FLAC vs 320

>>51592909
Do a blind test, and don't cheat yourself if you can.

to me between a lossless format and lossy format the high frequencies sound different like they become "tinny" in the hi hats and cymbals

>>51592909
You're just a massive faggot.

>>51592947
/b/ pls

I would recommend using flac regardless for a lossless storage medium. That way you always have the lossless file and can rip some mp3s if needed but you don't need to rip lossy formats from other lossy formats.

>>51592909
PLACEBO

You shouldn't have posted here.
The objective truth is: No, they're not better. mp3 is way more than accurate enough for human ears at 320kbit/s. That's what it was made for.

If you hadn't posted here, you could have kept your placebo. FLAC would have continued to sound better to you than mp3.
But it doesn't. It shouldn't. The difference is there, but it's way outside your reach.

File: 1448743760271.jpg (23KB, 352x395px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 352x395px

>>51593164
2poor for good equipment / chain, bro?

>>51593188
Nah. Equipment matters.

Flac doesn't.

You are wrong.

And why are you using mp3 anyway? Use Opus or another modern format. Save on storage.

>>51593164
Truth right here.

ABX it OP. If you actually can do it, hop into Hydrogenaud.io and tell them you just did something nobody else couldn't. You could help with codec development with those golden ears of yours.

>>51593188
>equipment meme
fuck off

Equipment matters in terms of overall fidelity above anything else, especially the loudspeakers/headphones themselves. However good equipment matters very little at spotting compression artifacts.

>>51592909
bass in >16khz? wat

File: 1437600450986.png (353KB, 449x600px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 449x600px

Wrong, do an ABX test.

Though you shouldn't even be using MP3 in the first place, it's ancient and deprecated. Use Opus instead.

you are correct,OP

File: 1448810177481.jpg (60KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x305px

>>51592909
Prove me wrong

>>51593236
>>equipment meme
>believes hardware is just another meme
shoo, casual

>>51593243
bass / punch seems better in FLAC, yes

>>51593315
>bass / punch seems better in FLAC, yes
ABX it, faggot.

>>51593314
Depends on age but generally yeah adults in their 20's can't hear above 16-18 kHz and it gets worse with age. This is assuming they didn't suffer hearing damage from listening to loud music.

>>51593314
this image is correct

for old sacks of shit(>35)

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php

Im struggling at the tests above 16kHz.
If you get up to 20kHz without struggling you might hear a difference between FLAC and MP3 but ONLY if you concentrate on it, which is super exhausting.
You will never ever notice a difference while casually listening to music, no matter how golden your ears are.

>>51593409
i won't be able to "remember" what I'm hearing in those tests, so it'll be pointless. Those tests are pointless.

>>51593418
I'm 21 and I got an audiometry few months ago.
I have a pristine hearing of a baby,

Mainly because I always wear ear protection and usually go overkill with it (earplugs + earmuffs)

Hell I can when someone starts a CRT TV from behind the wall, it makes this very high pitched sound.

>>51593454
So you can remember the bass and punch are better, but that ability magically disappears whenever put to the test?

>>51593465
Flyback frequency is just below 16kHz.

>>51593443
>If you get up to 20kHz without struggling you might hear a difference between FLAC and MP3 but ONLY if you concentrate on it,
That's not how that works.

File: 1441727985162.jpg (2MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x5000px

>>51593454
>i won't be able to "remember" what I'm hearing in those tests, so it'll be pointless. Those tests are pointless.

>>51593465
dude me too sometimes i hear cellphone chargers plugged they make a very high pitched sound too i always tell me mums to unplug them (also saves electricity) but she says she dont hear nthing
fking mom i swear

>>51593285
>Opus
Nice meme format you sack of shit

File: 1445289187245.jpg (55KB, 345x359px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 345x359px

>>51593486
>>51593507
The tests are more memory tests than anything. It's far harder to remember and compare audio then remember and compare video. For one, you can't have two audio sources running at the same time like you can with video and be able to compare them, for obvious reasons.

Imagine: you have to compare video clips and see whats better from two different $5000 RED cameras or equivalent. Unfortunately, you can only view one feed at a time, and not both at once regardless of how many monitors you have.

See how Ridic this test is now?

File: retarded spoke pattern by lunatic brooklyn messenger faggot.jpg (331KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1024x681px

>>51593557
its the best tho tbqh famm
kill urself kuck

File: 1443194676374.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>51593465
Use a frequency generator and put it to 16, 17, and then 18 Khz.

Come back and tell me how you could hear ALL of those frequencies. I'll be waiting right here.

>>51593563
>The tests are more memory tests than anything.
So your superhuman hearing and memory that enable you to tell FLAC has better bass magically disappear when put to the test.

>See how Ridic this test is now?
Not at all "ridic." If the difference is so minuscule that you can't pass the test, there is no reason to care which camera is used. You will never notice the difference in casual viewing.

>>51592909
It's called placebo, retard

>>51593557
Go beck to bed grandpa.

>>51593592
must suck being >35

does your penis still work gramps?

File: 1424454881822.png (98KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 625x626px

>>51593557
8/8 b8 I r8 8/8

>>51593643
>tripfag
>doest use mp3 player
>uses botnet phone

V0 master race

>>51593601
>If the difference is so minuscule that you can't pass the test, there is no reason to care which camera is used. You will never notice the difference in casual viewing.

Nobody talked about the difference being miniscule. The example was two $5000 cameras that were different models or maybe even different brands that you could only compare one at a time and then "guess" at the perceptual differences. Never could you view them both at once because raisins.

>casual
There's that word again, chump.

>>51593641
Most adults in their 20's literally can't hear above 16 Khz you fucking retard.

>>51593670
>:^
but I can,gramps)

File: 1432610639730.png (678KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 960x540px

>>51593660
Go back to your containment thread gramps.

>>51593704
/n/ is not active tho
:(

>>51593669
>Nobody talked about the difference being miniscule.
If the difference weren't miniscule, you could ABX it. Any difference you can't ABX is so small it's not worth caring about.

>>51593592
I did two days ago, it makes a very sharp cutoff right above 18kHz. 25 years old or something.

>>51593601
>You will never notice the difference in casual viewing.
If you can't notice the difference in that type of setup, you won't notice it at all ever using those images. The example is shit.

