When will the FLAC meme end? Double blind trials show it's literally impossible for any human being to tell the difference between an MP3 and FLAC. FLACfags are almost as bad as those "muh vinyls" kids.
It's all about wanting to feel superior. Prove me wrong.
bruh the compression artifacts are pretty obvious on the picture to the right, but that's probably the joak
not sure if the pic is srs or not :S
>>64579633
Taking the bait: the point of FLAC isn't the audio quality. The point is that when something better than mp3 (opus or ogg vorbis) comes out, you can transcode your music. Otherwise you're stuck forever in an old format.
Sure, it's hard to make the difference between FLAC and mp3, but the difference between those images is clear...
>>64579655
This. That moon is a dead giveaway.
>>64579633
Could you link to your source? I'm interested in those trials
>mfw reading an article from an "audio professional" who says 160kbs MP3 is indistinguishable from its source
>>64579633
The quality depends on the quality of MP3. But MP3 is lossy, so I convert all files to lossless on my computer. AAC is generally greater than MP3 anyway.
>>64579633
Provide source little faggot
This picture is kind of bad a bad comparison, It would be more noticeable with a cleaner drawn piece of art, father more you wouldn't notice compression on like some super noisy rock music but on a clean jazz album you would.
>>64579953
lol
FLAC makes tons of sense for archival purposes. Every day listening you'd have to have magical ears to hear a difference between FLAC and a decent bitrate AAC or MP3
You can clearly hear differences if many instruments are playing at the same time. You can even hear it on shoegaze songs.
epic thread
>>64579991
What? The pictures are identical. Don't even pretend you can see the difference you fucking tryhard.
The entire picture is a 1 mb png you shlubs.
>>64580283
What's it like being genuinely blind / having a shit monitor?
Look at the moon in the top right. It's almost a totally different colour and blurry as fuck.
>>64579633
Vinyl is the best format there is and if you disagree you are a subhuman faggot plebeian.
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.
>>64580968
Files can degrade? What the fuck this is new to me.. can you explain it to me in laymens terms?
>>64580968
what about mp3's on streaming sites such as spotify?
>>64581027
>>64581075
newfags pls
>>64580968
This will affect the ones on your hard drive, assuming you're using the hard drive. CDs are not being constantly read and rewritten, so they won't have this problem. Physical CD rot, however, that's a different story.
>>64581027
Generation loss. You know how every time you open and save a jpeg it loses a little quality? Same thing happens with other lossy filetypes, including MP3s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss
>>64581075
I'm going to assume spotify doesn't store their files as MP3s, it's probably some lossless format.
>>64580968
ROTATIONAL
VELOCIDENSITY
>>64579633
There's a notable difference between these two pictures.
Not sure why you're mad about FLAC though, it's an archiving format. They're supposed to be lossless by nature of their utility.
>>64580283
>>64580640
also, the lines in the tree are way more vivid in the left image.
ffs, my vision is shit and i can see the difference
>>64581760
you think you see a difference because you already know which image is the "good" one before hand
it's called bias
>>64582524
>>64580283
>>64581027
>>64581075
assuming you're not b8ing, you've replied to copy pasta
digital files do not "degrade," though the media they're stored on can break down. that doesn't cause a loss of audio quality, it can cause data corruption (e.g. file can no longer be opened).
>>64579633
are you retarded ????????
>There's a notable difference between these two pictures.
>2016
>not having all of your music encoded in either vorbis or opus
except you can tell the picture on the right is a dark blurry piece of shit. Nice bait faggot
>>64579633
In all seriousness, the picture is actually a great analogy to audio compression.
It's not the WHOLE picture that sucks, but the key elements (moon and stars, some houses) are CLEARLY lacking in comparison.
>>64579633
Whether you can hear a difference depends mostly on the quality of your equipment. It makes sense to store your music in FLAC, so your library will still be usable when you invest in better equipment. You can always convert to mp3 on the fly when putting music on a portable device.
>>64579633
>not downloading music from youtube in 1080p full HD
>>64580968
>even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place
every fucking time
>>64579633
if you cant tell the difference between those pictures you need glasses.
How can so many people fall for a bait that compares a "2kb" jpg to a "6mb" png?
>>64582566
http://scruss.com/blog/2012/02/21/generational-loss-in-mp3-re-encoding/
>>64579633
How about try something with well-defined shapes and colors you fucking moron.
>>64583348
And yes I realize I'm falling for the bait.
>>64583348
>he can't tell the jpg image is blurry
get some eyes faggot
>>64579633
flac is louder
>>64579633
But I can see the difference. There's tons of artifacts in the JPG.
Also non-320 MP3s sound like shit, but on my trash headphones I can tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a FLAC.
>>64583410
*Can't tell the difference
Fuck I'm inept at typing
>>64583314
burning desire to feel superior in every scenario possible
>>64583333
That's referring to re-encoding. Files on your computer do not encode themselves. Bits do not change by themselves over time.
I know you're baiting though, so that's your last reply.
>>64583348
>>64583388
You fell for the bait and couldn't tell the difference
>>64583474
Every time a compressed track is read from disk and moved to memory, it looses a small percentage of data when it is moved back to the disk. Depending on what media player you are using, the effect can be multiplied, especially if the program incrementally streams parts of the MP3 from the disk instead of simply buffering the whole song in memory. iTunes, for instance, makes heavy use of streaming in order to cut down on delay between pressing play and the song starting, but scrubbing back and forth in the track results in the various parts being repeatedly pulled from disk and put back, which causes a lot of data wear in a short period of time.
>>64580640
i have shit eyesight and a shit monitor and I can see the difference. This guy is just a piece of shit
>>64580283
>>64584234
But that data loaded into memory is not being removed from the NV memory in the first place, completely invalidating everything you just said.
To anyone who is interested (not the bait I'm replying to): wear can happen to physical media, which can cause read errors. Read errors cause data corruption. The idea that this could effect audio quality is like saying a text file can get blurry if you open it too much. A failing hard disk, on the other hand, might produce a text file that can't open or is replaced with junk data when trying to view it.
>>64579633
Honestly I only download FLAC because I have storage space to spare (as music is almost all I have) and also because FLAC turns out to be upscaled much less frequently than 320 kbps.
I'd have everything in v0, but it's such a letdown to find out you have a shitty upscaled file when you are trying to listen the album for the first time.
>>64580968
>>64581027
ROTATIONAL VELO...
>>64581483
Fuck
>>64581027
NEWFAGS
>>>/OUT/
>>64579633
My eyes can actually tell the difference
Now what, faggot?
>>64579633
Why are you so mad? The objective fact is that FLAC is lossless and MP3s are not. FLACs are better for archival, MP3 only saves storage space and it's surpassed by AAC and Opus. Why does it matter if other people can afford more hard drives than you?
>>64579715
i think that's supposed to be the joke isnt it? because its pretty obvious how disgusting the right picture looks.
>>64585441
Not to mention that the right picture is listed as 2 kilobytes, which is absurd. The picture dimensions are also a big giveaway.
It's really obvious bait and I'm shocked it took 44 replies.
