not true at all. even the difference between wav and mp3 is easily noticeable, if your ears arent fucked from listening to music too loud or other circumstances

>>66314902
it's noticeable, but it's more like the difference between 60fps and 144fps

>>66314954
You're a moron.

>>66314902
It's the mind fooling itself into thinking that there's a difference.

But there /can/ be differences. It all depends on the encoding the mp3 file has.
Both 320 cbr and v0 have their cut-off frequency at 20k (the limit of perfect human hearing), you can't tell the difference. v2, v4 and others have worse quality, and it can be noticeable.

>>66314902
It's damn near impossible to hear the difference on most consumer headsets. With higher quality equipment there is a difference but it's hardly mind-blowing.
>>66315124
Shit, I would equate it to the difference between 90fps and 144fps.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

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.

>>66315994
>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.
this is such a retarded misunderstanding

>>66315994
>>66315597
literal retards

>>66315994
>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.
this is such a retarded misunderstanding

>>66316163
>>66316127
>>66316160

>falling for the copypasta
Summerfags please leave

320 and v0 mp3 is literally the best quality humans can hear. Anything "above" is a waste of hdd space.

>>66316198
>i was only pretending to be retarded!!!

>>66316198
i didnt fall for it. i was relating the pasta to the idiot who thinks "It's the mind fooling itself hurrdurr"

>>66316160
literal retard

>>66316289
illiterate retard

>>66315958
I could hear the difference on M50s (when I still used them)

OP here,
i'm still getting mixed results. can you guys duke it out longer i'm not satisfied with thread fully enough for it to die yet