[Ynoskire]

Quote:

 
 
Bought a J3. Best portable sound straight-out-of-the-package that I ever heard. (I always used Creative players before that) The UI was clunky as hell and the OS was slow but I loved it nonetheless.
Till it died on my 3 months after.
Now I'm deciding on whether I'll buy one again with my 'store credits' or if I'll buy something else. As much as I dislike apple products, I might go for a 160gig classic. I mean, at least it has a line out dock function which will pair up nicely with my Fiio amp.
 
Not sure if I'd recommend buying a J3. It's the best sounding device I've heard but, unstable and quirky. Besides that, costumer service or supply is almost non-existent in EU(The Netherlands specifically) so you'll have to think about that too.

I disagree with the Netherlands thing, my first J3 died on me (bought it on a dutch webshop), I sent it to the webshop and got a new one in like a week.
 

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

dudes, in here, we sould be audiophiles... how can you be audiophiles?... if you are some true audiophiles, you should buy more space, and get everything in flac...

FLAC for portable use is silly.....most of us can't ABX well-done lossy conversions of them anyways, so it makes more sense to use lossy on the go and flac at home on the computer.
 
Oops...auhafezi beat me to it also.

 

[Typhoon859]

Quote:

Ok.  Thanks for all the answers guys.  I'm gonna just put the "cover.jpg" in each folder for my AACs and then convert my 320kbps MP3s to Lame 225kbps.  Does this sound good?

OMG OMG OMG.  Please don't >.<  One day you'll be able to tell the difference/get the gear that'll make the difference very obvious and you'll really regret this and be paranoid about how much worse you made everything you re-compressed.  This is ridiculous, lol; I'm hear trying to replace my collection which I've been making from 9 years back with MP3's at least 256+ (because starting there, the difference really is a very slim) and you're RE-converting 320 KB/s MP3's into 225's.  That statement was actually painful for me to hear XD.  All for what, maybe 1 MB per song?  Is that really worth it?  At first I thought you meant you're converting FLAC's or whatever other uncompressed files you may have had...
 
As for the difference between AAC and MP3, I'll tell you this...  MP3 compression removes clarity but maintains tonal accuracy better.  AAC compression maintains clarity better but may sound more harsh/change the tonal sound a bit of the original mastering.  This all depends on the songs themselves so each format works better, depending on genre and mastering of the songs. Surprisingly, I found myself liking AAC over MP3 more often than not although I have WAY more MP3's in my collection.  That's fine though as the difference isn't insane and I'm not crazy enough to do anything about it, especially since the J3 has the aforementioned problem with AAC's.
 
 
Quote:

 


This is true; I have a different folder for each album and a "cover.jpg" folder in each. I think this is way easier than messing around with embedded artwork. Typhoon, how do you organize your files - do you just have a folder with the artist's name and all of the song files in it?

 
It's either MP3 or AAC I keep in the folders.  Lossless I keep in a different folder but organized pretty much the same way.

Genre -> Artist/.mp3 -> Live/Demos & Extras/(Solo Artists within Band)/.mp3 -> Live/Demos & Extras/.mp3
 
Example with the full chain-
Rock -> Queen -> -Brian May-/Demos & Extras/-Freddie Mercury-/-Ft. Paul Rodgers-/Live/-Roger Taylor-/(All Pertaining Songs).mp3 -> (e.g. in "-Freddie Mercury-" folder) Demos & Extras/(All Pertaining Songs).mp3 -> (Within the only listed folder: All Pertaining Songs).mp3

 
Quote:

I find myself slowly moving away from expensive portable audio. Mostly because when I'm on the go, I don't spend time analyzing the sound or picking out micro-details, I just want to enjoy the songs to keep me entertained while I'm doing whatever. And with a lack of black silence, it's really hard to pick those things out anyway. I plan on converting all of my files to 320kbps on my J3, and just getting a pair of IEMs with a fun sound signature, no amp. Leaving the good equipment at home when I actually give my total attention to the music. I'm getting slightly off-topic here, but what I mean is I don't really care if the songs on my J3 are FLAC or 320, because when I'm on the go I don't pay enough attention to notice the difference anyway. I don't know if you're the same way I am but if you are, I suggest using .mp3s to save space.
 
EDIT: auhafezi beat me to it haha.

