>I can hear the difference between FLAC and 320kbps.
If you can't you either have something wrong with you or are not paying close enough attention.
i don't hear the difference between V0, 320 or FLAC. I have decent headphones too.
>>65538576
>frog posts
>>65538576
nice job OP, triggreing the autists. could've been this even:
>I can hear the difference between FLAC and 192kbps.
>>65539165
i have AKG A7XX and couldn't tell any of those apart if my life depended on it
Honestly I don't get the big deal with FLAC. Sounds no different than when I listen to YouTube to MP3 stuff.
>>65539384
youtube has ALAC audio so when you convert it you retain all the quality. it sounds great on my dre beats
There might be a difference between V0 and 320K on occasion, but there's no audible difference between FLAC and 320K.
>>65539427
shit bait
AAC>MP3
>>65539182
>grime posts
>>65539466
How? Isn't the point of v0 is for there to be no noticeable difference
>>65539779
>fresh meme of bel air post
stop memeing. this is a serious thread.
I don't know if I can because I never keep an mp3 encode for long enough once I have the FLAC one.
>>65539835
>Meme Rosen post
>>65539803
I just meant that in my personal experience, V0 has sounded worse. It could easily be correlation or bias on my part.
>>65539589
>Mastered for iTunes
>>65538576
I know OP is bait but:
most 320kbps floating around on the internet are transcodes
even if the spectrogram says 20.5k cutoff, you don't know if it was encoded in 320kbps twice or anything.
it often sounds bad and i don't trust it
>>65538576
I don't even hear the difference between 320kbps and 92kbps desu
>>65540554
>Mastered for iTunes
tfw "Mastered for iTunes" just means it was limited 1dB more and peak volume lowered to -1dB most of the time
all this baiting is starting to trigger me to be honest. good job
I don't even understand why someone would want to waste all that storage space on FLAC. There is no noticeable gain over a properly creates mp3.
>>65540737
basically for archival purposes. you never know when you need to use something that doesn't support MP3 or some shit
>>65540855
Isn't mp3 the standard though? Surely almost every piece of audio software can read an mp3.
Wow all this talk of digital music. I only listen to analog music forms. Like slapping my dick against your mothers chest while my black friend plays the cunnilingus. He's got good rhythm. Beatles played it better though.
>>65540737
Because you can transcode FLAC into whatever you want?
>>65540950
why would you want to do that
>>65540986
because you can
>>65539298
You have to keep spamming it and lowering it daily until it goes from 320 to 96 to even lower.
>>65539944
flac is a meme tho fag
opus>everything
>>65541395
how does it compare to 320K from the quality angle?
All these idiots talking about "archival purposes" like they're the fucking Smithsonian
i would save flacs when i found them until i realized that my ears are shit and can't hear a difference. there are some neato tests online to test it out
if you're old enough to be on this website or have used headphones for almost any period of time, ABX tests are useless.
there's a reason they produce null results in reality vs. the test you took on headphones-rule dot biz
>>65538576
I just downloaded a flac(Gong-You), idk if I can tell a complete difference but the drums and bass definitely sound a lot clearer and louder than the 320kbps copy I have.
>>65542274
that's just the placenta effect
>>65542274
did you try reversing the rotational velocidensity by spinning your hard drive in the opposite direction? i assume your 320kbps copy has lost a few dozen kb over time.
>>65542310
i'm running the songs through a 16 band e.q. with the mids scooped so there's a difference.
>>65542419
that's just the platoon effect
>>65542274
prolly different releases famille
>>65538637
take the 128kbps mp3 vs 320kbps mp3 vs WAV on NPR's website
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
128kbps is very easily distinguishable, but 320 vs WAV can be pretty hard to get, you have to listen to both samples many many times to get it and even then you can guess wrong
>>65540855
mp3 is the standard, you'll come across way more applications that don't support FLAC
and what would i be doing with the music? all there is to do is download it and upload it to your music player
>>65540950
why tho
>>65541577
lmao this
>>65543280
>and what would i be doing with the music?
Mastering, recording, mixing, looping, sampling.
>>65543387
so, flac is only worth it if you're actually producing music? that i agree with
>>65544063
Well, also you want to keep all of the frequencies in the music. You realize that mp3s are lossy and that you lose frequencies alltogther right?
