FLAC vs. MP3 for normies

Depends on the quality of your audio setup and the music you're listening to.

If you listen to crappy pop songs on a phone, then you won't hear the difference. If you listen to jazz songs on a $4000 setup, you might hear it.

>I can hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC just fine

Attached: 78C73CB8-406C-4A10-B904-F327127DB0D1.png (753x960, 29K)

Everyone is different but i think some test proved that it was impossible to distinguish 320kb.s from FLAC.

You probably also think that your pic looks acceptable.

songs are not mastered at 1000k+ kbps
usually at 320kbps

converting already mastered music to some high bit rate flac is literally like resizing some low bitrate DVD movie to 1080p with a redundant high bit rate using a different file format and calling it superior HD....

Attached: Icon.jpg (1477x1467, 96K)

>is literally like resizing some low bitrate DVD movie to 1080p with a redundant high bit rate using a different file format and calling it superior HD....
Isn't that what people did with the ATLA DVDs, using waifu2x?

>songs are not mastered at 1000k+ kbps
>usually at 320kbps
Maybe the shitty soundcloud trap you listen to is

Attached: mpv-shot0013.jpg (716x720, 102K)

have you actually ever made music in your life

Attached: d33.jpg (200x219, 10K)

It’s exactly like the 24/30/60/120/144FPS debate. Fucking normies cant understand why you’d really care about 60+ FPS because they cant see it. They don’t know what they’re looking for.

Fucking normies cant tell the difference in a FLAC/MP3. If listening to music isn’t a real hobby of yours, you probably don’t need to worry about FLAC. It’s that simple.

are you fucking retarded?

Yes, there will be a difference. But if you can hear is another thing. Always opt for FLAC when storing music, then convert it to a more suitable format for portable use. 192kbit/s mp3 is fine for portable use if you ask me.

I have 70gb of FLAC on my Samsung, fuck mp3 and fuck jannies.

Audiophile level bullshit. I bet you describe the difference in exceptionally vague, no specific terms too... 'warmer', 'rounded', 'expressive'....
I've always challenged audiophile faggots to put one month's salary on their ability to differentiate between two things like this when they claim that X is so much better than Y. They never do it, because they know they're full of shit.
It's the same with wine tasting. All those 'experts' fall apart when tested.

You notice no difference.
Benefit of FLAC is for archiving, not for listening.

The human ear can't hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless. I converted songs i ripped from youtube into lossless and noticed no difference in quality. in some cases lossless sounded even worse.

>itt: poorfags who can't afford wav
Oh hahahaha

Attached: 1434257025037.gif (400x471, 289K)

24/96 is an absolute meme.

I've played in countless studios, and worked soundboard at tons of shows. Everything from Jazz to Punk to Hindustani music. Whether a taper/archivist is plugged into the soundboard itself, or using stereo mic arrangements, no one records in anything higher than 24/48, and no one needs to.

24/48 is perfect for pre-editing, and 16/48 or 16/44 is far beyond adequate for every human on the planet.

Q7 ogg and V1 mp3 for listening on portables devices. 16/48 flacs for archiving edited material. 24/48 flacs for storing material that you have yet to edit. Anyone who claims you need higher resolutions than these is either braindead or a schizophrenic faggot.

I can't even hear the difference between MP3 128kbps and 320kbps, let alone FLAC, kek. I recommend to try everything, and pick what suits more your autism.

nice b8 m8

You fucking retard. YT doesn't serve 320Kbps audio. You need to convert whatever you download to 320Kbps MP3 first and THEN convert it to lossless FLAC.

almost

There will be no audible difference. The difference is storage space and playback cpu overhead.
If storage space isn't an issue, you may as well use flac files to listen to on your computer. You can transcode to a suitable level of lossy compression if you want to transfer music to a mobile device without compounding the loss inherent in a lossy codec. Or burn music CDs of equal sound quality to store-bought.

Even ameture sound engineers wouldn't record/master audio at or below CD level quality ~1400kbps 44.1 KHz 16 bit.

Attached: 1555632323959.jpg (1024x800, 209K)

AAC is much better at the same bitrate than MP3. Opus is low latency but frequency dependant so it's shit for anything other than video or VOIP where throughput is a concern. If you want to store your files in a compressed format to save space, go for AAC.

>2019
>mp3

alac master race

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

Attached: tumblr_lrm2n42iYO1qi5850o1_1280.jpg (589x662, 576K)

>Thanks, YIFY!

I don't think more than 0.01% of the population actually cares.

Flac is best lossless audio codec in terms of compression and overhead.

Attached: DealWithIt.jpg (445x400, 14K)

Normies use Spotify, which uses vorbis

Yes, because 128kbps MP3 is shit. Get a 320kbps one and then there will be no audible difference.

>I've always challenged audiophile faggots to put one month's salary on their ability to differentiate between two things like this when they claim that X is so much better than Y.
Sneaky little shits like you would probably upscale a 320kbps .mp3 to a .flac just to "prove" that you are "right".

1000kbps is insane, it's video tier bitrate.

