Seriously, why Mp3\Ogg are still a thing? Unless the original track really cannot be tracked down (eh) and only mp3\ogg\whatever are available, if a lossless source is available and one would like to share, sharing .OPUS music at 160 kbps (which is way better than a 320 kbps mp3) transcoded from the original Flac source that you also are going to share is the smart idea.

Even at kaich-insider they still share Mp3s, WTF. OPUS is king now, either step up or just be done with yourself.

Also, FK MP3, a 1992 codec (the day I was born!).

Repulsive, utterly repulsive. You're "in" a dump where you get to illegally download things you should pay for thanks to the kindness of other individuals… Either take whatever they offer, or ignore and take matters into your own hands (purchase the goddamn thing and encode in whatever format you want).

Nobody owes anyone "shit" on this kind of place, but you folks seem to have a tendency to forget that. I miss the days when folks like you weren't the "norm" on the Shrine. You don't deserve anything.

Well, MP3 has been refined and somewhat perfected, so it's hard to complain about the sound quality. But I do agree with you on the OPUS codec. I currently convert all of my music to OPUS at 48 kbps and it sounds exactly like the source material at that bitrate!!! 160 kbps is too high of a bitrate for 2 channel stereo music, thats enough for 6.1 channels of audio in my opinion!

Opus is transparent at 128 kbps for 5.1 audio already, and I am looking forward to the day that the compression gets even better at lower bitrates (below 32 kbps)

I think that's why they are called Onion Kids...

Because they make you cry, with Laighter :P

Dude I am grateful to them for the service they provide, but standards now are higher, so I do expect them to catch up if they want to stay competitive!

competitive!

Competition? What's the fucking race for? The point is to get others to hear the music you love.

Oh fuck off op, your type deserve nothing with attitude like that

I too, like FLAC, and 100% rips, but I understand the music is what matters above all, if an album I want hardcore is in mp3, ogg or whatever, and not in FLAC, I'll deal with it.. long as the quality is good.

I prefer MP3. No quality loss vs FLAC & it has a much smaller size. Not only that, FLAC isn't natively supported on Apple's iPod Nano's (would have to convert to ALAC which is worse; specificially for the 7th Gen version.)

yes, I listen to game music while I'm out. I don't like listening to EDM unless I'm home (or safe with family.)

Well, there is Quality Loss, but you won't notice a difference on an iPod Nano.

I wanna see the Setups of People that are so vocally outspoken against MP3,
i bet very few have Music Gear that justifies their Flac Boner.

Dude I am grateful to them for the service they provide, but standards now are higher, so I do expect them to catch up if they want to stay competitive!
Hahahahahaha! I needed a good laugh!

There's no competition. Also, "officially", here at the Shrine we don't enforce that kind of standards: users are free to post music in whatever quality they like/want (MP3 64 kbps? Still okay to share). Once again, if you're not happy with the formats provided by other users, that's solely your problem, it's up to you to do something about it. Actually, if you'd be an extremely "fair" human being, you wouldn't even ask others to re-upload **** in a different quality/format… Hahaha.

:this:

There's nothing wrong with asking uploaders to adopt a more modern, better quality file format, but there's no need to come across as an entitled jackass.

CD has been the benchmark of sound quality since 1982. Asking an uploader to maintain a thirty-five year-old standard is reasonable.

I'm sure most uploaders would welcome constructive advice about how they can make their uploads sound better.

Telling people they're idiots if they don't do it... that just makes me want to upload 16kbps MP3s forever just to piss you off.

Genuine reasons to prefer FLAC over MP3:

1. Lossy codecs were created to compress music in order to save storage space and enable more efficient use of slow internet connections. Today, storage space is plentiful and even the worst internet connection you could think of is going to be at least five to ten times as fast as a dialup modem, and most of us are on connections faster than most businesses would've had for their entire company just fifteen or twenty years ago.

2. Lossless uploads are a good quality insurance quality. How many times do we hear about people who ripped all their CDs at 128kbps because they thought that would be enough forever, and then they end up starting the process all over again when their ears get better or they get better equipment? I ripped my own CDs losslessly from the beginning. Do it right, do it once. I can transcode a thousand times into a thousand different formats, and I don't have to get those CDs out of the cupboard ever again.

3. As an aside to 2, uploading in a lossless, platform-relatively-agnostic format is a genuine solution to the inevitable comments - some of them valid and some of them not: "That bitrate sucks! / Why did you use MP3, why not AAC?! What is this format, that company sucks! / Apple is the devil, why are you forcing me to use their crappy codec? / Microsoft is the devil, why are you forcing me to use their crappy codec? I use CrazyOS '95 on my weird PC because I've got a chip on my shoulder about using proprietary software from big corporations and I can't play that dumb file format! / You encoded with a deprecated encoder version, it sounds like crap! / I need to transcode this to W/X/Y/Z format for my Zune/Car/iPod/Potato and transcoding from lossy to lossy is a problem for sound quality." and so on, and so on, and so on.

As an uploader, of course it's my choice to post whatever the hell I want and, as a downloader, you can all either like it or lump it - but it would be remiss of me to not listen to common sense and willfully upset my audience due to my own stubbornness.

