Finally got muh M50x's and some HM5 Brainwavz angled pads and a xonar soundcard and a O2 as well as premium cables. Going through muh music library and doing tests, I "feel" like FLAC is superior to 320 mp3's. Like, in the bass and punchiness region.
Am i rite or am i wong?
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.
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.
2poor for good equipment / chain, bro?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Flyback frequency is just below 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,
That's not how that works.
>i won't be able to "remember" what I'm hearing in those tests, so it'll be pointless. Those tests are pointless.
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
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?
its the best tho tbqh famm
kill urself kuck
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.
>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.
8/8 b8 I r8 8/8
>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.
There's that word again, chump.
Go back to your containment thread gramps.
I did two days ago, it makes a very sharp cutoff right above 18kHz. 25 years old or something.
>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.
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
>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.
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.
>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!
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Coin flip probability, post logs and timescale.
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.
>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.
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?
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
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.
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.
>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.
Why would you even consider FLAC when Opus is superior?
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.
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
>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?
It's not an edit, retard. Yuou can enable or disable filters at your will.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>i can tell the difference between flac an 320 mp3
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'.
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.
Perfectly possible given you didn't state the encoder or settings used for the mp3 file.
>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.
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.
In case anybody wants to test their hearing, here's a python script.import numpy as np
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
OPUS is The shit tbqh(to be quite honest)
ftfm (fixed that for myself)
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.
I tested mine on that audiocheck site and my hearing cuts right above 18kHz.
>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.
>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.
original wave file:
listen to this with proper equipment
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.
>brainwavz pads that alter the sound
>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.
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.
>talks about good equipment
>has M50x and some other entry babby shit
Also your image in the OP indicates a loss of high frequencies, that has nothing to do with bass being punchy you utter fuckwit.
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.
>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.
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.
>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?
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.
>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.
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.
>rejecting waveform distortion
>"no audible differences!"
>rejecting averaged ABX results
>"There is absolutely no evidence"
Motherfucker, you're about as innovative as Ahmed Ackbar.
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
That's a whole different bunch of bullshit about audiophile cables. There no actual argument over that except for the companies shilling their products.
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.
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.
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.
>"humans can't hear it"
>I just linked averaged ABX results, nigger
What did I just tell you to do?
Welcome to the concept of waveforms, motherfucker.
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.
>inconclusive ABX results
>relevant to anything
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.
>can affect genres differently
>pushing this 320 meme
>says the idiot trying to push the "FLAC sounds better" meme
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.
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
>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.
>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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
>at least 2x as much disk space
inb4 storage is so cheap just go out and buy a ton of HDDs
>these are the things we need to know before we can recommend your optimized file type
Say what you want, but you can't subjectively say that lossy is better than lossless.
People are still complaining about storage space? in 2015?
1TB Hard Drives were being sold at $50 on Black Friday
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.
>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
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.
in terms of hearing
>that's fucking bullshit!!!
you are not everyone
>all that audio data going byebye
See you at 400 replies fuckboys
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
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?
>Am i rite or am i wong?
You are right. I like FLAC icon better. (looks comfy)
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.
I'm not the
I reply forward from
>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.
>exposed as a faggot retard who can't back up his argument
>goes into full on damage control mode
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
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
>not listening to superior vinyl analog recordings.
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