FLAC vs MP3
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
Is there any difference?
Of course.
>>63866590
one of them has more data than the other
not one that an average music listener can tell
>>63866644
>>63866659
WHICH ONE AM I SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE????
>>63866590
How good of hearing do you have?
What sort of equipment do you use regularly (DACs, sound cards, nice over-ear headphones/speaker system)
How loud do you listen to your music?
Do you know what aspects of the music are affected most by compression?
your answers to those questions should decide if there is a difference for you more than I can
if you listen to shit you download off soulseek and the /mu/ archive on shitty headphones/in-ear models with no sound card/DAC then don't be surprised if you can't
Idk
>>63866679
They are two different things. Of course there is a differences.
>>63866777
trips confirm
>>63866777
But it's not enough that it's night and day unlike mp3 and WAV
If you have just loose files that aren't attached to iTunes or Amazon or w/e, then always go FLAC because you can convert them into whatever format you want later.
if you like loud, intense music, there is no way you don't understand the difference
>>63866746
Out of curiosity, why is it worse to listen to it off soulseek for example? If I can download it in FLAC what difference does it make?
>>63866824
/thread
>>63866590
FLAC is lossless and MP3 is lossy.
>>63866590
You can transcode FLAC for more upload
>>63866746
The whatinterviewprep site is offline tho
>>63866746
>if you listen to shit you download off soulseek
what soulseek have to do with it?
>>63866840
soulseek comment doesn't make much sense to me, either. Soulseek is just a medium for downloading. He could have placed any music downloading resource in its place.
>>63866590
You need a better set headphones and/or a decent DAC to notice but yes, there is. Has to do with the nitrate, in shirt, one has more data than the other
>>63866821
omigud bruh
>>63866904
I have DL'd FLAC albums from SS
I stick with mp3 cause I don't need to have FLAC on my phone
>>63866919
So have I, all the time.
Any what.cd users know where did the interview prep site went to??
>>63866590
It may just be the power of suggestion, but FLAC sounds just a little cleaner, and with better depth. I can pick out minor details that I wouldn't have noticed with MP3.
Granted, I won't notice the difference if I am not paying full attention to the music. I couldn't really even tell the difference until I bought a decent pair of headphones.
>>63866988
There's some sort of a problem with the site, it's not down on purpose.
For MOST PEOPLE 192kbps is transparent.
I am someone who actively destroys my hearing by listening to music too loudly so in my case, I imagine FLAC is totally irrelevant.
>>63867075
I've browsed /mu/ in two periods, last year like for a week, I was just starting to explore other musical options and looking for albums, and I wanted to take the interview but I thought that since I was very very new I wouldnt make it, ended up dl'ing SS and I took off downloading just some normal music pic related is a post I did the other day on a /daily/ so it gives you an idea of my musical preffs
Then now I'm just starting again now less new to music in general, and I wanted to take the interview but saw it was offline
I know you cant *get* me in, but I know you could give me directions and stuff
So, mind lending a hand to a fellow?
And know where/how I can take the interview?
>captcha: shed
>>63867220
You can browse the site through the Wayback Machine: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20160216000427/https://www.whatinterviewprep.com/
The interview in only hard if you have no idea how digital audio compression works. I use both Soulseek and what.cd, and what.cd is mostly good for finding lossless copies of rarities. Often times I feel like Soulseek has more stuff on it, I find a lot of rips of 80's 12" dance vinyl there that are not on what.cd. If you're after lossless music then getting to what.cd is a good idea.
>>63867472
Any tips on digital compression that you'd like to share to me anon?
>>63867512
They have questions like this:
>Rank these from lowest average bitrate to highest: 128kb/s CBR MP3, FLAC, V2, 320kb/s CBR mp3, V0
It might seem like a difficult question, since V2 and V0 are LAME encoder VBR presets, so you can't really compare them to CBR bitrates. However 128 CBR is the lowest quality of MP3 you'll usually find and 320 CBR is the absolute highest bitrate you can have on a standard MP3 file. Now you just have to know what the LAME presets mean.
They'll ask questions about transcoding. Basically what it comes down to is that you never transcode a lossy file like MP3, only FLAC and WAV.
FLAC -> V0 mp3 is ok
V0 mp3 -> FLAC is not
V0 mp3 -> V2 mp3 is not
