*Makes your headphones sound like shit*

Burn a music cd from flac files and the same cd from 320kbps mp3. Played on a decent stereo, the difference is discernible. But not as much as playing the mp3s on your phone connected to the same stereo analog to analog.

Attached: CopyQ.ab2160.png (1000x1000, 339K)

Are people actually trying to play flac audio from their phone onto fucking analog headphones???
Lmfao no wonder they think it sounds the same

pretty sure flac is supposed to be used for storage to prevent degradation
that said, I have noticed a difference listening to an album I listened all the time before in 320 mp3
this was using an LG V30 phone (they have a dedicated DAC) and high impedance headphones using 24bit 44,1 KHz flac files
but I've also listened to flac that was shit, depends a lot on what they did the encoding from and how and what you use to play it back I'd say

It's not just the file that matters but the original recording quality too. If you have shit taste, you wont see a difference either.

>pretty sure flac is supposed to be used for storage to prevent degradation

This. Rotational velocity affects all audio files encoded with lossy compression. These include mp3, aac, and ogg.

The most notable effect of rotational velocity is the loss of bitrate in files. A lossy audio file will lose an average of 12kbps a year. But, this can vary greatly depending on the type of storage media used (rpm).

Examples:

SATA HDD: ~12kbps
IDE HDD: ~15kbps
SCSI HDD: ~7kbps
DVD: ~16kbps
CD-R/RW: >21kbps

This can be overcome by compressing audio using lossless formats such as FLAC, APE, or TTA. These formats are designed to never lose quality over time, even when subjected to significant rotational velocities, and will sound the same right now as they will in 10 years.

yeah, flac is much more resilient to wear with repeated listens than mp3s.

>Burn a music cd from flac files and the same cd from 320kbps mp3. Played on a decent stereo, the difference is discernible
Sure it is, if you happen to be a dog.
abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html

so you'd see no degradation on an SSD?

You will. Electrons in an SSD still rotate (quantum spin), even faster than HDD plates.

I dont know the actual degradation rates for SSDs from the top of my head, google is your friend.. but flac is still necessary.

No, I meant streaming google music 320k on your phone, and connecting that to your stereo. Or just mp3 files on your phone connected to a stereo.

Please quote the part where is says nobody can tell the difference in sound between music cds burned from flac vs mp3s, because just looking at the sections of that link, I don't see where that would come in, and I don't doubt at all you can't tell the difference between the filetypes played on your computer or other device.

DELETE THIS IMAGE

You can burn 320 kbps MP3s or FLACs on any medium you like, doesn't make them discernible to humans. Those tests include just a one like that.

>The most notable effect of rotational velocity is the loss of bitrate in files.
I can't find a single source for that claim.
Please explain where you got that information.

I remember somebody claiming you couldn't hear the difference between FLAC and mp3.
The guy linked to a website to test it.
The website was a blind test that made you listen to the same music file supposedly encoded in FLAC and in mp3.
Out of curiosity I decided to record the audio stream and open it to look at the frequencies.
All the samples were mp3, so of course you couldn't hear a difference...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Attached: 1506380541545.jpg (700x484, 91K)

This is bait pseudoscience.

Lmao what a fucking retard
>People actually believe this
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

*breathes in*

HAHAGAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA

this. yesterday i found some 12-year-old mp3s on my old pc. when i opened them... oh god, they sounded like trash. but the flacs sounded crystal-clear like always.

>*Makes your headphones sound like shit*
t. Skullcandy

Attached: 1536245048618.jpg (640x698, 46K)

this is why I store all my lossy encodes on paper.

topkek

Well it's bullshit then.

Clearly 128k MP3 sound superior.

Attached: 1447485126466.jpg (1146x1148, 513K)

never used apple products so I don't have this problem

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
it's stored digitally you fucking retard
the 0's and 1's don't change at all, regardless of how fucking fast it spins
jesus christ you're retarded

D-did you just bait 10 people with a velocidensity pasta?

Attached: belief.gif (640x480, 69K)

Sound reproduction has been a dead science since the 60s. You’re only paying extra for the build quality and features. If you’re really into sound you probably would want to look at cinema soundsystems and shit they use in concerts at large venues.

If you were in front of me right now I’d waste you

This is why I use pressed CD's.
They only lose 1-2kbps per year when stored cool and away from sunlight.
If I use CD-R's I use those verbatim ones with AZO dyes, they can also slow the bits escaping your music.

Ok, so supposedly MP3's lose quality over time due to degradation. What about if they're on a ZFS volume? ZFS ensures that all data stays exactly the same as it is written to disk. The only way data on ZFS can be "lost/altered" if properly setup is via user interaction or if the server itself just dies/has several drive failures. So in that case those MP3's should sound exactly the same on a ZFS volume in 5 or 20 years from the date they land on the volume.

Just stop posting holy shit

Zfs is tho

this is not the pasta that i remember

Isn't like F the worst grade?

"worst grade lossless audio codec"

Depends on the person and setup

I did a proper ABX test with foobar2000 using direct flac rips of CDs vs the same flacs converted to 320 mp3, could not tell the difference at all on my headphones

I download FLAC for better chance of it being a high quality RIP, but then I convert it to OPUS 128k

128k is borderline normie

opus, not mp3
and vbr obviously

trips confirm

Are there people that are actually falling for this or are they just pretending to be retarded?

I just don't know who's trolling who anymore

Attached: anon gets trolled tw(...).jpg (144x84, 2K)

>poverty tier image
I think I'm the one being trolled, user.

fucks sake dude i'm in disgust knowing full well those were legitimate replies

I just write out the binary for my music by hand.

So it's not just me? My headphones were horrible listening to flac files. Why was that?

Man I haven't seen this in years.
Well done user.

I have like 6TB of storage space, Sennheiser HD650's, and an Audioengine D1 as my DAC. Any reason for me not to just download FLAC to archive all my music?

Attached: nui laugh.gif (1280x720, 2.52M)

*Makes a thread that looks like shit*

Attached: Shit.png (631x209, 38K)

Because you're retarded if you can't tell the difference of what's being produced accurately or with a white noise generator.

>320 mbps
>mbps

Attached: 1527217799107.jpg (193x245, 10K)

Your headphones are lying to you.

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 – it’s 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…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.

This.