You CAN NOT tell the difference between a properly encoded 320kbps mp3 file from a 44.1khz WAV or FLAC file...

You CAN NOT tell the difference between a properly encoded 320kbps mp3 file from a 44.1khz WAV or FLAC file. There is absolutely no difference in perceived audio quality for using lossless compression. You just end up using more space for no good reason on your iPhone.

Attached: Flac_logo_vector.svg.png (1200x595, 47K)

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/ResponSySS/ffmpeg-bulk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>320 kbps mp3
>not using 96 kbps opus
never gonna make it

Attached: Christopher-Schwarzenegger5.jpg (615x870, 87K)

>iPhone
yes, we all know iToddlers have to pay Apple tax to get any reasonable amount of storage on their devices, but for everyone else there's a SD card option

the daily bait

I don't care if it's placebo, still gets my dick hard

Attached: 1515854862166.png (1294x713, 631K)

signed up just to call you a retard

>mp3
Enjoy your quality loss over the years. You may not hear the different now, but as the time passes by your data will loss little by little and at one point it will be too shit to listen to (hence this is why it's call "lossy"). If you love your audio files, use lossless format. Lossless files don't loss its quality over time.
>inb4 muh space
Get a job and buy more storages.

If he can't ear it, he must be deaf.

based

I really can't, FLAC is a meme for autist anime encoders who force their hobby on everyone else and waste their storage space. Maybe if I had much better audio hardware, it would make a difference in music, but it still wouldn't make sense to use it for anime.

god i love that meme

ahahahhaahahaahaahhahahaa

i mean; i have 27tb; i'd rather have the absolute highest quality, even if it's not a huge difference

Lots of people want to re-compress their music for on the go listening. 320kbps doesn't make sense in my car because the highway noise masks a lot of the audio, and I want to stick my whole library on my 128GB player which won't happen with 320KBPS MP3 but it works fine with 128KBPS average VBR MP4.

Yes we get it. The real reason to use FLAC is for archival reasons: re-encoding to better formats down the line without generation loss.

funnily I just started to migrate my collection to flac (from 320 kbp lame) sand so far the main difference is background noise, I have also detected some fade sounds but is probably because I never paid attention before and I'm doing it now, anyway the main reason I'm migrating is because I finally have the space to do it

Why would you listen to music in a sauna?

BASED

I can hear the differences at home on my pioneer stereo, but that's about it.

>FLAC
>iPhone

Attached: gCcwVGD.png (624x628, 81K)

Even so, it is so far beyond diminishing returns that it feels wasteful to me. I'd much rather these fucking cartoons had better video quality, yknow, something that's an apparent improvement over the shit they usually put out.

This, but also if one processes samples in music making software. Shift the pitch or speed downward, and losses hidden by properties specific to the human ear become more apparent.

listening to mp3 is the same as watching yify rips

Didn't know that. Good point.

FLAC on PC, opus on phone

I hope this is pasta because lossy != entropy or degradation

>he doesn't know about rotaional infetterence
you're v0 mp3s will sound like shit in 10 to 15 years

>not knowing about rotational velocidensity
The absolute state of Jow Forums

finns spend 50% of their time in saunas which can get boring

Why not encode your music at a lower bit depth, use a low pass filter to cut the quantization noise, then use traffic noise to cover the fact that you don't quite have the entire high end?

>properly encoded 320kbps mp3 file
Lmao at this whole sentence

Attached: töttörööh.png (416x345, 9K)

>properly encoded 320kbps mp3
If you are encoding in mp3 you are already not doing things properly.

On earphones with basic music (like pop or hip-hop) MP3 is perfectly fine.
For classical, on speakers, just go for the best possible quality.
But who cares

i use spotify free will I make it

1. I can hear it. It's obvious in bass response
2. It's still there even if you can't hear it.

>imblying anything is stored on a mechanical storage any more...

The ABSOLUTE state of Jow Forums!

320kbps mp3 is stupid, it's overkill for what mp3 can do, and mp3 VB itself it obsolete shit, any newer format is better than it
If you want small space with 'can't really hear the difference', the best option now is 96-128kbps opus

>implying HDDs don't still exist

Inability to discern doesn't mean inability to enjoy.