Uploaders want to do the best they can. They just don't want to be made to feel like they're some encoding sweatshop who just crank out uploads for jackasses on the internet.

(As an example, some years ago I found an album that had been a holy grail forever. (YEARS ago, I think this was on WinMX...) Out of print for like twenty years, nobody has seen hide nor hare of it, nothing on the second hand market, no re-releases, nada... Then I found the damn thing, buried deep on a Polish website that was running so slowly it took me a week to download the 160kbps MP3s. I made the files available Within thirty minutes of the first downloader finishing - "WAHT NO FALC??? Y U RIP THIS RARE ABLUM AS SHIT MP3! U SUK!")

:)

gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8

i will when they make a device that can play those filles hassle-free.
there arent?
well fuck flac and whatever the fuck opus is.

i will when they make a device that can play those filles hassle-free.

Don't worry, Kooshy. Someday you will discover how to use your computer.

This is your opinion.
I use only mp3 in Windows Media Player. I don't use FLAC, I don't use Apple.
And I am happy for the sound quality of mp3.

I don't think mp3 are obsolete because mp3 files works on pretty much every music player device ever and if "done right" it can be as good as any flac or opus.

And if you can't afford big storages, mp3 files are way light in size when compared.

well said guys.

Whatever guys, deny that MP3 is obsolete and be at peace with yourselves. Your loss.

Ignorance is a bliss after all - because unignorant ones enjoy what ignorant WON'T because they have to be self-righteous.

Also, I NEVER wrote that people are "idiots" because they upload MP3... I wrote that uploading OPUS 165kbps for lossy music and FLAC\WAV\APE whatever for Lossless are the SMART choices for today's standards, with "SMART" meaning "More useful than the competition", so mine is ENCOURAGEMENT.

Don't you know the way of speech "It's not that everybody that shits on you want your harm".

Also, you all huddling together vs me without having properly understood what I wrote and immediately using an accusatory tone against me means that you are so frustrated and unsecure with yourselves that you have to find a pretext to "join against the enemy", which is tipical of unhappy pussy-thriving low-lives losers usually (are you one?).

Don't expect if people, in real life, will treat you as shit, as, it seems, you behave like shit. And now go to weep to moderators and tell them "Meanie there wrote me something bad" and be hypocritical PUSSIES.

It just so happens that I am a moderator and your kind isn't welcome here. Get lost.

Leon Scores Again!

Don't worry, Kooshy. Someday you will discover how to use your computer.

read: device =
something i can carry around and listen to music wherever i go. my iphone doesnt play flac, my vita doesnt play flac. and, on emergencies, my psp doesnt play flac. or ogg, or whatever opus is.

Whatever guys, deny that MP3 is obsolete and be at peace with yourselves. Your loss.
Ignorance is a bliss after all - because unignorant ones enjoy what ignorant WON'T because they have to be self-righteous. I very much doubt that the people commenting on this thread think that mp3 is better.



Also, I NEVER wrote that people are "idiots" because they upload MP3... I wrote that uploading OPUS 165kbps for lossy music and FLAC\WAV\APE whatever for Lossless are the SMART choices for today's standards, with "SMART" meaning "More useful than the competition", so mine is ENCOURAGEMENT. That "encouragement" sounds more like elitism. You realize this isn't a business or economy? We're just getting free music. There isn't real competition here.


Don't you know the way of speech "It's not that everybody that shits on you want your harm".

Also, you all huddling together vs me without having properly understood what I wrote and immediately using an accusatory tone against me means that you are so frustrated and unsecure with yourselves that you have to find a pretext to "join against the enemy", which is tipical of unhappy pussy-thriving low-lives losers usually (are you one?). I don't believe anyone said you were an enemy. But you're being a tad defensive yourself.


Don't expect if people, in real life, will treat you as shit, as, it seems, you behave like shit. And now go to weep to moderators and tell them "Meanie there wrote me something bad" and be hypocritical PUSSIES. Yes that's how we conclude a debate. Name calling.

Edit: I was probably a bit late to the party seeing as how his title is "banned". Ah well. Felt like giving my two cents. :P

I just want to chime in again to slightly "correct" someone:


Uploading in a lossless, platform-relatively-agnostic format is a genuine solution to the inevitable comments […]
That's just wrong. While I'm pleased to say that nowadays, on our Final Fantasy Shrine, we have all around awesome folks on the "lossless collecting side of things", you folks can still rip a new one into someone for the very reasons you stated after, Tango:

I'm going to use the log of my own rip of the Kessen Ⅱ Original Soundtrack to illustrate just how "roses and wine" lossless sharing is… Not.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=BpKHjhH4

- There are those who prefer APE, TAK, TTA over FLAC… I'm not a certified expert, but a few of those encodes compress the audio better. Reason #1 behind a re-upload request;

