- best audio quality
- more compact (doesn't take that much space, can be played in car)
- cheaper than vinyl
- no crackling noises
- you own it forever
ALL HAIL TO THE KING OF AUDIO MEDIA
- best audio quality
- more compact (doesn't take that much space, can be played in car)
- cheaper than vinyl
- no crackling noises
- you own it forever
>1/2 the size for the same quality
fpbp. flac is basically streamable zipped "pcm" audio tracks. Same audio quality, saves third to half file size, but it's heavier on cpu, so battery powered devices get dained faster
flac is very efficient, back in the day when people still collected music they would convert their mp3/aac/other lossy compressed files to flac because it's easier on the cpu
is beneficial for battery powered devices, you need more disk space but in return you get longer battery life, flac was designed to be easy to decode, encoding is what's taxing
>>1/2 the size for the same quality
Fake news. More like 70% the size. Space savings is almost irrelevant today. The primary benefit of FLAC over WAV is the inclusion of MD5 hash.
Depends on what you compress with it
FLAC compresses metal music to 70% or so
FLAC also compresses ambient music BY 70% or so
There's never a gaurantee of any compression at all with a lossless algorithm due to the pigeonhole principle.
True, but I’ve kept an eye on the albums I’ve compressed with FLAC over the years. I haven’t been piping /dev/random into a FLAC encoder. This is what I’ve been seeing.
Of course any actual music is going to have some redundancy, yes.
It's not that it's redundant, it's that the entropy isn't as high as it is in random, compressed or encrypted data. Only noise has that level of entropy. FLAC works on the principle that in any music, at any given moment, large parts of the frequency plot don't have a lot going on in them.
It's such a shame that we got awful brickwalled masters in digital because audiophools fricked up the market and only wanted hilariously antiquated vinyl trash.
We could be living in an audio utopia RIGHT NOW where everything is judged on measurements and a $20 DAC-AMP combo gives gauranteed perfect playback, but no.
These aren't mutually incompatible. Buy cheap CDs, rip them as FLAC to preserve quality, and call it a day.
Same. I literally have zero idea why vinyl gays are so utterly delusional. I used to have a record player setup, spent almost a grand on it, then sold it off to hipsters for 1500 USD years later. I can go get CDs, pop them in a computer's disk drive, and play them with superior, CONSISTENT, performance.
because it's fun and soulful. The same reason you'd use a cast iron pan or a stainful steel knife. And much like my cast iron pan, I can't be arsed using my record player
>because it's fun and soulful. The same reason you'd use a cast iron pan or a stainful steel knife.
This argument is moronic. You use cast iron because it radiates heat better than any other common pan, not because it's "soulful". Heat radiation is useful when searing meat.
I went with this with an audio producer.
Turned out I actually liked the master better on vinyl vs the CD version.
The format itself is flawed, although fun to dick around with.
blocks your path
>tiny paths degrade over time and get filled with shit ruining quality
But when new, it's still better quality
post quanifiable data pls
I don't have it. But analog has always a better feel.
Even VHS looks better than DVDs in some way. Better colors.
There must be a similar thing with Vinyls and CDs.
The only time a VHS has better color than a DVD is in dark scenes, because the people encoding them are lazy and don't adjust the encoding parameters for dark scenes. Apart from that, the VHS might look more oversaturated, just because it's usually shown on a tube TV.
>The only time a VHS has better color than a DVD is in dark scenes
I had a VHS (TV recording) of a movie happening on a tropical island (6 days, 7 nights), and the same movie bought in DVD, and the color on the DVD were garbage, while they were vivid on the VHS
Then either they oversaturated the VHS to compensate for poor picture quality, or they did a trash job producing the DVD.
>analog has always a better feel.
it's called the placebo effect
>Even VHS looks better than DVDs in some way. Better colors.
incorrect, vhs colour is objectively garbage, it's ridiculously low resolution
>There must be a similar thing with Vinyls and CDs.
this statement is entirely unfounded
The issue with blu-rays, CDs and other high quality digital standards is usually the human element.
Sure they are technically superior in every way, that's not really arguable. But often the people who make these releases frick up like with the loudness war or shitty color grading.
there are fricked up masters in every format, even some VHS releases are better than others
there can be an argument if DVD masters are regularly worse than VHS masters, like how CDs are regularly fricked with compression while vinyl masters aren't because they're literally incapable of such hot signals in the first place, but as far as i've seen, dvd's are still better than vhs, with only some possible outliers where they really fricked something up
>like how CDs are regularly fricked with compression while vinyl masters aren't
This isn't true though. Vinyl shit is just as compressed.
