All right /mu/, some of you seem to doubt the importance of lossless music over lossy music. As a result, I have a rather topical example for you to compare.
In the link below, there are two files that are the first 30 seconds of Burn the Witch. One is a 16 bit WAV; the other is 320CBR MP3. Both were encoded from the 24 bit WAV copy of A Moon Shaped Pool distributed by Radiohead.
When you listen, compare the sound of the strings. I think you'll notice a clear difference between the MP3 and WAV files.
https://mega.nz/#!aYRRjJKI
Decryption Key: !G-VyiLAftVKfMeukPUwDrZeszcj2gOsIj47NPs7Xk24
I should note: expensive gear isn't required for this test. I could hear the difference on my moderately good laptop speakers.
>>64814289
Even iv there is a difference you'd need some fairly expensive equipment to detect it
>>64814336
See >>64814330
It was 30 seconds earlier so no judgment.
bump for visibility
>>64814330
that's called a placebo effect
>>64814437
Did you try the test? When I first heard the difference I had no idea which version I was hearing (I had made a 256AAC for my iPhone). There was no placebo.
>>64814437
What if OP had actually flipped the labeling so the flac nerds would pretend they heard a superior sound quality?
That'd be an actually interesting thread. This, however, is not that thread.
>>64814508
Did
you
try
the
test?
>not a blind test
good job dumbass
Tried with 400 dollar studio monitors
No difference
>>64814559
No, you didn't.
>>64814567
What?
>>64814580
If you're saying you were listening to the strings and honestly say you heard no difference, you're lying.
For clarification, the MP3 distinctly has the pizzicato/col legno strings with less clear attacks, with a lot less detail to the sound.
>>64814605
I didn't
Maybe my ear is trained as yours is, maybe I'm a pleb fag, maybe my speakers are busted
Or maybe you're falling for a total meme
>>64814628
your mom attacked this dick
>>64814652
It probably is that your ear isn't as trained, honestly.
just did a blind test on $2000 speakers, couldn't detect a difference. guessed anyway and was wrong. another data point in the vast experimental literature that suggests you're wrong
honestly I think he's fucked with these files to make the mp3 unfairly bad
if you say you can't hear the difference you're desperately in denial
>>64814289
The real value of lossless formats is that they don't lose bits over time, as you play the file over and over. Just try listening to some 10 year old mp3, that's been downloaded and played hundred or even thousands of times. It sounds terrible because each time a 'lossy' file is opened it can lose a few bits. Not enough to notice any individual change, but over time, it accumulates, until your old music is all ruined.
I try to get most of my music in flac for archival and transcoding purposes.
>>64814920
I didn't mess with them, I converted using Audacity.
>>64815099
using LAME, right? The strings are surprisingly different for 320 but I don't compare much
>>64815222
Yeah LAME for Audacity.
Curious, do you have a musical background? Other guy seemed to not be able to tell a difference.
To be fair, the difference isn't *necessarily* "320 is garbage always get FLAC" but it's significant enough to show there is a difference, and if you value fidelity then you should get the lossless.
>>64815238
I played drums for 6 years so that's essentially a no. I'm using some LSR305 monitors though which are probably well above average even for /mu/
>>64815415
Well playing drums is something. I don't know, it really does puzzle me how anyone can miss the difference.
Like seriously, I was listening on iTunes with laptop speakers, not sure which version I was hearing (had just converted an AAC copy) when I realized the difference.
It's bizarre.
>>64814983
Yeah, listen to this guy. 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.
>>64814983
Nope
>>64814289
We all know FLAC was developed by Western Digital to sell more hard drives, you can not tell the difference between V0 and 24Bit FLAC.
I sometimes notice differences between 320kbps MP3 and flac, but it's only noticeable in some cases.
With Death Grips - Trash, in the verse at around 50 seconds, the drums (specifically the snares) sound more detailed.
The difference isn't noticeable if you aren't giving the music 100% full attention and purposely listening for it.
I spent a shitton on an amp/DAC/headphone combo, and I'm usually able to pass ABX tests of 320 kbps vs. FLAC.
Lossless doesn't always necessarily sound better, since sometimes the compression masks mixing and production flaws. But for good artists, the lossless is usually superior because of how transparent it is.
>>64817645
It's a copypasta.
>>64818053
