>mfw people think flac makes a difference
>>64178521
>he can't hear the difference between mp3 (320kbps) and flac
Damn normies still don't understand the real use of flac... reeee
>>64178521
>hes too dumb to understand the difference between lossy and lossless compression
>>64178532
no one can
most /mu/ browsers probably can't even tell the difference between high and low quality lossy
>listening to a computer file
kids these days lmao
Sure it does. If I share an album in FLAC everyone can convert them to whatever lossy format they like. Freedom of choice m8. Plus it is never an issue when you have 2 TB HDDs.
>>64178831
Only people with shitty audio set-ups believe this. I bet you are even capturing songs from Youtube.
>>64178902
bet away friend
literally no one has ever been able to prove in a controlled test that they can reliably tell the difference between lossy and lossless formats
enjoy your placebo
>>64178935
Oh yeah and how many controlled tests were there?
>>64178861
>everyone can convert them to whatever lossy format they like.
This is why people prefer flac over 320 mp3, not just because it sounds better.
>>64178861
There's nothing wrong with that, except my copy of freac takes about 90 seconds for an album, plus i have to load the tracks and make a new folder for the mp3s to go in. Sharing things in V0 or 320 since it saves some time and thats what 90% of people will prefer anyway. It is nice to have a lossless copy accessible somewhere though, archived for posterity.
Except for the guy that uploaded a rare album to rutracker in 88.2kHz sampling rate. Fuck that guy. freac can't read it and now I have a 2GB album in my collection that I can't compress. The fuckhuge sampling rate does literally nothing except give you useless excess of data. Stupid audiophiles.
>>64178993
At least it's not an iso of an SACD. Then you're absolutely fucked.
>>64178521
My ears are shot, IDGAF man I'm 33 and was a "punk rocker" for like 10 years, i listen to music on Youtube and it sounds great!
I think it's laughable when you have geezers like fucking Neil Old bitching about compression, like that motherfucker could tell the difference after playing 100,000,000 full blown rock concerts
>>64178976
>how many controlled tests were there
I don't think you understand, this is not a single group of tests by a single group
no one has ever been able to prove it, in any controlled test, ever
FLAC is a lossless archival format. That is its real purpose. Which most people don't understand.
>>64179044
Why the fuck are you talking about controlled tests then?
>no one has ever been able to prove it
No one ever tried which renders you argument pretty much invalid.
>>64178532
it's called placebo effect, it's largely documented
>>64179101
Different anon, but many tried. Just try yourself, use the ABX plugin for foobar2000 take a flac/wav and a properly encoded mp3/ogg file and do the test.
I haven't met a single person who was able to tell the difference. It's even worse for "HD audio", anything past CD quality is pure bullshit. Saving frequencies you can't hear and having a dynamic range many times greater than what any music ever uses (and regular equipment can play back) is just pointless.
The actual problem is the loudness war and producers having no clue about what they're doing.
>>64178831
>>64178935
>>64180506
wtf is this bait garbage
people who know what to listen for can tell the difference between different fucking flac bitrates, even I can tell flac from 320 reasonably well (yes on ABX, yes fuck off)
I don't know what "regular equipment" you've been testing this on but it's probably a fucking toothbrush
>>64180659
>I can tell flac from 320 reasonably well
no you can't
and even if you could those bullies wouldn't stop hitting you
>>64178521
>>64180720
>>64178831
>>64178935
>>64180506
1. go to an ear doctor
2. get a frequency + spoken word hearing test
3. ask for a printout
4. post it here
if any point is below average / if you can't hear negative dbs then lossy is fine, otherwise you might be autistic. whether you have good ears or not the most notable difference between lossless and lossy is bass preservation. it's up to you if that alone is worth the extra file space.
>>64180837
I can hear from 25 Hz up to >18 kHz, so that won't be the problem. And I tend to hear much more fine details in music than most of my friends.
>>64180659
>different flac bitrates
>look how retarded I am, how I know nothing of what I'm talking about
>>64181047
higher resolution audio has a higher bitrate...
>2016
>not having your entire collection encoded in either opus or vorbis
shigg
>>64181161
Yeah and there is no possibility to hear a difference. Unless you got unusually gifted ears you can't hear sounds above 18-20 kHz, and the extra bit depth will only decrease the noise floor from "too low to hear" even further.
I recommend this article written by Monty, the creator of ogg-vorbis, opus, etc.:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>>64178521
you're giving them too much FLAC
>>64178521
>>64179044
>>64179819
Well if I remember right, NPR released a test to see if listeners could tell a difference between mp3 and WAV, I got all of them right because if you have a half decent ear and half decent headphones, anyone should be able to tell the difference