The despecialized editions last I saw was a combination of the blurays and the lazer disc versions. Really the only watchable versions anymore.
I think there is a version better than despecialized now. I forgot their name, but they are in 4k.
I'll have to look into that, thanks anon.
It's called 4k77, etc.
>4k77
Kick ass, I'll have to acquire that.
Did they scan the film stock again or is it a simple upscale?
>FAQs
>Is this an upscale?
>No, 97% of project 4K77 is from a single, original 1977 35mm Technicolor release print, scanned at full 4K, cleaned at 4K, and rendered at 4K.
quantify my balls
>cut from the same CD master
>better
CD is objectively superior.
Vinyl playback and the process of cutting vinyl have physical limitations that force you to prepare recordings in certain ways. For example, you can't have too much low-end bass or stereo bass in general on vinyl, because with both you'll risk the needle to fall out of the groove. When cutting a record, you have to make sure everything below 250Hz is in phase and you don't have too much going on in the very high frequencies, or otherwise the cutting head can overheat.
So basically you give up some fidelity to make your recording ready for vinyl, which leads to the "warmer" vinyl sound.
The mastering process for vinyl was always a compromise, yet audiophile fart huffers insist that they hear things you wouldn't hear in the studio in a balanced room acoustically, on industry standard reference monitors, with the master tapes. Audiophile homosexuals don't get that master tape to vinyl isn't a 1:1 process, or they're in complete denial about it. They spend thousands and thousands of dollars on cables and snake oil, while not understanding or waving away that whatever gets pressed into the vinyl is a compromise, and just the mastering engineer's idea of what "good" is, and some of them just applied the same stock curves to everything, especially back in the 70's and 80's.
But that won't stop the ego, the conspicuous consumption and larping that audiofiles engage in to fill their gaping emotional, intellectual and personality holes. They treat audio playback as literal magic, like children.
Granted, digital led to the moronic loudness wars, but I'm fine with a HD or SSD of files I can plug into my car and have instant access to thousands of songs, instantly. I'm never buying CDs ever again. If I didn't care about quality I'd just use Spotify and their shitty compression like everyone else.
Vinyl had it's time. Vinyl gays are just abusing nostalgia to cope for something they lack in life, like a personality. Or a reason to be alive. Or a sex life.
And here I sit typing aware that I'm posting at morons who think a playlist or pirated movie will get them laid. LOL.
>destructive playback
Unless you're one of the handful of people with a laser turntable it's shit. If you are the audiophile with one, carry on.
>If you are the audiophile with one, carry on.
Is it meant to be an insult to audiophiles?
Laser turntables are overhyped. They're amazing for digitizing records that are hard to play through without skips. But the record needs to be absolutely spotless. Where a stylus will push most motes of dust out of the way as it goes, a laser will faithfully play every speck.
You only need to play it back once to digitize it. That's what you should be doing with a turntable anyway.
This is why I said it's great to digitize records. You have to clean them really well though.
Most "vinyls" fans want to play them and listen to them like that, and are buying music on records for the more hands-on experience instead of the push-button-receive-music experience of digital audio, and the larger better album art and booklets. If they wanted digital audio they'd either buy digital files or CDs.
>lower theoretical dynamic range, SNR, channel separation, frequency response
>surface noise
>quality degrades with every play
>environmental noise
based moron
>Resolution of the mould is determined by the cnc machine's stepper motors' fidelity
Cool digital waveform bro!
>can be played in car)
hm this post must be from 2010
my car just has usb slot
My car still has a tape player.
>usb slot
OK boomer. Is that some sort of wired bluetooth from the 1800s or something?
>- best audio quality
Depends on how it was mastered however generally yes.
>- more compact (doesn't take that much space, can be played in car)
Most cars don't have a CD player anymore. I miss the visor CD holder.
>- cheaper than vinyl
For now until production ends of all CDs.
>- no crackling noises
Agreed although when one gets scratched the skipping is annoying.
>- you own it forever
You do own it however the disc itself degrades over time and eventually won't play.
>gets a slight scratch
>is destroyed completely
pretty much the biggest scam/meme in tech to date
>what is resurfacing?
