It is incredible how much after a certain point, the quality is only a perceived thing and mostly psychological

You're not really interesting enough to read once. I scanned over it and concluded that you are a deluded and self-righteous scammer.

There are plenty of FLACs that sound shitty to me. But normally it's either shitty mastering or a bad vinyl rip, not malicious deceit like OP does.

I think that's low, I download FLAC because I hope it to be a copy of the original and not some encoding. The latter could be more than enough for my setup - which is very cheap - but it depends on who and how encoded it. Sometimes I hear cracks when listening to low bitrate encoding, I don't know whether it's my setup or a problem in the files, I would like to rule that out. I mean, it's not like 600 MB are a lot nowadays.

You would be surprised on how many fake FLAC rips are out there. Even on "trusted" stores and platforms.

I torrented an album one time that after I burned the flacs to a cd, didn't really sound up to snuff on my stereo. I spectrum analyzed the flacs and sure enough, they were as flat as a table top.
So much for not being able to tell the difference.

This, I took a gigantic blackpill with deezloader and tidaldownloader when "24bit master studio" are in reality 320kbps in a FLAC container

>CD -> FLAC > AAC 256 kbps > FLAC again
>I use AAC so I can fool Spek fags
lol based, bamboozled em

Im not surprised since AAC compression can actually make certain records sound better or make certain details more apparent, just like a dynamic range compressor

itoddlers do not belong here

When they are like that they can be spotted.
They can't be trusted. Though most their 320 kbps are fine.
Sauce?

You literally don't understand how any of this shit works. Stop the LARP.

Stop the cope. If you don't get torrents you should be unnaffected from my actions.

>torrenting in 2019
lol

Found the guy with my torrents. :^)

>not torrenting in 2019
Lmao at you're life.

>audiophiles are placebo effect victims
>news at 11

Wouldn't people be able to tell if they do some verification with the accurip database?

Maybe, but most only do spek and give it a go. I also attach the original log from EAC.

>COPE COPE SEETHE COPE HAHA MOMMY AM I COOL YET
I hope you die painfully and alone.

Literally seething. Am I affecting you anyhow? I won't stop doing my fake FLAC uploads even if you keep crying about it.

best tracker for flac's friends?
new to this audiophile thing. Just bought shure srh1540 and es100 dac. public trackers are shit for content and don't wanna pay the tidal jew.

This is the kind of fool I'm fucking up with.

Deezloader

320 kb/s mp3s I download with smloadr serve me fine.

>public trackers are shit for content
retard doesn't know where to go
get spoonfed somewhere else baby

How come Deezer has thas flaw and has not resolved it? And why spotify is unable to be abused like that?

What flaw fren

Deezloader and related

>not just storing them in 192 OPUS

>imagine storing lossy trash

>not just saving the FLAC on your desktop and opus 128 on your phone

You're tlking about affecting people, yet you seem starved for other people's recognition and attention. That is why you made this thread.

You don't draw attention to things you want to keep secret unless you have some other motive, like... ad revenue? No. Maybe you're actually an affiliate marketer? No. Are you getting more views on your website? Are you raising your profile as a notorious internet personaluty? Golly gee, it seems almost like you have no rational or cynical motive for making this thread. That leaves only an emotional motive: look at me. Look at what I'm doing. I'm very smart. Tell me how outrageous I am. Yum yum, I'm getting so much attention for being naughty!

>imagine falling for the lossless meme

>literally exactly I do
I love you user

You're tlking about affecting people, yet you seem starved for other people's recognition and attention. That is why you made this thread.

You don't draw attention to things you want to keep secret unless you have some other motive, like... ad revenue? No. Maybe you're actually an affiliate marketer? No. Are you getting more views on your website? Are you raising your profile as a notorious internet personaluty? Golly gee, it seems almost like you have no rational or cynical motive for making this thread. That leaves only an emotional motive: look at me. Look at what I'm doing. I'm very smart. Tell me how outrageous I am. Yum yum, I'm getting so much attention for being naughty!

