Mu-Science
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
>Not being able to tell the difference between Uncompressed and 320kbps
How can you even enjoy music if you're that deaf?
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_(band)
>>61092920
I'M COMING UP ON INFRA RED
I really can't tell the difference. I've always been perfectly okay listening to 320kbps.
>>61092851
the difference between 320 and lossless is placebo. We can't hear the frequencies of lossless music.
>>61092851
Are you Neil Young?
>>61092851
I got 4/6, what about everyone else?
>>61092851
>mp3
>not based AAC
You can literally not hear the difference between 320 kbs AAC and WAV
Nor can you under the vast majority of listening situations hear the difference between 320 MP3 and WAV
If u use flac ur retarded (I delete all mine after transcoding them)
>>61093034
based Aaron
use inspect element for 100% score.
this shit's stupid anyway.
>>61093034
Who's car is that?
>>61092851
3/6
other 3 times i picked the 320kbps so i'm fine with that.
>>61093051
salim mehajer's
>people still not understanding that lossless audio codecs are for archiving
"You got 3 out of 6 correct!"
I Either got it correct or 320kbs and see no discernible difference between the two.
320 kbps lossy faithfully reproduces the entire spectrum of human hearing.
>B-b-but muh golden ears!
Yeah, you don't have 'em. Sorry. Biology wins, you lose.
For most styles of much 320 is just as good.
I've found with some albums, with very 'clean' production, that there's a very easily noticeable difference when you play tracks back to back.
You don't have to have special hearing, you just need to be paying attention to certain sounds. Particularly those in the background.
The one time I did this test I always either picked WAV or 128kbps. I thought it was a fluke so I did it 5 times over, never did I pick 320kbps a single time, always WAV or 128kbps. Turns out I hear the difference, but can't tell when an artifact is actually an artifact or a piece of detail I couldn't hear in the other two.
I've been an audio engineer for several years. I was using my high-end audio hardware for this test and I picked 320kbps mp3 every single time.
>lossless is a placebo
Yep, it's true.
5/6 with my good headphones. Couldn't hear a difference on my cheapo earbuds though.
320 kbps still sounds really close to uncompressed though. I would never know the difference unless specifically listening for it.
So we agree that 320is good, but what about v0?
I can often tell the difference between 320 and v0
