Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-120121-160161-

Touhou Cirno Radio / chiru.no

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 21:50

What are your thoughts on this amazing piece of open source software?
https://gitgud.io/chiru.no/chiru.no

yes, this is programming related

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 22:08

Why don't they sign their commits?
Why do they use php instead of scheme?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 22:10

index.php
if ( array_keys($_GET)[0] ===
global global global globalglobalglobal global global global global global global
all lower case variable names and functions
concat string
2743 Lines

thx OP, I got cancer

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 23:05

What programming language is this?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 23:06

>>4
PHP

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 23:13

Do the multiple exxploits I've found still work after two years? If so, I congratulate you on your stable software release!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 23:18

>>6
chiru.no is frequently updated to ensure the highest standards in software engineering are applied methodically to dynamically harness strategic niche markets with a continually world-class quality ROI, thanks

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-06 23:19

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-07 3:23

I actually like it

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-07 14:19

1 million songs and most of it is ear rape.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-07 15:59

>>10
Translator’s note: Keikaku means plan

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-07 21:39

>>7
Why is all the code in one file then?
And why is it not OOP?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-07 21:53

>>12
OOP considered harmful

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-08 2:08

gitgud.io
Stopped reading there.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 1:18

I like this

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 11:28

https://chiru.no/dl/sacd/
Neat. Thanks OP.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 19:55

major update, it's 2900 lines of code now

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 20:01

>>17
Why don't you sign your commits?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 20:20

>>18
Im figuring it out

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 20:23

And what's up with all the "i forget what i did"?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 20:26

ok i did it

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-09 20:56

Great job, fam!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-11 2:01

Name: noko 2017-10-11 11:37

>>17
can you explain what's up with all the array_keys($_GET)[0]? Not sure what I'm missing here. Checking the existence of the key should be almost always faster than with array_keys, as function calls aren't completely free. Especially since you call it 20+ times instead of saving the result in a variable

Also just like in perl, string interpolation gives better performance than string concatenation

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-11 17:07

>>24
DON'T HELP HIM!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-11 18:26

>>25
but i like his site..................

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 15:15

>>24
Thanks for the help. I committed the changes

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 15:33

>>27
I'm 100% sure that's not what he meant, and those changes will definitely break your site.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 15:44

Breaking your site makes things more interesting.

Name: noko 2017-10-13 15:59

Basically what I meant is that instead of array_keys($_GET)[0] === 'favorites' You can do isset($_GET['favourites']) which should be faster in most cases. But an easier solution is like he said, storing array_keys($_GET)[0] in a variable and using that.

So you can put $firstget = array_keys($_GET)[0] at the top, and then replace every array_keys($_GET)[0] with $firstget.

Your current changes will break your site, so don't actually use it.

Also, thanks again for the site.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 16:31

>>30
But an easier solution
You mean a better solution.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 19:15

ok i changed it again

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 19:37

>>32
Great job, fam!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-13 20:26

break my anus

>>32
Did you forget what you did?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-15 0:34

The website layout sucks benis
literally looks like some one took a web 1.0 website and added opacity to the backgrounds

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-16 0:27

I keep listening to it while I'm working. Good site.

>>35
It actually kinda does, doesn't it?
I made a user style for myself, even though it's not like I'm gonna interact much with the site other than for listening.

https://ran.2hu.moe/tyjija.png

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-16 21:11

>>36
love it.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-18 5:55

I would have submitted pull requests if it was on github.

Password must at least 16 characters long and include one lowercase character, one uppercase character, and one digit. We also highly recommend at least one symbol too.
Yeah, no. Fuck all the way off.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 17:24

>>38
Rude!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 18:22

1aAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Why not just use public keys instead?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 18:53

>>40
Because the average user is the kind of retard who thinks that password recovery is a feature rather than a social engineering attack waiting to happen.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 18:53

New commits!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 18:53

>>42
You forgot what you did again?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 18:54

>>41
Sadly this is true.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 20:54

Change log:
Yep, I changed it!