Being an audio codec tester is very boring. I wasted too much time doing that and it messed up my listening experience.
Even so, if you rip and encode it yourself, even formats below 320CBR LAME are hard to tell in an ideal scenario.

File: 1443782741380.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>51593726
ABX isn't a "thing". It's something that wikipedia-tier fags push as a "thing", but it's really just-a-memory-test-that-punishes-audio-over-video

>>51593737
>I can hear above 18 khz
If you're really not bs us then consider yourself extremely lucky. Though you can expect to lose the ability to hear frequencies above 16 Khz once you hit your early 30's due to aging.

>>51593660
First of all, those are called portable media players, not "mp3 players" as you mistakenly refer to them. Second, they can play non-mp3 formats just fine.

>>51593816
99% of them can't play Opus files so they are immediately trash for me.

Different people will hear differently for me, the difference between FLAC and MP3 is very noticeable, so I tend to prefer FLAC. Or even OGG and WAV.

Don't listen to obnoxious fucking retards that scream PLACEBO!!!!11.

Also, storage is cheap. Cheap as fuck.
So the "MP3 cuz smaller filesizes" argument is irrelevant.

>>51593755
>ABX isn't a "thing".
It's been used for decades by every manufacturer of audio equipment. It's used by every group that develops audio codecs. It's TOTALLY useless, though! Us le englightened audiophiles are smarter than all those engineers. I bet they didn't elevate their cables to isolate them from transchronic quasi-quantum platonic interference when doing the test!

>>51593848
>the difference between FLAC and MP3 is very noticeable
ABX it. If you pass, you'll get a cushy job testing audio equipment and codecs with your golden ears.

>>51593755
0/10 troll, you're not even trying to be subtle anymore.

people saying flac are placebos are the same people that think ssd's are a meme

File: 1446935992192.png (219KB, 370x480px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 370x480px

>>51593848
Do an ABX test between 192 vbr Opus with a complexity of 10 vs FLAC right now.

Then post test results and show us proof you have super human hearing.

Go on I'll be right here waiting.

>>51593844
If your music player isn't running rockbox IT is the trash honestly mate

>>51593915
Unfortunately they're right. FLAC is placebo, whether you like it or not.

>>51593941
I never claimed I have superhuman hearing.
I just said I think FLAC sounds better, therefore I use it.

>>51593941
He's not going to do it. It's a fact ALL FLACfags are too chicken shit to do ABX tests in fear of their delusional world falling apart.

>>51594003
Then prove it faggot, do the abx test tripfag posted. You wouldn't want people to think you're chicken shit would you?

>i'm probably wrong but i FELL flac sounds better so I use it
Acceptable opinion however silly it may be.
>It's a FACT that flac sounds better. My hearing must be better than yours
Delusional, retarded, you deserve to be laughed at.

>>51594003
It sounds literally the same unless you're a bat. Are you a bat anon?

>>51594003
>I just said I think FLAC sounds better, therefore I use it.
So you do claim to have superhuman hearing.

If that's true, it's a lucrative opportunity. I'm serious. You can get a job testing audio equipment. Hell, contact James Randi. He offered $1 million to someone who could ABX $7500 cables and ordinary ones. He might offer the same to you if you can really ABX FLAC and 320 kbps mp3.

here's why people prefer mp3 over flac
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/11/153205/young-people-prefer-sizzle-sounds-of-mp3-format

>>51594043
Why would I do that when I've already proven to myself that the FLAC copies of my music sounds better than the MP3 copies?
I'm not at home anyway, so I can't do the test.
Calm down.

>b-but flac is placebo
>blind test
>5/5

>>51594098
ABX test or bust. We've been through this anon.

>>51594062
>>51594070
What's with the increased amount of autism on /g/?
>YOURRR WRRROOOONGGGGG ARE YOU A SUPERHUMANNN??? PLS DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO DOOOO

>>51594081
Not sure I buy that. I'd have to see the methodology in more depth. This guy is a professor of music. He may not know statistics or the technical side of audio codecs.

>>51594087
>Why would I do that when I've already proven to myself that the FLAC copies of my music sounds better than the MP3 copies?
'Cause you're delusional. Some nutjob may have proven to himself that he's the second coming of Christ, but we'll all laugh at him until he proves it.

>>51594123
>ABX test
It was an ABX test. So...If FLAC is supposedly a placebo how did I ace a blind test?

>>51594142
Yeah, yeah. I'll take autism over insanity any day. Thinking you have a superpower is way weirder than being a bit obnoxious on 4chan.

>>51593812
Thread is low quality bait, but yes I can.
It's not that remarkable, we had a guy who could hear further, mid-20's, a bit over 19kHz, as tested by audiologist. He does a lot of audio testing and development in his spare time as you can imagine. You don't need that kind of hearing to distinguish audio codecs, and it won't even help if you do the codec right.

High frequency extension is a side issue, since the meaty bits for lossy encoding to get at is the bit depth itself, what is going to be masked by the strong music harmonics and time function. If you only truncate some of the upper frequencies, that isn't going to yield to space savings that lossy encoding gives you.

>>51594158
Coin flip probability, post logs and timescale.

>>51594158
Between what, ancient mp3 and flac?

Have you done tests between Opus and flac? What vbr did you use for Opus?

>>51594151
>proving audio superiority with via a memory test disguised as AB
0/10, wikifag. 0/10

>>51594158
1. "5/5" is not impressive. There's a 1/32 chance of that happening purely by chance.
2. What test did you use? You could probably ABX 128 kbps mp3 and FLAC. You might be able to ABX 128 kbps Opus or 192 kbps mp3. You certainly could not ABX 320 kbps mp3 or 192 kbps Opus.

>>51594236
So you claim you can remember differences between 320 kbps mp3 and FLAC in casual listening, but you can't remember the same for half a second in an ABX test?

>>51594286
It's not a real test for anything that matters. It's significance is the same as a lie detector test - meaningless.

>>51594349
Yeah, right. You can tell the difference as long as no one is watching. Your golden ears TOTALLY exist, but they stop working when put to the test.

>>51592909
What kind of encoder even drops that much signal at 320 kbit/s? I know the frequency scale there is linear and misleading as fuck but that still looks nasty.