>>65544161
yes, i understand it's less quality, but the difference is very hard to hear to inaudible, plus mp3 is supported by more players and takes up less space, it's way more practical and logical to use 320 kbps mp3
take the NPR test http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
>>65544219
>but the difference is very hard to hear to inaudible
You can't see air, yet you need it to breathe
>takes up less space
Not relevant, disc space is very cheap.
>it's way more practical and logical to use 320 kbps mp3
Not how the artist wanted you to hear it.
>>65544278
>You can't see air, yet you need it to breathe
that's a terrible argument, the entire purpose of listening to music is LISTENING, if you can't hear it, it doesn't matter, by comparing it with air you're saying that you can't listen to music of it isn't lossless, that just doesn't make sense. The fact is that to the human ear, lossless and 320 kbps mp3 sound almost identical, that's it.
>Not relevant, disc space is very cheap.
but you'd be wasting your money by filling up your space with flac/wav when you could just use 320 kbps mp3's, which soundx extremely similar and take up way less space. Unless you actually do something with the lossless archives like you mentioned earlier. It might be relatively cheap, doesn't mean you HAVE to buy it
>Not how the artist wanted you to hear it.
kek i really don't care about this, I listen to music for my personal enjoyment the artist doesn't get anything out of my listening to something
and i'm sure that most artists don't give a fuck what filetype their fans use
also, if you're going that route, you shouldn't pirate music, that affects the artist way more than using mp3
>>65544503
>that's a terrible argument
Not really. You can't see gravity either,m but it's something that affects you. Just because you can't see/perceive something, doesn't mean it's not there. Your argument is that if you can't perceive it, it doesn't matter. That is simply not true.
>by comparing it with air you're saying that you can't listen to music of it isn't lossless
Well you can, you are just willingly ignoring the loss of information that was specifically put there for you to hear.
>The fact is that to the human ear, lossless and 320 kbps mp3 sound almost identical
*almost* identical? Then might as well side on err and take flac is it's not completely 100% identical.
>but you'd be wasting your money by filling up your space with flac/wav when you could just use 320 kbps mp3's
Well I'd be missing frequencies. So it's worth the investment.
>take up way less space
Again, not an issue. You can buy a 2TG external drive for like $100 now.
>It might be relatively cheap, doesn't mean you HAVE to buy it
Why is it that you don't HAVE to do this, yet your argument presents that I HAVE to listen to mp3s?
>kek i really don't care about this
But you juust said:
>"the entire purpose of listening to music is LISTENING"
So now you don't care about the music? Which is it? Are you backpedling?
>and i'm sure that most artists don't give a fuck what filetype their fans use
If that was true, why arent artists just releasing all their material as 320kps instead of lossless CDs/tapes/vinyl/24bit wav releases?
>also, if you're going that route, you shouldn't pirate music, that affects the artist way more than using mp3
Misdirection won't work for you here
>>65544278
>You can't see air, yet you need it to breathe
How does this work as a metaphor for frequencies in music? Minute differences in the makeup of regular air matter when breathing? Explain.
>Not relevant, disc space is very cheap.
I'm assuming you mean external storage in which case you're right, but that's only useful in the situation that you're listening to it at home or at a studio, isolated from noise, which is the only way I can imagine the a person would be able to appreciate FLAC.
The other anon is making a point about portability, probably listening to it through a phone or a laptop. You two are arguing from different perspectives.
>Not how the artist wanted you to hear it.
how are you so sure?
>>65545131
>How does this work as a metaphor for frequencies in music?
I just explained it in the post you replied to
>but that's only useful in the situation that you're listening to it at home or at a studio, isolated from noise, which is the only way I can imagine the a person would be able to appreciate FLAC.
>probably listening to it through a phone or a laptop
You can enjoy flac on the go as well on a player that supports it. So portability is not relevant.
>how are you so sure?
I just answered that as well. Please read before you reply.
>>65541563
it achieves transparency (greatest similarity to lossless codecs, e.g. flac) at much lower bitrates than mp3 (typically starting from 96 kbps, compared to 192 kbps for mp3). in essence, it's way more efficient.
