>keep hearing good things about soulseek
>go there and download a normal 320 kbps CBR album
>open it in audacity
>see pic related
>never go back to soulseek
>pray to my flac gods and cry
>>53042401
something you might get at what.cd just for comparison
why haven't you joined the what.cd masterrace yet?
>implying you can hear above 15 or 16k anyway
its all placebo
>>53042483
if you can't hear the difference between flac and 128kbps mp3 you must be deaf
>>53042401
>go to Norway
>get shot by Anders Behring Breivik
>never go back to Norway
Keep using soulseek, it's great.
>>53042662
why should i when i have a what.cd account?
I've actually transcoded lots of 128 kbps stuff to 320 kbps CBR and FLAC. Usually new releases. It's fun seeing shitloads of people downloading new stuff in 320 cbr or flac when it's just a 128 kbps cbr mp3. kek
so thats why everything I download on soulseek sounds fucking terrible
>>53042505
you wouldnt be able to in a blind test. dont kid yourself
>>53042936
except i definintly would. 128 kbps is really noticeable. but hey, why don't you download 128 kbps only? maybe you can download your music from youtube since you don't know the difference..
>>53042985
>you don't know the difference
neither do you, you only think you do. and thats sad.
>>53042735
Le epic troll
>>53043046
Well MP3 128 kbps CBR means that 128 kb of data in a file are processed in every second and this is a constant bitrate. These types of files have a reduced size if you compare them to a lossless file. This is because they have frequency cutoffs at about 16 kHz if i'm not mistaken. This means you don't hear anything above 16 kHz. A lossless file has no data loss and no frequency cutoff. This means you can hear every frequency your ears are able to hear, providing you have the right equipment.
>>53043046
Most people can hear frequencies like 18kHz or 20kHz. That's like 4kHz of difference between what you are able to hear and 128kbps frequencies.
>>53042505
>>53042936
It depends on your equipment, but almost everyone can hear the quality loss at 128 kbps. 192 kbps is considered transparent for most people though.
Some test results if you're interested: http://pastebin.com/S3B3YX3R
>>53042401
How do I see this? Just go in "Spectrum log(f)" view and see if the spectrogram seems cut off at the top?
>>53042401
You can download transcodes everywhere
I got a friend to grab a V0 from what.cd to me once and it was cutting straight at 15k, making it 128 or smth
So yeah, it's just about care and selection, I've grabbed plenty of good encodes from soulseek
Hell I downloaded a full flac discography from rutracker once and it was all 256 transcoded
>>53042735
epic mate :^)
you're my inspiration always
>>53043260
>How do I see this?
You can see spectrums much easier with spek, it's pretty light and even drag-and-drops if you want
Dunno about audacity though, not the one you responded to
>>53043260
https://www.whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/
>>53043260
I think if it cuts at 15k it's 128, at 18 it's 256, 20 it's 320
or smth like that
>>53043325
reccing spek, that's what I use as a TM. It's simple and easy to see.
so like do you guys test every file you download to make sure its the advertised quality
>>53043514
Unless it was made by whatbetter, yes. Quality matters on what.cd, sorry.
>>53043514
I also tag them. I get the impression you do neither.
>>53043540
>>53043574
two guys who clearly enjoy music more than i do
>>53043584
I collect 'perfect' music, half for fun, half because I'm going to be prepared when pirating is finally stopped
>>53043615
>when pirating is finally stopped
>this will ever happen
>>53043630
>yfw it does
>>53043615
are you capable of enjoying music that isnt perfect? do you experience anxiety when you listen to anything other than flac
>>53043764
no but I have anxiety when I dream of a future where mp3 is outdated and all my music is mp3.
>implying ogg doesn't exist currently
>>53043785
so if mp3 were outdated you wouldnt be able to enjoy listenign to mp3?
I just did a test with random "320 kbps" tracks from different releases downloaded from Soulseek. Fifteen were legit, four (mostly from older releases) were transcodes, one I'm not sure about.
(One or two looked funny too.)
>>53043805
No, because it's patent encumbered. I don't enjoy listening to it currently either.
>>53043827
lol
You people take this shit waaaaaay too seriously
>>53043805
What if there was a new lossy codec that provided transparent quality with a .15 compression ratio? Would you keep your 8mb mp3 files or switch to the new format and keep all your files as 1mb? Would you be that guy?
>>53043925
i would probably switch in time but i wouldnt be in any kind of rush and would still be able to listen to my mp3s without having some kind of panic attack or feeling like the listening experience was lessened somehow
>>53044008
you realize I was joking about anxiety I hope.
>>53044008
>feeling like the listening experience was lessened somehow
that's the worst fucking feeling
>>53043805
>mp3 were outdated
it already is.
it is only prevelant because it is so entrenched in society
>>53044399
what's the successor? Ogg? I'm still salty that what.cd took Ogg down :c
>>53044452
successor would be AAC
altho bandwidth is so much higher than it was in 97 that we should all be onto FLAC/ALAC already
>>53044489
AAC is patent encumbered though. I assume you're on a Mac or PC to suggest ALAC and AAC. I'm not sure if AAC or OGG is better at full transparency, but I know OGG fucking destroys everything at low bitrates, providing near transparency at like 100~kbps.
>>53042483
>>53042505
>>53042936
>>53043260
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.lame.html
post results. make sure you do 10 trials otherwise it doesnt show results for some reason.
>>53044489
aac a shit. opus is the new über-codec
>>53042735
man good thing what bans people for transcoding