ITT: I'm too poor for FLAC so I'll pretend MP3 is just as good

You can't hear the difference between the two

>>51594372
>keeps repeating golden ears

this "test" - again - is meaningless. It's not a 1/2 second remember the first part of the test. You'll deliberate for at least 10 seconds, getting jumbled up. It's not like a real test such as a 40 yard dash were you know all the results, or 2 videos where you can watch both side by side.

This is the reason this is akin to a lie detector test. You keep denying this, but it's true. Wikipedia will always tell you what the moderators on there want you to believe, or what the current "consensus" is, but leave out dissenting views.

>>51594212
>>51594248
The "5/5" number indicated the number of tests passed with each holding its own distinct pair of audio samples. It's interesting how people here seem to suggest that everyone do an ABX test yet they seemingly do not actually understand how an ABX test works. Luckily, I will be kind enough to explain it to you. I had 5 different pairs of audio samples. One was lossless FLAC quality and the other was 320kbps MP3. For each pair of audio samples, 10 trials were conducted. The minimum pass rate would be 9/10 for each pair of samples. This would then make the probability of passing just a single test of 10 trials equivalent to (1/2)^9 or ~0.001953125. I, however, did not just conduct one of these tests, but 5 of them, all with different audio track samples in use. Thus, the probability that I could have randomly passed all 5 tests would be (1/2)^9^5, which approaches zero and can be stated as approximately ~10^-17775.52. Is then your suggestion then that I was somehow able to ace near-impossible probabilistic odds in order to pass all 5 of the tests conducted?

File: 1417651458123.png (493KB, 932x448px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 932x448px

>>51594416
>I'm too poor for a free format

>>51592909
Doesn't make a difference, even young aufio engineers with good equipment have a very very hard time telling the difference between 128kbps aac vs flac and thats with well mastered material

>>51594562
So you can tell the difference when listening to whole songs and deliberating for many minutes, but listening to short samples and deliberating for ten seconds throws you off.

Fuck off, faggot.

>>51594578
So you're lying. No one has ever passed an ABX test of 320 kbps mp3 and FLAC in controlled conditions. Lots of people have CLAIMED to be able to, but they all mysteriously failed in controlled conditions.

And if you really did pass, call up James Randi. You might win $1 million.

>>51594578
>Is then your suggestion then that I was somehow able to ace near-impossible probabilistic odds in order to pass all 5 of the tests conducted?
No. My suggestion is that you lied, cheated, or administered the test incorrectly.

If this is true, lots of people would be VERY interested in testing your magical ears. Call up some audio engineers or scientists. Once a reputable expert verifies the result I'll believe it.

File: spek.jpg (4MB, 1877x2044px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1877x2044px

Why would you even consider FLAC when Opus is superior?

>>51594749
Because audiophiles are retarded. You should know this by now.

>>51594749
>Opus
even mp3 is better

File: THideJY.jpg (30KB, 800x508px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x508px

>>51594749
No human on earth can hear above 20 Khz. Cats however can. Not sure if cat's would enjoy listening to 30-40 Khz frequency based music though.

>>51594578
>they seemingly do not actually understand how an ABX test works.
You mean yourself, because you still haven't proven anything.

>>51594749
Cool so you're a bat? Who created you and did you escape the laboratory or did they just release you freely?

I swear the high frequencies sound different on wav than mp3

maybe it is just really placebo but think it sounds different

>>51594894
That's because MP3 cuts off frequencies above 16 Khz. Use Opus instead. It cuts off at 20 Khz which is the maximum frequency a healthy child can hear.

>>51594938
I wav only really because of I can tell the difference of the high freq

another reason also I think I hear such a difference is im used to receiving tracks without mastering or any dithering on like I final release would have

>>51594974
>Microsoft WAV
>Not Wave64
Fucking kill yourself.

File: frequency-hearing-range-in-man-and-some-common-animal.jpg (15KB, 739x252px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 739x252px

>>51594974
>I wav only really because of I can tell the difference of the high freq
No you cannot unless you're a fucking bat. Are you a bat?

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 2732x663px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2732x663px

>>51594749

Why is OPUS such a piece of junk?

>>51595022
im talking about high frequencies like crash cymbals and hi hats

not above human hearing

>100 replies

I just love the epic /g/ memes haha

>>51595042
>MP3 above 16KHz
Nice edit, faggot.

>>51595046
Then just use 192 vbr Opus you tard.

File: Untitled.png (10KB, 430x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 430x305px

>>51595073
It's not an edit, retard. Yuou can enable or disable filters at your will.

>>51594938
>>51595073
It depends on the bitrate and settings you use.

>>51595090
You don't gain anything though. Adult humans can hear up to 18Khz frequencies if they never listened to loud music.

>>51595090
You know this makes MP3 artifacts worse right? MP3 should ALWAYS cut off at 16 KHz to reduce as much artifacts as possible.

>>51595089
yea I cant tell the difference in the low/mid range area though I think that sounds the same

>>51595187
You literally can't tell 192 opus from flac in all frequencies. Opus cuts off 20 KHz fyi.

>>51595184
>MP3 should ALWAYS cut off at 16 KHz to reduce as much artifacts as possible.
No that's not how it works. The cutoff frequency depends on the bitrate. I believe 320 kbps cuts off around 18-19 KHz.

>>51594062
>>51594868
>>51595022
During daytime, I hear the birds tweeting.
At night, I hear bats making all kinds of noises.
Infidels, like you, can't even imagine the pleasure that I get from listening to quality FLAC music.

I'm an audiophile, and I'm proud of it.

>>51595234
>>51595184
Auto 320CBR LAME does at 20kHz.

>>51595090
MP3 is already shit at encoding 20 - 16,000 Hz frequencies. Forcing it to encode up to 22 Khz will cause a massive influx of audible artifacts.

>>51595184
>You know this makes MP3 artifacts worse right? MP3 should ALWAYS cut off at 16 KHz to reduce as much artifacts as possible.
False. That what you see in my screenshot >>51595042 are some custom settings, which results in abut 280kbps files (VBR). V0 is also VBR and looks nearly and sounds identical. I think LAME developers know enough what they're doing.

>>51593315
I was referring to the fallacy that you need fancy equipment in codec listening. That's the first excuse you hear from people who claim to hear differences.