- The version of EAC (short for Exact Audio Copy) that I used back then is most definitely outdated. Now, it is my understanding that this software inserted some kind of "log checksum" at some point, as further evidence that the rip is genuine and has not been tampered with in any way. I've seen folks dismiss legit lossless rips because they weren't created with the most up-to-date version of a software, yes, I mean here on the Shrine.
Isn't the purpose of EAC (and the likes) to provide 1:1 digital copies of our CDs? You'd gather you really should re-rip your collection every time a new version is out from some of the "reactions" I've been witness to. Not only that is unreasonable, it is completely idiotic;

- Range/Image rip vs. Separate tracks rip. To this day I've yet to understand what's technically-wise (and quality-wise) wrong with the former. Maybe it's purely a "cosmetic" preference which comes into play, nonetheless, we have users dismiss one as if it was the "wrong way to do things"; let's completely ignore the fact that there are software/tools which automatically take care of things which any lossless collector worth his/her salt should theoretically be capable of doing on his/her own, transforming what was an image rip into separate tracks… All without quality loss.

- AccurateRip or not AccurateRip, what it's best? That rip of mine is technically "guilty" of being, maybe, the first one submitted to that database, but hey… Users had the guts to shit on it because no matches were found, I just lament they didn't have the balls/ovaries to do so publicly. They probably feared to be rightly made look like disgusting fools.

Let's put those likely issues that may arise whenever a lossless rip gets posted together with the fact that a lossless encode, oft times, ends up being 3-4 times the size of a perfectly serviceable lossy one (variable bitrate, etcetera) and… Yeah, sharing lossless doesn't really solve anything and it's really not worth all the hassle which comes with it. Those who want lossless stuff are better off "doing their own thing" and rip the CDs themselves. They can be a goddamn cancer for a file-sharing community, driving sharers away.

Your thread is obsolete. Period.

LSK - Thanks for your answer. I completely agree, you will never please everyone, and WHATEVER you do, people will be lining up to complain about something.

Even if you posted a RAR that produced �100million when you opened it, the chorus would begin; "Why not �200 million?! / Why did you upload a RAR instead of a 7zip - that's better and open source, you idiot! / What kind of prick uploads this to Mediafire? Mega is a better host!"

BUT... FLAC isn't a bad minimum standard as they go. People may complain, but when all is said and done, they've got a bit-perfect (or near-bit perfect) duplicate of a CD and they can transcode it into whatever the hell they want to. Of course, you're going to get people arbitrarily saying "F*** FLAC" and what not, because MP3 is good enough for them, because they don't understand how to perform basic transcoding tasks, etc. But at least you can say "Look, here's the audio, I did my best, if you don't like it piss off."

We still have a minimum wage even though it's not high enough for everyone. Some people think it's too low, some people think it's too high and having a minimum wage hurts competition. But it's there, as a baseline.

I also agree about the cancer; lossless fascists are probably the worst people we have to contend with on the site.

But there's some mileage in "Thank you so much for what you did, if you want to do rips that are even better than that, look at this method..." as distinct from "What you uploaded is shit, you're an idiot, this is worthless, go f*** yourself."

I am NOT for one second advocating that we go to some kind of scene-level minimum specifications for rips - must be EAC 1.3 or above, must be FLAC, must be tagged, must be .7z, must be AccurateRip with at least five corroborating checksums, must have a LOG, must be this, that and twenty other things... NOT AT ALL. That kind of rubbish really does push people away, and it means that perfectly good rips get shat on and banned because they don't adhere to a particular, obscure, technical spec.

But don't you think at the very least, it would be appropriate to say "Look folks, this is 2017, if you do it right you can get an exact copy of the CD you're ripping, and if you do it like this your potential audience will be maximised. No obligations, and you won't be torn apart if you don't do this, but if you can and you're willing, please do so."

There's a subtle line between accepting absolutely anything without question (never helping an uploader learn more about uploading) and accepting almost nothing and making uploaders feel like shit and never posting anything.

Plumping for FLAC as a good baseline is a good idea.

Making dick threads like this one really isn't - but I'm concerned that the kneejerk reaction around the forum now is to be anti-FLAC precisely because some of the FLAC proponents have been such unbelievable twats about their requests.

Cheers :)
TT

read: device =
something i can carry around and listen to music wherever i go. my iphone doesnt play flac, my vita doesnt play flac. and, on emergencies, my psp doesnt play flac. or ogg, or whatever opus is.

Stop using shitty apple software

didnt know apple owned sony. you learn something new every day

I downloaded good amount from here, I gotta say most of these lossless flac are fake. One guy as pure 24/96 of a composer but man I just looked at half after months of having them now know they fake.

Your ugly Face is fake

I would like to add my two cents to this. Personally I can't hear the difference unless the mp3s are really low quality. I prefer mp3 because I have an old iPod and use it on a nearly daily basis, but now that I have learned how to convert flac into something I can use (thanks forum members for the advice and help) I don't care if it is flac or mp3. Considering that this part of the forums exist to share the love of music or radio dramas and introduce us to new things we may never had listened to before I personally want to thank the users that share and to politely remind those of us who don't that beggars can't be choosers.

didnt know apple owned sony. you learn something new every day

And apple is owned by the Illuminati. And the Illuminati is run by Phil Collins. Jesus man, get with the times.