Is flac superior???
Look at all that distortion that I'm not even capable of hearing.
>>52093083
Oh come on every sane MP3 encoder would not do that 16khz cutoff with 320kbps. You can fly to the moon on 320kbps, hell, even 60kbps is enough if you use Opus.
I always download FLACs just so I can archive them and avoid losing stuff during transcoding.
To human ears? No, especially when compared to 192 vbr Opus.
Yes, but it's not like you'll ever hear the difference.
I want everything to be archived in a lossless format though, so that when humans develop ear implants I can take advantage of my superior music collection while I laught at MP3/iTunes/streaming babbies who will never know what they're missing.
>>52093128
To be fair it wouldn't really matter. Most adults probably can't even hear above 16 Khz.
>>52093122
>can't hear 16kHz
Not all of us are in our 80's Grandma
>>52093170
Not all of us are under 20.
>>52093189
I'm 21 and I can hear upwards around 18700Hz
>>52093238
Good for you. Better take care of those ears as best as you can. However by the time you hit ~30 you will naturally become deaf to frequencies above 16 Khz due to aging.
>>52093083
For archiving, yes.
If you're going to be converting between formats then yes. You will always lose quality if converting from a lossy format.
If not, you probably can't hear a difference unless you're really listening for it; in which case you're autistic.
>>52093324
>he doesn't get cochlea implants every five years
>>52093324
shitsucks.
god tier hearing aids better become available to the general populace by the time I need them. muh flac
>>52093366
Spectral loss isn't the only artifact that lossless compression has.
At the very least I can confirm that the aac audio is not a bit perfect representation of the original 16 bit 44100kHz PCM audio it was made from.
Generational decay and other artifacts are present in that aac file as well. While they might sound 'acceptable' to you, and maybe even transparent to you (or even the general public, or even every human in existence) inaudible artifacts still exist, and as such it's a bad choice for archiving, which is why FLAC exists in the first place
>>52093464
All audio is an artifact.
>>52093083
>lossless vs lossy, which is better
damn, that's one hell of a question
question may be "do i really need flac", and that's entirely subjective
>>52093083
Yes, lossless compression objectively it is superior to lossy compression.
However, mp3 isn't bad though - at 320kbps, you'd be hard pressed, even with audiophile equipment, to hear the difference between it and flac.
Yes, the mp3/ogg/aac track will have lost details, but the compression is psychoacoustic, it drops information that is less important to human ears.
I personally keep my music in FLAC on my main PC, simply so it can be transcoded to lossy formats for portable devices.
If you're going to be transcoding a lot, I'd suggest going with something lossless.
>>52093443
Cochlear implants permanently reduce maximum hearing ability every time they're performed due to the cilia that need to be shaved off
>>52093324
>soon I won't be able to hear my old MX518
Awesome.
>>52093324
>However by the time you hit ~30 you will naturally become deaf to frequencies above 16 Khz due to aging.
This upsets me.
>>52093510
>not just shoving in a whole bunch of eukaryotic single celled organisms into you ear to grow more cilia
>>52093540
I wonder if this is still present in g400s
>>52093551
Why? The cricket noise is literally worthless for humans.
You can't play a discernible melody above this range, nor does it help you in day to day tasks. It's just a nuisance.
>>52093083
Yes, lossy vs lossless.
>>52093500
I've tried this and found on some tracks I can tell and others I have no idea. I try and do a blind test by loading both song on my FiiO and letting it choose which one randomly.
>>52093500
>If you're going to be transcoding a lot, I'd suggest going with something lossless.
There's zero reason. Heck, half the reason you have to transcode is probably BECAUSE you bloated in FLAC. 64GB can hold 26,000 minutes of 320k.
>>52093597
>>You can't play a discernible melody above this range
Music is allowed to sound bad.
>>52093491
Funny joke
>>52093624
Nah, we're just getting better codecs all the time.
I no longer use MP3 for anything, FLAC is a my main storage and I transcode to 256kbps AAC.
AAC is better in every way to mp3.
>>52093083
Yes, it is technically superior but unless you have the hard drive space to store every single album in FLAC, 320kbps MP3 will do. Seriously, FLAC is good quality and its lossless but the file size is bloated as all hell.
>>52093379
Nah, not really. What flagfacs don't want you to know is that file size reduction varies. Some music sources are so complex that only ~20-30% overall file size will be reduced compared to WAV.
Just stick to WAV for archiving music, easier to work with and loads/decodes faster.