>>51593454
What? Yes, human auditory memory is only a few seconds long hence why in codec listening you just do a snippet of a full song and quickly switch between the two samples. The ABX addon for foobar2000 lets you do just that. Pick any song and any part of it to do the test. I always do best with like a 5 second cut of a problematic part of a song if I want to ABX.

>>51593848
Why don't you test it? Seriously, just test it. Post results with the log file and the files you used to ABX here and I'll promise to test it too.

And who made the argument "mp3 cuz smaller filesizes"? Oh yeah that's right, nobody.

I still only download lossless yet I don't hope to hear the difference between them and a properly encoded lossy file. I do it to save an original copy for archiving which I can then transcode for whatever format I want to in the future to use in portable devices for example. And I also avoid most of the terrible lossy transcodes by just downloading lossless.

>>51594749
Because like nothing is released in opus format.

>>51593915
No. SSDs aren't and never were a meme. FLAC is placebo only if you make the claim of its audible superiority to a properly encoded lossy file without proving it. FLAC is a fantastic format but for some reason people have this idea that it's audibly better than anything lossy, which it isn't.

File: stop fucking lyin'.png (277KB, 463x597px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 463x597px

>>51592909
>i can tell the difference between flac an 320 mp3

>>51593314
I can easily hear right up to 19.5 KHz. Not sure if my speaker or my ears are the limit there, they're only rated for 20Hz - 20 KHz. I'm 28.

>mfw I complain about noise at work and everyone else claims they can't hear it, and say they can't do anything about it because 'it isn't there'.

>plays a 320kbps song at high volume
>high frequencies kinda "crunch" and sound awful
>play a FLAC version of the same song, 1046kbps
>flawless
>tries several releases of the song
>same result

>>51593217
Compatibility you autistic piece of shit.

>>51595771
>320kbps
Retard, CBR should only be used for compatibility reasons these days. And because you have proven to be this incompetent, that's placebo at best.

>>51595809
>CBR
I have no idea what that means.
I don't know a lot about tech or shit, but I know what I like and I seem to think that FLAC sounds better than MP3, in every case. And that's a fact.

>>51595769
>can hear up to 19.5khz
>im 28
Thats fucking bullshit because a healthy 25 year old adult male can only hear up to 17khz and that's natural hearing loss

>>51595850
>I have no idea what that means.
Ofcourse, most audiophiles are mentally reduced.

>>51595850
Make a playlist with mp3 and FLAC, randomise it, don't look (just hit the next key) and write down what you think it is.

>>51595870
Well I just fired up a frequency generator and tested myself. Either that thing is bugged or my ears simply are better than yours.

>>51594894
Perfectly possible given you didn't state the encoder or settings used for the mp3 file.

>>51594938
>That's because MP3 cuts off frequencies above 16 Khz
mp3 goes up to at least 20.5kHz. This depends on the mp3 encoder you used and the bitrate you used, too. At 320kbps with mp3 using LAME 3.99.5 for example there's still plenty information beyond 20kHz on some tracks. It's useless though as nobody can hear them even alone as sine tones in controlled environment. Let alone while listening to music.

>>51594749
mp3 > opus

>>51594749
>>51595042
Why are you mongs posting spectrograms? What are you trying to tell with them?

>>51593119
>>51593119
>>51593119
>>51593119
This.
Everybody just fuck off.

>>51593314
you can hear them, you just don't experience them conciously. mp3 is made in such a way that it cuts off any low volume >32KHz samplerates. if you completely lowpass all the sound above 16KHz waves,however, you will be able to tell quite a difference.

the difference between 320 and lossless makes practically no difference for listening purposes. MP3 has been configured in such a way that it's acceptable to use for normal people. When you get into sound editing of course, you probably shouldn't use it.

It's the same deal with JPEG.

I can ABX FLAC vs 320 on most sources with around 80% accuracy, but I can't always tell which is FLAC. I just know that it sounds different, and if there's a difference, then listening to 320 is going to bother the fuck out of me, since I don't know what the music "really" sounds like.

I wish I could stick to 320, I've only got so much storage space.

>>51595986
OPUS is shit

>>51595986
frequency range

note the opus said it was 48KHz samplerate yet it only went up to 20KHz waves.

In case anybody wants to test their hearing, here's a python script.

import numpy as np
import scipy.io.wavfile

frequencies = np.linspace (10000, 20000, 21)
for f in frequencies:
    y = np.linspace (0, 10, 441000)
    y = np.sin (6.2832 * f * y)
    scipy.io.wavfile.write ('sine_'+str(int(f))+'.wav', 44100, y)

requires numpy, scipy, generates 21 *.wav files with sines of a frequency in the name in Hz.

Highest I can confidently hear is 16.5 kHz, at 25.

>>51596076
>It's the same deal with JPEG.
Literally not the same thing or even comparable. You can clearly differentiate even the most loosely compressed JPEG from a raw image file format side by side with 1:1 pixel mapping. Not to mention if you just switch between them having the exact same pixels instantly switch between the compressed and the original file. While our brain plays "connect the dots" with all the senses we have, vision isn't easily fooled.

Lossy audio is more than "acceptable" for listening purposes; it's transparent from lossless. 320k mp3 is certainly transparent.

>>51596152
And you see it how in a spectrogram which literally tells nothing about transparency? Opus is the best lossy format from bitrates as low as 48kbps and up and even at the lowest settings, it's still very good. Too bad about the poor support right now but I think it'll get a lot better.

>>51596160
Are you even familiar with the Nyquist sampling theorem or Opus as a codec? Fullband Opus is always 48kHz. This means that the highest possible frequency that file could store would be exactly half of that, 24kHz. Opus' audio bandwidth "only" goes up to 20kHz. It simply cuts anything above 20kHz as it's completely inaudible to us no matter the content, gear, listening conditions or the person listening.

>>51596208
I'm 23, I can gear 18 kHz. I can't hear anything at (or above) 19 kHz though.

18 kHz I can hear it quite loud (not very loud like let's say 1-10 kHz, but loud enough), and it makes me a bit dizzy.

