>tfw I can actually hear the difference between 320kbps mp3

Probably. Do double blind tests if you care.

>>56307515
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=ABX

If you know which is which before you start playing the music, of course you'll notice a difference

>>56307515
Based Botswana

>>56307515
On speakers? 100% placebo. Might be bad encoding(bitrate alone doesn't guarantee quality) try converting from FLAC to 320 yourself and listen again.

>>56307615
Dude. There is insane difference between bass of Sussudio in flac and mp3. It is borderline unlistenable in mp3. I noticed it was better in goddamn Youtube. Or could it be that flac and youtube apparently use Hits album that could be remastered? Hmm.

Spotify has only remastered versions that sound aboutish same as that good Sussudio FLAC so I can't run quick comparison.

>listening to modern shit music with no dynamic range
This is why most people think flac is useless. Even 320kbps mp3 fails when you start listening to real music.

>>56307675
>I noticed it was better in goddamn Youtube.
Hahahaha ok dude.

>I like it more == better quality

>>56307675
>better on youtube
Obviously the difference between flac and 320kpbs mp3 is noticeable if the mp3 is from shitty source.

Is it actually 320kbps mp3 and not a conversion from lower bitrate?

>>56307675
>Or could it be that flac and youtube apparently use Hits album that could be remastered?

Take a minute and actually think. Youtube doesn't exactly have the highest quality compression algorithms out there. You're literally comparing files from two different sources and saying "Wow, I can't believe FLAC is so much better!"

For fuck's sake, it's like comparing a jpg taken with a $100 point and shoot to a raw image taken with a $1000 DSLR and saying "Oh wow, I can't believe how much jpg compression ruins images! Even screenshot I took of the raw image and copied into paint looks better!"

>>56308281
Youtube only goes up to 192kbps AAC

>>56307675
>>56308386