>inb4 muh metadata
no one gives a shit.
I don't use FLAC or WAV but if I was forced to only use one of those formats for the rest of my life or be shot then I would stick with WAV.
>>52093720
>Some music sources are so complex
>Some music sources
>Some
If that's all you listen to and you don't care for metadata then stick with WAV, it's better for you. But for me personally FLAC is a better choice.
>>52093720
> loads/decodes faster.
FLAC can be decoded at 20x speed on a toaster from 2000
metadata is a good tradeoff
>>52093238
>>52093170
Do you have any idea how frequency responses work or what 20log(x) even means?
>>52093772
>frequency response
I do, but since the human ears capabilities aren't quantifiable, I don't see how that's relevant
>20log(x)
thats the equation to convert amplitude into decibels IIRC
Now why are you bringing this shit up?
>>52093500
>audiophile equipment
Muh coat hanger
Muh monster cable
Muh Vodka ethernet "audio" cable
>>52093751
jeez anon if you're that poor then just encode all of your music to 64k mp3, put it on your phone (assuming you own one), and sell your hard drive to help pay rent.
>>52093083
Yes, you just can't hear it in most cases.
Are there any recommended websites for testing your hearing frequencies?
>>52093848
all
>>52093838
>equation
>no equality sign
>>52093862
No, because the entire chain isn't guaranteed.
Get a proper hearing test, it's cheap as fuck (free in most universal healthcare regions)
>>52093848
Depends on the lossy codec it's being compared to and what parameters were used with it.
>>52093886
>arguing semantics
>not even bothering to actually make his argument
You win. It's an expression, now why are you bringing this up?
>>52093863
Most.
There are a number of variables that come into play including your equipment, your age and the audio being compressed.
>>52093921
>make his argument
Isn't that his job?
Space is not a problem, should I still use mp3 or should I switch to flac?
>Download album
>single 2gb flac
>music.cue
y
>>52093944
I was referring to the poster I replied to in third person, as is customary in greentext...
I'm still waiting for a reason as to why anon mentioned frequency response, and 20log(x) in a discussion about lossy audio compression
>>52093922
Assuming you compared 320k mp3 to flac there would be 0 audible difference every time. Anybody who says otherwise is lying.
>>52093954
acute autism
>>52093987
Wasn't me lol. Just shitpostin/g/.
>>52093954
>album
>2GB
>music.cue
The fuck are they doing to make a single album so big?
If it's 1 flac file then I can only assume it's one disc, and since there's a .cue file I assume it's a CD. a dd will only give 800MB
>>52093991
320kbps mp3 has a frequency cutoff of 16kHz
Many people below 40 can hear that high
>>52094043
>320kbps mp3 has a frequency cutoff of 16kHz
Sure it does.
>>52093510
how accurate are cochlear implants in 2015?
do they sound anything like what a nondeaf person would hear?
>>52094074
>all that visible cutoff at 16kHz at 0:50, 2:50, and 4:30
>>52094074
I can see differences from about 16kHz up in places there.
>>52094043
Maybe they can. However you're conveniently forgetting most music never exceeds 10khz frequencies. But enjoy your music with ear rupturing high frequency bursts.
>>52094130
>However you're conveniently forgetting most music never exceeds 10khz frequencies.
Maybe if you listen to shit.
>>52094074
>I must preserve the song of kawaii-chan forever, for it is my duty as a proud sudoku
>>52093845
>stop being efficient
Please just go away, posts of your quality are ruining this website.
>>52094119
The important question is, can you hear them?
>>52094130
I dare you to find a song that DOESN'T have >10kHz components
>ear rupturing
that's not even possible.
>>52094107
>-100dB
>>52094152
Maybe.
I definitely wouldn't hear them if I was listening to 320kbit mp3 though.
>>52093838
>human ears capabilities aren't quantifiable
What the fuck are you memeing about?
>>52093083
I don't give a shit anymore. Ever since I got tinnitus in one of my ears I have to balance my audio and I can't hear above 16khz very well that's for sure. So there's no fucking point.
>>52094215
To a degree.
For example, audiophiles who claim to hear differences between digital cables and blocks holding cables off the floor.
In the end the brain is still processing what your ears receive and your brain can make up information.
However, true blind tests can be give quantifiable information, but you can't blind test everyone.
>>52093083
Lossless and lossy is like apples and oranges. They taste different and have different usage.