File: 1446232671851 - Copy.jpg (2MB, 10000x5681px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 10000x5681px

>>51596152
OPUS is The shit tbqh(to be quite honest)
ftfm (fixed that for myself)

>>51592909
Flac preserves high end transients much better. Mp3 works by "deleting" weak frequencies adjacent to stronger ones, and this can result in washiness in the mp3. Some will complain that cymbals etc sound tinnier on mp3,and that's just because you're hearing that 12k+ range properly.

File: sensitivity_main_chart.jpg (282KB, 640x500px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 640x500px

>>51596208
I tested mine on that audiocheck site and my hearing cuts right above 18kHz.

>>51596410
>18 kHz I can hear it quite loud (not very loud like let's say 1-10 kHz, but loud enough)
Pic related, human ears' sensitivity to frequencies on different sound pressure levels. It's supposed to get drastically more silent in the highest frequencies.

>>51596208
>>51596410
what I used:
http://mdf1.tripod.com/test-tones.html

>>51596462
That's true for any highly compressed lossy file and untrue for any decent modern encoder once you crank up the bitrate.

>>51596486
very low quality test wavs desu senpai

>>51596472
>human ears' sensitivity to frequencies on different sound pressure levels. It's supposed to get drastically more silent in the highest frequencies.
It is a lot more silent than lower frequencies, but is noticeable loud. I can's say that I would not notice it, or that it would not bother me in background. And it's not just a hiss. I used AIMP and WASAPI Exclusive at 44100 Hz output, no effects or anything like that was enabled.
However 19000 Hz is dead silent. I wonder if it's just the sound card.headphones that can't reproduce it or simply I can't hear it. I don't have anything in between 18 and 19 kHz unfortumnately to test.

>>51597004
>very low quality test wavs
What do you mean?

>>51597052
>I can's say that I would not n
*I can't ...

kek
senpaitachi

I use FLAC because I have the space
:)

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/11/the-audiophile-world-of-cashed-up-middle-aged-white-dudes/

original wave file:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58768661/test.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58768661/test.flac
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58768661/test.mp3

listen to this with proper equipment

>>51592909
right one is transcode

>>51596486
yes, it's very apparent to me that I'm able to feel 20000Hz at high volumes although it gets uncomfortable very quickly
this test should have gone up to 24000Hz though since that can debunk the entire 44.1 vs 48KHz thing.

Does anyone have any idea why
Flac --- > 320 conversion takes more time than
Flac ----> V0 even when the same encoder (LAME) is being used in both conversions.

>>51599187
because V0 will usually be a bitrate lower than 320 whenever it doesn't "need" to be.

>>51593314
Top kek faggot you didn't pay attention to your ears and now you regret

>21 here can hear up to ~18,700kHz

Am i the only one who can't tell the difference between a V0 a 320 and FLAC on my 2$ chink earphones.

>>51592909
>meme50
>brainwavz pads that alter the sound
>"premium cables"
>I "feel" like FLAC is superior to 320 mp3's. Like, in the bass and punchiness region.

I would say bait but this is honestly the kind of gullible pleb that has been infecting /g/ lately.

File: 123123123123123.jpg (3KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x160px

>>51599481

you won't be able to tell. you need at least ah-d7000 or somethinh higher with a good amp and perfect source material. i like m50's but they're $90 phones that went way up in price due to hype.

>>51599481
no, that's everyone on earth. in the vast majority of cases you won't be able to tell the difference between flac or any other format unless you tank the bitrate.

>>51593315
If you have good audio equipment and you're using anything other than Uncompressed CD Audio you're a scrub period

>>51593188
>>51593315
>talks about good equipment
>has M50x and some other entry babby shit
lol

Also your image in the OP indicates a loss of high frequencies, that has nothing to do with bass being punchy you utter fuckwit.

>>51596124
I'm sure you can and I'm sure for some reason you can produce consistent results in foobar's ABX plugin to back up your claim.

>>51600751
I'd post some screenshots if I were at home, senpai.

I have done well in blind listening tests, but the differences are miniscule to my (tinnitus plagued) ears. Again, to my ears it also depends heavily on the type of music.

It's not really worth it going flac for everything because guess what, music makes your mind wander. You're not listening and analytically the whole time. So a high quality mp3 is absolutely fine for listening. I dunno go lossless for your favorites or if you're worried about archiving, encoding and stuff.

>>51602645
>You're not listening and analytically
*intently and analytically

>>51602645
>people still trying to push the 'audible difference' meme when there is no legible prove and not a single study with differences confidently identified
You can believe whatever the fuck you want but don't go spreading your own misinformation.

FLAC vs 320 depends heavily on the source music. Pop Taytay? Who the fuck cares, 160 is enough for that. Full symphony orchestra? Now you're talking. 320 absolutely cuts down on the complex harmonics, and I've ABX'd it just fine. Of course, it's not an enormous difference if you're just skipping through Spotify but

>$100 4TB drives
>FLAC costs space!

lol. MP3 encoders have been improving...FLAC was perfect to begin with.

I have only FLAC albums, should I switch to mp3?

>>51602689
>and I've ABX'd it just fine
Prove it.

>muh harmonics
>guiz i swear i can hear 24khz!

>>51595917
testing high frequencies is subjective at best, a driver will typically produce a lot of noise and harmonics on top of the frequency you queue in.
On top of this room acoustics, enclosure acoustics, etc can all produce variations.

The only real way to test for your ears frequency limit is to have a completely isolated tweeter checked against the tone signal with a spectrum analyzer, and all of it needs to be as transparent as possible to ensure the production is accurate and not making loads of unwanted noise.

that 19.5khz signal might be making a shit ton of variation as it goes through the system to speaker, and who knows what as it bounces around the room.

File: 1439456686078.jpg (28KB, 464x464px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 464x464px

>>51602739

I don't get whats the discussion about, if you have the space then collect lossless music in your library

>>51602693
archive flac, and keep mp3 on pc

Archive in lossless, listen to archive on PC, listen to OPUS on portable master race.

>>51595870
well to be fair to this guy, I'm 26 and can distinguish 17.5khz from 17khz (on my system), but anything above 17.5 is dead.

>>51602862
This is indeed the master race.

>>51602862
>listen to archive on PC
?

>>51603068
If you have FLAC on your computer, why not listen to it anyways?

Save the lossy formats for your phone, mp3 player, etc.

>>51602862
what is recommended setting to encode in opus format?

