"I don't like FLAC because even if it is lossless, it cuts bass frequencies a bit"

Send him the wav files in a zip archive, see if he complains.

Why there are audiophiles but not "videophiles" i mean at this we can say that 4k is a meme and only a fag would stick to that.

That's called psychoacoustics. Despite flac is lossless if you absolutely sure that it cuts bass frequencies than you won't hear them.

Name your gun flac and shoot him with it, ask if he notices any bass

Because being a videophile is too painful. All consumer video formats are shit and look worse than lossless video.

You've clearly never been to an mpv thread.

But who needs lossless video? Even hollywood doesn't shoot at lossless because there's almost no benefit. Even hollywood only shoots at 2k because even they know 4k is a meme.

I mean lossless in comparison to what is used by those who make the movies or compared to what is used at cinemas.
The standard Bluray format is shit 8bit 4:2:0 video.

>I mean lossless in comparison to what is used by those who make the movies or compared to what is used at cinemas.
There's no relative lossless. You either compress without losses or you do.
>The standard Bluray format is shit 8bit 4:2:0 video.
The problem is that lossless compression or visual transparency still produce a considerable file sizes when it comes to videos. With images and audio you can always argue that even lossless compression is not that big of a deal, considering how cheap a TB of space is right now. However, 1080p Blu-Ray remuxes can fill your storage pretty quickly.

calculate checksums of each individual wav
send him the flacs along with the checksums
ask him to decode the flacs into wav and calculate checksums on his end
maybe then he'll understand how it works

>There's no relative lossless.
You could also say all lossless is relative lossless aka "compress without losses".

>The problem is that lossless compression or visual transparency still produce a considerable file sizes when it comes to videos.
True, but at this point we could do better than regular old h264 on a 50GB disc. The industry is slow to adapt.

>True, but at this point we could do better than regular old h264 on a 50GB disc.
Like what? Yeah, you could use a UHD Blu-Ray disc for 1080p footage instead, but that's about it and nobody will do that because normal Blu-Rays are already beyond the point of diminishing returns for most people.

>lossless video
You would like to need a whole hard drive to store a single movie?

Flac and wav have no quality difference. Tell him to stop being a nerd about it.

Eh.. I did a rough calculation and H.265 lossless would be like 150GB for 2h of 1080p.
We have USB drives and SD cards this size now.
And online this could be distributed over bittorrent quite easily.

normaloids unironically claim flac cuts bass because every other format they use cuts the shit out of highs so when they hear more trebble they think they lost bass
they are correct in their personal delusion but objectively wrong

>H.265 lossless
:|

Youre being friendly and giving and he is complaining. What an asshole.

???

>Even hollywood doesn't shoot at lossless
They don't do this? I thought formats used by Arri and Red didn't throw anything from the sensor away.

They don't do this?

Attached: Arri_Alexa_camera -.jpg (1024x682, 174K)

Lmao kick that reverse audiofool in the legs op

I actually starting going to FLAC when I noticed it had superior bass than MP3 320.

Also trannies and fags*

No. Lossless means lossless. It means you don't lose anything. Your friend doesn't understand this and is falling victim to placebo.

When you convert WAV to FLAC, it's exactly the same as when you put some word documents in a ZIP. It compresses, but the original data is 100% there.

Don't believe me? Compare an original WAV to a WAV that was converted to FLAC, then converted back to WAV. Exactly, perfectly identical.

Lossless HEVC sucks. Use AVC or ffv1 for lossless encoding.

Would somebody of you smart autists answer me?

what about them? that's not a question you sperg

Both of those are worse than HEVC for lossless.

Is there any quality loss?

anime groups are really autistic about this stuff.

>boost the bass of those flacs a little and export to 320 cbr mp3
>convert those mp3s to wav
>send the wavs to him

Attached: are-you-dissatisfied-is-outcome-le-trole-face-meme-49627508.png (500x564, 62K)

Have you actually used HEVC for lossless encoding yet? HEVC is good for low bitrate content, but is less efficient for high bitrates, culminating in a much worse lossless performance than AVC. ffv1 compresses sometimes even better than AVC (hectic scenes in my experience), but often worse. I think of it as the fast but still decent alternative to lossless AVC.

...

>>>hell

Tell him to get a proper cable with gold contacts.