Lmao nice pasta

>128 very high quality
>not 192 placebo quality

I have a 1Tb drive, so I don't bother transcoding my cd rips to a lossy codec for listening on my computer speakers. I backup my Music folder when I do new rips with rsync. I've burned music cd's from my flac backups after the original cds were stolen in a break-in. Trust me, on a good enough stereo, you can tell the difference in quality between music cds burned from lossless flac and mp3s.
Especially familiar music on your familiar stereo in a familiar room, at your normal volume and tone adjustments.
If you ever demo a pair of speakers in a store, take a cd you listen to a lot, and play it at your preferred volume with flat tone settings. They might still sound better or worse after you get them home, hooked to your stereo in your living room, tho.

>not 160 sweet spot quality

Jow Forums; the place where flac is a placebo, but idiots will argue all day long about which lossy codec is best.

Cope

I don't understand the audio quality meme. Mp3 with youtube quality sounds good enough, larger files and that sounding a little batter if at all are not worth it for me. [spoiler] Also I fear hearing something that really makes a difference and makes me not enjoy my mp3 as much because of comparing them [/spoiler]

Attached: 3446E903389043F880BA5E9059C2E909.jpg (750x729, 444K)

Because with lossy we actually have to bother at how low can we go to efficiently encode music. FLAC is not a format to listen music, it is for archival, so it has no fun at all. You don't have to tweak anything. It is a brainlet tier format.

For me personally it depends a lot on the music if I hear a difference between a high bitrate mp3 and lossless. Some music I can absolutely hear the difference, others not so much. In my opinion, 256k vbr or better mp3s sound pretty good. Redid my music library with lossless a while ago because why not. Youtube though, you can definitely hear the difference between it and even a decent mp3.

>Mp3 with youtube quality sounds good enough
I like to mess with lossy codecs but fuck off. You must be deaf.

>In my opinion, 256k vbr or better mp3s sound pretty good
That's the issue, after a certain threshold you just have a very hard time trying to guess what is lossless and what isn't. Modern codecs at a high bitrates are pretty good.
Fun starts when you go below 192 kbps.

And on your limitted storage portable advice, your golden ears can easily discern the subtle nuances between 128kbs mp3 and 92kbps opus.
Sure kid.
Why not just transcode from your archive to your phone's music folder and replace the music you don't listen to much anymore with something fresh. Only takes a minute for an album.

>FLAC is not a format to listen music
Based retard

The system thinks i need to insult u harder to not be considered spam.
Reddit is waiting for u, we dont need another redditor debating like a redditor here.

>Sauce

Fucking Mooron

Shits useful for sampling makes a real difference
Depends what your doing tho most of the time it doesn’t matter at all

Will opus really overtake the rest of the lossy codecs? AAC won't die unless apple kills it or dies itself and MP3 has too much recognition and awareness. You say opus to somebody or google it, and the first result is a shitty music band.

I ONLY use WAV because if you compare a same rip with flac and then wav in spek you will see the wav is better

ironically a lot of our perception and, in the end, actual, tangible enjoyment of the quality of anything (wine, cheese, music, etc) comes from the perception of quality e.g. people tend to say that they liked the more expensive wine or cheese, regardless of a actual quality. The same applies to lossless encoding standards. People perceive a higher quality because they see the larger file size when in reality their shitty setup probably cannot even show the detail.

Low quality bait

I think you'll find both are identical

I keep all my flac archives on my computer in a folder called Music. Same folder my music player indexes. Takes about 5 seconds to rsync new albums to backup storage and a minute to transcode an album to lossy shit to my phone via mtp. I prefer mp3 to opus because album art thumbnails support and the fact any difference in compression is trivial and any difference in audio quality is placebo on a shit portable device with earbuds.

I bet the fake flac sounds just as good as the mp3 t was trancoded from. It's lossless, you see?
That's the fucking point.