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-19 22:24

I'm pretty sure that's not how you use version control.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-20 0:19

>>46
Sure it is
the changes are listed and managed, are they not?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-20 23:07

didn't forget what was done in the latest commit

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-30 7:44

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-01 6:37

new commit

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-01 13:40

>>51
Your collection of flacs is very lacking. Why don't you start ripping every torrent from rutracker and apollo

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-02 14:41

>>52
Because the site is mostly Japanese songs

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-02 14:51

Could you convert your flacs to oggs? I'd like to play them in the browser.

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-02 14:52

Could you convert your flacs to oggs? I'd like to play them in the browser.

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-02 18:02

>>55
Look at the site, there's already an ogg, opus, mp3, aac and flac streams

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-06 4:11

firefox and chrome plays flac

Name: FrozenVoid !MhMRSATORI!!4OoxRUEgeA 2017-11-06 5:33

Website definitely looks ass. Good thing there are stream links, because I wouldn't listen using the website otherwise.

>>36
Cute user-style.

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-06 5:47

>>57
chrome
Not version 60.

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-06 5:49

>>59
Chrome supported FLAC since 56, but it downloads the links by default. So if it's embedded, it will still work.

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-06 6:13

>>60
Cool. But it should play in the browser by default just like ogg & mp3.

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-08 2:25

>>61
It does in good browsers

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-08 7:47

>>58
why the fuck are you impersonating FrozenAnus? how much of a loser would you have to be to consider this to be an improvement?

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-09 17:45

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-09 19:30

>>63
But it is an improvement!

Name: Anonymous 2017-11-10 0:03

>>62
There are no good browsers.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-01 0:49

