Rip an album from Youtube

>post pasta on Jow Forums for the hundredth time
>sit back and watch the replies roll in

>rip gameplay from popular game from youtube
>sell the mp4 online for 40 bucks
>"wow this doesnt even lag this is why i pirate games"

No. No one can hear the difference between lossless and 320 MP3. Anyone that claims to be able to is autistic.

Typically can hear the difference if you use the Flac file to make a new low bitrate MP3 or Ogg file. It's not as noticable sometimes, but I did realize one of my albums was a transcode. After I had encoded it to M4A, then listened to it over BT haha

So yeah, it's near impossible to decipher 320 and FLac imo

No. It's been proved over and over again that the average person cannot hear it.
There is people able to hear more frequencies, but it's rare and not everyone can hear the same frequencies, so mp3 is actually a pretty decent trade-off between size and quality.

People will open audacity and start flaming day one

Fuck you and your theoretical offspring

try this on rutracker moron

FLAC

Attached: 06 - Cobalt.flac.png (1280x686, 991K)

MP3 320

Attached: 06 - Cobalt.mp3.png (1280x686, 869K)

>r9k
>original content

Attached: 1504633949939.jpg (1280x720, 85K)

That is one shit 320kbit MP3 encoding, send me the file.

It used to have a robot that would block any duplicate posts or files, the general idea was a board for creativity.
But it failed hard and now it's the autism board. It got deleted a couple times by moot since it failed so hard at being what it was supposed to be.

I take that back, lameMP3 (I presume) just does not care to encode low volume high frequency content.

Attached: 11-Nugget.flac.png (624x389, 218K)

Attached: 11. Nugget.mp3.png (624x389, 198K)

CBR is no longer maintained, stop using it. V0 does not have the 20kHz cutoff.

I don't normally use MP3 but that's good to know about the lowpass filter difference.

Attached: 11. Nugget.mp3.png (624x389, 205K)

This pic says 320kbps but it's actually 277 kbps with V0.

npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

just because you cant doesnt meant others cant as well

Attached: flac.png (850x745, 52K)

anonfile.com/DfA2Y3d2b5/encodes.7z

opus is still king.

The two MP3 samples had a cutoff at 16khz unlike the the lossless version, so congratulations for being able to hear above that. MP3 can certainly go above 16khz.

It is, but I use AAC for compatibility reasons.

What is the best bitrate for opus ?

Above 100kbps for stereo should be verging on transparent.

Depends on how many channels you're using. stereo is said to be transparent at 128kbps VBR.

wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings

Honestly, I've gone as low as 64kbps VBR on stereo and it's ok for portable listening in my opinion. If your autism is too strong you might as well just go lossless.

>brainlet here
What does mean the word "transparent" when talking 'bout encodings?

>record a monster 20 second fart
>go into audacity
>repeat it 60 times
>add random filters on at random intervals
>upload it as an obscure noise album
>it gets over 1k downloads
I still laugh about it whenever I think about it

Attached: retarded_egg_gnome.jpg (1280x720, 70K)

Is the album Ephemeris?

64 kbps is transparent if you use the latest version (1.3, I think). It's crazy how in the past, 320 mp3 was easy to tell, then it became transparent, then opus 128 became transparent, and now we are at fucking 64 kbps... The only downside is that you need original lossless FLAC files to convert to Opus (otherwise it makes NO sense).

Still amazes me how close the Dark Horse samples sound to this day. You can tell once her voice hits the pre-chorus though, the lower quality files tend to sound a bit less powerful and spacious.

>>rip an album from Youtube
>>convert it to 320 mp3
The highest bitrate I've seen from YouTube is something like 192kbs

That's the joke.jpeg

Guess I'm Going To An Hero

Have a (you) before you go. rip in peace. But yea, the hd streams from yt at most output 192kbps, yer right on that.

If you resample the Opus to 44.1k it would be hard to detect.

There's zero reason to use MP3 for anything today but it did get acceptable towards the end, that's for sure. And 320kbit MP3s are probably mostly decent. But there are bad MP3s and really bad MP3s. I dug a old PC with two CD/DVD players and all my CDs and DVDs up from the basement some months ago and went through it all just to see if there was anything of value before finally getting rid of CDs and DVDs for good.

I found plenty of MP3 rips of rare music on data CDs that still worked fine, some with timestamps in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The vast majority was utter garbage in terms of audio quality. We're talking 128kbit MP3s and I am also guessing the encoders were far worse than they are now. Those files are just trash not worth saving. The sad bit is that some of it can't be re-downloaded as in it doesn't seem to existi on the Internet at all.

Dump them on the IPFS network and hand out some hashes.

Better a 128kbit than nothing at all.

>I guessed the 320kbps mp3 half the time
welp I guess I don't need these flacs taking up 50GB of space

Things that never happened

What format would you use instead? If not FLAC, that is.

In data compression and psychoacoustics, transparency is the result of lossy data compression accurate enough that the compressed result is perceptually indistinguishable from the uncompressed input. In other words, transparent compression has no or imperceptible compression artifacts.

When your intuition fails, use whatever you have left of it to do a two second google search next time.

I unironically got Spotify and deleted my 90gbs of FLACs that I hand organized.

>things that never happen

It depends. He just said "rip an album from Youtube". Youtube transcodes audio into a number of bitrates depending on the video bitrate, so if he downloaded the worst it could be something like 128kbit AAC source, or even less.
Then there should be an audible difference. If it's up around 256kbit then it's far less likely you will hear anything.

The other people who replied to you ignored this factor though, focusing instead just on the 320 (kbit) mp3, possibly because they're morons.

>There's zero reason to use MP3 for anything today
I can burn MP3 onto a CD and play it in my car

>before finally getting rid of CDs and DVDs for good
Don't start paying for digital distribution.

Sure you can tab between the two images but a difference file is really the best way to go.

Attached: cobolt flac mp3 difference.png (1280x686, 1.13M)

Transcodes cut off at 16kHz. There are ways to create a fake FLAC though.

Link?

losslessaudiochecker.com/

Free and open sauce

dont shit so hard on r9k. youd be amazed at some of the frankest best conversations that go on there. it is almost more /b/ than /b/ is today.

People beet not actuallylly do this shit