>Rip an album from youtube to mp3
>Convert it to flac
>Upload it on torrent sites
>People comment that the quality is amazing
Flac is literally placebo.
>>54193073
Everybody does.
>>54193033
>dumb makiposter
>>54193631
>>54193073
Her expression and pose pretty much demands having a cock for the image to be complete.
>>54193033
I literally saw that pic and thought "wait where's her dick". Thanks 4chan.
>>54193631
>>54193033
>upload on what cd
>get banned
>get banned on other private trackers
>get banned in torrent network
>get banned on the internet
>head owner finds you and rapes you
>>54193668
you're a homosexual
>not posting the superior version
>>54193904
For anyone wondering what it is, here it is again
cool story bro
>>54193659
I think the original version had one. Some straight faggot didn't want his waifu tainted.
>>54193033
Is there a way to identify this shit other than using patrician hearing senses? I don't care about flacc, but if you download a poorly encoded mp3 album that you've never heard before, you'd be none the wiser that it sounds shittier than it's supposed to.
>>54195944
No one can tell by their hearing, that's why all "audiophiles" need to have 8 different visualizers and spectrograms open to fully appreciate their music.
>>54195963
I'm talking about like if someone was to take a 128 kbps file and encode it at 320
>>54195963
if your audio system is good you can tell the difference most of the time
>>54196006
the obvious difference would be noise.
Low-quality audio files have a hiss not unlike playing an old cassette.
Just look at jpeg compression: re-saving a more compressed jpeg as a less compressed jpeg isn't going to make the old compression jaggies go away.
>>54195944
mp3 is easily detectable at bitrates lower than 160.
Fucking cotton sound.
>>54193033
>tfw can't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3, 320kbps MP3, and FLAC, but 192kbps MP3 is where it starts to get irritably noticeable
>>54197486
>Just look at jpeg compression: re-saving a more compressed jpeg as a less compressed jpeg isn't going to make the old compression jaggies go away.
Oh I know. I'm saying like if I download an album where someone did that, if there would be a way to identify it other than by listening
>>54198334
Yes, looking at the range of frequencies, shit like that.
>>54193631
okay I chuckled
>>54198334
Spectral analysis
Is there a better spectrum analyzer than spek?
>>54193033
What is placebo?
>>54195963
I can, actually, tell the difference:
the 'low quality' music sounds nicer and the 'audiophile' quality music sounds like shit.
yw
>>54195944
Diminishing returns. Once you exceed 320 kbps the difference is extremely difficult to discern.
>>54200864
people want flac so they can manipulate the audio. if you slow or speed up compressed audio it sounds bad. if you only play the audio at the normal speed then compression is bearable.
>>54193668
I got you bro.
>>54195944
Yes. There are programs that you can run the file through to check if it has been sourced from a lossy original.
The main problem is that with audio is a more vague kind of sense.
With video you can see blocking, banding and smudging artifacts of poor compression. With audio you really need to hear the original in comparison to be able to pick out a compression, because you can't be sure what ranges were there to begin with.
>>54195944
I have studio monitors and a CD or FLAC track sounds different than a song streamed off Pandora. It's easy to tell you're getting more on the top and bottom end of the music, it's brighter. The difference while appreciated and enjoyed isn't so much as to make music off Pandora unbearable.
>>54200960
>if you only play the audio at the normal speed then compression is bearable.
I think the word you're looking for is "indistinguishable"
>>54195944
>Is there a way to identify this shit other than using patrician hearing senses?
open the file up in audacity or something and look at the spectrograph
if it's flac from lossless source material it won't have any caps on the peaks, if it's a decent high bitrate mp3 (or other lossy encoding) it *may* have some caps on the peaks around 18-20khz or higher depending on the encoder used and the settings for that encoder, if it's a low bitrate mp3 encoding it'll have a lot more caps on the peaks but
if it's a transcode it'll have far, far more caps (it will start to look like a flat line) and the caps will be at a much lower hz, around 16khz, which is typically within the audible hearing range for some adults
but transcodes from a lossy source will be immediately obvious upon listening, you won't need the spectrograph
>but if you download a poorly encoded mp3 album that you've never heard before
that may be the case now but early 2000's mp3 rips with bad encoders, settings, or low bitrates will sound awful and as if the studio album was recorded as a demo -- if you've never heard the album before you obviously won't be able to tell that it's not supposed to sound like that but you might get the hint that something is up
if it's a transcode (from a lossy source), not only will it sound like a demo, it'll sound like a demo that was recorded on a worn tape that had made the rounds after several concerts -- I've literally heard demos that were recorded somewhat decently sound better than transcodes of studio albums
>>54201162
>The main problem is that with audio is a more vague kind of sense.
it really isn't, the problem is that adults typically have worse hearing than children and can have varying degrees of hearing loss (or may or may not have tinnitus) - that masks issues with low quality encodes for a lot of people
>>54201288
>Pandora on the Web plays 64k AAC+ for free listeners and 192kbps for Pandora One subscribers. All in-home devices play 128kbps audio, and mobile devices receive a variety of different rates depending on the capability of the device and the network they are on, but never more than 64k AAC+.