I've actually wondered this for a while
there's a /hpg/ full of audiophiles that talk about all range of audio technology
but even though there is mpv threads, there seems to be no videophile monitor discussion or anything

Audiophiles are the dumbest fuckers in the world

It could be because for audiophiles the pursuit of the best audio quality is actually possible and practical since lossless audio doesn't take so much space, but with video you'll always have compression because lossless encoding still takes an impractically high amount of space, so they get into a sort of "eh, good enough" mentality because pursuing perfection just isn't possible like it is with audio (where everyone can start downloading flacs and buying headphones), so very few people try.

Also, people whose life is affected by the enjoyment of video are a small minority compared to those who are affected by the enjoyment of music, so of course the amount fo people who care is much smaller.

Just convert your flac into wav, he wouldn't notice the difference

>Have you actually used HEVC for lossless encoding yet?
Yes, and I got the best results with HEVC. AVC was second and FFV1 was the worst.

texpion.com/2018/07/av1-vs-vp9-vs-avc-h264-vs-hevc-h265-1-lossless.html
Here you can see HEVC and AVC each win with a different sample, so the bottom line is it depends on the content.

>he wouldn't notice the difference
There's no difference to notice.

yes he is correct but don't expect the brainlets on Jow Forums to understand

Wav does sound better than flac.

They are, decompressed FLAC is identical to WAV, the only way for it to be any different is for the codec to be broken therefore not really producing a FLAC

human hearing limit is about 20kHz so what do you think?

Of course, but good luck actually perceiving it.

>two lossless formats
>bro, bro, BRO! I can HEEEEAR the difference!
Audiophiles

Tell that to audiophiles. They'll swear by their lives they can hear 40 or more kHz. Fuckin' bats

OP do this and see what he says.

ITT: poorfags with shit speakers trying to come up with excuses for why they can't hear the difference between WAV and FLAC

This meme camera shoots at a resolution bested by 35mm.

t.poor lad with brain tumour that is producing auditory hallucinations - because that's the only reason a WAV can be different to FLAC

Digital Cinema Packages, the closest thing there is right now to visually lossless, are 12bit 250Mb/s 200GB+ files shipped to kinoplexes in whole hard drives.

lmao
Is it actually possible to get ahold of these and play them in your home? Like is their playback software for this and maybe a private tracker for DCPs?
Also the way I understood DCPs is that they are in fact a series of images for each frame that are still lossy, but at a very high bitrate and quality. There is then a single file that tells the Theater player what order to show the images in.
Wait, HEVC and AVC can be losslessly encoded? I was under the impression that much like mp3 by their very nature they were lossy formats.
Yeah it would be nice if there was. It might be cause videophiles are even more niche than audiophiles in that the cost barrier is really high. You mostly find them on different AV forums where it's people spending 5k plus on a single TV or something (and that's the minimum, average is probably like 10k on a TV).
>people whose life is affected by the enjoyment of video are a small minority compared to those who are affected by the enjoyment of music
Um, what? Citation needed. But maybe that's true since video still has a higher cost barrier than audio.

That's audiophiles for you. 10% of their perception is through their ears, 90% is made up in their heads.

>BUT user, I JUST *KNOW* IT SOUNDS DIFFERENT!

him, probably

it's like 21st century religious fuckwits

>Um, what? Citation needed.
It's just my impression. No data behind it.
I'm just thinking that basically everyone listens to music, but not everyone watches movies or video material where the quality matters (if all the videos you watch are YT vlogs than the quality isn't important), so if, say, 5% is the amount that cares about quality, the 5% of music listeners is a much larger crowd than the 5% of movie watchers.
And as you said, getting good quality video is much more expensive than doing the audio equivalent, so that allows for far more audiophiles than videophiles.
Then there's the issue of diminishing returns, because with audio you can very well tell 320 kbps CB mp3s from FLACs if you have good headphones/speakers, but with video, since lossless is impractical and mostly unavailable, you'll have to go with lossy codecs, and there really isn't much you can care about in that department.
You know they say that all codecs are created equal, but you look at h.264 and you look at h.265 and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you compare the same frame encoded with different codecs, you got a 50/50 chance of telling them apart. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So if you challenge me to a blind test you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat me. Then you add VLC to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way, at 50 Mbps, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because MPV fags KNOW they can't beat me and they're not even gonna try!
So user, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at the challenge. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at this blind test. See user, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at the challenge.

