/silicon/ - technology

>>506
436.5GB LOSSLESS SEB Torrent with many active seeders
same stuff you posted except lossless

>>519
>436.5 GB
how long would that take to download
bloody hell

>>520
a week or two at 1 MBps (byte not bit)
I'm 88% complete
please seed!

>>519
Oh, hey, I have that downloaded that awhile ago. I'm seeding that until the day I die.

just re-encode the mp3s as flac.

the software will add in the extra sound.

Can anyone actually hear the difference between mp3 and flac?

>?xt=urn:btih:84228bce6273ce9e7f37fafe81770ae73fb99acb&dn=SEB%20Lossy%20Collection&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.istole.it%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=http%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969%2fannounce

how do I use this?

>>525
Look for open address or something like that in your bittorrent client and paste the entire magnet link.

>>523
i just finished downloading the 436.5 GB torrent
and checked the sound files with a spectrogram for the bitrate cutoff
its legit and not mp3 upscaled and they sound like genuine rips!

does the lossy one have any seeds? qbit gets stuck downloading metadata and I don't have the space for the lossless version

>>528
i downloaded the lossy version no problems
i wonder if i should start seeding again

>>526
Doesn't work for me. Does the link look the same to everyone else?

>>532
You included the "magnet:" prefix right?

>>533
ohhhh I didn't know the whole link goes in

nyaa is dead now i am sad

>>544
I hope it comes back soon.

>>544
>>547
I think it's ded and gone fellow rolls. From what I can tell there are people working on potential alternatives, and there are other sites out there where you can still grab animu. Unfortunately the database dumps were from 2016 but it's better than nothing.

https://www.tokyotosho.info/
may be an alternative, but I haven't actually tested anything from there yet though

>>554
I've used that site a long time ago. It certainly isn't a dayfly, so I expect it to stay around for another long time. But I think one should still use a variety of sites, even for the same types of content. We lose too much when the likes of megaupload, oink, and what dies. Content should be mirrored on all kinds of different sites.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0bbfaaf5f469a2bd3d762f6942a302f7014a35e9&tr.1=udp://tracker.ccc.de:80&tr.2=udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80&tr.3=udp://tracker.opentrackr.org:1337&tr.4=udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969&tr.5=udp://tracker.leechers-paradise.org:6969&tr.6=udp://zer0day.ch:1337&tr.7=udp://explodie.org:6969

Magnet link of old /g/entoomen library from https://g.sicp.me/books/

>>524
FLAC is just the container, it really depends on the audio stored within. You can copy the audio stream from an MP3 into a FLAC and it won't sound any different, but you may be able to hear a difference from an original lossless recording, and something compressed like you would download from youtube. Usually you'd rip the lossless from a vinyl, and occasionally it's distributed on official CDs

>>2227
>occasionally it's distributed on official CDs
CDs have their own audio format which is lossless but is different from FLAC. In fact, it's not even split into files at all - it's actually just one long audio stream with a "table of contents" which specifies where each track starts and ends. If you buy an album on CD which ends up being a CD-ROM with FLAC files on it, then someone somewhere did something very wrong.

>>523
A dumb friend of mine actually believes this.

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.