FLAC
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
is flac just placebo?
no, it's another file format
that's like asking if .pdf is just placebo
plebcebo
>>61459429
haha
>using non free audio formats
Flac is good if all you want is to appear to have a lot of music in order to impress others
''Geez, i need to buy this 2TO hard drive to hold half of my music librairy'' - Flac user
''Oh wow, you must have so much music, i'm sure your music knowledge is as long as your dick, let's fuck'' - random girl
Works everytime
>>61459411
Makes 0 difference. But .ogg or .wav is better than .mp3. FLAC is for FAGGOTs
>>61459545
spotify premium subscriber since 2014 detected
>>61459504
more like 'what the fuck is a flac file you stupid nerd?' and then proceeds to make you kiss the ground while every other kid laughts at you and pushes u around
>>61459411
Good for archiving. For listening not so much.
v0 mp3 if you're looking to save space
wav if you don't care about space
>>61459561
Go to hell.
>>61459607
filtered
>>61459598
that doesn't even make sense
>>61459619
filteblue
FLAC is objectively better than WAV you fucking retards.
Tbh i think im able to tell the difference between the two format
And even if it's just placebo who cares? The truth is not important at all, what is important is what you belive
i swear i've heard some 320kbps tracks that sound better than flac
>>61459635
What?
By having lossless copies of things you are ensuring you have perfect digital copies of music. So that if you want to burn to CD or something you are using the best version. Good luck if your ears can tell the difference though.
>>61459598
Archiving for what? The apocalypse?
>>61459738
Sort of, maybe. More like a digital blackhole where the original copies of everything are gone so you can make mire copies of things with your 'master'.
>>61459712
yes, by why is FLAC not good for listening??
>>61459411
Maybe
>>61459782
Because apparently humans aren't really able to tell the difference between FLAC and other standard high quality file formats.
>>61459688
that has more to do with the production of the song itself
>>61459782
Isn't not good per say but there isn't really an inherent advantage that significantly adds to listening quality.
>>61459641
funny guy!
keep making those jokes
see where that gets ya in life!
>>61459841
Yup mostly on how good the master or remastering was done. I just bought a remaster of ITCOTCK and its technically at 256 kbps and 44.100 kHz but it sounds fucking amazing compared to the original copy I had.
Is PNG just placebo?
>>61460128
op here, yes
>>61460128
Not really if you keep making changes to an image, on a JPEG you'll notice it will start getting artefacts and will generally decay after multiple saves of the image.
There comes a point where your ear is unable to distinguish the difference in audio quality.
Not saying you couldn't tell the difference between a .flac and a mp3 but you'd have to be a faggot to think you could.
>>61459648
not better than .AIFF you dip!
Who /midi/ here?
>>61460669
:^)
Sometimes I play midi files if I just want to hear the instrumental.
>"My 320 MP3 is as good as lossless"
It's not a placebo you just need good expensive headphones to actually tell the difference.
>>61459595
did that happen to you?
>>61461781
yes
>>61459545
>>61459607
>>61459641
Never post on my board again or I'll fucking kill you.
>>61461825
I thought the whole thing with mp3s was every time you saved them again they get lower and lower quality, kinda like jpgs
However this could just be rotational velocidensity tier BS for all I know
>>61459504
FLACs are way smaller than WAV files though...
not saying eiter is better or whatever, I don't care for either (except if it's recording that I have to process; then of course WAV comes in handy),
mp3 can be just as good as well, for casual listening that is.
>>61461901
>>61461901
that's true if you're transcoding b/w mp3 and mp3, but not if you're going from lossless to lossy
I don't see how you'd have any reason to transcode an mp3 into an mp3 anyway
Its a meme, its a meme just like soundcards.
Some retards always take the meme seriously and other retards flock to them.
flacfriends are also so easy to TRIGGER that they are prime targets to bully when you are feeling like venting out some of those built up frustrations. I seriously cannot think of an easier group of people to get all buttfrustrated.
Yes, there is no significant difference. Not worth the extra space.
You know when you go out to buy 1kg of cheese and the chinese lady says "it's showig 996g on the scale, is that ok?" you say "it's fine" and enjoy the cheese anyway. that's what downloading high quality mp3 compared to flac is like
>>61462141
/thread
you buy way too much cheese btw
>Computer fags
Go buy a turntable
>>61459411
>>61459425
>>61459429
>>61459442
>>61459480
>>61459504
>>61459545
>>61459561
>>61459595
>>61459598
>>61459602
>>61459607
>>61459619
>>61459635
>>61459641
>>61459648
>>61459670
>>61459688
>>61459712
>>61459738
>>61459757
>>61459782
>>61459797
>>61459814
>>61459841
>>61459849
>>61459852
>>61459892
>>61460128
>>61460148
>>61460156
>>61460195
>>61460289
>>61460669
>>61460687
>>61461362
>>61461543
>>61461781
>>61461822
>>61461825
>>61461852
>>61461901
>>61461935
>>61461945
>>61461961
>>61461983
>>61462074
>>61462141
>>61462394
>>61462413
How to annihilate lossy noobs with single youtube link. The guide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoS3-zIhZHI
>>61462910
>noobs
hello reddit
>>61462910
how to completely miss the heart of the conversation: the le noooby plen
>>61462949
>used "correct" word to up roar triggered autismo
>It worked
>mfw
>>61462996
>I was only pretending to be retarded
>>61462993
I just hit one button with (REPLY ALL)
![Placebo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iSXEGwq.jpg "Placebo[1].jpg")
>>61459411
Are people talking about us? What is flac? Are we flac now?