 
I agree with this.  I'd throw in FLAC if I figured out a good way just to satisfy my OCD.  Based on your description, the Brainwavz M2 IEM headphones seem perfect for you.  Through all my troubles finding the right pair of headphones, especially one to satisfy the Cowon J3, considering it's cold/bitter signature sound with the moderating fix only making it sound harsh, they were the ones that were astonishingly perfect.  The J3 provided the clarity while they provided the just right warm and natural fun sound.  I've been going crazy recommending these because they also feel high quality (like the cable), feel comfortable to everyone that has tried them, and are perfect for the on-the-go experience.  They're also not EXTREMELY severe on highly compressed MP3's like 128's or whatever + the Cowon does a decent job at correcting that. 

 

[Dobrescu George]

i would not use anything else but flacs, no matter if i am in move or staying home... maybe because, my songs are in most metal and goth.... they do sound different, even if you do not analyze them, they sound different in flac....

 

[169380]

Quote:

i would not use anything else but flacs, no matter if i am in move or staying home... maybe because, my songs are in most metal and goth.... they do sound different, even if you do not analyze them, they sound different in flac....

as i said before, this isnt convenient for some of us who have 3000+ songs. when i listen to my J3 on the subway, I can definitely not tell the difference, due to the background sound. 
the truth is however, that flac files have minimal differences to 320k mp3s when using headphones under $100. even with a portable amp and a J3, i would definitely not be able to tell the difference in an outdoor environment.
i guess if you have some expensive IEM's that have good isolation then its worth using flac

 

[MicroMint98]

Quote:

I find myself slowly moving away from expensive portable audio. Mostly because when I'm on the go, I don't spend time analyzing the sound or picking out micro-details, I just want to enjoy the songs to keep me entertained while I'm doing whatever. And with a lack of black silence, it's really hard to pick those things out anyway. I plan on converting all of my files to 320kbps on my J3, and just getting a pair of IEMs with a fun sound signature, no amp. Leaving the good equipment at home when I actually give my total attention to the music. I'm getting slightly off-topic here, but what I mean is I don't really care if the songs on my J3 are FLAC or 320, because when I'm on the go I don't pay enough attention to notice the difference anyway. I don't know if you're the same way I am but if you are, I suggest using .mp3s to save space.
 
EDIT: auhafezi beat me to it haha.

+100
 
I'm usually on the go, in the gym or running outside and it's a pain in the butt trying to bring an amp.  I use a fanny pack when running but there's other stuff in there like my phone, keys, pepper spray etc etc (yes, there are dogs)...so it's just not comfortable...especially when you're trying to switch songs or adjust volume.  Ever since my ipod touch died I plan on selling my full size cans and amps and buying a J3 along with some UM2's.  But I totally agree, as long as it sounds fairly decent...I'm not going to notice.     
 

 

[Typhoon859]

Quote:

i would not use anything else but flacs, no matter if i am in move or staying home... maybe because, my songs are in most metal and goth.... they do sound different, even if you do not analyze them, they sound different in flac....

 
I wanted to mention that.  Especially for something like Metal, depending on the genre of music and mastering of it - really changes how noticeable lossy formats may sound relative to the original.  I've been quite surprised at times and the huge differences I've seen frankly frightened me.  Disturbed is a good simple sounding band where it's easy to tell.  I agree to some extent to this and I'm a true audiophile.  I just wouldn't go to extreme lengths and would be willing to make sacrifices. 

 
Quote:

as i said before, this isnt convenient for some of us who have 3000+ songs. when i listen to my J3 on the subway, I can definitely not tell the difference, due to the background sound. 
the truth is however, that flac files have minimal differences to 320k mp3s when using headphones under $100. even with a portable amp and a J3, i would definitely not be able to tell the difference in an outdoor environment.
i guess if you have some expensive IEM's that have good isolation then its worth using flac

I would have to disagree with this.  Nowadays, there are plenty of IEM's under $100 where the difference is obvious even to the untrained ear, especially with the combination of the Cowon J3 that adds that extra quality (depending on your EQ setting of course).  Whether it's worth it or not - convenience is a separate issue.  When I do quality comparisons, I prefer doing the tests on my Cowon J3 over anything else.  It's easiest to hear that way and I have the Brainwavz M2's which are IEM's which I got initially for $50 at a discount from $60 and then over three additional times for friends for $35 and under.  When researching, I found them to be best for me out of any other pair $80-. 
 
