It doesn't sound ANY different from a 320kbps .mp3 file. If you think it does you are wrong...

>Listening to a willingly degraded version of a song when you can listen to the original

Post the whole thing you lazy fuck.

>$2 onboard Realtek audio chip
Then use something better

Why would anybody listen to that in the first place?

The purpose of FLAC is to preserve the bit rate for long term storage, not for immediate listening. You brainlets storing your library solely in lossy formats are in for a real surprise when your garbage 320kbps MP3 rips become unreadable in 10-15 years.

>Why would anybody listen to weeb music on a weeb website
Gee, I don't know.

>"I hear a difference when the difference in price of equipment is ~500x greater"

I have nothing against weeb music, but god damn the piece he posted is awful

it does sound different. we're just unable to hear that difference

The only difference is that the flac file is louder. And louder music is perceived as better. You got memed on, my friend.

There is no point arguing about music taste. Shibayan is decently popular as far as I'm aware.

I try to adjust for volume differences when listening to different version, but you can never get it perfect.
The best part of that song is the "details" in the background and the main bassline, but it comes across completely flat in the youtube version, which is more noticeable much later in the song when it gets noisier.

These were CD rips I did myself. I listened to FLAC then mp3 320 and that's how I heard the difference.

That doesn't make any sense. I would have bought nice headphones regardless of bitrate. I don't use an amp or any special hardware, and I was using normal Realtek onboard audio too.

>It doesn't sound ANY different from a 320kbps .mp3 file. If you think it does you are wrong
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.

Attached: 30a.jpg (281x244, 30K)

Why FLAC and not ALAC?

This same idiotic thread every fucking day.

Attached: 1532359600861.gif (342x342, 777K)

>slightly worse compression
>no properly defined file extension
>it's Apple shit

MP3 has slight psychoacoustic and pre-echo issues that are inherent to the format and no matter how many bits you give it these will always be fundamental issues that cannot be resolved, hence FLAC being superior.
...now if you want to argue qAAC 256kbps being indistinguishable from FLAC, you have a much more rigid base to stand upon.

Don't tell me you're actually using a iPod/iPhone for music

Why care about ALAC? It's just FLAC but worse.

because they NEED to use itunes

See

every iPhone before the 5s (and SE) and most iPods have pretty fantastic DAC/amps onboard, even relative to nicer DAPs. the 6/6s is good too but suffers from audible electrical noise when doing any activities that increase CPU load (youtube.com/watch?v=QdZ2-9qZipY)

It doesn't matter. Lossless is lossless. You can always re-encode if you regret choosing one over the other.

i remember in like 2008ish some dude's website stated that if you went to his house and passed a double blind study discerning flac to mp3 320 he'd pay you a fortune. Can't find it anymore.

I went to school for audio, and work in an audio related industry. I've met so many professionals over the years who claim they can hear the difference clearly, but nobody's willing to do a double blind

yeah well if you have irreversible hearing damage then 320kbps sounds like 128kbps
take that audiotards

at least you haven't met a guy who paid a fortune for two 1m long audio cables

MUSIC FAN SAVES HARD DRIVE SPACE WITH ONE WEIRD TRICK

Did you use a nice modern mp3 encoder like LAME? Some encoding software is genuinly crap and I could believe that 320kbps wouldn't be perfect, but with modern encoders it's transparent.

its quick its easy its free

>he chooses to use a codec that makes audio worse than CD quality
Literally choosing a downgrade compared to what has been available for over 30 years

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.

...

>>every iPhone before the 5s (and SE) and most iPods have pretty fantastic DAC/amps onboard
They are just shitty cirrus logic dacs

Yes, I used LAME, this was probably 2 years ago with the latest version of ffmpeg. I took the wav files and made them mp3 320.

kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5s-audio-quality.htm
also some of the older iPods, specifically the 5.5G classic, use high end wolfson chips.

toasting in an epic bait

Where are comparisons of other media players done using the same equipment?

difference

>And louder music is perceived as better
Unfortunately true. I've got a few versions of commercially released albums (test pressings) and the difference in quality is night and day. These producers took perfectly listenable material and then brick walled it for the radio/earbud audience. And it's not like most people even care about dynamics when they're listening to stuff on laptop speakers, cell phones and car radios.

Can't they just rockbox it? Screw apple's proprietary software

youtu.be/UrfX-g8auc8
FLACfags BTFO'd
I still keep it for archival reasons

Maybe there are differences, maybe there aren't. Who cares today anyway, storage is so cheap, just store in best available quality.

um sweetie there are anime boards and there are non-anime boards on this website. Jow Forums is part of the latter.

Sure that's why I'm not on a $2 realtek chip.

The fuck are you talking about

So then why use it? It has a bigger storage size and most media players can't play FLAC. So stop being a hipster.