In what format do you store your audio collection? and why

Question

Audio

In what format do you store your audio collection? and why.
Thank you.

Answer 1

mp3
- universality (software, hardware adaptation)
- relative quality
- size
quality perception depends to a large extent on playback platforms

Answer 2

mp3, maybe a good size/quality ratio (there is not enough space on the player), all software supports it. I don't have good hearing to feel the difference in quality compared to flac.

Answer 3

ape + flac
Why? Because I love good quality music. I have a lot of it, about 1.5 TB. Why lossless? Yes, because I do not like to cut off one hand from my beloved girl, because she seems to be able to survive with one.

Answer 4

I store in mp3 (320kbps). I tried to rebuild my collection in lossles, but after several discographies I realized that it was not for me (at least not now). There are 2 large and good Microlab speakers (by no means 5.1 or 7.1), but on Dr Dre's Monster Beat phone. Unfortunately, my HTC Tattoo cannot play lossles and there is only 500 Gb of space on my computer.
Pros:
Excellent quality
Cons:
Heavy volume
Not reproduced everywhere (including on Zune Software, which I recently liked)
Need good acoustics
The first two cons are critical for me.
Ps I will be very grateful for an invite to what.cd :)

Answer 5

I try to store all artists in flac'e or ogg. Also, my father has a record player, every time I indulge myself with records. But the overwhelming majority of songs are still in mp3, which is not very happy. The question "why" is not very clear ... It is clear that in flak and ogg it is cooler and clearer, but if there is no way, you have to be content with mp3.

Answer 6

if I store anything locally, then mp3 only. flac needs high-quality sound, and I often listen to music either with headphones (Bluetooth DR-BT50 or wired Nokia ones from a headset) or on portable speakers, a little less often at home I connect Amphiton to the Soviet set of amp + speakers.

Answer 7

The one I find. Usually it's mp3.

Answer 8

Well, it all depends on the value of the instance. Basically mp3 (320) and aac (because I buy it), if something is completely suitable, then ALAC (16 bits), if state of art - rip from vinyl to ALAC 24 bits and read the qualities.
On the iPod, the music goes to aac (in the new tuna, you can set up automatic conversion). I must say right away that I don’t feel the difference between good AAC, MP3 (320) and ALAC on my hardware (I rarely notice the difference between ALAC and the rest). The only difference between AAC and MP3 is the size. I store in loseless exclusively for lulz and with an eye on the future.

Answer 9

Ogg Vorbis. I love good sound and most of the time I hear the difference between MP3 and Lossless. Between Vorbis and Lossless - I never hear, and the size of Vorbis is slightly larger than that of MP3.
I digitize the purchased discs in Vorbis. Another thing is that I can't afford all the music I listen to at once. Therefore, I download something, and if the release was originally downloaded in MP3, then I do not transcode in Vorbis.
An example of an album that I'm rather disgusted to listen to in MP3 is Metallica - S&M - a metal concert with a symphony orchestra, at the same time a bunch of instruments are playing, which the MP3 mixes into mush.

Answer 10

music.yandex.ru/ +local yandex decides

Answer 11

Go to the Philharmonic, listen to the real one! sound: orchestra, variety of instruments. Feel the depth and richness of each sound. Then you will understand that don’t twist with eggs, but digital sound is shit.
Many people do not like my opinion, because they have already accumulated a hefty collection of mp3s, and here I am destroying their stereotypes.
Usually, they put minuses for this, right?

Answer 12

Since I buy music from resources such as beatport and juno , and also download free releases from thematic blogs, it is mostly wav (rarely flac) or high quality mp3 (320kbps). Also in the collection there are CDs (both licensed, bought abroad, and pirated, bought from us 7-8 years ago), a couple of vinyl records and even audio cassettes :)

Answer 13

flac and mp3 (320kbps) Because I buy it in this form, well, the quality is also a matter.

