|
Baa?21245 Posts
On November 01 2013 00:52 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:49 wei2coolman wrote:On October 31 2013 23:22 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 31 2013 23:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I thought .flac was the super good audio one and .mp3, .wav and all that junk did the bitrate stuff with music in chunks. nope WAV is completely (digitally) unaltered sound, and is probably the most "faithful" to whatever the source is. Downside is that it has no built-in field tagging capabilities (or at least that used to be the case, think there are some basic options available now) and is huge. Stuff like FLAC/ALAC/APE are comrpessed, but losslessly (preserves quality, but they're still in "bitrates" - everything is... usually see ~500-600kbps, but it varies, can go as low as ~400 or high as ~800. If you use foobar it defaults and dynamically displays the bitrate of the file you're playing). It's what most "audiophiles" like to use and you're probably not gonna hear a difference between source and a properly losslessly encoded file. MP3 is is a misleading term since it actually encompasses a lot of different compression methods, but they're all "lossy" compressed, which means they lose out on some quality for the sake of smaller filesizes. Most common varieties - 128 kbps, 192kbps, 256kbps, 320kbps. The 128 is the kinda junk you see in single files that you DL off those MP3 sites, whereas *most* torrents these days are somewhere between 192 - 320. In addition, there is "variable" bitrate compression which tries to adjust the bitrate by segment so that the more complex portions get a higher bitrate - you have stuff like MP3 V0, OGG, and AAC among others who have variable options. That covers most of the common formats, but audio encoding can get pretty complex and there are plenty of esoteric formats that have their own minute differentiation, not to mention the distinctions that are present within the format themselves. I'll just close by saying that the file format is not the end all be all of audio quality - in fact it's usually the least important part. It all depends on the source format first and foremost - doesn't matter if you have 800kbps FLAC file if it was encoded based on a 32kbps MP3 (and yes those still exist ;; ), followed by -how- it's compressed, not just the format it was compressed into. Also I'm nowhere near an expert on this this is just a very broad overview I'm sure there are people who will take issue with a lot of the generalizations made here but oh well. Last I heard you have to take a test on this kind of shit if you want to get into what.cd or something lol, pretty dumb but whatever. Also I think most people probably can't hear the difference between the vast majority of these formats, even if they have decent audio equipment, and a lot of it is a placebo. That's not to say that you can't - I just think it's not applicable to most people who don't actually care enough/listen to enough music/invest in enough gear. I'm perfectly happy personally with anything MP3 320+ and can rarely hear the difference between a MP3 320 and a FLAC. You can't hear the difference between mp3 320kbps and FLAC, the only benefit for FLAC is its lossless. Meaning, you can copy paste the file infinite amount of time, and it'll sound the same the in the end as it did the beginning. While mp3 files will degrade over time. So if you plan on a creating a library you plan on keeping for 10+ years, better to have all your shit in FLAC. Wow I never knew that all of my music has been in MP3s and I've moved hard drives a lot. No wonder it's starting to sound worse. Thanks for the tip I'll be sure too look for FLAC next time! + Show Spoiler +
coworker gave me a weird look when he glanced over and saw the image cause i lol'd
Also for bitrates and audio equipment it really depends on how good the production/mastering/etc, of the album you're listening to is. The sad truth is that a -lot- of stuff starts to sound kinda shay when you get into hi-fi. There are bands who put a lot of effort into properly mastering their stuff, but honestly, 99% don't or have a very poor idea of how to do it and it ends up sounding super meh
which is why classical music superior master race always good quality never not good quality gg
On November 01 2013 01:04 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:47 Requizen wrote:
So I've never played Settlers of Catan, and the gf just told me she has it and we can play sometime.
things are getting pretty serious 3 words: Sheep Based Economy.
baa?
+ Show Spoiler +all i ever do when i play catan is establish sheep monopoly + Show Spoiler + sheep blows buff wool pls
|
|
|
United States15536 Posts
On November 01 2013 01:07 Shelke14 wrote:
I really like pally
I imagine this is something like the Cixah Conch. Wait for it...
|
Paladin is a cool class. DS decks are fucking hilarious if you stack them right.
|
Warlock and Priest are where it's at...
