>He thinks there's a difference between 320kpbs and 192kpbs
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/
Be honest, did you get it right? And was it a guess?
Sound Challenge
Thanks for submitting your answer. The correct answer is Clip #1.
Congratulations!
You selected Clip# 1
Clip #1 is encoded at 320kbps : (43,696 votes)
Clip #2 is encoded at 128kbps : (47,992 votes)
it wasn't a guess i could tell straight away
>>60535249
i don't think there's a difference between the two because i'm deaf
>>60535280
this Tbhfam
>>60535249
There's a pretty big difference in the reverb effects.
>>60535249
It's pretty easy to tell the difference
>>60535356
>Making up words to defend wasting harddrive space
But why?
>>60535444
bcz iam an elitist music phaggot and very kool ebin patriciann
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.
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.
>>60536500
I didn't understand a word you just wrote, but I admire your writing style.
>>60536541
Sadly for you that's some stale pasta buddy
>>60536558
Indeed this is true, I will not claim credit for this masterpiece, I just felt it was appropriate for the situation
320kbps vs. v0 would be a better test.
its much easier to tell the difference in a song with really crisp hi hats, something that first song is lacking
http://puu dot sh/luwvX/d93160361c.mp3
http://puu dot sh/luwvM/8f25e3a6b1.mp3
seriously, anyone could tell the difference here.
>>60536582
i'll do a master test
v0, 320, 128, 224 (itunes quality), flac, and 64
give me like, ten minutes to set up a website
It is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener. For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference? The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called cRap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size. Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds. Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
>>60535249
I know it all sounds the same on your Apple earbuds, friendo, but not all of us are hardware plebs.
>>60536575
Your work may not be original, but it's work nonetheless. Bless
Love,
Anon
>>60536595
time's up son
>>60536683
ok wow way to be a dick excuse me for being a little late uploading these mega huge cocks
i'm putting examples of 3 different sources
>>60536857
just joking lad take your time
>>60536857
>>60536879
i was being tongue in cheek
>>60536864
>>60536683
http://audiotest.co.vu/
this has v0, flac, itunes, 320, 128, and 64
>>60536928
fixed one of the links on the second set, didnt realize the link was wrong