flac stream doesnt give track info

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-02 12:25

[02/Dec 00:13:03] <~Jesus>                                            ``.......`
[02/Dec 00:13:03] <~Jesus> `.-:///++++//:-::/++++/++/::-----..```
[02/Dec 00:13:03] <~Jesus> `-:/o/....-...--:///:-.--::/+oooo///////++++///::--..`
[02/Dec 00:13:04] <~Jesus> .:/+o+-./+:.```.:........-:/+/:---:/+++ooo/////////////////++/::-.`
[02/Dec 00:13:04] <~Jesus> .:/+o+o/-```/:.. ```-/-`.```.....-:++/-.-/++//+oo+/////////////////////+++.
[02/Dec 00:13:05] <~Jesus> `o////+:` :- -` ```-//.--.....-----/+o/-:+o+:///oo+////////////////////+y.
[02/Dec 00:13:05] <~Jesus> -. `s//+:` `/``-```..:/y:-/--....-:::-:+o+:/oo/.:::+oyo+////////////////oy.
[02/Dec 00:13:05] <~Jesus> .` `` s//. ` `./+.-:```..-/s+-/o---....-///:/o+/+s/..::/o+syo+////////////+ss.
[02/Dec 00:13:06] <~Jesus> `.` -` //` .``../o+-::`....-++:/-+s/--...--////+o++y:.../:+o+oyo+/////////+sy+`
[02/Dec 00:13:06] <~Jesus> -` . `.` `./``:/o-+:::`.....+/..::+y+://-...:/+++o/h-...-:++o+oyso//////+syy:
[02/Dec 00:13:07] <~Jesus> .` .-``.`/+`-/o-.////.....-o:. `:/oys+//:---:/+++++-....://o+/yyyso/+osyy+`
[02/Dec 00:13:07] <~Jesus> .:``...oo`//+.`:/o/.--..:s-.`.--/+o+++////.-/++s-.-...-//++++hyyyssyys-
[02/Dec 00:13:08] <~Jesus> `:``-../o/./o:. ./h+----./s:--`` ``:+//++///::/+o..-...-:/o++/hyyyyyyh:
[02/Dec 00:13:08] <~Jesus> `:``.:-`/+//+o-` /oo:.:/-oy-`-/shhys++:-:/+++//s-.:-...:-/s/++shhdhy++-
[02/Dec 00:13:08] <~Jesus> :...:-+.+/-//o:.--.o.+-:/++o-+hdyo//+ymh+`.--//+/.::....-:+o/+++hyyyy``
[02/Dec 00:13:09] <~Jesus> --..-/:+-//.-ohyo/.`:-.+:/++/omm- .yms+```.-+.:+-....-+o++++/hyyyy
[02/Dec 00:13:09] <~Jesus> .:...://+/:+.odo:sNs``. `://o.hMd` -Nss...-/-/o:...--++s/+++/yyyyy`
[02/Dec 00:13:09] <~Jesus> :-:.-:/+oo-o.ds oNs`` `./+`smmo` sNy/---/:+y/-.--:+oo++++++oyyyh.
[02/Dec 00:13:10] <~Jesus> -://.-//+o+:o:mh `NN```````.`-smdhs//+hNmo://+/+s+-.::/oyoo+++++++yyyh.
[02/Dec 00:13:10] <~Jesus> ./.`/.-/+o++o:+hNs` `Nm..`````...-/oshhdmhs////o+/oo/-//+ooyo++++++++hyyy.
[02/Dec 00:13:11] <~Jesus> `-` /../+soy+++/smdydd/..........---::///:////+/:/s//+++//os+++++++o/y+:.
[02/Dec 00:13:11] <~Jesus> --.:ososo+oo/+sss/----:-::///:----:--::----:/++++/:::/++++++++oo//
[02/Dec 00:13:12] <~Jesus> :.:ys:/o+sso///::-+oo/::::/::/:.----..-..::-+:-.--:/o++++++++s+/+
[02/Dec 00:13:12] <~Jesus> .:-s:--++y///::---+s/:::::::::/-.....`:::::-...--:+o++++++++s++/+ `````
[02/Dec 00:13:13] <~Jesus> `.```` `:-:o.:/--s:---....-s:::::::::::/`````.///s/...-:/oo++++++++oos++o ```....``...-`
[02/Dec 00:13:13] <~Jesus> ./....-...:.:.:-::-:++-....```:/::::::::::/````-/:--o:..-/syos+++++++o+o/o+o`..--...` ``.-`
[02/Dec 00:13:14] <~Jesus> `-. ``:-:+..:/-::/o+/-.`````:/:::::::::/`......-+/.-/oyyo+++++++++++.`+oo-.`` ``--
[02/Dec 00:13:14] <~Jesus> `-` .-``o.-/:o+-+o++oo+:-.``.-::::::::-...--:/o/:+syyys+s+++/+oy+o:..`/o- `.-.
[02/Dec 00:13:15] <~Jesus> `-` `.`/:-++os-/s+++ossys+:--.---------://+os+syyysss+os++++:/o+-` /: `.-`
[02/Dec 00:13:15] <~Jesus> `-` :`--+:o++./:h+o++osyysyyssso//:///+++//+//shso:.o-/+++:-.o/` . `.-`
[02/Dec 00:13:16] <~Jesus> -`.-` :. :./++: .:+:oo++oohyso/smh/+o+//::::--//-+.-. //o/:-` `: ``.-
[02/Dec 00:13:16] <~Jesus> -.``-:`/`.:`:+.```:`-oo++++o.`.-oso+s-.````.:oyo`.:--`/.+//-` ``..
[02/Dec 00:13:17] <~Jesus> .-.`:/+.-o` .:.: .:.````+s.`:sosoyoo``.:osysy::--:/.+`-/://:` ```-`
[02/Dec 00:13:17] <~Jesus> ....`.+-.-----:.:`--`-/-.`.-/o++s/o++oo/:/:+oo.:y/`:+---:/:./::::/- ``..`
[02/Dec 00:13:18] <~Jesus> :.``.-:-...---::..+:-.`````ssssoy+yysyo++/+ssy. :/:+`` `:.-:+/::+. `...`
[02/Dec 00:13:18] <~Jesus> `..:/:-..-:/.```-: ``+s+///+oyosy+++++++os:.:::`..``./-.-+:/:`````.......``
[02/Dec 00:13:19] <~Jesus> ``::-..--:-````//.` ``-+s////oooo+sy/////////o...-- .-..:-:/:/o.`...``
[02/Dec 00:13:19] <~Jesus> `:..-//:----..`.:++/:..:+o///+o++++s+y/////////y-..--```-.-++/+-...-......```````
[02/Dec 00:13:20] <~Jesus> `.``` .:-.-----:-++oo:/o///oo+++++yos////////oyo----....-+///+-..``````.........--`
[02/Dec 00:13:20] <~Jesus> -:/+--....:+/++o//+o++oo++sy+////////+yyys+-//:--/s++yo- ``..`
[02/Dec 00:13:21] <~Jesus> .-.`./.....--o++o+///+++++++++/////////syyyyy/----:--/+o` ``-.`
[02/Dec 00:13:21] <~Jesus> -:.` `/.....--///o/////////////////////+syyyyo:-......-:o+` `.-.
[02/Dec 00:13:21] <~Jesus> -:.` `/.....--///o/////////////////////+syyyyo:-......-:o+` `.-.
[02/Dec 00:13:22] <~Jesus> `...--.....--:+/s/////////////////////oyyyyy../.-......-o/.-....``..`
[02/Dec 00:13:22] <~Jesus> `:.```..---//s/////////////////////syyyy/ +--.......-o` ``..`
[02/Dec 00:13:23] <~Jesus> :.````.---:os////////////////////+yyyyh` .+-.......-:/-`
[02/Dec 00:13:23] <~Jesus> ./````.---:yso+//////////////////ssssyd+ -/--...-.--+`--.
[02/Dec 00:13:24] <~Jesus> `::-``..--:o/o++oo+//////////////+ssyyyhs ./:-------: `.-.`
[02/Dec 00:13:24] <~Jesus> `:-.:-`.-:/s///+//+osso+++ooooosssyyys+ody+. `-:::--:` `.--`
[02/Dec 00:13:25] <~Jesus> `` `--.`//////////+ossssyyyyyyyso+//oyhyyyo:` :.-.` `.--
[02/Dec 00:13:25] <~Jesus> ////////////++ossyyyso+/////syhhyyyyys:` .:.....----....-`
[02/Dec 00:13:26] <~Jesus> ////////////++osyso+///////+syyhyyyyyyyys:` ````
[02/Dec 00:13:26] <~Jesus> /+//////////++oo+/////////+oyysyyyyyyyyyyyys-
[02/Dec 00:13:27] <~Jesus> -+///////////////////////+oyssssyyyyyyyyyyyyyy+`
[02/Dec 00:13:27] <~Jesus> .+//////////////////////+ossssyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys-
[02/Dec 00:13:28] <~Jesus> `+/////////////////////+ooossyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/.
[02/Dec 00:13:28] <~Jesus> `+++++oo++/////////////+osyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyssso/-
[02/Dec 00:13:29] <~Jesus> -:/++o+oossssoo+++/+ossyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssoo+/:-.`
[02/Dec 00:13:29] <~Jesus> ` ```.---::::////////////:::---..``
[02/Dec 00:13:30] <~Jesus>