File: 5778036279_ae0fb773b6_b.jpg (169KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1024x768px

>>51602739
>complex harmonics
>24khz sine wave

What is it with you hz fags, waveform is independent of frequency and THAT is what compression alters.

Jesus Christ, did everyone skip the 6th grade?

http://onlinetonegenerator.com/

>>51603135
>thinking there's an audible difference between a good quality lossy encode and lossless
Let me guess you dropped science in favor of religious studies.

>>51603122
It depends on the context. Generally though you want the highest complexity setting, and then VBR X kbps, where X is directly related to the file size you want. If you want max space savings with minimal or imperceptible loss in sound quality, 120 kbps or greater is a good setting. 92 and down is where artifacts can become quite noticeable depending on your ears and equipment.

>>51603156
>thinking meme assumptions are science

http://imgur.com/a/lHnP3

>>51593236
I just keep flacs around to encode good quality mp3s

>>51603210
>thinking meme graphs are science
>thinking your baseless claims are science
There is absolutely no evidence on this planet to suggest there is a consistently audible difference between good lossy encodes and lossless.

SMUG ANIME SLUT

Wasn't there a guy who basically put out a bet like this, where if you could tell the difference, you'd be given a million dollars, and no one has done it successfully? Honestly it'd be pretty cool to find some super humans.

>>51603247
>"complex harmonics!"
>rejecting waveform distortion
>"no audible differences!"
>rejecting averaged ABX results
>"There is absolutely no evidence"

Motherfucker, you're about as innovative as Ahmed Ackbar.

>>51603314
the difference exists, but human audio memory is only about 2 seconds long so you'll never be able to compare. It's like when you have a pair of headphones that aren't broken or anything and a pair in the same price range that also aren't broken and you have to take one off to try on the other and by then you've already forgotten what it is the first pair "had" in terms of sound quality

>>51603381
>averaged ABX results
lol there is absolutely no consistency in them

>>51603314
That's a whole different bunch of bullshit about audiophile cables. There no actual argument over that except for the companies shilling their products.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ars-prepares-to-put-audiophile-ethernet-cables-to-the-test-in-las-vegas/

>>51603135
What's up with this tone generator, why do frequencies have different loudness and why are some louder in different channels

At this point I'm convinced audiophiles are more delusional than Scientologists.

>>51603484
Unbalanced frequency response of your equipment most likely.

>>51603390
>thinking compression is always linearly consistent in quality perception

Jebus fuck, kill yourself. Just kill yourself, there's no point carrying on the neanderthal line.

>>51599333
It all depends on the person, I have "perfect hearing" and it starts about 18,400Khz

some hear better than others that is just nature of human, but what is important is, is FLAC better than MP3 for music playback.

>>51603383
If that was the case then no ABX test would ever be successful, no matter the differences in what you're comparing, but obviously there are very strong successes in most cases where there should be a perceivable difference. Your analogy doesn't make sense either in this context since it's possible to switch without you knowing it was switched, and you can also do that in under two seconds.

>>51603491
I was thinking that but man it's seriously fucking unbalanced

>>51603497
>thinking you can hear such minuscule differences.
Just because it can be measured doesn't mean you can hear it.

>>51603491
I'm convinced /g/ is just full of retards really.

>>51603542
Compared to fully subjectivist places like Head-Fi and 6moon reviews? Unlikely.

>>51603573
It doesn't have to be compared to anything you know. A community can just have retarded people. But I would say some places like the sound science sub-forum on head-fi aren't that bad. Hydrogen audio is a good place, but it's not a very active place.

>>51603516
>"no effect"
>effect
>"no evidence"
>evidence
>"humans can't hear it"
>I just linked averaged ABX results, nigger

What did I just tell you to do?

>>51603484

Welcome to the concept of waveforms, motherfucker.

http://onlinetonegenerator.com/frequency-sweep-generator.html

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiofrequencysignalgenerator_sinetone.php

>>51603641
Sound science is still pretty retarded since they're still head-fiers and outside the subforum they engage in the placebo memery that is the rest of the website.

Hydrogenaudio is good, diyAudio is good, basically all the objectivist-sided sites are much better.

>>51603661
>inconclusive ABX results
>relevant to anything
Stop posting.

File: hqdefault.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>51592909
>Premium cables

File: Tone-Winner-SC-6-Speakers-Cables.jpg (267KB, 710x517px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 710x517px

>>51603726
:^)

>>51603661
Sweeps is what they play when testing frequency response, right? What kind of length or volume though?

>>51602689
Bullshit. Classical music compresses extremely well and requires less bitrate most of the time.

>>51603691
It's conclusive that compression can affect genres differently. Vinyl is probably worse than any of these, yet a segment of people enjoy the artifacts of the medium, just like image filters technically degrade quality but are used all the time. I never said compression=bad, merely that transparency of 320 is not assured under all conditions. And given that storage space is dirt cheap and playback conditions vary wildly, I simply do not see the point in pushing this 320 meme.

File: 1365739224039.gif (1MB, 320x181px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x181px

>>51604032
>can affect genres differently

>pushing this 320 meme
>says the idiot trying to push the "FLAC sounds better" meme

>>51604053
>bullshit about science and conclusivity
>can only cite reaction gifs

>>51604275
You're posting "ABX" tests where participants were told to choose which one they liked best. This wasn't a test to identify audible differences between lossless and lossy and is based entirely on the preferences of the listener.

It's completely irrelevant.

>>51604323
Motherfucker, how could they choose if there weren't audible differences? The result would be totally random, which it isn't. You're just changing the goalposts, first it was

>there's no audible difference

now it's

>difference is preference based

Which is already explained with the vinyl comparison.

What's relevant is that people can tell a difference; whether or not that difference is better or worse is irrelevant. At this point, even you've abandoned the transparency meme.

>>51604430
>Motherfucker, how could they choose if there weren't audible differences?
Wait are you actually trying to say that the shit posted here >>51603210 is credible?

There's absolutely no methodology described at all, and it is perfectly that the difference in averages at the bottom is a statistically non-significant result mean that it is, in fact, completely random. Post some actual science instead of pretty graphs.

>>51604430
>You're just changing the goalposts
No I'm not, the goal is still perceivable differences.

>The result would be totally random, which it isn't.
If there was a clear audible difference, FLAC would have been consistently chosen in every test.