1/10 because I replied

>you can very well tell 320 kbps CB mp3s from FLACs if you have good headphones/speakers
From my understanding, this is possible but depends heavily on the particular file and the details it encodes and also if the listener has trained his hearing. Training is required to hear the difference here.
>they say that all codecs are created equal
They do? That's just not true, plain and simple. x264 and x265 are different.
>See user, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at the challenge.
WTF are you talking about? I wasn't challenging anyone on anything, or aware I was being challenged. Also none of this makes sense because we don't know what the encoder settings are. Bitrate is not everything.

youtube.com/watch?v=msDuNZyYAIQ

Oh ok, lmao. Good post. I was wondering about that math and thought you might be schizoposting or something.

Just fresh pasta my man.

>Training is required to hear the difference here.
Sure, but we're talking about people who care about the quality of audio, which supposedly have a minimum of knowledge about how digital audio works and what lossy encoders do, so they'd know what to listen for and it's the kind of thing that once you notice it it becomes very apparent.
No need for any particular training. Just the basic knowledge that audiophiles supposedly already have is more than enough.

Yes, which is why people have endless debates about Passband/Aliasing/Phase response settings.

>Lossless HEVC sucks
do codecs even matter when you're encoding lossless?

Attached: EDV6WhnUYAIU3M9.jpg (1280x1104, 125K)

They matter for storage space and processing power used for the encoding and most imprtantly, the playback.

They absolutely exist. its just that there is an objective standard to visual fidelity while sound can be extremely subjective. However there are people that do take movies very seriously and buy extremely expensive TVs and projectors and calibrate them properly. The thing is that its fairly easy to calibrate a display or projector, because of the nature of video fidelity. Then however there's a completely different group of people that literally only watch movies in cinemas.

i have an audiotard friend, I sent him a 24bit 96khz WAV and an 96kbps opus created from the said WAV converted back to 24bit 96khz
unsurprisingly he couldn't tell the difference
audiophiles are delightful to poke fun at

No, not just listening. Actual, rigorous training. Something like this stuff:
harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/
Otherwise you're just fooling yourself if you can't past double-blind testing. And obviously some files will be much easier than others.

The vast majority of self-described audiophiles absolutely do not have this. Most of them can't even here higher frequencies, being boomers who have let their hearing go. Most of them do not know about codecs or quality or believe absolutely mystic-level myths about them.

>there seems to be no videophile monitor discussion or anything
just start a thread claiming the superiority of one LCD technology over the other, guaranteed replies

can't we start threads without needing to bait for discussion?

I haven't done any rigorous training but have been producing electronic music for 7 years and I usually pass most of the blind test on shitty earbuds.
I used to get them all wrong but after I learned what audio encoders do I knew what to listen for and it became easy.
But maybe my experience with audio made me better at listening for subtle details and it counts as training, who knows. You're probably right.

Most Hollywood films are being shot on the Alexa 65 now. It's a 6K camera. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

Attached: ZCI2zJK.jpg (2500x2063, 479K)

Yeah I imagine if you produce your much more skilled at that stuff than even a non-casual listener. That's pretty cool user.
But are you saying you can reliably hear the difference between 320 kbps CBR mp3 and flac on shitty earbuds? If so, that's very impressive. A lot of the best trained listeners still need good or great gear for that kind of test.

Attached: 562.png (1597x1600, 532K)

Sure we can

Attached: deadthread.png (236x78, 3K)

take a wave file, encode it to flac
take the flac, decode it to a separate wave file
the audio streams of the two files are bit-identical.

stop spreading FUD.

>from 24 bit 96kHz to 16bit 44.1kHz
>asks about any quality loss
What did he mean by this?

>muh nerd shit buzzwords
Yeah, I think I'll rather just trust my ears.

Do you know where you are?

based

>he thinks he can actually hear above 20khz
your're not a dog user

Jej

yes, of course there is
is it discernible? who fucking knows since no one seems to be able to come up with a consensus on what is discernible
audiophiles will swear they can tell the difference, and maybe they can, but more importantly, can you? that's all that matters, just test it for yourself

>completely misunderstanding the post
Based retard

technically no there is no quality loss if both are lossless formats

stop being a brainlet, your right about audiophiles though

Y-you're talking about d-dithering, right?
>t. brainlet

Or just you know use 24-bit FLAC

>getting semantical to be right in the arguement
based faggot

24 bit wav above 44.1khz (IE 48khz) is literally identical