FLAC, TTA, TAK, ALAC and other lossless are superior for archival purposes. You do not put FLAC files on your music player of choice or phone because that's wasted space compared to high bitrate lossy files. However lossless sources can be converted into lossy files without fucking the file completely unlike lossy converting to another lossy format. FLAC can be converted into MP3, Ogg Vorbis, Opus, and other lossless formats without issue and has the highest quality possible, even if it is impossible to hear.
Lossy has the exact opposite effect of lossless. It takes less space, it is not for archival purposes, and cannot be converted into other formats without a significant loss in quality. They also have a certain loss in quality due to their nature of "removing sound at unnecessary frequency" to cut down on space since the human ear cannot hear the difference anyway.
If you get the lossy version of a song, you'll be locked to that format unless you want a degrade in quality. Opus has taken over as one of the, if not the best lossy format and is both efficient, well compressed and has unmatched size:quality ratio. However creating opus files out of your old MP3 files are not the way to go without a noticeable degrade in quality, hence you're fucked unless you have the CDs and can rip them all over again, or have the lossless source to convert from.
>>52094293
Well put, you forgot the part about mp3 having rotational velocidensity though.
>>52094267
>In the end the brain is still processing what your ears receive and your brain can make up information.
Oh, so nothing is quantifiable by your logic. Don't be silly.
>>52094293
>Lossy has the exact opposite effect of lossless. It takes less space, it is not for archival purposes, and cannot be converted into other formats without a significant loss in quality.
Depends. I store all my CD archives in 512 vbr Opus. If I converted this to another audio format in the future I would have extremely little and inaudible loss in quality compared to ripping from FLAC.
Though I'll probably stick with these Opus rips until the day I die.
>>52093691
Agree with you, I always transcode my flac/ALAC to AAC
>>52094378
Did you bother to read the rest of the post?
Frankly, quantifiable results on audio encoding based on human hearing tests is actually quite hard because there is a second part that comes into play, memory.
Unlike visual comparisons where you can view things side by side or flip between, in music you need to listen to one and then the other. If you don't remember them correctly then your result is compromised.
Potentially you could have two mono outputs to either ear but that's no guarantee that your brain won't make up the differences between the two.
You can put a microphone into play and record the sound to gather quantifiable information on the sound that is being output. You could even cut off levels to show where people should stop hearing differences.
That's good data.
No? Maybe? I don't personally care, I've got hundreds of GB not doing anything and I really enjoy music, even if it's an absolute minute improvement for the difference in space used I don't give a fuck because I'm not hard up on space.
People who don't have space probably care more.
>>52094599
So know you're talking about audio encoding tests?
I was under the impression you were talking about human hearing range, which is definitely quantifiable and is directly related with frequencies in you know, audio encodes.
>>52094687
>know
now*
>>52093083
Wave/Flac for archive, ACC/OGG/Opus with a very high bitrates for listen. Don't use MP3.
Period, fuck all the flacfags
>>52094759
opus 128 is fine
>>52094215
there's no objective way to measure human hearing, thus it's inquantifiable.
>>52094759
>very high bitrate
160 is fuxcking solid with OPUS
I could probably go as low as 96 and still be acceptable
>>52094808
No.
Never skip on bitrate. We are not so cheap on storage you need to minimize the bitrate as much as possible.
Go for 256 at least.
>>52094830
>Opus 256
Completely overkill. Opus reaches transparency much lower than that.
The whole reason to use modern lossy codecs is so you can use it at low bitrates without shitty quality.
>>52094827
>there's no objective way to measure human hearing, thus it's inquantifiable.
Is your hearing mechanism different from other people?
>>52094759
T H I S
H
I
S
>>52094925
No.
Do you have a device that can determine the frequency response of the human ear drum and cochlea?
>>52094965
>Do you have a device that can determine the frequency response of the human ear drum and cochlea?
Yes, it's called fucking physics.
>>52093083
yes
>>52095001
physics is not a device.
If you have a mechanically determined graph of the frequency response of the human ear I'd love to see it
>>52095031
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/lecture_notes/p406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect5.pdf
>>52093164
In this extremely scientific test I did I connected my headphones to my function generator and put in a 1Vp-p sine wave through to determine my rough threshold of hearing. My max was 15.05kHz and my min was about 4Hz. I'm 25.
>>52094830
I like 160kbps opus.
>>52095149
Can you record the output to FLAC, build it up in some way that I can work out what frequency it is at when I lose the ability to hear it and upload it somewhere?