Based moron
diskBlack person cope
They only get scratched if you are a moron that doesnt handle them properly
>melts itself in 10 years
I have some burnt CDs that my dad found from when I moved away (so pre-2010). They work great for the most part, but some skip (probably dirty) in certain songs and I've found one that has a transparent patch in the middle so likely doesn't work. My guess is that was on the top of the spindle it was stored on for all those years.
I imagine commercially pressed CDs would last even longer, iirc you can get optical media that is guaranteed for a very long time but costs more.
CD-Rs use organic dyes, so yeah they go to shit way faster. I own several CDs from the 80s and they work just fine.
2010s: vinyl
2020s: CDs
2030s: MP3 players
Even if the vinyl 'warmth' memes were true - you can achieve a cleaner and consistent version of 'warmth' with a higher frequency PCM or DSD files.
Or one of these.
>higher frequency PCM or DSD files.
"Warmth" has nothing to do with sample rate. Anything over 44.1KHz makes zero difference because 20KHz is the LIMIT of human hearing, with the average adult not being able to hear much over 15-16KHz. DSD and 96KHz PCM is total snake oil garbage that at best will do nothing and at worst will hurt quality if not done correctly.
>Anything over 44.1KHz makes zero difference because 20KHz is the LIMIT of human hearing, with the average adult not being able to hear much over 15-16KHz.
Go look up what a sampling rate is you homosexual.
not him but what's the problem you have with his post? i don't see any issues with it
44.1 KHz is the sampling rate, not the max possible frequency reproduction. Sampling rate is showing the accuracy of the digital reproduction.
>44.1 KHz is the sampling rate, not the max possible frequency reproduction
That would be half the sampling rate or 22.05 KHz
Exactly. Nonetheless the sampling rate is perfectly fine and he's just on the left end of the moron spectrum, contrasted with the autists who need well above 48k sampling. 44.1KHz is ok.
>44.1 KHz is the sampling rate, not the max possible frequency reproduction.
he didn't claim that, 44.1kHz provides a maximum captured frequency of 22.05kHz, the maximum frequency it can capture is always half that of the sample rate
>Sampling rate is showing the accuracy of the digital reproduction.
incorrect, quantisation accuracy is measured with the bit-depth (16bit for cds), this affects ONLY the noise floor, not captured frequency range/accuracy
that is to say, a 16bit, 96kHz recording is not at all more accurate than a 16bit, 48kHz recording, given the restriction that you only care about what humans can heard (up to 20kHz, realistically less, but this is a convenient rounded off overkill number)
the only thing the former recording has over the latter is it will have captured frequencies between 24kHz and 48kHz, none of which are human-perceptable, it is not more accurate or indeed mathematically different at all for audio within human hearing range, which makes it literally pointless for listening purposes
Imagine laying in bed listening to an album and having to get up halfway through to turn it over. Imagine being in the middle of foreplay with a lady when side one of the music ends and you have to stop to play side two. These aren't problems you have with CDs or high quality FLAC files.
My old vinyl player I inhereted from my great grandfather has a "repeat" play function which is quite nice.
I made out with my ex while having the first side of Wish You Were Here playing on repeat.
But I don't play music when I frick, if I were, though, I would probably just stream some.
The real debate is what are the best file types. It’s 2022.
Kek, I remember when the switch from tape decks to cd decks in car's happened. Some came with both. I think mine was one of the final year's with CD as a standard thing before they done away with it. (2014 model corolla). To be honest I never use it. I just sync my phone via Bluetooth and use plex app to pipe my music through the audio system.
>cds in car
>hit bump on road
>cd ruined
>how zoomers think cds worked
I remember the first CD players were like that.
mp3 has been the kind of audio media for more than 3 decades now. COPE
I'll stick with my vinyl albums. I have over 1000 of them a good record cleaning machine and a few decent quality turntables and restored vintage receivers. I like the way it sounds. Everyone is free to do what they like. Merica
>ctrl+f Monty
>nothing
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
The only important opinion on audio. As for CDs and FLACs? They're the same frickin thing who cares which one you use.
Some people depending on age, hearing degradation etc can hear up to 28-30khz, so the ideal sampling rate would be somewhere around 60khz to cover the full human spectrum.
>you own it forever
>what is disc rot
>what is disc rot
an overhyped manufacturing defect
at least with physical media you get the benefit of only losing one thing and not the whole lot
Soon there won't be any physical media. Soon Skynet will have control over the world and you'll be stuck with badly encoded FLACs taken from vinyl records or even worse, MP3 320
1TB SD card says what