You guys aren't actually falling for this placebo, right?

>loosing frequencies you literally cannot hear
>yay let's get the bottom of the barrel of lossy codecs to prove my placebo
Neck yourselves

With opus its actually good enough

I have the disk capacity to spare so I download FLACs and blurays on a 1360x768 and earbuds setup to display my dominance.

They've done studies that show that uncompressed audio relieves depression more than compressed audio. You can't hear it, but you can feel it.

>use Deezloader for Windows and Android
>ability to download Spotify/Deezer tracks, albums and playlists quick and easy directly from Deezer servers
>agility to choose between MP3 128 kbps, 320 kbps and FLAC
>I use 128 Kbps always
>ASUS Xonar Essence STX
>Sennheiser HD 650
Perfect clarity, zero distortions or artifacts, amazing stereo image.
Only a record label should use FLAC for archival purposes. FLAC is a meme and only retards use it.

Attached: Free music.png (861x772, 150K)

based

These 128 sounds fucking nice I have to admit it. What magic to they use? I still only get 320, for peace of mind.
Also you can't actually get anything from Spotify there isn't it? I've seen several albums on Spotify that aren't available on Deezer I'd love to get.

>losslesly compresses audio files just as advertised that it would
>placebo

>I do not know what "placebo" means

You're not a fucking bat. You don't need more than the lossy codecs at high bitrates offer.

I always hear metallic diginoises in lossy audio.
Please tell me that I'm not crazy.

But
>I always hear metallic diginoises in lossy audio.
Happens

If you cover the entire human hearing range the highest sampling rate you need is twice the highest frequency humans can hear, to be able to reconstruct the continuous wave "perfectly", as proven by nyquist. Anything more or less is retarded.

That's exactly why you'd want to rip CDs as a flac you fucking sperg, so not to compress compressed audio

Yeah, most likely you are hearing the pre echo thing in lost frequencies.

At 64 kbps? Sure, I hear them too.

storage is cheap, why not?
and you can re-encode it to any format for phones n' shit. you can't go from 320kbps mp3 to opus or aac without losing even more quality.

>needing anything else than 160 kbps Opus
You only have to encode once.

I hear them in high bitrates, and it gives me headache.

Yeah I am, and I don't really see why not, my music collection is small as shit and storage is cheap, plus it gives me the ability to compress my audio to OPUS for my phone which is nice

>rip as 320kbps 41000Hz mp3
>rip as FLAC
>both sound exactly the same
nice placebo guys
I stop noticing after 192kbps

I obviously can't trust your anecdotal and factually weak statements. You can bring some ABX tests between high bitrate lossy vs lossless and then we'll talk. Otherwise stop pretending you have bat ears or something.

No, that's normal.

joke's on you i discard everything that cuts off at 20khz. also, nothing wrong with listening to lossy as long as you don't archive them.

Attached: Untitled.png (617x381, 219K)

Most people do. Any FLAC shill gets stopped on his track when ABX vs 320 kbps/V0 is requested. Trained ears with expensive gear usually fail these and get inconsistent results.

>get hi-res FLAC
>still cuts at 22 kHz
Did I get memed or is this normal? I bought them from legitimate source

um MP3 is the real placebo, you think it's as good as flac but it isn't

Depends on the source.
A hi-res file for a song that was recorded before modern tech (like pre-50's) will have shit frequencies no matter what

>You can bring some ABX tests between high bitrate lossy vs lossless and then we'll talk
I'd have to bring you anecdotal personal abx tests, because like your closest peers I don't really want to talk to you user.
Maybe I'm washing my hair right now.

>What magic to they use?
Opus

>FLAC for archival and 256kbps Apple AAC for my DAP, please.

Attached: image.jpg (938x960, 196K)

How modern does it has to be? These are recordings from 93-2000 yet they show the same freqs

You've been scammed then, unless it's purely electronic songs that may have been mastered with that cut off in mind

Meanwhile normal ears can hear the metallc diginoise, and just download lossless.
Lossy compression pushers probably just pretend that they can't hear it, because they don't want to throw away decades of work.

256 kbps AAC get cute graphs on Spek. They look like FLAC's. Very rich in frequencies. Is it really much better than V0/320kbps MP3? These always look a lot more trimmed

wikipedia has a good article on this -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sound_recording
as for you being meme'd or not - quality of sound depends on the hardware used to record it. i have a recording of bocelli's live performance i ripped from cd and quality of it is shit compared to quality of studio recording. pic related

Attached: Untitled.png (617x384, 230K)

>
If you aren't able to tell the difference you must have a shit system. Even then you should be able to pick up the loss of dynamic range when listening to lossy shit.
This. I use opus 128 on my phone.
That's not a Hi-Res file. Hi-Res would be 24bit/48kHz and anything above.
AAC is a better technology.

>not 96k opus

Attached: __tejina_senpai_tejina_senpai_drawn_by_bow_bhp__1caabc55c49a9f232dfe5ac5149cbd93.png (739x1097, 778K)

>24bit/48kHz and anything above
lmao vinyl is analog and produce worse results when you convert to digital unlike cds. i guess it doesn't make much difference if you're archiving but 22khz is definitely highres. most lossy formats have frequency cutoff at 20khz.

