Is there something wrong with my ears if I genuinely prefer the sound of the bottom graph to the top one?
>>64100153
It means you can't tell the difference because you have shit hearing, don't pay attention to your music at all, or have garbage equipment.
Yes, feel ashamed. Even lossless is a huge step up from 320 CBR if you aren't deaf or have decent headphones and a sound card.
>>64100153
Wow, who ever encoded that was a fucking asshole
>>64100153
>If you don't mind
No, I think most people's hearing is fucked anyway, and you don't miss much by not hearing those high frequencies
>If you prefer
You are weird
>>64100228
That happens a lot if you download your music from Soulseek and the /mu/ archive, never trust either without a spectrogram test.
>>64100153
why do people do this
>>64100239
I'm sure 90% of /mu/ can't really hear over 16000 Hz.
>tfw ear hair cells are impossible to regenerate
>tfw tinnitus
>tfw hearing will only get worse with time
>tfw you aren't hearing music fully
>>64100245
The top graph is from Deezer, the bottom one is from Soulseek.
>>64100239
I can tell a difference and I do actually think the bottom graph sounds better.
Another example: in this one the second graph sounds to me like it has much less distortion, but this one might just be bad recordings because grunge.
I tried listening to the frequency tests on youtube and I could hear 18 kHz but only if I turned my volume much louder than usual.
>>64100738
I don't use spek. It's not always accurate. I use audacity. It's more accurate