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.

Attached: clownpepesfromspace.png (432x517, 75K)

>implying 128Kbps isn't
Some of use like to fully utilize /gif/'s and /wsg/'s 5 minute WebM limit.

Fun fact:
When it comes to mobile devices and earbuds, you're every bit as likely to appreciate the sound quality benefits of flac over lossless as you are to appreciate the sound quality benefits of opus over mp3.

Based. Lossy just keeps on losing.

huge mammaries

Attached: snapshot_11.47_[2016.07.28_03.38.53].png (1920x1080, 3.1M)

I don't even think it's about hearing a difference. It's about spending a grand or more on a DAC receiver and amp and speakers, and then going the TINY extra step to ensure your digital input is the highest possible quality, and not just "good enough". If you had wanted "good enough" you would've plugged some fifty dollar speakers into your computer audio out and been done with it.

Storage is cheap, so obviously flac.

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

The most notable effect of rotational velocidensity 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.

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, and will sound the same right now as they will in 10 years.

>are designed to never lose quality over time, and will sound the same right now as they will in 10 years.
Sounds like marketing to me.

he actually fell for the bait

Attached: c0c.jpg (634x650, 45K)

>flactard vs mp3boomer
Most my stuff is aac.

He is right though

best post in this thread

Attached: h32bddP.png (372x365, 138K)

Iv done blind tests and passed them. 10 tracks and got all right.
>I bet you describe the difference in exceptionally vague, no specific terms too... 'warmer', 'rounded', 'expressive'
Thats retarded

Honestly, no.
If you use MP3 128kbps the highs sound distorted but just stay above 200kbps and it sounds exactly the same as FLAC.
If you're older than 25 then just don't give a fuck about your equipment and enjoy the music.

No, there won't, but this comparison should be done with same or similar hardware.
abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
And no, you don't have golden ears.

You may not be a "deaf boomer" or whatever, but you are the one who's bullshitting or a dog.

Best suicide tactician, made his death look like it was caused by an illness and not by his own poor choices.

I just like my music be true to original. So I keep it in flac.

Yes, but is it worth the time, energy, space and money to listen to flac? To me, such diminishing returns are not worth it.

>comparing 128 to flac
There's absolutely no reason to use flac over 320kbps unless you're constantly compressing the files for some reason

Yeah I'm sure there's no point where further investment into a setup results in negligible results, maybe we could call that concept a diminishing return if it ever existed. Sadly we can only be an iToddler listening to 56kbps top 40 songs on their phone or an autistic audiophile with a $17k setup that spends more time getting annoyed by perceived slight imperfections than listening to music

Retard

No, it's like the radio/microwave debate.

Wavelength-fags claim wide spectrum video that covers the microwave and radio wave frequencies give much higher fidelity, and if you can't see the difference then you're blind, because I can totally see the difference.

Ignoring the fact that humans can't hear beyond 20 kHz/see beyond 400-800 THz.

Is it worth the time to transcode flac archives to lossy codec to listen to on a 2Tb drive when you could just copy the flacs?

I wouldn't go through the time and effort to get flac in the first place

wrong
>Opus allows the following bandwidths during encoding. Opus compression does not depend on the input sample rate; timestamps are measured in 48 kHz units even if the full bandwidth is not used. Likewise, the output sample rate may be freely chosen. For example, audio can be input at 16 kHz yet be set to encode only narrowband audio.[19]

>implying any human in the history of humanity could ever pick up on the quantization errors introduced by resampling 44.1khz to 48khz
i bet you think supertweeters are useful and hi-res “truly makes a difference” too you faggot

Normies stream from Spotify and Apple Music rather than having the files on their phone.

Ripping cds to flac vs mp3 or opshit.
>time and effort

I thought I could just get a patch cord to hook my phones headphone jack to tape in on my stereo. (google music 320kps) mp3
But the sound quality was even worse than music cds burned from 128kps mp3s. My nephew burned some for me. I guess because the phones dac isn't on par with my cd player I use with my stereo.

Am I the only one that can hear a substantial difference between FLAC and WAV?
I can't even listen to FLAC anymore after getting some original .wav sessions of my favorite albums. The drums pack a way heavier punch, bass sounds warmer, mids and highs sound refined and clear; FLAC sounds lifeless in comparison.

Attached: s-l300.jpg (263x300, 16K)

Am I the only one that can hear a substantial difference between WAV and RAW?
I can't even listen to WAV anymore after getting some original RAW sessions of my favorite albums. The drums pack a way heavier punch, bass sounds warmer, mids and highs sound refined and clear; WAV sounds lifeless in comparison.

>songs are not mastered at 1000k+ kbps
>usually at 320kbps
imagine being this retarded
Songs are always rendered in best quality for archival purposes and then resized/compressed into smaller formats for distribution
Shit every time I bounce a song out its a PCM 96kHz, 32 bit 6144kbps. You only want to compress to MP3 if you're gonna upload online. Even then, bandcamp allows you to upload the uncompressed version and let the user choose which format they want

The human ear can only see 320kbps!