/mu/ - Music

Discussion of music.

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Board Rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Magrathea | Catalog | Bottom


Your ears are not made of platinum, you are a fool for believing so

Expand All Images


(32.30 KB 299x400 out.jpg)
Why ogg and opus don't work? Anonymous 04/24/2016 (Sun) 04:48:22 [Preview] No. 430
Why did you guys disabled the only two commonly used free audio codecs? Fuck, this is stupid. Webm archives don't work too.
Also, word filters are cancer.


Anonymous 04/24/2016 (Sun) 04:58:49 [Preview] No. 434 del
Fuck I was posting oggs earlier today.


Anonymous 04/26/2016 (Tue) 22:33:54 [Preview] No. 501 del
Ogg is great for m.usic.


Anonymous 10/09/2016 (Sun) 17:16:54 [Preview] No. 1382 del
Is flac not free?


Anonymous 11/23/2016 (Wed) 10:09:38 [Preview] No. 1426 del
(361.59 KB 900x1359 wifbearklain.jpg)
You should switch to FLAC because it's lossless unlike ogg. 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 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 is 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.


Anonymous 11/24/2016 (Thu) 19:21:59 [Preview] No. 1432 del
>>1426
Is this true? Do you have any source on this?


Anonymous 11/24/2016 (Thu) 22:38:07 [Preview] No. 1433 del
dts encode4d lame is often the same as flac.


Anonymous 11/26/2016 (Sat) 07:51:25 [Preview] No. 1434 del
>>1432
You're stupid, it's a bad meme, you dip. Also, ogg is lossless, you're dumb.


Anonymous 11/26/2016 (Sat) 14:08:17 [Preview] No. 1435 del
>>1434
Am I stupid for asking for a source or should I've just believe him completely?

Either way, I checked some of my old mp3 just in case. No changes has occured.


Anonymous 11/30/2016 (Wed) 15:54:30 [Preview] No. 1436 del
(5.86 MB 320x240 True_Giggles.gif)
>>1426
This is the best quality trolling I've seen this side of the decade. Carry on, Anon. Carry on.


Anonymous 11/30/2016 (Wed) 16:04:54 [Preview] No. 1437 del
(27.08 KB 579x329 e90.jpg)
>>1436
DID SOMEONE SAY TROLLING


Anonymous 12/31/2016 (Sat) 15:43:05 [Preview] No. 1614 del
>>1434
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as lossless ogg, is in fact, ogg/FLAC, or as I've recently taken to calling it, ogg plus FLAC. Ogg is not an audio codec unto itself, but rather a container component of a fully functioning audio format made useful by the codecs it's compatible with.


Anonymous 01/31/2017 (Tue) 03:41:54 [Preview] No. 1628 del
no, this is cancer!



Top | Catalog | Post a reply | Magrathea | Return