/int/ - International

FLAC. I even ripped all my Black Metal demo rapes to FLAC. Size is no problem these days.

>>17130 tapes, I meant tapes.

>>17130 >Black Metal demo rapes

>>17130 Maybe not on your computer, but if you want to have your library on the phone file size still matters.

>>17138 Phones have 128gb and more these days. That's plenty space for FLACs, even 64GB...

>>17096 192-320 kbps mp3 from torrents.

>>17139 My library in flac would be something like 2TB.

>>17173 And thats like 1 album.

>>17139 >That's plenty space for FLAC But for what purpose? Why?

>>17173 Why would you need your whole library on the phone? >>17196 To not have the hassle of converting.

>>17197 What converting, Bernd? It's music files, you store them and listen them, not convert them.

>>17198 I don't know how it is for other Bernds, but I get my music from torrents in FLAC, then I'd have to convert it to other lossy formats to use on other devices.

>>17200 Why not just download mp3 and not waste time on converting?

>>17196 ROFL LITERALLY ME. Still using the 200 Schilling soundboxes from 2001.

>>17202 Multiple reasons: some music isn't available as mp3, only in FLAC. Also to be future proof: as FLAC is lossless, I will always be able to encode from it to the best lossy codec that is the hot shit right now, so if in two years some much more efficient codec would drop I could just use the lossless source, transcoding from lossy to lossy like I would have to do with mp3 is bad. And third, it's not always clear how the mp3 were encoded/created that ones downloads, whether the best settings and encoder were used etc., I prefer to do it myself, because then I know what I get.

>>17200 I have bad news for you: if your devices can't play FLAC, they are probably pieces of shit.

Opus, it's like alien technology from the future how good it is. Though, I'm not sure if it's an acquired taste, if there are moderate artifacts, I find the ones from the MPEG family (MP3 and AAC) family the least objectionable. Vorbis seems to make the sound kind of dry and dull when it's not transparent. I'm not sure what Opus artifacts sound like because that requires seriously low bitrate :3

Wave from cd-rips or flac dls converted to wave. Fiddle with sound, fade outs, etc until happy. Then convert end product to mp3 320 constant for multi-device compatability. * classical piano and other reverb-needy pieces stay in wave. t. desktop/mp3 player

>>17200 Which device doesn't play FLAC? Phones do (Android at least), most portable players do (I use a Cowon btw.) and every computer does. Maybe the car stereo?

>>17220 We were in a discussion about storage, which is why some Bernds avoid FLAC, its not about compatibility

>>17222 Why would one need his whole library on a portable device? It's like installing 1000 games on Steam.

mp3s I think this whole Spiel about audio formats and shit is just a waste of time and it's the epitome of diminishing returns

Fight me, but I left my harddrives full of ripped mp3s from my youth in a dry closet for years and nowadays 100% stream stuff from Spotify. My musical taste is obscure, but not obscure enough to not be hosted by the service. When it comes to formats, Bernd, who is a hobby musician and festival enthusiast for a good while (don't wanna brag, but neither I want to hear "You're just an NPC fuck off) found that .ogg ist nearly indistinguishable from .wave/.flac at ~192kbps. Zero difference. Try it out yourself. Feed two channels into Audacity with different codes, switch phases and listen to the difference. If the tiny hiss you hear which is not even distinguishable is the proof that only wave is the true format, seek help.

>>17197 >Why would you need your whole library on the phone? To have options. I like to be able to listen to whatever I feel like in the moment.

>>17224 That’s like every streaming service works. The appeal is that you can access any track no matter how obscure any moment you want. If you want to replicate that with local files, you need a big library.

>>17243 Thx! I gave up on ogg early on, mostly due to playback issues with downloaded yt ogg (opus) videos. But it looks like the better format choice. >OGG offers better sound quality at similar bitrates and is a free, open-source format, while MP3 is a proprietary format with universal compatibility but lower audio quality and potential licensing issues. For a smaller file size with comparable quality, OGG is often the better choice if your device supports it; MP3's main advantage is its widespread support across nearly all media players.

>>17235 The importance of audio formats and bitrates also depends on what type of music you're listening too. If it's modern 'wall of sound' music, you are right; the difference between a 320 mp3 and a 128 is barely noticeable. But if it is quieter music with a lot of empty space, you will notice. Compression encoding has the same result as compression effects for drums in recordings: the reverb and slow fade are lost, and become harsh and fast cuts. For example, a slow classical piano piece will sound like someone mashing the keys.

>>17319 >no matter how obscure Doubt. Do they have stuff that was only released on a few 7" EPs?

>>17409 It entirely depends on the band of course, nowadays most obscure artists put their music on streaming, of course streaming doesn’t have all obscure music

>Which is your preferred audio codec to listening back to music? wav of course. has no compression and is playable on a computer with potato computing power.

>>18932 But it's huuuuuuge

>>17243 The user interface of Spotify is difficult yet crippled, that alone would be reason for me not to use it. A friend who works in software told me that Spotify was the object of many jokes for his UX designer coworkers.

>>18932 >>18934 WAV is also terrible for metadata

>>17243 a lot of my fav tracks aren't on spotify, especially obscure netlabel shit downloaded in the 2010s

>>17130 did you happen to put a torrent of that online? I remember someone back on /m/ (when that was the music board) uploaded a 30GB dump of rare shit and I seeded it for like a decade (it's not even my genre but I thought it was cool)

>>18951 How much metadata do you need? Yes = Artist/Album/Track#/Track Title No = electro-vibe-soul with insouciant jazz flavourings

>>19023 WAV doesn’t even support those metadata tags you mentioned

>>18970 Spotify is shit. Bernd does not find his obscure music either.

>>17319 Can you find the Burzum demo tape?

>>19066 I have always been surprised that Burzum isn’t too nazi for Spotify

>>19068 Burzums lyrical content is entirely unpolitical, it's not counted among the NSBM spectrum.

>>19070 But everyone knows that Varg Vikernes is behind it

>>19048 >WAV doesn’t even support those metadata tags you mentioned Exactly. You just put those 4 essentials in the filename and you're done.

>>19160 Every proper music player needs tags, otherwise it's a messy unsorted listening experience.

>>19164 Some players simply search in filenames as well if you use freetext search. Works breddy well for collections with only some of the files tagged. I know the feature from the "Amarok family" (Amarok, Clementine, Strawberry) of players which I like to use for my offline collection.

mp3

>>19164 >otherwise it's a messy unsorted listening experience. Over the years I accumulated a playlist of ~400 tracks that I threw into one unsorted list and play at random whenever I get in my car

>>19214 Good for you, I don’t want that.

>>19219 Why?

>>19259 For me albums are one work of art, I want to listen to them in its entirety