If I ever get to play the game.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 01 2013 00:52 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:49 wei2coolman wrote:On October 31 2013 23:22 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 31 2013 23:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I thought .flac was the super good audio one and .mp3, .wav and all that junk did the bitrate stuff with music in chunks. nope WAV is completely (digitally) unaltered sound, and is probably the most "faithful" to whatever the source is. Downside is that it has no built-in field tagging capabilities (or at least that used to be the case, think there are some basic options available now) and is huge. Stuff like FLAC/ALAC/APE are comrpessed, but losslessly (preserves quality, but they're still in "bitrates" - everything is... usually see ~500-600kbps, but it varies, can go as low as ~400 or high as ~800. If you use foobar it defaults and dynamically displays the bitrate of the file you're playing). It's what most "audiophiles" like to use and you're probably not gonna hear a difference between source and a properly losslessly encoded file. MP3 is is a misleading term since it actually encompasses a lot of different compression methods, but they're all "lossy" compressed, which means they lose out on some quality for the sake of smaller filesizes. Most common varieties - 128 kbps, 192kbps, 256kbps, 320kbps. The 128 is the kinda junk you see in single files that you DL off those MP3 sites, whereas *most* torrents these days are somewhere between 192 - 320. In addition, there is "variable" bitrate compression which tries to adjust the bitrate by segment so that the more complex portions get a higher bitrate - you have stuff like MP3 V0, OGG, and AAC among others who have variable options. That covers most of the common formats, but audio encoding can get pretty complex and there are plenty of esoteric formats that have their own minute differentiation, not to mention the distinctions that are present within the format themselves. I'll just close by saying that the file format is not the end all be all of audio quality - in fact it's usually the least important part. It all depends on the source format first and foremost - doesn't matter if you have 800kbps FLAC file if it was encoded based on a 32kbps MP3 (and yes those still exist ;; ), followed by -how- it's compressed, not just the format it was compressed into. Also I'm nowhere near an expert on this this is just a very broad overview I'm sure there are people who will take issue with a lot of the generalizations made here but oh well. Last I heard you have to take a test on this kind of shit if you want to get into what.cd or something lol, pretty dumb but whatever. Also I think most people probably can't hear the difference between the vast majority of these formats, even if they have decent audio equipment, and a lot of it is a placebo. That's not to say that you can't - I just think it's not applicable to most people who don't actually care enough/listen to enough music/invest in enough gear. I'm perfectly happy personally with anything MP3 320+ and can rarely hear the difference between a MP3 320 and a FLAC. You can't hear the difference between mp3 320kbps and FLAC, the only benefit for FLAC is its lossless. Meaning, you can copy paste the file infinite amount of time, and it'll sound the same the in the end as it did the beginning. While mp3 files will degrade over time. So if you plan on a creating a library you plan on keeping for 10+ years, better to have all your shit in FLAC. Wow I never knew that all of my music has been in MP3s and I've moved hard drives a lot. No wonder it's starting to sound worse. Thanks for the tip I'll be sure too look for FLAC next time! + Show Spoiler +
Your MP3s won't degrade if you rewind the file before closing it.
Even better if you have an MP3 rewinding program.