>>52095106
This document doesn't have the statistic I asked for. It quantifies physical structures in the ear, but fails to determine their effect as far as their combined hearing quality
>>52095228
Or you could just use of of the many MANY waveform generators available online
>>52095228
I don't have the equipment I'd need to record it directly to the PC. There are signal generator apps for your phone or PC that will probably output cleaner sound. My setup probably has a lot of additional impedance from the leads and the breadboard.
>>52095256
>This document doesn't have the statistic I asked for. It quantifies physical structures in the ear, but fails to determine their effect as far as their combined hearing quality
Your brain just didn't process it in the right way. I'm sorry anon.
>>52093083
>look at all those noise bytes that make listening to the sound a fuller experience
>>52095316
>Your brain just didn't process it in the right way. I'm sorry anon.
If that was meant as an insult to the anon that posted the link then that's some next level subtlety right there
If you're serious then I'm sorry, but you're seeing things that aren't there
>>52095346
>noise bytes
A U S T R I A
U
S
T
R
I
A
>>52095369
That clearly states how the physical structures affect hearing range, if you still think human hearing range isn't quantifiable then I don't know what to say.
>>52095445
>human hearing range
I didn't say human hearing range
I said frequency response
>>52095149
>min was about 4Hz
I guarantee it wasn't, what you thought was a pure sine wave at 4Hz turned out to be a 4Hz fundamental, 8Hz 2nd order, 16Hz 3rd order and 32Hz 4th order harmonics
I'm serious, if you can measure the "4Hz" output with a microphone you're going to find a lot more than a pure 4Hz sine wave
>2016 less 4 days
>music
>>52095149
>i can hear down to 4hz
no, you can't. lmao
>>52095477
That's probably true because as I was cycling the frequency range I heard stuff at around 30kHz and 50kHz as well and I kind of figured that was harmonics.
I suppose I figured 4Hz really wasn't too far off the 20Hz average minimum and so I thought my ears were just really sensitive to low frequencies.
>>52095487
>year
>posting in threads you don't care about
>>52095458
How do you test hearing range?
Are you being retarded on purpose?
>>52095504
no human can hear below 12hz i believe it was as an absolute, blanket cutoff including any and every special situation
>>52095511
i fucking trolled you haha
>>52095504
Yeah but it's a logarithmic scale. That's super far below
>>52095532
>>52095515
hearing range is a measurement of two points where one is the lowest frequency that can be heard, and the other is the highest point that can be heard.
frequency response is the relative volume heard of signals of different frequencies but the same volume.
I had hoped that you were just pretending to be retarded, but it seems that you don't know the difference between hearing range and frequency response
>>52095561
>volume
I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.
>>52095149
http://onlinetonegenerator.com/
Does the tone generated on this site match what you generated on your function generator?
I can hear 16k on it clearly, catch around 17k barely, on my speakers. I'll use my headphones later.
And I am 30.
>>52095617
>can't tell frequency response from audible range
>thinks others don't know what they're talking about
Go find a ball or something to play with kid. The adults are talking
I'm thinking about transcoding all my FLAC to something lossy for portable use. What should I go for, and what settings? I keep hearing shit about Vorbis or Opus, or whatever.
>>52095639
Pleb. I can clearly hear 19khz and I'm 49
>>52095651
what are you playing it on?
Your order should be
OPUS > OGG/AAC > MP3
>>52095645
>muh volume
>he thinks he knows what he's talking about
You're really funny anon
>I can't hear the 50kHz+ frequencies of muh tibetan throat noises and random wall noises with 320k mp3
>FLAC is infinitely superior, look at the stones I have on my cables
Every /g/+/mu/ thread ever.
>>52095651
Do ABX tests to find out. Try 128, 160, and 192 vbr Opus with a complexity of 10. I found 128 vbr Opus to be audibly transparent for me.
>>52095656
Sure you can buddy.
>>52095673
>Get asked to show a graph
>show some unrelated lecture notes he found on google thinking he's hot shit for finding real university lecture notes
>gets called out
>gets fucking told
>gets Slam dunk told
>gets his shit sorted out by other anon
>b-b-b-but you used the word volume
>v-v-v-volume amirite guys
>guys?
You have yet to show me a frequency response graph for the human ear
>>52095724
>doesn't understand the notes
>throws an autistic shit fit because of that
>starts pretending he knows shit and doesn't understand simple concepts like volume
>is mad
This is you.
>>52095724
How new are you? He's just trolling. Stop feeding him you imbecile.