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-02 12:33

>>68
Which channel? That's not saovq.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-02 12:36

>>69
#flac

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-07 17:04

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-07 17:11

>>71
How long will you keep it up?

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-07 20:59

>>72
Hopefully I can keep chiru.no online forever

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-07 23:45

>>73
I doubt humans will be around that long.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-08 6:02

What programing language is this?

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-08 6:18

>>75
It would appear to be PHP.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-08 8:22

>>76
Webscripting isn't programming.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-09 3:37

>>77
PHP compiles to C

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-09 11:36

>>79
Transpiling isn't the same as compiling.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-09 17:18

>>73
I'm not convinced. Have you identified your successor?

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-10 11:41

BOOMPSY

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-10 12:02

>>80
PHP doesn't compile to C either

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-10 12:19

>>80
It is

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-10 21:58

>>84
No.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-18 22:02

>>84
It's not.
If there's no bytecode, it's transpiling.

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-19 7:30

>>86
you fucking idiot, there's nothing in definition of 'compilation' that talks about bytecode or machine. compiling transforms from one language into the other, in 'transpiling' you just have target language that is also designed for directly writing sources in it. HIBT?

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-19 7:34

>>87
Shut up, autist
This is the same bullshit all these "compile x to javashit" idiots spew. You don't compile a high level language to another high level language, you transpile it. are u dum?

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-19 7:46

>>88
transpile my anus

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-19 9:54

>>1
Is there an FTP server where we can upload?