|
On November 01 2013 00:52 Tooplark wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:49 wei2coolman wrote:On October 31 2013 23:22 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 31 2013 23:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
I thought .flac was the super good audio one and .mp3, .wav and all that junk did the bitrate stuff with music in chunks. nope WAV is completely (digitally) unaltered sound, and is probably the most "faithful" to whatever the source is. Downside is that it has no built-in field tagging capabilities (or at least that used to be the case, think there are some basic options available now) and is huge. Stuff like FLAC/ALAC/APE are comrpessed, but losslessly (preserves quality, but they're still in "bitrates" - everything is... usually see ~500-600kbps, but it varies, can go as low as ~400 or high as ~800. If you use foobar it defaults and dynamically displays the bitrate of the file you're playing). It's what most "audiophiles" like to use and you're probably not gonna hear a difference between source and a properly losslessly encoded file. MP3 is is a misleading term since it actually encompasses a lot of different compression methods, but they're all "lossy" compressed, which means they lose out on some quality for the sake of smaller filesizes. Most common varieties - 128 kbps, 192kbps, 256kbps, 320kbps. The 128 is the kinda junk you see in single files that you DL off those MP3 sites, whereas *most* torrents these days are somewhere between 192 - 320. In addition, there is "variable" bitrate compression which tries to adjust the bitrate by segment so that the more complex portions get a higher bitrate - you have stuff like MP3 V0, OGG, and AAC among others who have variable options. That covers most of the common formats, but audio encoding can get pretty complex and there are plenty of esoteric formats that have their own minute differentiation, not to mention the distinctions that are present within the format themselves. I'll just close by saying that the file format is not the end all be all of audio quality - in fact it's usually the least important part. It all depends on the source format first and foremost - doesn't matter if you have 800kbps FLAC file if it was encoded based on a 32kbps MP3 (and yes those still exist ;; ), followed by -how- it's compressed, not just the format it was compressed into. Also I'm nowhere near an expert on this this is just a very broad overview I'm sure there are people who will take issue with a lot of the generalizations made here but oh well. Last I heard you have to take a test on this kind of shit if you want to get into what.cd or something lol, pretty dumb but whatever. Also I think most people probably can't hear the difference between the vast majority of these formats, even if they have decent audio equipment, and a lot of it is a placebo. That's not to say that you can't - I just think it's not applicable to most people who don't actually care enough/listen to enough music/invest in enough gear. I'm perfectly happy personally with anything MP3 320+ and can rarely hear the difference between a MP3 320 and a FLAC. You can't hear the difference between mp3 320kbps and FLAC, the only benefit for FLAC is its lossless. Meaning, you can copy paste the file infinite amount of time, and it'll sound the same the in the end as it did the beginning. While mp3 files will degrade over time. So if you plan on a creating a library you plan on keeping for 10+ years, better to have all your shit in FLAC. Copy-pasting a file won't cause any information loss. It's only if you edit it and recompress it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss
Hmm, I must of misread it when I looked this up a few years ago, you right.
On November 01 2013 01:10 Zdrastochye wrote:Warlock and Priest are where it's at... If I ever get to play the game. + Show Spoiler +
lol, those are the two I've been playing constructed the most with so far.
Looking into playing some more Mage, but not having Pyroblast really limits what I can do with it imo, so I'll probably have to open some more decks and hopefully get some more Mage cards, same applies to Druid.
|
i have an external mp3 rewinder beside my vhs rewinder
|
I liked Catan for something like 20 minutes when I played it. Then I got bored. We were 3 and I ws ahead, so all they ever did was trade between them while never ever trading with me, and the game basically devolved to RNG "Do I get these resources" and they stalled and stalled.
I mean, it wasn't boring for tem, they were trying and stuff. But for me it was converting whatever I had aplenty to whatever I lacked, which was super slow because of resource spread and noone trading with me, basically wondering "Do I try to hold the longest road/biggest army or do I keep these resources for conversion?" every third turn when I received stuff without having the bandits on my ass.
(The fact that the eventual winner was the gal who was (quite) behind the whole game is nice since it shows the game allows for comebacks, but if it's at the cost of lengthy stalling and simply shutting the leader out of the game so he has almost nothing to do meanwhile is a bad mechanic imo.)
|
On November 01 2013 01:04 ComaDose wrote:
catan is the best board game ever made and you should feel bad for not having already played it.
you kinda need 3 ppl to play and the goal of the game is often to fuck over other people a heads on match with a SO sounds like relationship bootcamp.
No. There are so many better games. Just none as popular or as well known. (Not that Catan is a bad game, but there are many I like more.) Try Smallworld, for instance. Even when you get stomped by other players, you just pick a new race/power and start taking territory as someone else. Or Kemet, where even when someone invades all your pyramids you can still just build more mans.
|
|
|
Fluxx is my favorite card game. Used to cause physical fights amongst friends.
