Is there actually any difference between 320kbps vs flac? Or is it just placebo?
I bet most of you just listen to music on youtube anyway
>>65380275
i dont have a good soundsystem so i can really tell the difference but i mostly use FLAC for archiving i only use MP3 or AAC for normal listening
>>65380275
To me the perfect analogy is PNG vs JPEG.
If you have a good JPEG picture, you will barely be able to see the difference between it and the original. Yep, if you try, you will surely find some imperfections and artifacts in it. But does it really change the substance? Usually it doesn't.
Now where lossless formats come in handy is when you need perfectly clear picture, capturing all the nuances. Sure it might help in some instances and please high-brow connoisseurs… But if you do any of the following:
—listen to loud, noisy, or compressed music (think most rock genres, all metal)
—have low quality equipment like cheap earbuds, PC speakers or Logitech gaming headset
…—then you won't hear any difference between FLAC and good quality MP3.
I've been wondering, what albums really show this difference, if any?
I honestly like having flac at least as a backup to encode to whatever I want and burn to cd in case I go on a road trip in a vehicle with no aux cord.
A lot of the albums I listen to have crappy/raw/low production values and I can usually tell the difference when I listen to them in flac. Like the bass comes in more clear and there's a lot less fuzz when I turn it up louder.
>>65380466
To add to this.
320kbps vs 192kbps MP3 is a different story though. And YouTube is even worse as it can alter the audio in some specific ways. See this article: https://www.h3xed.com/web-and-internet/youtube-audio-quality-bitrate-240p-360p-480p-720p-1080p
So today, the maximum quality you can possibly get is 192kbps, but in reality it's closer to 128–155kbps. And if the video is in 240p, it's probably limited to 64kbps.
This is again analogous to how JPEG with quality set to 90 will look almost the same as PNG. But any quality below 30 will look like shit.
>>65380275
Unless you own a hi-fi system, think 10 thousand dollars speakers + amps + proper positioning, you won't tell the different between v0/320 and lossless. The thing is v0/320 frequency cutoff is at the peak that the average human, and that means you OP cannot hear those high frequency that has already been removed.
>>65381504
to add to this, remember that production of said music is very important.
If you only care about the quality of the sound, its better to listen to a song that is produced in an triple A studio than compressed to 128kbps than a faggy bedroom producer that released his materials on bandcamp on FLAC
>>65380275
Yes, but you need good headphones and you also have to be underage b& to hear it.
The true purpose of storing music as FLAC is to have a lossless copy of the music so you can transcode it to lossy formats in the future to carry around with you locally.
I keep FLAC on my computer and transcode to Opus for my phone. Shit works great.
>>65380275
People who are old enough to browse this board don't hear above 18kHz (not enough to pick up a difference anyway).
It's more about the fidelity of the trebles but unless you're using studio quality gear you won't notice.
People who say they hear a difference between anything above 256 kbps mp3 are having confirmaton bias (or something like that), just like drinking coke out of a pepsi bottle and saying you hate coke.
Its not only about the frecuency range. When you use a higher sampling rate, the sampling noise is lower. Anyway, for me its not worth it. Just do a experiment, listen to a flac and a 320mp3 and try yo identify them. I cant, so I use 320 mp3
>>65380275
daily reminder that 320kbps OGG >> 320kbps MP3
mp3 distorts
>>65384125
daily reminder that you still can't hear the difference
neither can anyone of you fooling yourselves that FLAC sounds better than v0 or 320... no one can tell the difference in double-blind tests.