Take the new Queen Greatest Hits remastered albums for example and compare FLAC to their MP3 counterparts.  I'm sure you'll hear a difference.  My friend blind tested me with this setup and I got it right each time.

 

[dfkt]

Quote:

Take the new Queen Greatest Hits remastered albums for example and compare FLAC to their MP3 counterparts.  I'm sure you'll hear a difference.  My friend blind tested me with this setup and I got it right each time.

You better use Foobar's ABX comparator plugin to do such tests, instead of relying on a friend. You'd probably be surprised at the outcome, once all the uncertainty factors are removed. I very much doubt a properly encoded LAME -v0 (or even -v2) can be ABXed against a FLAC that easily.

 

[169380]

Quote:

You better use Foobar's ABX comparator plugin to do such tests, instead of relying on a friend. You'd probably be surprised at the outcome, once all the uncertainty factors are removed. I very much doubt a properly encoded LAME -v0 (or even -v2) can be ABXed against a FLAC that easily.

+1 
 

 

[Typhoon859]

Quote:

You better use Foobar's ABX comparator plugin to do such tests, instead of relying on a friend. You'd probably be surprised at the outcome, once all the uncertainty factors are removed. I very much doubt a properly encoded LAME -v0 (or even -v2) can be ABXed against a FLAC that easily.

I really gotta hop on this Foobar thing.  I've never done a proper ABX test though that's really how I want to approach this.  Unfortunate that I can't use my Cowon J3 as something more straight forward.  ABX testing in any form can still say a lot though. 
 
I don't know how to properly ask this question without sounding like a dumbass or how to ask it correctly in the first place for it to sound like something other than me just being lazy/intimidated. 
 
I've been doing encoding for a while, using AVISynth and everything.  But everything I've tried thus far with audio encoding has been kinda... just, not the most conclusive or solid feeling method like my video encoding I felt was.  I guess to be specific: where and what EXACTLY do I need to download and install to have all the necessary tools whilst being an actual darn program rather than some command line crap with perhaps a GUI which at most is also crap?  Maybe somebody can do me the favor of linking me the most proper thing because there also usually thousands of versions of programs like Foobar and I waste my time dealing with endless annoyances and failure at its core.  Maybe I'll ask further questions from there like, based on my understanding, what THE MOST proper way to encode an uncompressed file to MP3 would be.  For instance, I probably don't know all the parts that come into play since like, to be perfectly honest, NO IDEA what the hell -v0 or -v2 is.  I'm guessing it's versions though what it affects I CERTAINLY don't know.  I know this stuff better than probably anyone else that hasn't directly dealt with a program as such specifically, so I'm saying explanations would be nice and I promise they wouldn't need to be overly complex. 
 
Defining what each function does like HybridGain, PreGain, PostGain, etc... doesn't give me the proper knowledge.  I get a general sense of what's right maybe but I feel I'd needa sit for days doing ABX tests to properly figure out and hear the differences each and every tiny thing makes.  Instead, from your guys' experience, user explanations of what they know for sure the differences to be can be just as helpful if I go based on trust of the person explaining.  Maybe some general and/or key pointers can be thrown my way - things that maybe by this point you subconsciously take into consideration whenever you're encoding something.  Long ago, I was dumbfounded at how much goes into/how many things affect a "simple conversion" of one format to the other (<- old me talking, but it makes my point).  All that made sense to me then was gain (loudness) and bitrate.  I have general knowledge of much else - just no experience with analysis of the actual sound differences.  In other words, I don't have any info I can use with confidence when possibly going for one thing over another.  Thanks guys   Hopefully this'll put an end to my roundabout/technically improper ways of testing/comparison and possibly even encoding. (I use BeLight now which was the best I found as something accurate enough and practical too.) 
 
Just to make clear, the essential thing to begin with is, I need to know all the proper "settings" to stay as close to the original sound/quality of the original uncompressed audio as possible when compared to its lossy counterpart.

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

+1 
 

2+

 

[Typhoon859]

Quote:

2+

3+, seriously (if that weren't obvious)
 
That doesn't help me though, which I've displayed I'd actually like.  It's not like I'm disagreeing/fighting against that suggestion.  One thing I'd say is that it doesn't completely falsify the test I did with my friend.  No question that ABX testing would be more accurate/get you more in general...

