>actually downloading FLAC
>implying most of them aren't fake
Sometimes I'll make fake flacrips of highly anticipated albums and add mlg_sonic.wav halfway through the album.
Several of my flacrips are on what.cd, amazingly enough.
It gets under people's radars because they only ever spot check the first song to see if it goes up to 22KHz, which can be faked easily using some goldwave plugins.
I didn't upload them myself, they just ended up on there.
My theory is that people don't really listen to flac rips and they're just keeping them on their hard drives for the autism points.
There are lots of guys on rutracker that they upload stuff from what.cd. You can see in the description of torrent. I always check rutracker first before downloading from what.cd to not waste my ratio at what.cd
>now that we have the required capacities to do so, let's start wasting space!
My audio equipment isn't good enough to notice a difference. I would need to make sure all the following is up to par:
Computer sound card
I don't think a 2012 ipod classic and a $150 Alpine is going to be enough.
Ever notice how old MP3's sound like shit? That's because they use lossy compretion and degrade over time! Think of it like food, if you leave meat in the fridge too long, it goes bad! Same story here!
Convert all your MP3's to FLAC, it may take up more space, but it will ensure quality listening in the future!
>rip CDs in FLAC
>slow all tracks down by 0.01% on Audacity
>save and upload them at what.cd
It's not a waste to store the media as it was meant to be. Having an encoded music file with all sorts of information removed is not a good base if you want to re-encode it to other formats later, hence the need for a lossless format.
It's really hard to miss because during loud parts you'll see these chaotic bars which all cut off at exactly the same level. But you don't really even need a spectrum analyzer. Something like auCDtect will usually be able to tell you if it's fake or not with 99% accuracy. Unless you specifically figure out what it's looking for and purposely cook your files to fool it. Most lazy flac re-encoders don't bother.
>implying most of them aren't fake
This is why we have Exact Audio Copy, AccurateRip and CUETools. You can compare the checksums of anything you've downloaded with AccurateRip's database to verify the legitimacy of the rip. If something you've downloaded doesn't appear in AccurateRip's database with decent confidence, then it's likely fake.
Always check for included EAC logs, and verify the checksums with CUETools. Don't even bother to download something that doesn't include an EAC log.
So I'm not smoking too many trees when I see this right?
It really peeves me off how the anti-flac fags on /g/ don't understand the reason for accumulating music in lossless format.
You don't hoard music in lossless for the miniscule quality benefit. I can reliably discern 320k CBR from FLAC in A/B tests, but the difference is so extremely subtle that you won't hear it during normal listening, and it's not even a quality difference, MP3's just sound brighter than FLACs.
You do it to avoid unnecessary quality degradation and artifacts during transcoding to lossy formats. I need to encode my music to 80k VBR Opus to save space on my phone.
>degrade over time!
I remember that meme
You don't choose FLAC to brag on /g/ about your 10TB SSD rack, you choose FLAC for audio editing, transcoding and for archiving. Converting FLAC to a 96 kb/s lossy format for example, will generate a much better result than converting a 320 kb/s lossy to 96 kb/s lossy.
What's the difference from FLAC and lossy? Take for example a photo, print it on paper. Now, scan this photo you just printed (with a scanner) and then compare the original picture file to the new scanned picture file, it looks different: blurry and the colors are washed out, even if you used the best printer and scanner out there, it would never look like the original. The same happens converting FLAC to lossy, the bit rate doesn't matter, information is always lost during the transcoding process.
That's right, this file is a fake FLAC.
>implying the FLAC albums I download don't have detailed log files generated by the program used to rip them and that the tracker I download them from doesn't automatically trump albums without log files or with bad log files
Just convert a file and see for yourself, try for example converting a FLAC to 64 kbit/s MP3, you'll notice what he's talking about. The only difference at 320 kbit/s is that the sound distortion is less audible, because there's less compression, but the distortion is still there.
If you want another example see >>47324401
While this thread exists, is flac to ogg encoded at q5/160kbps the best for portable listening?
Need a codec that's considered "transparent" at the lowest filesize possible for my phone.
I keep a lot of my music on google music/drive but T-mobile doesn't have the best reception everywhere.