song again? Guess you either have to listen to the whole album once over, or scrub about with the needle. Fuck all that shit. The romance that vinyl once had is gone. The romance has moved to the modern age.

Objectively speaking, the best audio format to listen to is lossless audio, like FLAC. You get studio quality with zero compromise. You don't have to worry about a warped vinyl, or worn cassette, or CD skips.

I'm such an autist.

>>reddit

DAT
A
T

Paying the band exorbitant quantities of money to play their songs for you every time you want to hear any song is the most patrician way to listen to music at home

Minidisc 4 life

>that losses due to no cables therefore no lost electrons.

>do you guys really think FLAC sounds better? I honestly can't notice any difference.
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.

>not having a bard

>I want to meme myself into overpaying for a physical format that's objectively inferior to CDs
Vinyl

>My car is 20+ years old
8-track or cassette.

>Vinyl is too mainstream, I need to go maximum hipster
Minidisc or reel-to-reel.

>I want a physical format that I can take pretty much anywhere and works in my car
CD.

>I'm constantly on the go and either have a good amount of storage on my smart phone or have a good data plan
Digital.

...

pleb

>Butthurt

I only use PlayTapes

who are you quoting?