 

[Griffinhart]

Quote:

as i said before, this isnt convenient for some of us who have 3000+ songs.

I've got 22 weeks worth of music. Something in the 55000 songs range. The majority are in a format even less convenient than .flac track files - they're .tta album files with .cue sheets.
 
That said, if you're listening to your music in a noisy environment, then yeah, you're not going to be able to pick out the minute details, but there's still a noticeable difference between a lossless .flac file and a 128 kbps MP3. Now, 320kbps VBR MP3 vs FLAC... yeah, that might be hard to distinguish the differences.
 
 
 
Quote:

I've been doing encoding for a while, using AVISynth and everything.  But everything I've tried thus far with audio encoding has been kinda... just, not the most conclusive or solid feeling method like my video encoding I felt was.  I guess to be specific: where and what EXACTLY do I need to download and install to have all the necessary tools whilst being an actual darn program rather than some command line crap with perhaps a GUI which at most is also crap?  Maybe somebody can do me the favor of linking me the most proper thing because there also usually thousands of versions of programs like Foobar and I waste my time dealing with endless annoyances and failure at its core.  Maybe I'll ask further questions from there like, based on my understanding, what THE MOST proper way to encode an uncompressed file to MP3 would be.  For instance, I probably don't know all the parts that come into play since like, to be perfectly honest, NO IDEA what the hell -v0 or -v2 is.  I'm guessing it's versions though what it affects I CERTAINLY don't know.  I know this stuff better than probably anyone else that hasn't directly dealt with a program as such specifically, so I'm saying explanations would be nice and I promise they wouldn't need to be overly complex. 
 
Defining what each function does like HybridGain, PreGain, PostGain, etc... doesn't give me the proper knowledge.  I get a general sense of what's right maybe but I feel I'd needa sit for days doing ABX tests to properly figure out and hear the differences each and every tiny thing makes.  Instead, from your guys' experience, user explanations of what they know for sure the differences to be can be just as helpful if I go based on trust of the person explaining.  Maybe some general and/or key pointers can be thrown my way - things that maybe by this point you subconsciously take into consideration whenever you're encoding something.  Long ago, I was dumbfounded at how much goes into/how many things affect a "simple conversion" of one format to the other (<- old me talking, but it makes my point).  All that made sense to me then was gain (loudness) and bitrate.  I have general knowledge of much else - just no experience with analysis of the actual sound differences.  In other words, I don't have any info I can use with confidence when possibly going for one thing over another.  Thank you.  Hopefully this'll put an end to my roundabout/technically improper ways of testing/comparison.

>being an actual darn program
The program is just a fancy GUI frontend for the command line; you know that, right?
 
>command line crap
/facepalm
I have so many things I want to say. Then I remember you're probably on a Windbox and can't just check the man pages for whatever it is you're trying to use. /*nixsupremacist
 
>Maybe somebody can do me the favor of linking me the most proper thing because there also usually thousands of versions of programs like Foobar and I waste my time dealing with endless annoyances and failure at its core
f2k isn't (specifically built to be) an audio encoder; it's purpose was (initially) to be a music decoder. Granted, it does have a very nice frontend for encoding audio. Also, dealing with endless annoyances and failure? Read the documentation for the software. Software doesn't have documentation? That's when you know you're dealing with true annoyance and failure.
 
>what THE MOST proper way to encode an uncompressed file to MP3 would be
What are you trying to do? Get the best compression? Then wave goodbye to quality. Trying to get the best quality? Then why are you using MP3 (unless you have to meet some stupid restrictions - like the device you're trying to use supports MP3 and only MP3)? If you must get the best quality and use MP3, then go with 320kbps VBR.
 
>For instance, I probably don't know all the parts that come into play since like, to be perfectly honest, NO IDEA what the hell -v0 or -v2 is.
This is LAME-specific (other MP3 encoders may use the same flags, but what I'm about to explain is specific to LAME). Those don't refer to "version", they refer to compression rates - size vs. quality. -v9 is the most heavily compressed (smallest filesize), whereas -v0 is the best quality (~245kbps VBR). There's also 320kbps CBR, which is even better quality than than -v0.
I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread, but the MP3 spec doesn't actually define MP3 encoding standards very well, so whatever encoder you're using may (and probably does) differ greatly from any other MP3 encoder. LAME happens to be particularly popular since it's free (under the LGPL).
 
