Is FLAC really that much better than MP3?
if you're a neckbeard elitist faggot like most of /mu/ then yes
Objectively its better. Way better. Whether it really matters is subjective. Most people cant hear the difference. 320MP3 and FLAC sound the same to me.
>>60908570
This, also depends heavily on what you're listening to it through.
>>60908385
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.
>>60908385
The answer is here: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/FLAC
Provided that you enjoy MPEG LA's dick up your ass, no, not really.
>>60908708
Same old pasta. Inescapable.
>rotational velocidensity
These terms are killing me. :)
The reason one uses flac is because its a bitperfect storage media, .mp3 loses information over time and degrades as that is happening
also, .mp3 clips information from the file to make it smaller, which takes some fidilety
whether or not those are useful to you is up to you.
but for the most part, flac has the possibility to sound better
>>60908757
quite correct except this crap:
>.mp3 loses information over time and degrades as that is happening
totally false. you people know shit about digital data.
>>60908863
whatever man, i dont even know why I bother with you faggots
i can def hear the difference between 128 and 320 or 256 whatever the fuck those idiots use. but 320 and FLAC i cant really tell any difference.
>>60908890
But that's completely untrue. The only time an Mp3 loses quality is when it's encoded from lossless source material.
>>60908950
This desu senpai. It's a world's difference between 128 and 320, but from the latter to FLAC... I can't really tell the difference.
>>60908416
>>60908708
>>60908734
>>60908743
>waaah i can't get better quality music because muh SHILLS
>ignoring everyone else's sane and reasonable arguments
Spotted the same homo
MP3 can't into multi dimensional tags.
MP3 only allows one tag each. You can't have multiple ARTIST or TITLE or GENRE tags in one file.
MP3 a shit.
FLAC has no such restrictions.
>>60909032
Post your headphones then your results of your tidal hi fi test, then shitpost again.
>>60909106
>Buying headphones
Do you not have an iPhone?
>>60908890
i mean you're really a dumbass.
mp3 (like flac, txt, jpg, mp4, avi, etc) is a file format. it consists of basically 0s and 1s. once you save it on a memory (hard disk, cd, dvd, blu ray, memory stick, and so on) is stays the same all the time, unmodified. the only way to damage it is to actually destroy that memory or because data corruption.
you lose quality on mp3s ONCE: when you encoded it. if you repeat the process with the resulting file you will lose quality once again (that's why lossy to lossy encoding is a big NO). the encoder is like a filter that squashes data.
but if you leave it on your hard disk, whatever, it will stay the same, you imbecile.
Guyz, how do I get this velociraptor off my turntable?
This is a good explanation on why 24 bit audio is stupid (which is a slightly different topic):
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
But there's a small section talking about mp3s/lossy audio that is worth mentioning here:
"It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.
But what of badly encoded files?
Twenty years ago, all mp3 encoders were really bad by today's standards. Plenty of these old, bad encoders are still in use, presumably because the licenses are cheaper and most people can't tell or don't care about the difference anyway. Why would any company spend money to fix what it's completely unaware is broken?
Moving to a newer format like Vorbis or AAC doesn't necessarily help. For example, many companies and individuals used (and still use) FFmpeg's very-low-quality built-in Vorbis encoder because it was the default in FFmpeg and they were unaware how bad it was. AAC has an even longer history of widely-deployed, low-quality encoders; all mainstream lossy formats do.
Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [23] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.
A second reason to distribute lossless formats is to avoid generational loss. Each reencode or transcode loses more data; even if the first encoding is transparent, it's very possible the second will have audible artifacts. This matters to anyone who might want to remix or sample from downloads. It especially matters to us codec researchers; we need clean audio to work with."
>>60909032
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>60910494
bottom line: new mp3 decoders are good
It's like the difference between 3 and 9 inches of dick
>>60910616
>9 inch dick
for archival objectively better
>>60910616
>9 inches of dick
>>60910616
>9 inchs of dick
>>60910616
>9 inch of dicks
>>60910616
>3 inches of dick
>>60909279
>what is bait
>>60910616
>3 inches of dick
>>60908385
Only if you have supersonic hearing.
>>60913026
That's literally impossible
