m4a, mostly.

2:1 with bookshelves and a sub, can tell the difference between 320 and vbr but not between 320 and flac

No. Budget 5.1 system and DT770's. I don't really mind though, being audiophile sounds pretty expensive.

I can usually tell the difference between MP3 & FLAC and between 320 and 192 but not 320 & VBR

>>63498409

You all do know VBR can mean any bitrate between 1 and 320 kbps? It's called V0, V1, V2, etc for specific bitrate-ranges, as V0 would be between 256 and 320, which most of you shouldn't be able to differentiate between constant 320 kbps.

>>63498350
google it
>>63499023
>I can usually tell the difference between MP3 & FLAC
nice delusion

>>63499388
yep, I meant v0

>>63499413
I want /mu/'s opinion

Yeah I can check the format on foobar very easily

>>63499446
>mp3 v0 and 320
to be used for listening
>flac
to be used as a source for file conversion

I use V0 and 320 exclusively

>>63498350
V0 and 320, no. Haven't tried V2 and 320. I definitely could not listen to a single sample and tell you if it was flac or 320, and I don't think anyone could. I did some abx testing a while back with flac vs 320 and did alright, but idk if it was above the threshold for statistical significance or not.

>>63498350
I think it's common to hear a difference between 320 and 192 or lower. But once you get to 320 I think very few people and truly hear a difference.

>>63498350
Depends on what I'm listening with The difference between 320 and FLAC in particular is only noticeable if you have high end listening equipment such as studio monitors; most people's speakers or headphones are incapable of producing the frequencies that are missing from a 320 but present in a FLAC. That doesn't stop people from experiencing a placebo effect and swearing they can hear a difference anyway.

Honestly? I don't think there's much of a difference. The only time I could tell a difference was between a 24-bit flac of a ECM vinyl versus the 320 MP3. ECM is known for having absurdly high standards for their recordings, and even then the difference was negligible. I don't think flac is worth the bandwidth/disk space, desu.

higher bitrate files sound louder

AAC, objectively speaking, is a better file format than mp3. I'm quite surprised that "audiophiles" will listen to mp3s but not consider AAC. In terms of lossy digital formats, AAC is far and above the better format.

>>63500322
how's it better?

>>63500347
In order to get MPEG certification, the team that developed the mp3 were required to insert a block of code which had no effect on sound quality but made the mp3 and the mp2 more closely competitive in terms of file size. As a result, the mp3 is needlessly bloated and requires hire bitrates to achieve transparency.

AAC was intended to be the successor to mp3 after the mp3 began to gain traction as a broadcast tool. It eliminates that unnecessary code and as a result is more transparent at lower bitrates, uses approximately 30% less processing power, and takes up less storage space. It was only the coincidental rise of music piracy by average consumers using the then-obsolete mp3 that caused the mp3 to take off with average consumers.

AAC is, like the name suggests, an advanced audio codec.

>More sample frequencies (from 8 to 96 kHz) than MP3 (16 to 48 kHz)
>Up to 48 channels (MP3 supports up to two channels in MPEG-1 mode and up to 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
>Arbitrary bit-rates and variable frame length. Standardized constant bit rate with bit reservoir.
>Higher efficiency and simpler filter bank (rather than MP3's hybrid coding, AAC uses a pure MDCT)
>Higher coding efficiency for stationary signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 1024 or 960 samples, allowing more efficient coding than MP3's 576 sample blocks)
>Higher coding accuracy for transient signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 128 or 120 samples, allowing more accurate coding than MP3's 192 sample blocks)
>Can use Kaiser-Bessel derived window function to eliminate spectral leakage at the expense of widening the main lobe
>Much better handling of audio frequencies above 16 kHz
More flexible joint stereo (different methods can be used in different frequency ranges)
>Adds additional modules (tools) to increase compression efficiency: TNS, Backwards Prediction, PNS etc... These modules can be combined to constitute different encoding profiles.

>>63500551
thanks for the thorough explanation
but how would one even start using aac? what.cd, soulseek, and rutracker use almost solely flac and mp3

>>63500690
if you really want, download flac -> encode AAC 256kbps -> delete flac

this is assuming you don't have a metered internet connection or extremely limited HD space