Pic related.

Attached: rumsfeld.jpg (300x168, 6K)

>falling for the SSD meme
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF Jow Forums!!!

Gimme a bash script that converts my whole library to opus, preserving my directory structure and file names and tags and shit

the Chad 24-bit idling with AC on cocophony vs the Lad 4-bit friendly cruising mix

I can, I have the famous 'golden ears.' I can also tell the difference between different CD players playing on the exact same sound system.

Good idea, I wonder if 12-bit, 32KHz would be decent enough? You could save a lot of space that way...

Not defragging your drive before playing each file and replacing your mbr with mp3s.....

If you gently stab your ears with a pen you get a similar result.

I did one of those flac to mp3 tests using a pair of jbl 305s then again with HD 598's. Got every answer correct. There is a difference, but it's extremely subtle, but I'll always choose flac over mp3 on soulseek.

Changing the format won't improve the audio quality (GIGO pertains...). Don't waste your time or space - you'll do better tracking down the flac format of your existing audio and replacing the files completely.

I tried it and it's not noticable with a fair bit of (car) noise around you. If I wanted to cut my music size in half I'd definitely say it's worth it. Luckily for my ears we don't use core memory for our empeethrees anymore.

God I remember when a guy I knew told me that lossy meme and fully believed in it, he even said it was caused by rotational velocidensity.

github.com/ResponSySS/ffmpeg-bulk

`ffmpeg-bulk.sh LIST.txt -xi .mp3 -xo .opus -ao "-b:a 128k"`

You're welcome

That's the worst thing about old Jow Forums in jokes, retards and newfags spread them as fact now everyone thinks Neutral Milk Hotel is good or rotational velodensity is a thing.

I use FLAC to archive my music so I have a lossless base for transcoding to different formats.
It's past personal preference, part preparing for future advances in codecs.

No matter how high your bitrate, transcoding from lossy to lossy will screw up the quality big time.

regardless of my ears, i have all my music in flac because i purchased all the cds so it feels wierd to listen to even a 90% quality of what i bought.

>using MP3 in the current year

Attached: 320kbps.jpg (1300x1024, 110K)

>worst thing
How's outing retards and newfags a bad thing?

Take a look at /mu/ now, everyone there is a newfag

>320kbps
Use LAME V0 you nigger.

>I'll always choose flac over mp3 on soulseek
You have no warranty that the FLAC files are from a proper source and not re-encoded MP3 files for example.

There's no guarantee that the mp3 aren't re-encoded flacs as well though.

>no warranty
I'm breddy sure there's no warranty at all on pirated music.

How new are you?

Listen retard, here a short and easy answer, why you should kys.
PC works with 1 and 0.
Lets say you favourite song "ImOpAndSuckDick.mp3" gets corrupted.
Your File before 1.0.0.1.0 after 0,6 .0.0.1.0, because PC are digital and not analog,your PC rounding up the 0.6 to 1 and your file is saved.

i can tell the difference between lossless 16bit FLAC file and a lossless 24 bit FLAC file, fight me

based, 'hi-rez' audio is a turbo meme. 16bits has always been enough. They've known this since the 70s when the CD was being designed.

We’re at a point in time where 1TB = $15, space is cheap and no one should worry about it. Want to listen to music on your mobile device? Stream it using something like VLC. Or encode your FLACs into MP3 320/V0 and use those for your mobile devices, storing the FLACs away for home media use. Just don’t use fucking APE or I will slit your monkey fucking throat.

It’s unfortunate but just the price of the times. Our catfish milking RSVP choked to death (giggity) on the bullshit newer generations coming in and acting like they understand jackshit. All they know of Jow Forums from is HWNDU, /b/tard raids, and KnowYourMeme.

>You CAN NOT tell the difference between the Contemporary English Version and the King James Version. There is absolutely no difference in perceived morals for using the CEV. You just end up using more abstruse language for no good reason for your recitals.

Attached: 1280px-Gozzoli%2C_Benozzo_-_The_Dance_of_Salome_-_1461-62[1].jpg (1280x884, 375K)

Being an oldfag here isn't really a badge of pride. It's a bit like being the only paedo in prison who hasn't been beaten to a pulp because no-one wants to actually physically touch you...