>CDs sound better than 192Kbps!
No shit, you window-licker. Nobody ever argued that. They're talking about 256/320/V0 compared to FLAC, not fucking 192.
>>54195944
>Is there a way to identify sounds other than with your ears?
If there is let me know sempai.
continuing from >>54201755
>>54201162
>With video you can see blocking, banding and smudging artifacts of poor compression.
which is a result of some pretty bad lossy encoding, sure, but many people don't care (like they don't care about listening to music on youtube for instance)
however due to the nature of video those artefacts become extremely obvious - if you take stills from a movie or scene release even the low quality one won't look *that* bad to the source material, it's only when put in motion does it become obvious
but there's artefacts for image processing that people rarely notice unless they know about them and can actively look out of them, such as whether the camera used has an aliasing filter on the sensor or not (not talking about moire patterns), and whether there's any iso/grain noise in the darker areas of a photo - most people won't even notice it and even trained professionals might miss it unless they're editing the photo, which has a *lot* of parallels between 320kbps and lossless flac
>With audio you really need to hear the original in comparison to be able to pick out a compression, because you can't be sure what ranges were there to begin with.
but I do agree, in a lot of cases you do need to hear (or see) the source material to notice a difference unless the difference is blatantly obvious, but it's not impossible to tell if a recording is shitty just because you can't compare it to the source
>>54196006
yes
whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/
>tfw you fell for the flac meme years ago
Glad I converted that shit to 320 mp3 and deleted that flac garbage.
>>54195944
The voice usually sounds much clearer and lighter in FLAC than MP3, but most of the time there's no difference.
>>54193033
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.
>>54204332
This is mostly true, but what actually happens is that 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.
Because SSD's are essentially memory sticks, the degree of data loss is lessened because there is a lot less decoding going on when the song is transferred from disk to memory. Hard drives, especially faster drives, tend to lose data in general because they need to convert between electrical signals and magnetic signals. This is why a lot of businesses are moving to SSD-based storage.
>>54204332
So my 200GB music collection will shrink to 100GB given enough time?
>>54194358
>wrong placement
>not a PNG
![1349217226441[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vv066bi.jpg "1349217226441[1].jpg")
>>54204332
>>54204581
>>54193631
This is best post on 4chan
>>54204332
Werent digital formats supposed to be inchangable?
>>54201994
The fact that people prepare for interviews (and that the interviews even exist) for a fucking tracker makes me sad
>>54206488
"Mom will never believe that I passed my interview! Now I am allowed to download stuff!"
>>54195944
MP3s are lossy.
>>54206488
It's an excellent tracker and the interview should be common knowledge to anyone that cares about digital music anyway. Its a good medium ground between being closed off and letting complete shit randoms join.
>>54206795
Now do an AAC->MP3 transcode and try to tell the difference with spectrals.
>>54193033
>https://opentrackers.org/whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/index.html
Have you ever heard of Spectrum analysis you dumb fuck?
>>54193033
i hope u get b& makifag
>>54207000
>lossy to lossy transcode
Why would you do this?
>>54207159
To pass off shit encodes on trackers.
I'm convinced a good number of 320 and v0 encodes come from iTunes.
>>54200962
I recognize that bulge!
>>54207236
if it's not lossless, I don't bother.
Bitrot/ MP3 decay
>>54193668
sigh... i'm not the only one...
>>54201331
This guy gets it
Anyone else go to the doctor to get their ears checked? I'm spooked to go, what do they do?
>>54208445
I've been meaning to go, I want them to remove that ball of earwax that forms inside everyone's ears, everyone tells me it hurts but then feels good man
>>54193631
KEK
>>54208478
>ball of wax
what are you talking about?
>>54206488
Just sort of necessary so you don't upload mp3s
>>54208512
You know earwax? Well there's a place inside your eardrum where wax accumulates and you can't reach it by ordinary means (or without risking piercing your eardrum), a doctor can take it out for you, apparently it enhances your hearing for a while or something
>>54208665
oh, you're THAT KID
>>54208665
is it healthy?
>>54208665
y'know you can get the same effect by laying on your side and pouring a capfull of hydrogen peroxide in your ear, let it fizzle for a while then turn over and hold a napkin under the ear and let it drain while you're doing the other one, or you could get one of those squezzy tubes that the docs use
>>54204581
Do you even know how pc works? Holy shit this wall on nonsense. Go buy 120$ fuses to smother your audio.
auCDtect
>"B-But muh 32K DAT"
Fuckin' spectral analysis then you faggot.
A: 10
V: 10
Thanks YIFY
:^)
>>54193033
All these stories are lies because no one ever comments on the quality of a flac rip unless it's bad.
>>54193033
Where's the dick?
>>54208790
>one of those squezzy tubes
a syringe?