>quality of sound depends on the hardware used to record it
This + the year and "size" of the studio (as in world famous studio, or something more humble)
Pic is from 1964

Attached: Capture.png (883x505, 467K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-resolution_audio
>It refers to higher than 44.1 kHz sample rate and/or higher than 16-bit linear bit depth
You must be retarded user

Do you have more of these but with recent recordings? Mine have a huge black space over 22 khz

The difference is miles apart on these Apple earbuds

>Mine have a huge black space over 22 khz
They may be lossless CD rips.
CDs have a standard 44100Hz sample rate (max frequency is 22050Hz)

Using stax and I can't hear the difference between lossy, or lossless.

cool but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than audio cd quality. also, were did i say that i collect hi-res music specifically?

It was actually meant for There are many reasons why it's better than cd quality.
The easiest one to explain is that 16bit depth is under the human threshold, while 24bit is above. Bit depth is what determines the dynamic range, and when you have a good system that will be able to reproduce high bit depth adequately the difference will be night and day.

>better than audio cd quality
Audio CD quality is where it's at.
Anything above is wooden riser for gold plated shielded audio connectors tier

Name one (1) song that takes advantage of the dynamic range offered by 24bit audio.
In fact no, name just one song that manages to use the entire dynamic range offered by 16bit audio. Protip: even a live recording of a symphonic orchestra doesn't

Does the denon audio technical CD use the entire dynamic range of 16bit CD?

Nope, it's "only" a 60db dynamic range

>when you have a good system that will be able to reproduce high bit depth adequately the difference will be night and day
You know people with a sound setup able to reproduce up to a 144 dB difference? That's impressive, user

exactly my point

>let's just compress already compressed media, what could go wrong

Attached: 92a6039f7fcce9eca8b00a567c71e811.jpg (366x444, 35K)

>Too dumb to understand the purpose of lossless compression

it's an iPod that was born and raised to play AAAC, it stutters when playing .opus

Yes, its replicates the original with great integrity. MP3 is totally antiquated.

Flac is good for future proofing or home servers since it can convert to whatever without hearing a difference

You have to truly be subliterate to think flac is a placebo. Flac is nothing more than a compressed format for lossless audio. It's no more a placebo than placing a wav file into a rar archive, except you can play it back in nearly all media players. Use flac for music that is of high importance to you or needs further editing and mastering. Use [lossy codec of your choosing] for everything else.

t. red elite torrent master

t. listening to justin timberlake on $10 chinese phone with $0.5 headphones

>you're not a fucking bat
flac works as intended, so it's not a placebo.

flac is not for listening. It's main purpose is archiving so you can convert from the source lossless material to any format you'd like. You are absolutely clueless if you don't know this.

i converted my old MP3's to FLAC and they sound great

Same my SanDisk Clip directory is split into 2 main folders. Flac & mp3 with average file size of 30mb & 3mb respectively.

I transfered my paid ringtones to flac via microphone, and they sound great with my stax set up.

You can't assume everyone has the same hearing ability. Does everybody have the same vision?

>I stop noticing after 192kbps
You have pretty low standards if "notice" is where you draw the line. I heard a pickpocket (Joey Diaz) use this logic "these rich cocksuckers won't even notice it's gone."

3:33
youtube.com/watch?v=9xhkVk2H2EQ

wav files are fine, just wait for SSD prices to come down a bit more. flac will be obsolete in 10 years.

I ripped a lot of my CDs to Flac, is that okay or am I stupid? Should I keep doing that or should I not worry about it?

You did a good thing user.

If I buy an MP3, will it lose quality over time, I'm worried.

Joey is based as fuck

Yes lossy degrades everytime you play it, because it has to guess what the original sounds were, and it jiggles the bits until jiggling the bits don't do anything.

That sucks... I have a few songs/albums that are MP3

Wav is uncompressed :^)

You better convert to flac and stabilize those bits asap amigo.

Yeah. FLAC is dumb.
Which is why I store my music on R2R tape. Both in dbx and standard.

Wav is fucking shit, also not as widely used

>b8

The entire world of audio recording mixing and mastering use .wav dumb shit

> thinks CD is lossy

Wav's also don't have tags so good luck managing a large collection of music

ARE YOU MAKE A JOKE!
FOR ME MY PLACE OF WORK ONLY DO WAV. FOR MY COMPANY IT IS STANDARD FORMAT AND FOR YOU TO TALK NOT AS WIDELY USED IS LIE
YOU ARE LIAR EVERY PROFESSIONAL USE THE WAV YOU WELL POISONER

Attached: Fuck your bit rate.jpg (1200x800, 81K)

Walk to work listening to music
...
Oh wait you cant. Get fucked

I don't wear headphones, and I drive to work.
Get fucked povertier.

Why not?
Are you suffering from Parkinson's?

Attached: CR6020A-GR-250x250.jpg (250x250, 18K)

you can listen to analogue vinyl on the way to work with DSD 128 ...... DSD is delta-sigma modulation and has not been decimated or quantitized like PCM fool ...

rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5605119

Attached: IMG_7876.jpg (3264x2448, 1.93M)

>check out the new phonograph mod for my 1998 Honda Civic

Vinyls being more popular than CDs now makes me worried since you can't really rip vinyls

>Muh delta-smegma

I could hear the difference.

Attached: ABX mp3 320kb vs FLAC 9600hz.jpg (455x697, 118K)