>>52095889
old actually
too old perhaps
>>52095825
>is mad
I never get mad, most especially not at retards on 4chan. I'd have to be a really pathetic person to get mad at someone willingly being stupid on 4chan
Is there an appreciable audible difference between a decent mp3 v0 and FLAC? Does it matter for shit like old vidya OSTs?
>>52096005
>goes out of is way to say he's not mad
You're probably pretty mad lol
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
If you don't get a perfect score you are not qualified to post ITT
>>52096349
1/6
And I have $450 worth of audio stuff.
![snapshot_07.55_[2015.12.23_22.49.15].png](https://i.imgur.com/uN0zNQH.jpg "snapshot_07.55_[2015.12.23_22.49.15].png")
>>52096349
got 6 out of 6 test
>>52096349
I haven't even taken that test and im posting ITT
Is this allowed?
I have a mono FLAC file with folded stereo channels. I want to down-convert it with a variable bitrate encoder. With usual stereo files, the converted tracks come out to around 300 kbps.
When I use it for a mono file, the final bitrate is around 200 kbps. Now this makes sense from an information standpoint, since a mono file will basically have less varying audio information than a stereo file.
What I'm wondering is that will a converted mono file at this bitrate still have the same fidelity as the stereo files that come out around 300 kbps, despite it having a much lower bitrate?
>>52093083
>>52093083
That's not 320kbps on the right side
>>52096349
>tfw you have a shitty internet connection which is getting raped by family faggots and you can tell which is the highest quality by how often it stops/takes to buffer
>
In 2006, “Speed of Sound” was the 1 billionth song downloaded from Apple’s iTunes store. When Apple launched the store in 2004, the songs were encoded — using Apple’s own AAC file format — at 128 kbps and sold for $0.99 each.
>In 2007, Apple unveiled iTunes Plus, and began selling tracks encoded at 256 kbps for $1.29. The price hike lasted a few months, until all songs were again made available for $0.99.
Wow, fucking Apple.
Also, ATH-AD700 through the 3.5mm jack of my onboard sound.
I've compared flac and 320 many times. Flac is much clearer whereas mp3 sounds muffled.
>>52093083
yes but it's basically like 4K phones. Sure, maybe it's marginally better, but at the end of the day the tiny benefit is not worth the large drawbacks (in the case of 4K: battery life, in the case of FLAC: storage space, esp on portable devices).
You should try to download a FLAC rip when possible for archiving purposes, but it's really not the end of the world if you can't find it.
>Can't hear nothing over 13khz, not even 30 yet
H-how much music I'm I missing?
>>52098775
Turn on the Spectrum in a your audio player of choice and get it to show a bunch of bands >13kHz and see how much you see going on in there.
>>52093162
>I want everything to be archived in a lossless format though, so that when humans develop ear implants I can take advantage of my superior music collection while I laught at MP3/iTunes/streaming babbies who will never know what they're missing.
now this is literal fucking autism
observe closely, /g/
Measurable by equipment does not equal perceivable by your ears.
>>52100810
it's not *consciously* perceivable by your ears,
but for some it's a more enjoyable experience listening when you know those extra frequencies are there.
Just let people enjoy their music tb.h
Flac is higher quality than most formats that people use, like mp3. About that there is no doubt, a more versitile, lossless format is certainly superior.
That does not mean that everyone should be trying to put flacs on their portable music players. Just because we have openEXR does not mean jpeg does not have its place, and often, more compressed, lossy formats are useful in some applications.
Ideally, a flac should be avaliable somewhere, but for everyday use, flac is sort of unneccisary.
>>52100859
yes.. just like our eyes don't consciously see IR lights too..
lets be real here.. what you're saying is that you can't perceive the sounds but feel better knowing that they are there.
Sounds more like you're trying to justify your actions/purchases.
>>52093083
Omfg yes it is! Can't you see on the graph that 320 kbps mp3 cut off entire ranges of >15 khz frequencies??
>>52096379
> expensive = good
Lel, the audiophile syndrome is seriously kicking in. A 100$ setup can be better than a 450$ one and judging by the fact that your score on the test was so low I'm inclined to believe that your precious audio setup is really bad.
>>52093083
Superior to what? Not to PCM.
>>52093366
awesome song
>>52093083
It's almost as if psychoacoustic compression optimized for audible similarity rather than how the sample looks on a spectrum analyzer.
>>52096349
>pick highest quality sample
>Jay Z
>but they all sound like shit
>>52095533
That's decibels, dipshit