>I know this stuff better than probably anyone else that hasn't directly dealt with a program as such specifically, so I'm saying explanations would be nice and I promise they wouldn't need to be overly complex.
Are you sure? You've already stated that you don't know what the -v# flags for the LAME MP3 encoder are for... and you seem to have a distaste for command line functionality, which is where most audio encoders are used from (regardless of whatever fancy GUI interfaces you have, all those sliders you move and switches you flip are basically just setting the proper command line flags).
 
>Defining what each function does like HybridGain, PreGain, PostGain, etc... doesn't give me the proper knowledge.
That sounds like ReplayGain stuff.
 
>Maybe some general and/or key pointers can be thrown my way - things that maybe by this point you subconsciously take into consideration whenever you're encoding something.
Since most of my "encoding" consists of ripping CD audio to FLAC using dbPowerAmp (yeah, I sprung for the $30 or whatever to get the full version) at compression level 5, I don't think I'd be of much help here.
 
-- Griffinhart

 

[Typhoon859]

Quote:

I've got 22 weeks worth of music. Something in the 55000 songs range. The majority are in a format even less convenient than .flac track files - they're .tta album files with .cue sheets.
 
That said, if you're listening to your music in a noisy environment, then yeah, you're not going to be able to pick out the minute details, but there's still a noticeable difference between a lossless .flac file and a 128 kbps MP3. Now, 320kbps VBR MP3 vs FLAC... yeah, that might be hard to distinguish the differences.
 
 
 

>being an actual darn program
The program is just a fancy GUI frontend for the command line; you know that, right?
 
>command line crap
/facepalm
I have so many things I want to say. Then I remember you're probably on a Windbox and can't just check the man pages for whatever it is you're trying to use. /*nixsupremacist
 
>Maybe somebody can do me the favor of linking me the most proper thing because there also usually thousands of versions of programs like Foobar and I waste my time dealing with endless annoyances and failure at its core
f2k isn't (specifically built to be) an audio encoder; it's purpose was (initially) to be a music decoder. Granted, it does have a very nice frontend for encoding audio. Also, dealing with endless annoyances and failure? Read the documentation for the software. Software doesn't have documentation? That's when you know you're dealing with true annoyance and failure.
 
>what THE MOST proper way to encode an uncompressed file to MP3 would be
What are you trying to do? Get the best compression? Then wave goodbye to quality. Trying to get the best quality? Then why are you using MP3 (unless you have to meet some stupid restrictions - like the device you're trying to use supports MP3 and only MP3)? If you must get the best quality and use MP3, then go with 320kbps VBR.
 
>For instance, I probably don't know all the parts that come into play since like, to be perfectly honest, NO IDEA what the hell -v0 or -v2 is.
This is LAME-specific (other MP3 encoders may use the same flags, but what I'm about to explain is specific to LAME). Those don't refer to "version", they refer to compression rates - size vs. quality. -v9 is the most heavily compressed (smallest filesize), whereas -v0 is the best quality (~245kbps VBR). There's also 320kbps CBR, which is even better quality than than -v0.
I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread, but the MP3 spec doesn't actually define MP3 encoding standards very well, so whatever encoder you're using may (and probably does) differ greatly from any other MP3 encoder. LAME happens to be particularly popular since it's free (under the LGPL).
 
>I know this stuff better than probably anyone else that hasn't directly dealt with a program as such specifically, so I'm saying explanations would be nice and I promise they wouldn't need to be overly complex.
Are you sure? You've already stated that you don't know what the -v# flags for the LAME MP3 encoder are for... and you seem to have a distaste for command line functionality, which is where most audio encoders are used from (regardless of whatever fancy GUI interfaces you have, all those sliders you move and switches you flip are basically just setting the proper command line flags).
 
>Defining what each function does like HybridGain, PreGain, PostGain, etc... doesn't give me the proper knowledge.
That sounds like ReplayGain stuff.
 
>Maybe some general and/or key pointers can be thrown my way - things that maybe by this point you subconsciously take into consideration whenever you're encoding something.
Since most of my "encoding" consists of ripping CD audio to FLAC using dbPowerAmp (yeah, I sprung for the $30 or whatever to get the full version) at compression level 5, I don't think I'd be of much help here.
 
