So how many of you listen to you're high quality headphones

>you are high headphones
Nigga you high?

>>52413615
>you're
>you are
Oh shit, maybe I am...My bad

File: 1439318668184.gif (2MB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 275x275px

I still would like to know what all of you /hpg/ goers use when not listening to lossless. Really, I am that desperate for input..

When I'm not listening to flac shit I'm usually listening to stuff on youtube. My 555's are far from an audiophiles wet dream but decent enough to compare file types.

I've found that almost every FLAC file has one or two tracks that are heavily distorted (ie. the bass guitar or bass drum track, the individual tracks that make up a song) the rest of the individual tracks sound crystal clear with no distortion. I don't know how the tracks are getting distorted but in the end a 320kbs mp3 or youtube recording can wind up sounding better than a flac file.

There is nothing wrong with 320Kbps MP3

Lossy is ok if it's V0 or higher.

>>52413828
/thread

>>52413789
Funnily enough there's a loudness war video on youtube, where some guy compares the music video and CD version of some song, and finds that the youtube video, lossy and all, has greater dynamic range than the CD master!

Youtube's audio compression isn't necessarily bad. The problem is the shit audio that most people upload in their videos, or the fact that they are reuploading already lossy audio, which over time gets more and more fucked up.

>>52413828

yeah this, flac is nonsense

>>52413704
ear pods

>>52413828
yep

>>52413994
Yeah I think YouTube converts most audio to ogg vorbis which has good sound quality even at 100kbps.

>>52413578
>needing more than a headphone for listening to music

Mine supports up to 44.1 kHz freq but my ears are bad so I can enjoy only up to 16-18 kHz at most, that's why I use Opus (C-VBR) which is perfect for this, you can compress much more than Vorbis, MP3 and AAC-HE+ and still retain a lot of quality, they're literally deprectaed in comparison to Opus. This is only for when I need to compress at bit rates lower than 96 kbit/s, for 320 kbit/s or more from what I tested so far AAC-LC is still the top codec (using ABR settings), because it can retain frequencies up to 48 kHz, almost lossless.

>>52415413
>AAC-LC
Apple AAC?

DT-880's here, I use 128Kbps AAC.

>>52415413
>44.1 kHz
>48 kHz
Something makes me think those aren't what you think they are

I listen to good music, so as long as it isnt horribly compressed i could care less what codec its in as long it will play on whatever i listen to it on. :^)