>>61463002
>I have the itch and fixation about certain words I read on the forums
>>61463011
but even the OP is asking if we as humans can notice the difference between 320kbps and FLAC
you would have to be an idiot to argue that there isn't an objective quality difference and that's all your link attests to
>>61462996
>>61463055
my link attest that there is huge gap between any lossy format you throw into when compared to the lossless source (such as WAV or FLAC)
And to answer OP question
>>61459411
No, FLAC is not a placebo
Thank you.
>>61463102
Jokes on you, you're the one who came up with leddit
>>61459712
because FLAC is so space-efficient
No. You get FLAC formats of loads of other bands' discographies too. Just google it.
Ask a guy anything who have FLAC album Nilsson Schmilsson.
>pic proof
>>61462910
There IS a difference. the spectrogram clearly shows it. It is just irrelevant
>>61463207
>shows it
your own ears as well
>irrelevant
just like whatever you want to make irrelevant in your daily life to feel more comfy within your mind to ease the itch and depression
>>61462910
Nice bait.
>>61463311
Nice dubs. Now gtfo
>>61459411
FLAC is useful for archiving in the sense that if mp3 is ever replaced, you can convert your songs from flac to the new lossy format. If you only have songs stored as mp3, the conversion from mp3 -> new format will cause a slight quality loss (assuming the new standard is a lossy format).
No file format is superior over the other. OP made this thread (look at the simplicity with which you can cause a shitstorm by the way, 4 words lol) to cause a shitstorm, and that's fine. I'm going to take the bait regardless.
FLAC is useful for archiving, and I don't see the problem with this, because flac files are as easy to find as mp3 files. FLAC is also widely supported. Maybe you'll have to convert them for your phone, but again, this is no problem for the guy who has had more of 100+ hours of experience on a pc.
In most cases however, flac is a placebo (when listening to, stands separate from archiving), because people cannot hear the difference between a flac file and a 320kbps constant bitrate mp3, or a 256k+ variable bitrate mp3. So yes, different files for different purposes. Now get your asses off this worthless /mu/ thread and go chase a bitch or something.
>>61462413
I'm not a filthy luddite
>>61463324
Seriously though. I listen to FLAC exclusively(I have it for archival purposes and potential conversion to whichever format I need) through a pair of HD600s. But that is nice bait. It will trick many people.
>>61463331
>Now get your asses off this worthless /mu/ thread and go chase a bitch or something.
You mean the waifu
>In most cases however, flac is a placebo (when listening to, stands separate from archiving), because people cannot hear the difference between a flac file and a 320kbps constant bitrate mp3, or a 256k+ variable bitrate mp3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoS3-zIhZHI
>>61463385
Nothing tricky (besides multi reply) you can test your own thing with audacity and then come back and accuse someone of bait.
>>61463409
In the slight chance that you're not baiting, let me explain why that video is bullshit.
Yes, no fucking shit knows there's a difference between an MP3 waveform and a FLAC waveform. The point of MP3 compression is to identify frequencies that are inaudible when masked by louder, lower frequency sounds in the waveform, and then remove them to save space.
We're not discussing whether MP3 files contain more or less data than FLAC files here. That's a trivial question. We're discussing if you can hear a difference between FLAC and MP3, and the answer is simply "No" when it comes to 320k and 256k MP3.
Again, nice bait. It will fool naive people.
>>61463386
You can't actually HEAR the difference after a conversion from lossless to 320kbps cbr or 256kbps+ vbr (assuming the conversion is done with the right converter and the right settings, which is an entire study in itself).
Placebo means that you think you can hear the difference, and because you know which file is which, your imagination actually makes you hear differences. Blind tests however, revealed that most of the people cannot hear any difference at high bitrates. There were a few people who had most / all of them right, but this is probably negligible because it could just be lucky guessing. But perhaps you really do have divine ears which can hear the difference, in which case I'd say you will suffer, because studio recordings in themselves have artifacts and distortions in their recordings. So you can never hear music flawlessly in the first place. So if it's true, I feel sorry for you.
>>61463540
Masking something is against the principal of perfection
>>61463568
There's an apple core on a saucer next to my laptop.
>>61463559
>I feel sorry for you.
Thanks mate.
I just feel that there is no point with converting and downgrading yourself for future sake (more efficient lossless encoders that could lead to better compression for example) and besides I like the icon of FLAC better...
>>61463331
There is nothing else to the argument than this. Forever.
>>61459411
Yes
>>61463331
I archive only mp3 196 kbps so your point is not valid this time flacboy
>>61463684
Well not you specifically, it was meant as a general post meant for the average lossy / lossless fanboy
My music professor who is well versed in digital music creation and software said himself that the trained ear of a musician can relatively easily hear the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless audio file.
So basically if you can't hear the difference then you're a pleb.