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-20 13:46

Put into tar file and curl -F upload=@file.tar https://chiru.no

Name: Anonymous 2017-12-20 14:04

>>91
That's not an ftp site or as simple

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-02 16:30

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-02 16:31

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-02 16:31

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-02 22:01

>>93-95
Hope you're happy you paid for your placebo.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-02 22:46

>>96
It looks cool, though.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-03 2:56

>>93-95
Credulous audiophile detected

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-03 16:00

Streaming 352KHz flac

https://chiru.no:8081/highres.flac

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-03 18:53

FLAC is placebo, 22050hz MP3 is where it is.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-03 19:17

>>100
Flac still has merit in the way that all lossless codecs do: for archival. Streaming flac files, though, is just a gratuitous waste of bandwidth.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-03 19:59

>>101
It's actually SACD

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 5:23

>>101
Streaming flac files, though, is just a gratuitous waste of bandwidth.
Because?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 5:36

>>99
It sounds like shit, mostly because I can't download that fast. Edited on 04/01/2018 05:37.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 8:22

>>104
Wow that edit was a waste of time and now you look ridiculous.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 9:31

>>105
Thanks. I do my best.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 10:44

>>103
Because that's the whole point of compression? Are you joking?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 12:05

>>107
I understand the point of compression, but there is nothing good about listening to MP3s.
Compared to FLAC/wav (and lossless music in general) MP3 is objectively inferior and a pain to hear. Why would you want to hear a version of a song that's inferior and loses its touch? The only acceptable time to keep MP3 copies is when you can't buy or find any copy of the song except in MP3 320 CBR.

Worse is when you hear music via youtube. The music from a YT video is severely inferior to the lossless version for listening because of compression. This is 1990 anymore; you can easily get a good HDD for a cheap price. Don't tell me you're one of those guys that uses SSDs for storage? You can see that OP runs his entire collection that has more than a million songs in the highest quality formats (SACD is 5-10x FLAC in size), and they only take up 15TB of space.

8TB WD Reds cost about $180, so you literally have no excuse for preferring MP3s over FLAC rips except for being poor. Being poor is a personal choice, but please don't attempt to convince others to follow the blind (or deaf in this case).

If you aren't listening to the highest quality of audio or lossless, then you don't really have good ears.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 12:35

>>108
If you aren't listening to the highest quality of audio or lossless, then you don't really have good ears.
Enjoy destroying your golden ears as you overwork them with a long period of load noise

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 12:36

>>108
You're blatantly conflating flac with lossless and mp3 with lossy. It's no huge secret that mp3 is technically inferior, but your rant isn't even relevant, because we're not talking about that specific codec, just lossy codecs in general. You don't even understand what container those YouTube videos are going to be served to you as; that could vary drastically depending on your browser and the uploader. Webm specifically uses Vorbis Opus, not mp3. Plus, the quality of the audio of those YouTube videos could simply be that the audio is compressed at a level below the transparency threshold and, as such, isn't a reflection of any sort of technical flaws.

It's ironic that you'd say listening to compressed audio is archaic, because the fetishism of lossless files and audiophile in general was spawned out of the abysmal quality of audio cassettes, where such amendments would actually be warranted, because things were sincerely bad.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 13:17

check my trips

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 14:56

>>110
You don't even understand what container those YouTube videos are going to be served to you as
It's either opus or AAC 92kbps

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 15:19

>>112
Neither of which are mp3 and basically proves that the quality of YouTube audio is because of consumer expectations and not the codecs themselves.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 15:50

>>113
MP3 is the most common container for music files, king autismo
No need to nitpick in that guy's argument to prove him wrong

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 18:12

>>114
MP3 is proprietary and, therefore, considered harmful.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 19:23

>>115
Nope, hasn't been for almost a year now.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 19:53

>>115,116
But mp3 is outdated and unmaintained, vastly different than its competitors, which is why you can't just lop it in with everything else. To do something so ignorant and nit-picky makes a disingenuous argument.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 20:49

>>111
Back to 4chan, please.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-04 21:41

>>117
So just use ogg.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 11:27

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 14:20

lol

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 14:32

.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 16:28

>>119
Tell that to >>108.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 16:34

>>123
I can understand his argument in terms of using FLAC for archival, but for distribution, it's overkill.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 16:38