Don't start with this DIFFERENT GENRES meme bullshit.

That test does not at all prove a difference can be told between high bitrate MP3 and FLAC.

The fact that 128kbps was more desirable than 320 in one of the tests clearly shows it has fuck all to do with distinguishing the differences between lossless and good lossy encodes. You can seriously stop posting your nonsense and fuck off forever now.

>>51592909
>Am i rite or am i wong?

It's placebo. High quality MP3s should be only missing very high frequencies that you can't hear (unless you have dog ears). Not bass.

I bought the m50x. Will I be able to hear the difference? I can hear at least 17000hz if that matters.

>>51604670
>meme50x
lol those are not good

>>51604670
>Will I be able to hear the difference?
No and the m50x are niggabass cans so it'll sound like shit either way.

>>51604500
Not that guy and I don't give a fuck about 320 vs flac, but you missed his argument completely. Choosing 128kbps over the others doesn't mean they thought it was lossless, it means they liked the artifacting, just like people like vinyl or film grain.

Let's be honest, for a lot of pop music, a lower fidelity helps more than it hurts.

>>51604693
>>51604701
I use the ath m40x I demoed them and the 50s in the store and the 50s have exaggerated bass compared to the 40s

but the 50 are more expensive

literally retarded

Newfag here, why hasn't /g/ just done a mass ABX test of this?

>>51604775
>Choosing 128kbps over the others doesn't mean they thought it was lossless, it means they liked the artifacting, just like people like vinyl or film grain.
His point was that it was evidence of a perceivable difference between 320 and FLAC, which it wasn't.

I already mentioned the preference part of it, which he refuted.

Vinyl is literally to listen to music if you're serious about music and not just a poseur.

>>51604794
Yeah, M40x is miles better. It's mostly because the M50x are a a huge reddit meme that get recommended everywhere so uninformed consumers think they're good.

>>51604816
Enjoy your pops, clicks and distortion.

FLAC should be kept because far in the future golden-ears muties like OP will out-breed us

>>51604838
Digital couldn't even capture the pops and click

Meh, I don't get all the drama. It's not like we're buying storage by the MB anymore. If FLAC=320kbps, what's wrong with using FLAC? Most people can't tell jpeg from RAW or 3.5GB rips from Bluray, but you wouldn't throw out your DSLR and HDTV.

>>51604819
yea what gets me is theyre marketed as studio headphones

it is kind of like krk rokit brand monitors they aren't really true sounding

>>51604920
FLAC is better than mp3 because it respects your freedoms.

>>51604872
How do you think Vinyl rips work?

>>51604935
KRKs and M-Audios are absolutely disgusting.

If you honestly think that I will delete my lossless MFSL collection for sake of "smaller" mp3, then think again.

>>51604920
The problem here is

- people try to imply FLAC 'sound better'
- this stupidity leads manufacturers to add shit like FLAC playback on portable devices with limited storage
- let's not even get into the DSD meme

>>51604954
Fuck freedom, FLAC is too big, not everyone have 512 GB HDD

>>51605031
FLAC is perfectly mathematically representation of original CD content and it has be praised, archived and being enjoyed when listening.

>>51605049
Isn't a 512 GB HDD like $20 these days?

>>51592909
>premium cables
you had me going there for a sec

>>51605089
I have 128 GB HDD

>>51605285
Nigga 1TB is like $50.
http://www.amazon.com/Green-1TB-Desktop-Hard-Drive/dp/B006GDVREI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1448854375&sr=8-3&keywords=1+terabyte+hard+drive

File: sd.jpg (101KB, 642x242px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 642x242px

>>51605031
>people try to imply FLAC 'sound better'
so what, people imply crap all the time

>this stupidity leads manufacturers to add shit like FLAC playback on portable devices with limited storage

I might be more amenable to this argument if pic related weren't a thing. Even with FLAC, that's enough for a whole week's worth of music, and that's nowhere near the largest capacity mSD.

>muh limited storage phone

That's a whole separate level of fuckery.

>let's not even get into the DSD meme

I suspect that, just like 24/192, there's advantages to that during the mixing and mastering process well before the product reaches the end user. Most SACDs are more notable less for the 'SA' part (multiple channels aside) than for the fact that somebody went back to source and did a better remastering than the older CD.

>>51605322
I use wav only but things flac has over wav

taggings , smaller file space

they sound the same too

>>51605322
>did a better remastering than the older CD
Nah. A bunch of SACD releases are brickwalled crap anyway. Most of the time, the original master is the best.

>>51605322
on that single card I can hold my whole library (I don't hoard)

File: obc.jpg (2MB, 2841x2857px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2841x2857px

>>51605397
mah nigga

>>51605412
In FLAC, it's really easy to go over that. But with lossy it should be more than enough.

I listen to flac on PC and save MP3s for the phone.

Why is this a debate? Everyone fuck off already.

>>51605397
Depends heavily on the material. Most of the SACDs I have are from the Living Stereo collection, some of the older releases of those recordings literally sound like some dude playing the vinyl into a mic.

>>51605397
literally every remaster I heard was worse I cant even think of one that was better without looking it up

>>51596004
>>51593119
What if I never need to rip my music into another format?

>>51605656
do you like to tag your music

do you have a lot of space

are you a raging faggot

these are the things we need to know before we can recommend your optimized file type

subjectively, FLAC > mp3, whether you can "hear the difference" or not

>>51605702
>at least 2x as much disk space
No.

inb4 storage is so cheap just go out and buy a ton of HDDs

>>51605679
>these are the things we need to know before we can recommend your optimized file type
But why?

>>51605717
Audio is incredibly tiny and negligible in size.

>>51605735
No.

>>51605735
1 track in wav format can be over 100mb easy if its over 8 minutes

>>51605768
Maybe, but FLAC is negligible. A song that's ~22 min is 132.6 MiB for me.

>>51605717
Say what you want, but you can't subjectively say that lossy is better than lossless.

>storage
People are still complaining about storage space? in 2015?
1TB Hard Drives were being sold at $50 on Black Friday

>>51605782
>you can't subjectively say that lossy is better than lossless
Of course you can. Do you know what that word means.