Attached: LE1617H001S00_58db5955cb370.jpg (1280x720, 62K)

4bit, 32khz adpcm isnt terrible when its mixed in with other sounds, but its higher bitrate than high quality opus, the only reason you might want to use it is if your decoder was an 8bit microprocessor

unironically based and redpilled
i store all my music as 320kbps mp3

t. acoustical engineer

Attached: giga_2.jpg (832x1000, 47K)

Attached: 1556138226664.jpg (250x241, 7K)

Attached: 414A26C6-AD06-4812-870D-39B53336ADE4.jpg (225x225, 5K)

That's not how any of this works

What? I"m and autistical engineer, I know what I is talking about.

Attached: 1548712156652.webm (640x350, 360K)

>no mention of rotational velocidensity

Attached: 1556929474010_0.jpg (170x170, 10K)

I agree, but flac means I am guaranteed the best quality while getting a random mp3 is a crapshoot. I've got plenty of mp3s that are well encoded but I've also downloaded plenty that were bad while I've never had a bad flac.

>flac means I am guaranteed the best quality
By downloading a random flac you are not "guaranteed" anything Ultimately it's up to you to decide whether the quality is acceptable or not, so it's a blind test anyway.

i've seen 320kbps mp3s that were re-encoded from 128kbps so you're fucked either way.

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.

If you have a stable income in a non shithole first world country then a 2TB SSD is not difficult to afford

shut the fuck up retard!!!

I ripped my entire CD collection in mp3 @320 kbps in 2001 and it still sounds like it was ripped yesterday.
Your bite is bullshit.
If you're losing bits and bytes in mp3's, you would also lose them on other codecs as well or do mechanical HDD's with flac not spin?
I would have at least thought you're a smart ass taking into account that there are 5400 and 7200 rpm disks, but your SCASI, IDE and SATA meme is laughable.

Seriously, KYS!!!
Did you fall from a carpets corner when you were a baby?

nice b8 m8
I bet you think it's hella fun when people ruin their music libraries with lossy formats.

You probably can't even abx lame v5 with speaks in your living room.

320 kbps is even more of a waste of space than flac

hahahaha.
You are the baiter here. not me

That's exactly how it works you community College fag.

>320k
lol why waste bits like that? There used to be a collage on what.cd of albums where the flac version was smaller than 320k. I know this is a troll post and shit but it still needs to be said.

Attached: 1530458665821.gif (320x240, 1.99M)

>MP3
What year is this?

Attached: Capture.png (1876x472, 715K)

I can too. I just don't care enough to buy into the FLAC meme. Those people are psychos.

I agree that using MP3 is retarded, but spectrograms don't really tell the whole story.
Also, using bitrates over 130kbps for AAC is a waste of space, because the quality doesn't really improve.

>I agree that using MP3 is retarded
A 320 kbps is very hard to hear the difference from aflac or wav.

>Also, using bitrates over 130kbps for AAC is a waste of space, because the quality doesn't really improve.
Listen to an aac with 192 kbps and compare it to a 320 kbps mp3 or a flac and you'll see that you are wrong.

>Only needing 2tb for music
Nigga, that's fucking minuscule for music. I mostly have mp3s and I easily filled 12tbs with just that.

Attached: 10636109_930630007002668_2013189512005964776_n.jpg (233x232, 6K)

>needing 12TB worth of music
>not just listening to the same song over and over again

And only 5GBs or so is in your regular rotation, the amount of music you have isn't a measure of how large your cock is and you hate most of it anyway. You don't need more than a 16GB SD card for music.

>Listen to an aac with 192 kbps and compare it to a 320 kbps mp3 or a flac and you'll see that you are wrong.
No, you are wrong.
Do you even know what an ABX test is?

>12TB music
Honestly user, your entire lifetime from birth and on to death won't be enough to play every song just once.
But i understand the need of data hoarding to saturate your emotional needs. Suffer from the same problem related to TV-series in 1080p.

>Do you even know what an ABX test is?
I did already and AAC 192 failed