>>124
for archival
eeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee
is bad ol' rotational velocidensity gonna destroy your songs????
FLAC files sound better than lossy audio files. So it's ok for distribution as well.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 16:46

>>125
So it's ok for distribution as well.
Sure, if everyone had average Internet speeds on par with South Korea and Japan. In my country, we unfortunately still have third world quality Internet and getting progressively worse.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-06 17:57

>>124
Yes. We've literally established that already. We also established that Flac isn't representative of lossless codecs nor mp3 of lossy. But >>108's rant basically did what you were just doing, where you talked about the universal qualities of lossy codecs and juxtaposed that to mp3's technical flaws while pretending like they're the same thing. And then >>114 accused >>113 of being nitpicky for calling out >>108's blatant shameless fallacy, and >>119 literally rehashed >>113's argument about why >>108's argument is disingenuous while criticizing >>116, who is in turn >>113.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 2:41

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 4:02

>>128
I was about to make a charming comment, before I realized that you highlighted that text, meaning you sincerely believe the arbitrary decisions of Mozilla as interpreted by one Catalin Cimpanu reflects the future of the Internet. You have yet to even acknowledge the practical restraints lossless media provides in terms of bandwidth, and you continue to perpetuate this retarded flac/mp3 dichotomy even though mp3 is literally deprecated.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 5:28

The human ear can only hear up to MP3 quality, anything higher is a waste of space and bandwidth

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 7:29

>>130
You're just as bad as the Flac guy. What quality is ``MP3 quality''? You do realize that there are different qualities of encoding, right? Which is why you can't judge a container simply based on one isolated instance of an mp3 file whose bitrate is obviously below the transparency threshold. There are legitimate arguments about the practical and technical obstacles of problems like this, but the two of you are stupidly fixated on mp3's and a bunch of isolated, insular flaws like a bunch of morons, yet you insist on pretending like your argument is exists to be meaningful rather than to simply have a minor win in your one-sided tirade against the mp3 menace. And against whom, you might ask? Against no one. You're literally convincing no one, because there's no one here to be convinced of what is obvious but unrelated fact like mp3 generally sucks among sites that still distribute in that archaic medium.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 9:46

>>131
What quality is ``MP3 quality''?
320KBPS 44.1 khz

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 10:38

<- dubs

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 18:22

>>133
Checked.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 22:37

>>133-134
Back to 4chan, please.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 22:53

>>132
That's the maximum quality, correct? In any case, I don't hear much of a difference between an mp3 encoded in that quality and a FLAC file.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 22:57

>>136
people like >>108-sama can hear it

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 23:07

>>115
So was gif but now all the patents have expired. Still, if I'm doing basic audio distribution, I'll prefer ogg, but it's nice that mp3 can now be used freely.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-07 23:17

>>137
Yeah, and people like that remind me of audiophiles that tout the superiority of vinyl records over digital discs.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 6:35

>>138
vinyl has a warmer more natural sound, digital audio sounds cold and sterile

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 6:36

>>140
oops, meant to reply to >>139

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 10:29

>>140
Can you say "buzzwords"?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 10:29

>>142
buzzwords

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 12:24

>>140
can confirm

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 15:26

>>140
Vinyl sounds better because it is an analog medium.

The same reason film photographs look sharper than digital ones.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 18:08

>>136
In any case, I don't hear much of a difference between an mp3 encoded in that quality and a FLAC file.
Consider the following:
A song in FLAC: https://my.mixtape.moe/iclzak.flac
Same exact song in MP3 320kbps CBR: https://my.mixtape.moe/qlevfa.MP3
And just for shits n giggles, here's the song in OGG: https://my.mixtape.moe/cawjae.ogg

The OGG one doesn't sound as bad, but clearly FLAC one is definitive.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 21:02

>>146
Sounds like placebo.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-08 22:54

>>146
Wow, I knew MP3's were shitty, but I was suprised at just how much better the flac is.

WTF I love flac now!

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 0:52

>>146
OK, I can hear a slight difference between mp3 and ogg, but not much between ogg and flac. Then again, I'm using a cheap 10 year old pair of Sony MDR-G45 headphones.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 5:06

>>146
Which song is this?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 19:32

>>150
Darude - Sandstorm

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-09 20:07

>>151
Back to YouTube, please.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-10 1:04

Non-YouTube post:
>>150
Back to HookTube, please.