>>51605780
yea its barely smaller but it adds up if you have a huge library in what you save even if it is small in reality

>>51605717
Look from different point of view

CD with 700 MB+ storage in 1980's was like tech from aliens back in a day compared to what you could get to save your data on for example.

With time and digital progression, mp3 was introduced to help with overloaded WAV's files that was just too huge for HDD's back in 2005 (or earlier)

Currently we have for pennies TB of space available in our slim HDD, free amount of GB space on online hosting services or net speed that increase with each year.

The point is that everyone should make a step forward and archive their favorite music and listen without any compromises if possible.

>>51605801
If you have a huge library, it's still going to be small. A few games, for example, will take up more space.

>>51605796
fuck I meant objectively
whatever, enjoy this meme face

:^ )

>>51605817
You still can.

File: 1419971751621.png (8KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x400px

>>51605806
>inb4 storage is so cheap just go out and buy a ton of HDDs


>Currently we have for pennies TB of space available in our slim HDD, free amount of GB space on online hosting services or net speed that increase with each year

>>51592909
>320kb/s??!?!

It is not. That's easier a transcode or some super obscure encoder.

>Am i rite or am i wong?
Most likely incorrect/placebo. FLAC has a higher listening floor but most humans can't hear it. 320 cuts off at a certain frequency but is 90-95% similar to FLAC up to that point.

>>51593153
in terms of hearing

>>51595870
>that's fucking bullshit!!!
you are not everyone

>>51594749
>all that audio data going byebye


See you at 400 replies fuckboys

>>51605854
Storage is dirt cheap just go buy some you jew

>>51605812
so true though like some games are ridiculous in size xcom enemy unknown with the dlc is 20 gb and it isn't even a great game imo

probably the biggest file size for a cd length album (75 minutes) in wav I remember downloading was like 1.2 gb

>>51605876
Are you daft?

>>51605854
its still cheap

>>51593592
i heard all three, and went a little further to about 18.5khz. anything more than that (like 19kHz), i wasn't able to distinguish sadly

>>51605882
Are you poor?

>>51605905
Epic argument there bro! You sure showed me.

You literally gave me zero reasons why I should use lossless if I don't need/want to archive my music. Why don't you just admit there are none?

File: flac.jpg (11KB, 94x119px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 94x119px

>>51592909
>Am i rite or am i wong?
You are right. I like FLAC icon better. (looks comfy)

>>51605936
I really do like the icon

tfw winkek and the blue music note wav icon

>>51605878
That's still pretty fucking tiny.

Pretty much any MMO is going to be 35+gb (I think my WoW install, since I hadn't reformatted through 3 expansions, was over 100gb).

Hell a modded Skyrim that actually had good texture packs was over 50gb (and used upwards of 10gb of RAM).

My unmodded, early-release install of Ark: Survival Evolved is around 45gb and its map is half the size of Skyrim.

>>51605928
Use it or don't, who cares. Fill your ear canals with gum for all I care.

>>51605928
I'm not the
>>51605876
>>51605884
>>51605905
btw
I reply forward from
>>51605806
>You literally gave me zero reasons why I should use lossless if I don't need/want to archive my music.

If you don't want to archive anything then you pretty much are flexible to only format you stick to, however its quite shattering if you have something really you love and don't even want have digital copy of 1:1 in your collection, further more FLAC is a future proof format, if there will be even more efficient compression or other lossless format on the horizon to re encode later on without any loss.

File: 1431483897881.jpg (54KB, 454x343px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 454x343px

>>51605993
>exposed as a faggot retard who can't back up his argument
>goes into full on damage control mode

>>51605965
There is nothing that holds you off from installing foobar2000 music player (there is even nice dark green icon for OGG/Opus)

>>51605991
yea soon you will need a dedicated gaming drive for sure if you already don't

I think gta 5 was like 50-60 gb on pc but I don't have it myself because I don't realy game much anymore

>>51606053
Its 50-60-100-200 GB because of the high resolution texture.

Wait till 4K will be world wide standard then you it will be 2005 all over again.

>>51606031
my favorite thing about foobar is the spectrogram and how much you can customize it

I usually use it but I reformatted recently and haven't gotten to installing anything besides my most important shit

>>51606092
for you*

>>51606092
I don't want to ever experience 2003-2007 for computers again

I remember it was gay as fuck

>>51606132
Ready for 4K 60 FPS Blu-Ray movies?

Lossy 128bit mp3 sounds better to normies because 24fps vs 60 fps video.

>>51606021
>Arguing over MB in an era of TB
>Has space for shitty memes
>Jew

>>51606145
Frog poster without frog

>>51606143
tfw I don't even have 1080p monitor

File: tfw.png (125KB, 316x399px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 316x399px

>>51606175
tfw I have a 1680x1050 monitor

>>51606148
>>Arguing over MB in an era of TB
That's you faggot, not me.

You still haven't given me a real reason yet.

>>51606198
I have 1440 x 900 to be exact and theres a dead pixel too

JUST

>>51592909
>shit m50x
>pointless shit soundcard
>pointless amp
>pointless cables
>flac makes muh bass more punchy

Just die OP.

File: Untitled-3.png (3MB, 1999x1071px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1999x1071px

pic related desu senpai

>>51606198
>>51606240
Shit niggas get it together

>>51606198
I upgraded to 1680x1050 from 1280x1024, before jumping to 1080p.

File: FB_IMG_1447058101572.jpg (10KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x200px

>not listening to superior vinyl analog recordings.

>>51606946
im trying senpai desu

I spent all my money on audio equipment

Just whatever you do, don't fall for the opus @ 128 Kbps meme, there's a clear audible difference. Even 192 has some issues.

>inb4 you can't tell the difference with your crappy music

>>51606969
I went from 1680x1050 to 1440x900, and then to 1600x1200.
Crt was worth it.

Some say it's placebo, some say there is a difference. It really depends on the genre or music and how it was produced and mastered.

depends on the file. most people won't hear the difference with their mediocre computer speakers but if you have a good high end system you'll definitely notice there is problem in the highs with hq compressed formats.

so not everybody will hear or care about flac vs 320 but it's not placebo either

skimmed through the thread but did anyone mention rotational velocity yet?

i need a good kek

>>51592909
>not using FLAC as an archiving medium
>believing FLAC sounds better

Not even i did that, OP.