Answer 14

In fact, it all depends on the size of your hard drives and the styles of music you listen to =) And on the player. I used to listen to music on my beloved native Cowon D2, when I downloaded everything in flac, but now I only carry my phone with me from portable devices, so I listen to it in mp3 (although the old Hero plays flac, it often groans).
Mixed mp3, flac and ape + cue on the computer. Once I was under the delusion that I can distinguish flac from mp3, since then I can not help downloading music in lossless if there is such a distribution. My discs are quite voluminous, so I even store music on my phone in mp3. Sometimes, when the player plays a song that I have in lost, in mp3, I go up and switch to a similar one in better quality. Sometimes - on the contrary, it seems to me that the quality is bad, but it turns out that it is lossless =) I am developing my ear.
And yet, lossless takes up 16% of my entire collection, which is about 10 GB. Everything else is in mp3.

Answer 15

prostopleer.com
I don’t store music locally for a long time - it takes up space =)

Answer 16

Do you mean what he coded himself, consciously choosing the format? Part MP3 256-320 kbps, lately I try to use APE whenever possible.
Not because I have absolute pitch or super-cool speakers and I can really hear the difference. It's just that a lossless codec gives purely psychological peace of mind about the "reversibility of the action" - the sound can always be re-encoded into something else, cut a piece, mount, etc. This does not mean that I do this regularly, but I would like to have the opportunity. It's like pictures in PNG instead of JPEG.
Why not free FLAC? As an end user, I absolutely don't care about the type of codec license (they're both free). And when I chose the format, I made a very cursory comparison - I compressed several tracks, Monkey Audio had slightly better compression. This turned out to be a practical argument as opposed to a licensing-ideological one.

Answer 17

I have a bear in my ear, so I store everything in mp3, although the speakers seem to be normal (microlab pro-2) People who store music in a flask, ape, and listen to it on cheap speakers and a built-in ac97 will laugh.

Answer 18

In which I download, in this I store

Answer 19

In CD Rack format.

Answer 20

MP3 - relatively compact, supported everywhere, widespread, high quality audio is also possible (at 320kbps). For me, the main advantage is the wide distribution. I confess I had never even heard of the flac format before this discussion and I don't think that I can find records of all my favorite artists in this format, which cannot be said about mp3.

Answer 21

Basically mp3. In addition to the above mentioned size/quality/versatility, here's another interesting thing... On home players, even in the middle price range, you won't be able to catch the difference between mp3 (320kb/s) and the original. And a lot depends on the genre. Vivid examples, Russian pop (or for example "Russian chanson") is mostly very poor in instrumental and 192kb for his eyes, things are different with the classics.

Answer 22

MP3 because very widespread, you can download music in this format from almost every music site. It just so happens that I usually always use different computers, and almost all of them have at least standard players, and MP3 does not need special codecs. + easy to use on the player.

Answer 23

mp3, because it's impossible to find not only demo records, but also some albums of the artists I need in lossless. in lossless there are some things that I managed to find for them, I remove the mp3 and leave only lossless.

Answer 24

and who is arguing about it?
I just don't get to Metallica and Steve Vai concerts

Answer 25

almost everything is flac, a little mp3 is harder to get in flac.
part of the collection was made from their own CDs.

Answer 26

ALAC - disc rips + decoded FLAC.
AAC - purchased.
MP3 is an extreme case, horrible.
All three are supported by almost any branded hardware, unlike FLAC))
Ogg is definitely not, because where there is ALAC & AAC, ogg is usually not supported, and where it is supported - at high bitrates, ogg eats much more resources, many players stumble , and the batteries run low ((
And for listening on a computer, you won’t feel the difference between the formats.

Answer 27

If you need a lot and moderately high quality, then only mp3 320.
If you have suitable acoustics or devices, then definitely flac or alac. Without high-quality acoustics, listening in such formats and sizes is pointless.

Answer 28

in the one in which you downloaded it (this is mp3, flac). Because too lazy to recode. Very rarely I compress the flak to mp3 (to lame) to save space. I do not have and never had a player, a phone with mp3 support has been stolen for a long time, I listen to Mouzon exclusively on a computer on a mediocre audio system. Yes, I'm not very similar to the usual technodrocher, I'm more inclined towards minimalism, but that's who I am.

Answer 29

I’ll add to the previous speaker:
-in which I download, I store it in
-what I rip myself - flac (sometimes you have to convert to mp3 with different bitrates and somehow it’s psychologically more pleasant to do it from a lossless format)

Answer 30

ogg vorbis. c quality level 8. I don’t hear the differences between lossless and the result of such recoding on monitor headphones.
If something is of significant value - in flac.