Name: AWG 2018-01-11 15:31

why can't lossyfag die already?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-11 17:34

>>154
fucking poor people

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-14 18:02

who wants lossy music in 2018??

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-14 18:34

>>156
me

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-14 18:37

>>120
It's Jesus
Who's Jesus?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-14 18:38

>>157
No you don't.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 16:09

FLAC Internet radio: https://chiru.no:8081/stream.flac

Only top tier headphones like the SR-007 allowed.

Reasons why FLAC is superior for streaming music over the Internet:

- Free, respects your freedoms
- Smaller filesize to wav, wma lossless and alac
- Original data
- Only needs 1mbit connection
- Lower algorithmic latency than opus
- Sounds better
- Lightweight compared to youtube videos
- More crisp highs, luscious lows, liquid soundstage
- Greater resolution detail
- Resolves better
- It's not the 90's anymore, you can stream FLAC

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 16:36

>>160
Thank you. Well said.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 17:10

>>160
- It's not the 90's anymore, you can stream FLAC
$CURRENT_YEAR
is not an argument.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 18:57

>>160
Human ears can't discern the difference between 192 Kbps and anything higher.

MP3 is an open standard now and compatible with everything. No reason not to use it.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 19:11

>>163
see/hear >>146

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 19:15

Vorbis was better than mp3 in every single way from the start and now we have opus. No reason to use mp3.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 19:51

>>165
Vorbis is good, but whatever non-free baggage that mp3 had is no longer.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 19:59

>>166
Its license wasn't the only problem, idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 20:18

>>167
What else is the problem? mp3 can now be used freely, and it's a widely used audio format. The only thing I could see overtaking it is ogg due to Wikimedia/Wikipedia widely promoting it.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 21:57

FLAC is free. No need to use mp3.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-15 22:22

>>169
FLAC is free.
No one said it wasn't.
No need to use mp3.
It's still the most popular format, though.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-16 21:23

Mp3 is proprietary patent-encumbered lossy garbage, FLAC respects your freedoms.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-16 21:40

>>171
Mp3 is proprietary
Not anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 4:50

>>171
Nigga u dum.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 17:31

>>163
The human ear might not be able to hear anything more than 192 Kbps (I don't know, I am not an expert on this topic) but it can definitely hear the shitty mp3 compression.

>>166
And? Vorbis and Opus are still better.

>>168
That it is shit compared to the alternative.

>>170
It's still the most popular format, though.
And?

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 19:23

>>174
That it is shit compared to the alternative.
mp3 is still fine for most distribution. Especially if you're running a simple podcast or something of the sort.
And?
Using the most popular and well-established format means the widest distribution accessible. Everyone using an ancient 486 running Windows 95 and Winamp 2 (or an ancient Linux/BSD distribution running an old version of the first XMMS) to the latest tech would be able to play it.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 20:32

Audiophiles are faggots. I'm still using cheap headphones from 10+ years ago. Who cares. Stop being such a soy consumerist.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 21:15

>>176
this, people who buy shit are communist

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 21:16

>>174
>The human ear

Which one? Don't tell me, you still think both ears hear exactly the same?

I'll wait for you to google this one.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 21:18

>>178
4chan

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 21:20

mp3 is still fine for most distribution. Especially if you're running a simple podcast or something of the sort.
It is still worse than the alternatives.

Using the most popular and well-established format means the widest distribution accessible
Not really, there is support for vorbis literally everywhere.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-17 21:44

>>180
Not really, there is support for vorbis literally everywhere.
If I'm driving a car made between ca. 2003 - 2012, it'll have a USB port that could play MP3 (and only MP3) off a flash drive. The same goes for all kind of stereos, TVs, clock radios, etc. It just works.

Also there exists extremely optimized decoding software for MP3 on all these embedded devices. The ones that support Vorbis just use shitty GNU tier FOSS code to so and drain the battery quick.

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-18 0:30

because everyone knows proprietary mp3 decoders perform much better than FOSS ones

Name: Anonymous 2018-01-18 0:47

Proprietary consumerist manchildren ruining the world for everyone.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List