FACT: There is not a single person on Jow Forums who can tell the difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3 in a proper...

FACT: There is not a single person on Jow Forums who can tell the difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3 in a proper abx test.

Attached: D40592A7-A63C-46A7-9904-59EE24EA2D02.jpg (2524x1419, 232K)

Other urls found in this thread:

abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.128.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

my ears can.
i have a proper audio system, not some shitty 25bucks speakers.

Most people on Jow Forums probably couldn't tell the difference between FLAC and 128 kbps MP3 in a proper abx test.
With that said, audio bitrates are relatively low, even for FLAC. Storage is not costly.

FACT: I don't give a fuck. I use 320kbps already anyway

Why stop there? There isn't a single person on Jow Forums who can tell the difference between aptX/LDAC and wired transmission.

I can't even tell the difference between 192Kbps MP3 and FLAC. Doesn't prevent me from ripping my CDs to FLAC though.

FACT: P = NP and you can't prove it.

FACT: There is not a single person on Jow Forums who can tell the difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3 by looking at the remaining free space on their hard drive.

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.

Nope. FLAC shimmers. A properly ripped mp3 of any bitrate better captures the artist's original intent.

Attached: exampleTijuana.jpg (654x418, 113K)

never gets old

You're a dog.
And you're deaf.

>And you're deaf.
Pretty much. Not sure if I can even discern 160Kbps MP3. It works with 128Kbps MP3 though.

I once did an aural music test in high school where I got the answer wrong because the answer was in the wrong pitch to what was played. I complained about it and blew everyone's minds that what they were reading musically was not was played. To me I just hear the right pitch the first time without anything to relate it to.

tl;dr not everyone hears the same thing.

If you can't tell the difference between 128 kbps and even 320 you must have some kind of problem. Seriously try it yourself.

>You're a dog.
Nah, not really. There's just a difference between "listening to music" and "LISTENING to music"
once you get there, you know. I'm not even an audiophile, just using generic z9600 logotech with some yamaha speakers.

Depends on the kind of music.
Regular bands i can't, but chiptune shit like NES songs is CLEAR the difference.
Of course, its retarded to use either format for this kind of music as you can instead use nsf/spc/hes/gym/sid etc..

Do a public ABX test. Nobody has ever been able to tell the difference between 320 mp3 and uncompressed as far as I know. Nevermind being able to say which is which.

I go for opus these days but you're right, of course.

FACT: FLAC is for archiving

FACT: this is a bait thread

This. reminder to never archive files in lossy formats

I just use 96kbps mp3 anyway.

abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.128.html
i could hardly tell the difference in this test. actually, i thought i could hear the faintest difference, but it could've been in my head. i mean, when i would replay the same clip, it sounded a little different from what i remembered. this is because of the mind making adjustments.

Attached: scr.png (347x529, 17K)

I started listening to FLAC on $800 headphones. I was using generic mp3 320 before. My sound was instantly elevated into another league. I started hearing significantly more textural cues, a broader soundstage, and an amazingly lush and balanced tonality. The music opened up and I started to get much better sound depth in all the recordings. It really maximized the quality of all my tracks. Low-end slam and definition was abundant and detailed, it was just goosebumps galore.

I can

I use MP3 downloaders to get music from YouTube.

Attached: _0.png (453x599, 111K)

No, you can't.

What does being pitch-perfect have to do with the FLAC/MP3 debate?

I couldn't until I bought good Bluetooth headsets.

Bandwidth on USB 3+ and Bluetooth are worlds higher than noisy analog.

Attached: unknown-28.png (437x585, 380K)

Vorbis at q7 (some people even say q5)
Lame at q2
Opus at 160 vbr

Are all you need for 99% of music.
For anything else, anything that is sentimental, or needs editing / mixing, just fucking archive it with flac, wavpack, monkey's or shorten, and be done with it. Anyone who disagrees with this is a brainlet with their head stuck far up their own asshole. Furthermore, 24/96 is absurd. 24/48 is the maximum you need for source material that needs mixing and/or mastering, and 16/48 will do you just fine for those purposes as well.

>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.

where do you come up with this shit?

I mean this is shit opinion but I don't listen to music and EVEN I can't tell apart lossless vs non-lossless on my cheap phone speakers.

>He doesn't know about rotational velocidensity
Back to /v/

Post the log you pussy

I can.

Attached: rygat.jpg (642x604, 183K)

No, you can't.

I can you just need to know what your listening for and could only tell on good playback system in true A/B format.
Unless you were actually listening critically for those traits you couldn’t tell. It’s like when people say you can’t hear above 20k, which is true, but you can certainly perceive the effects of the higher range. Audio quality is like that but with dynamics and subtle timbre changes. Again, would never be able to tell without proper A/B ing

I can :^)