Chocolate Milk rule bitches.
|
On November 01 2013 01:31 Tooplark wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 01:04 ComaDose wrote:
catan is the best board game ever made and you should feel bad for not having already played it.
you kinda need 3 ppl to play and the goal of the game is often to fuck over other people a heads on match with a SO sounds like relationship bootcamp. No. There are so many better games. Just none as popular or as well known. (Not that Catan is a bad game, but there are many I like more.) Try Smallworld, for instance. Even when you get stomped by other players, you just pick a new race/power and start taking territory as someone else. Or Kemet, where even when someone invades all your pyramids you can still just build more mans.
they sound pretty cool i will check em out.
|
On November 01 2013 01:13 ComaDose wrote:
i have an external mp3 rewinder beside my vhs rewinder
You don't want to rewind too much though because the rotational velocidensity of the medium will cause the bits to misalign and then the compression algorithm will slowly fail.
|
On October 31 2013 22:56 AsmodeusXI wrote:Btw I expect all of TL LoL that is interested in Hearthstone to contribute to my campaign to make Cixah an eSports celebrity. Everyone tweet @Artosis and @ggDoA and tell them @Cixah should be a regular guest. + Show Spoiler +AND THEN I CAN LIVE VICARIOUSLY THROUGH CIXAH'S EFAME HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
You guys are so awesome :3
Edit: I had to work for much longer than I wanted to today. Otherwise I would have answered the Conch.
|
On November 01 2013 01:39 Cixah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:56 AsmodeusXI wrote:Btw I expect all of TL LoL that is interested in Hearthstone to contribute to my campaign to make Cixah an eSports celebrity. Everyone tweet @Artosis and @ggDoA and tell them @Cixah should be a regular guest. + Show Spoiler +AND THEN I CAN LIVE VICARIOUSLY THROUGH CIXAH'S EFAME HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE You guys are so awesome :3
This subforum needs more efamous people
|
On November 01 2013 01:17 Alaric wrote:
I liked Catan for something like 20 minutes when I played it. Then I got bored. We were 3 and I ws ahead, so all they ever did was trade between them while never ever trading with me, and the game basically devolved to RNG "Do I get these resources" and they stalled and stalled.
I mean, it wasn't boring for tem, they were trying and stuff. But for me it was converting whatever I had aplenty to whatever I lacked, which was super slow because of resource spread and noone trading with me, basically wondering "Do I try to hold the longest road/biggest army or do I keep these resources for conversion?" every third turn when I received stuff without having the bandits on my ass.
(The fact that the eventual winner was the gal who was (quite) behind the whole game is nice since it shows the game allows for comebacks, but if it's at the cost of lengthy stalling and simply shutting the leader out of the game so he has almost nothing to do meanwhile is a bad mechanic imo.)
I wouldn't judge it too harshly on your first game. keeping your plays secret is a large part of it, and you have to have an outline of where your points are going to come from before you place your first settlement.
Often when i play with friends the game ends when someone gets like 4 points in one turn while revealing that they had victory point cards. keeping things like road building until one has enough to take the longest road and win is key to not giving your opponents a chance to shut you down. Everyone is constantly trying to shut down everyone else and the real life application of democracy is arguably half the game. But i can't imagine a situation where you are clearly winning but only getting 1 resource every 9 rolls.
On November 01 2013 01:38 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 01:13 ComaDose wrote:
i have an external mp3 rewinder beside my vhs rewinder You don't want to rewind too much though because the rotational velocidensity of the medium will cause the bits to misalign and then the compression algorithm will slowly fail.
oh thanks for the tip that must be why my mp3s sound worse now.
|
On November 01 2013 01:38 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 01:13 ComaDose wrote:
i have an external mp3 rewinder beside my vhs rewinder You don't want to rewind too much though because the rotational velocidensity of the medium will cause the bits to misalign and then the compression algorithm will slowly fail.
I...don't believe you
|
Isn't there a limit though? Iirc there was something like can't get more than X cards in hand, or you have to give half you cards to somebody sending the bandits against you, something like that. It was long ago so it' a bit blurry but I recall there being mechanisms to prevent you from piling in a corner an then playing 20 resources in a single turn.
|
On November 01 2013 02:03 Alaric wrote:
Isn't there a limit though? Iirc there was something like can't get more than X cards in hand, or you have to give half you cards to somebody sending the bandits against you, something like that. It was long ago so it' a bit blurry but I recall there being mechanisms to prevent you from piling in a corner an then playing 20 resources in a single turn.
There is, but it's really hard to have that many cards and not be able to afford to make something/draw a nonresource card[forget the term.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/lazytown_oh_you.jpg)