-- Griffinhart

Bro, are you mental?  Holy sh..........  I..  No words.  You took everything I said in such a demented way.  This is probably only the second time ever I actually hurt myself facepalming.  I can't even reply to that.  Hopefully others read what I said through a slightly less negative perspective. 
 
After the first few things you responded to I was still considering responding to each individual thing, though even then I was like "What...........", but by the point of the facepalm (somewhere around the fourth quote), I realized it'd be pointless.
 
To sum up everything I said without providing details to help people classify what exactly it is I wanted: I just want the "best Foobar links" and maybe a bit of an explanation of relevant stuff (like the things that lead up to the suggestion).  How you've gleaned anything else is beyond me.  I was being specific so that maybe I can get back additional info to the rudimentary initial request, also specific.
 
*Regardless, this is going on a tangent.  I was hoping it would be just one response by someone normal and the thing can move on, but it's looking like I'll probably need to make a separate thread in the proper location and see if anyone would be willing to play teacher for a bit.  If you only knew how insulting you questioning my knowledge was...  I haven't said enough to give proof but the only reason I said ANYTHING regarding my understanding in the first place was so that people would know they can give me quick technical explanations and that I'd understand them vs. them having to explain what every little thing is.  DAMMIT, I'm responding to you.  I suck!...

 

[Griffinhart]

Quote:

Bro, are you mental?  Holy sh..........  I..  No words.  You took everything I said in such a demented way.  This is probably only the second time ever I actually hurt myself facepalming.  I can't even reply to that.  Hopefully others read what I said through a slightly less negative perspective. 
 
After the first few things you responded to I was still considering responding to each individual thing, though even then I was like "What...........", but by the point of the facepalm (somewhere around the fourth quote), I realized it'd be pointless.
 
To sum up everything I said without providing details to help people classify what exactly it is I wanted: I just want the "best Foobar links" and maybe a bit of an explanation of relevant stuff (like the things that lead up to the suggestion).  How you've gleaned anything else is beyond me.  I was being specific so that maybe I can get back additional info to the rudimentary initial request, also specific.
 
*Regardless, this is going on a tangent.  I was hoping it would be just one response by someone normal and the thing can move on, but it's looking like I'll probably need to make a separate thread in the proper location and see if anyone would be willing to play teacher for a bit.  If you only knew how insulting you questioning my knowledge was...  I haven't said enough to give proof but the only reason I said ANYTHING regarding my understanding in the first place was so that people would know they can give me quick technical explanations and that I'd understand them vs. them having to explain what every little thing is.  DAMMIT, I'm responding to you.  I suck!...

>To sum up everything I said without providing details to help people classify what exactly it is I wanted
Why would you not provide details? The more details you can provide, the better the help you get. It's the whole "I need help" (okay, I'll call 911?) vs "I need help with audio" (uh, okay... do you need like, a hearing aid?) vs "I need help with encoding audio" (oh, right. Into what format?) vs "I need help encoding audio with foobar" (oh, well in that case, have you checked the foobar documentation yet?).
 
>I just want the "best Foobar links" and maybe a bit of an explanation of relevant stuff (like the things that lead up to the suggestion).
If that was all you wanted, you should've simply said "where and what EXACTLY do I need to download and install to have all the necessary tools" and left it at that (or, alternatively, told us what you meant by "necessary tools" - I mean, if all you're doing is encoding audio, then you don't need foobar, because foobar provides far more than just "the necessary tools"), instead of going off on tangents about *Gain functions and whatnot.
That said, best places to start are the f2k components page and the HydrogenAudio wiki; also, like I said before, read the documentation.
 
>How you've gleaned anything else is beyond me.
Maybe it was the two large paragraphs of text that mentioned f2k exactly once that threw me off. Maybe it was you talking about -v0 and -v2, which have nothing to do with foobar. Maybe it was you mentioning *Gain stuff, which also doesn't have much to do with foobar. Or maybe it's how f2k isn't specifically built from the ground up as an audio encoder, but as a frontend for audio encoding.
 
>I was being specific
But... you just... you said you weren't going to provide details. Make up your mind. Are you going to or not going to be specific and provide details?
 
>If you only knew how insulting you questioning my knowledge was
If you only knew how convoluted your train of thought in your original wall of text was...
Also: deal with it. I make no apologies for coming off the way I do; it's your choice to interpret me the way you did, as it was mine to interpret you the way I did.
 
-- Griffinhart