MP3 is better

>I always avoid it
same its not worth the flak

>>53156296
ayyy

>>53156296
nice

File: 1394170162310.jpg (320KB, 1181x895px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1181x895px

>>53156282
>volume is too low

You mean they haven't been compressed? You know you can just amplify them if they got extra headroom brah.

>>53156296
>scanners.gif

>>53156282
>Why do people say .flac is better?
autism

>>53156282
Because it is, literally, objectively better.

Unless you're a mutant with better than average hearing you won't hear any difference after 320mp3.

People spending hundreds of dollars on headphones are also retarded.

>>53156559
yeah or you can just download .mp3 and not have to go through that effort

>>53156662
>enormous file size
>objectively better

>>53156705
>file size being a problem
>2005+10

What's it like being in 1992?

Flac is the best format for storing your music.
It's not that hard to get a HDD big enough for thousands of albums in flac.
Mp3 is only useful on mobile devices where the storage space is limited.
And don't tell me that there are no audible differences, this only proves that you never heard music on a proper system.
>fucking pleb

>>53156770
And I'll never need to

>>53156673
Indeed, it is a well known fact the human ear can't tell the difference between a high fidelity stereo setup or good headphones versus a $50 logitech gaming headset.

>>53156681
there shouldn't be a difference in the volume of an mp3 or a flac
your mp3s have probably been ripped with normalization and/or dynamics compression (which could equally be done to flac), which means your mp3s are shit

>>53156788
>not listening to music in the best possible quality
wtf is wrong with you? do you only listen to lo-fi shit?

>Not using Opus, a superior alternative to mp3.

>>53156673
>can't tell difference after 320
i can tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit and different frequencies fucktard

>>53157038
I can too. One is written as 16 bit and the other as 24 bit.

File: 1420889726901.jpg (68KB, 789x604px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 789x604px

>>53156681
Some of us enjoy having archival backups of our music. I like to have FLACs sitting on a hard drive. I batch process MP3s from them

>>53157038
Not likely. Most music doesn't even take proper advantage of the dynamic range of 24b

You mean MP3 is more convenient for you
FLAC is superior except for support

>search for a classical album
>there are just torrents in meme codec flac
>literally 1 GB for 9 songs
>*sigh*
>download with my shitty internet
>them have to CUT the fucking ONE file
>have to convert to VBR Level 0
>try to listen the difference
>sounds the same
>delete the flac files and the proof that are flac
>Tags are like shit so use MP3Tag
>no tags found
>have tag myself
ayy lmao

>>53157153
wtf do you need the flacs for after you've processed mp3s from them??

>>53157256
I never know if my computer will go to shit. I like having a backup external of important stuff.

I also listen to the FLACs sometimes because I can hear the difference. High frequencies are slightly less garbled and the peaks aren't clipping past zero because of the MP3 compression distortion.

Literally the only reason not to use flac is if you use a portable device, even then you can have 2 copies of music.

File: 1376834881125.jpg (23KB, 288x277px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 288x277px

Enjoy your distorted peaks

File: l8 4 b8.jpg (351KB, 783x1102px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 783x1102px

>>53156282
cmon people

>>53157650

>Can't handle distorsion

man up bro

>>53156770
Every single double-blind test ever performed, even on extremely high-grade equipment, even with participants who worked as sound-engineers/musicians/composers/etc has found that above 320 bitrate, the ability of participants to correctly identify lossless files from lossy files is within the ranges of random selection.

File: 1413095065150.jpg (37KB, 457x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 457x480px

>>53156282
>>53156296
>>53156673
>>53156681
>>53156705
>>53156788
>>53156793
>>53157237
>>53158773
itt: poor people trying to convince themselves that being poor is better than having money to afford quality music gear

>>53158904
Find me a single study that disagrees.
ITT: Placebo effect.

>>53158773
I probably couldn't hear any difference between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC, but I sure can if it's 192kbps (at least in 70% of cases), even on low price Sennheiser(of course, it depends on what album you are listening - I probably wouldn't notice any difference on Twin Infinitives, but on Pretty Hate Machine it's very obvious)
Also, you don't download FLAC because it's better sounding than mp3, you do it for archival purpose, so you can convert it latter if you want without any loss of quality(for example, OGG in 192 now sounds like MP3 in 320, but it useless to convert MP3 to OGG...)

>>53158937
>muh burden of proof

you made the initial statement that something that is an objectively quantified superior codec didnt produce better listening results so producing the evidence in your favorite lies on you buddy

also 1/10

>>53159047
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_lt

The section on it links to 4 very scientifically conducted studies, all of which come to the same conclusion.

>>53159043
What is the purpose of archiving if you already have a filetype that recreates as accurately as you can hear?

>>53157038
Bull. That's a range of 96dB, and unless your room is soundproofed and your stereo system is comparable to that of a movie theater, you're not getting that in your system. The only reason people record in 24 bit is to allow for more headroom in the editing process.

>>53159524
I'm referring to 16-bit audio. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

>>53159481
As I said, along the way better algorithms of conversion are developed, so instead of putting 50 albums of 320kbps MP3, you can put 100 albums of 192kbps OGG on your portable device...
99,5% of my music is lossy, because I care more about dynamic range of an album than its bitrate, i value more a vinyl rip with good mastering in 256 than FLAC cd that is compressed to hell...I am just saying that if you have space, better download lossless

>>53159660
I'd rather have fewer albums on my device at any one time, than have too spend the time converting and storing a lossless file and a lossy file separately. Also, if your lossy file is truly transparent, then there is no reason you cannot then convert it to a similarly transparent codec with a better algorithm so that it takes up less space without any audible loss of fidelity.

>>53159749
>Also, if your lossy file is truly transparent, then there is no reason you cannot then convert it to a similarly transparent codec with a better algorithm so that it takes up less space without any audible loss of fidelity.
I am not sure if I understand you, but are you saying that you can convert mp3 to ogg without losing fidelity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss

>>53156673
Uhhhh no. Nice over ear headphones make a world of a difference.

>>53159862
If the starting file is transparent (meaning that any loss from the original lossless audio is inaudible), and you're up-converting, while you can never retrieve the lost data and go back to a lossless format, and your transcode may not be as absolutely efficient (in terms of file-size) as a pure lossless -> new format conversion would be, no extra data should be lost in the conversion, and therefore the end result should still be a transparent file.

>>53160014
So does the placebo effect.

>>53160014
this
headphones make the biggest difference
you don't have to spend a fuckton of money on them tho

>>53160188
320 and above is entirely indistinguishable to the human ear, regardless of your setup.

>>53160090
I will try what you said once I get home.

>>53160231
you don't want to understand, do you?
i said headphones make a big difference, i didn't mention bitrate at all

>>53160336
But you said it in response to a comment that itself was arguing that headphones make a difference in distinguishing >=320 from lossless files.

Context is everything.

>>53160430
nope, the guy who started this said that people who buy expensive headphones are ALSO stupid

>>53160574
Oh, you're right. My mistake. Terribly sorry.

>>53156282
I really hope this doesn't become the next hot meme

>>53160709

jesus christ are you new

the .flac vs .mp3 meme has been around forever

>>53156673
Unless you're making up differences like OP.

>>53160763
The only difference is that the majority of /mu/ seems to be on the MP3 side now, which is a good development