>I doubt you're doing this on Redacted.
RED is unironically the EASIEST place to do this. As long as the spectro looks good, no one cares.
/t/ used to convert youtube-dl to FLAC all the time.

Tidal is the most Jewish service in existence. MQA master quality my ass. It's literally a rebranded mp3 with a whole set of licenses that allows the parent company to make fat bucks by having the whole industry by the throat down the the DAC chip manufacturers.
They want MQA to be synonymous with quality to force manufacturers and service providers into their ploy. Avoid that shit like the plague.
Not really since AAC is a very high quality format. It's almost identical to flac so that guy only slightly fucked them over.

>Shure srh1540
Imagine fucking up this hard.

>srh1540
whats that? are you jelly ?

Attached: 1565025822881.jpg (480x360, 43K)

That's the only reason to do it

Just a note, OP is literally making this all up

And since I have shit tons of storage on my pc, I may as well listen to my flacs. They aint gonna sound any worse.

>Not really since AAC is a very high quality format
I was impressed on how efficient it is too. I got a FLAC of an album that had a bonus track (you know that final track with a 3 minutes song, 9 minutes silence then another song).
MP3 on VBR was like 30 MB while AAC was 14 MB. Seems like it can go to really low digits when required. Truly variable.

Lossless audio is simply for archival purposes. If something needs mastering and mixing in the future, you store it in a lossless format. If something has sentimental value, you store it in a lossless format. Fags who only listen to flac because of some perceived difference in quality are just deluded.

based

>AAC compression can actually make certain records sound better
this so much, it's crazy

it is incredible how many people get baited by this ancient pasta

Absolutely devilish

Attached: 1471109636658.jpg (500x500, 144K)

Oh fuck

Attached: 1538867593012.png (289x500, 64K)

Your post made me curious.

1 hour of silence in stereo:
q127 QAAC
320k VBR Opus
V0 MP3

Attached: Capture.png (888x92, 9K)

I use flac purely for the peace of mind that my music is sounding its best, and nothing more. Pinching megabytes when storage is so cheap and abundant is, frankly, retarded. I honestly think that using lossy compressed formats, and having to worry about keeping up with the latest, more efficient versions is way more autistic when you can just use lossless and not care.
This is assuming you're not pirate scum and that you use your own CD rips, of course.

I'm pirate scum and I use FLAC for that exact same reason. FLAC rips on trackers have to go through a checking process (which of course can be fooled but there's always some autist manually checking them anyway).

See? Only gripe with AAC is the fact either the format itself or the best encoder is propietary. But it is godlike.

>I only get praise and good comments for my "good labour". Even some retards with their expensive dedicated equipment saying "sounds fantastic on my studio setup! Great quality!"
> I'm not saying FLAC is worthless. I like it and actually store my shit on it if I can. But it really makes me laugh all these golden eared fags that truly believe they can hear better than literal animals and at the end of the day look how easily they can get fooled with tricks like these.

its placebo just like resolutions above 1080p and refresh rates above 60 hz

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.

>comes to Jow Forums to brag about being a shithead
Gay.

I still use Vorbis cos it avoids sample rate conversion and is as efficient as Opus at higher bit rates (>128 kb/s).

>its placebo just like refresh rates above 60 hz

Attached: 1562907307703.jpg (622x621, 70K)

Based

You sound like the troll who said their was no difference between 30fps and 60.

You're worse than Hitler

vocaroo.com/i/s0omT0dn0dRd

0/10, try being more subtle next time

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.

Taxi to apollo sir?

>download a four seasons .flac album hoping to use it for testing
>wtf this sounds like shit
>turns out some mad lad decided to upload what was probably a 64kbps mp3 converted to .flac
>retards in the comments praising the quality

I use FLAC for the same reason I use PNG
I want it lossless, with compression.

Doesn't matter if I have a screenshot in JPG with highest quality, it's not 1:1 with the original screenshot.

Same reason with music.

Lmao but this is too much. At least OP isn't that much of a fag

>imagine downloading flac files without the EAC log