>tfw fell for the FLAC meme So much hard drive space taken

>>57786365
kill yourself retard

>>57786365
That's because you need $800 bulgarian headphones and cables made from wooly mammoth urethra, dumbass

>>57786380
Give me one reason, just ONE, why Flac is better than 320 Kbps? I'll wait.

>>57786404
Because its flac

But can you tell the difference between 320kb/s MP3, and 96kb/s OPUS? I definitely can (it's about 3 times as small), which is why FLAC is better because I can convert it to OPUS without unnecessary artifacts.

>>57786365
Maybe you can't tell right now, but over time those mp3s are going to lose bits and begin to sound awful.

>>57786365
>Talks about HDD space
>Can't tell the difference
>320
>Not V0
>Could literally type a one liner to convert all his music but bitches on a Himalayan martial arts forum
Install Gentoo then kill yourself

stream flacs with tidal, idiot

There is no audible difference between FLAC and 320kbps.
There are other reasons one would download FLAC.
OP, of course, downloaded all FLAC because he felt like his peers were telling him to, and that it must be 'better'.
And, as is common on the autism spectrum, he becomes extremely disgruntled and distressed when things dont go like he expects them to.
also lmao poorfagz cant afford diskspace looooool :^^^^))))

>>57786458
>Himalayan martial arts forum
kek

>>57786365
lol flac cucks btfo

>audiophiles

>>57786365
>I can't even tell the different between this and 320kbs
you probably can't tell the difference between FLAC and 256kbps, or maybe even 192kbps. most people really cannot hear that well, but on 4chan everyone is a Golden Ears™, 2m tall, 400lb olympic level PowerLifter™ with an IQ of 168 tested no less than 17 different times.

highest quality mp3 i can hear the difference is 192kbps, 224kbps i have no idea. i still like .flac though and i always download flac if i can

>>57786940

> 400lb olympic level PowerLifter™

on his bed

>>57786940
fucking anyone can hear the difference between FLAC and 192. anyone who doesnt suffer from old age or hearing damage.
almost noone can hear the difference between FLAC and 320, though.

>>57786994
>fucking anyone can hear the difference between FLAC and 192
doubt it.
no cheating: http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

>>57786404
archiving purposes and converting to whatever quality you want

File: 1460485894428.png (26KB, 330x585px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 330x585px

>>57786983
DYEL manlet detected.

>>57786423
> he doesn't convert to placebo quality 192kb/s opus

>>57786404
When uploading FLAC to private trackers, you get more ratio

>>57787014
You dont have to be able to discern in a side by side test for the difference to matter, anon.
When I was 13 I listened mostly to music on youtube, and sometimes roughly 192 mp3.
When I switched to mostly downloading music, I suddenly, inexplicably felt like it sounded better. Not that I turned on one specific song and could hear a clear difference, but it just seemed like the music was somehow inexplicably better. I wasnt even aware of audio quality making a difference at the time, so it wouldnt have been placebo either.
I also noticed this later, after taking note of audio quality, when replacing an album with a higher quality version sometimes. Generally from 192 to 320 or flac. I usually COULD Hear a difference, but if I was trying to listen for a noticeable difference, it was only very minor. But listening to the album in full, it somehow just sounded so much better in higher quality, in much the same way as before I was even aware of audio quality.

>>57787112
>It doesn't matter if you objectively cannot hear the difference between 192kbps and FLAC! The placebo effect makes it better!
You're fucking stupid and prove my point.

>>57787135
You apparently cant fucking read.
Discerning in a side by side test is not the only way to be able to 'notice a difference.'
I apparantly experienced this "placebo" before I Even knew what the fuck audio quality was and that it would have any effect on the sound. kys.

>>57787080
>private trackers
>ratio
Another plane of autism on top of being an "audiophile"

>>57786404
>320 Kbps
320 Kbps what?
320 Kbps wha?
wha?

>>57786435
>over time those mp3s are going to lose bits
wut?????

>>57787168
Time and time again studies have shown that people are absolutely awful at remembering things, and those memories can be falsified or changed by experiences in the present. If you can't tell the difference between 192 and FLAC now, then I seriously doubt the experiences you described about the music sounding "inexplicably better" are accurate.

If you cannot tell the difference between one bitrate and another in a blind test, then any difference you hear between the two is solely placebo. Most people cannot hear the difference between 192 and FLAC, and I'll stand by that. Your inability to hear the difference and damage control claims of "but it doesn't matter!" prove this.

Also,
>kys
Back to plebbit.

>>57787234
Why do you think its called lossy?

>>57786404
>Give me one reason
it's not lossy

>so much hard drive space taken up
FLAC isn't much larger than 320kbs CBR MP3. Stop being a peasant drama queen and splurge on a 4TB HDD.

>>57787326
>Wasting space for no reason

>>57787275
>data is lost 'over time'

>>57787235
>nuh uh did not!!!
Well fuck off then.
>If you cannot tell the difference between one bitrate and another in a blind test, then any difference you hear between the two is solely placebo
is fucking retarded, though. You can perceive a difference without consciously noticing it.

while I do agree that the difference between 320kbps and FLAC is negligible, it still is there.

you need decent headphones and a quiet room to truly appreciate flac, but honestly if you just want to listen to your music in good quality 320kbps is just fine

File: IMG_0359.jpg (2MB, 2800x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2800x2100px

You are doing it wrong op. It must be your audio cable setup senpai.

>>57787329
>used space is wasted space
>I'm saving all those expensive gigabytes for something important, i swear!

>>57787335
>You can perceive a difference without consciously noticing it.

that's the placebo effect, retard

>>57787330
>>data is lost 'over time'
What is computer SDRAM

>>57787388
No it isnt you fucking retard. Do you even know what the placebo effect is?
Placebo would be consciously noticing an audible difference because you're imagining it, convincing yourself it would be there.

>>57787394
do you store all your files on RAM?

>>57787394
and what does 'RAM' have to do with data loss 'over time'?

>>57787553
Put data on a ramdisk and turn off your pc

>>57787314
>implying you will ever notice the loss

File: 001.jpg (2MB, 3012x2020px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3012x2020px

>>57786365
MP2 128 Kbps is were it's at

>>57787568
> not owning a pair of 1000€ headphones to notice it

>>57787565
is cutting the power = lapse of time ?
what if power is supplied permanently?

>>57787329
It must trigger you to know the only lossy compressed media I have was distributed that way.

>Mfw I use Bluetooth headphones and stream my music on Spotify

My life has gotten a hundred times better since I stopped caring about if I can hear the drummer fart or not

>>57787330
>What is entropy

>>57787585
>implying you notice it and it's not 100% your autism/placebo

let a not-audiophile-autismus-maximus blind test you
before that happened you can go fuck yourself

>>57786365
320kbs is shit tier though, if you really care about space you use 128kbs opus. You can't hear the difference between 128kbs opus and lossless.

The price of storage is so low that you might as well get everything in flac though.

>>57786435
>data loss is a thing
>implying
>implying implications
you have to be incredibly stupid or naive to believe that
You don't lose a "bit" here and there
that's utter bullshit
if you lost one bit in the wrong place the file would be entirely unreadable
fucking audiphiles being this stupid really triggers me every time I visit /gee/

>>57787636
this
just imagine the disgusting filthy audiophiles sitting in their rooms
the cables hanging in the air so they don't touch the ground
their tube amps doing all kinds of nonsense shit
just sitting there on some cheap chair listening to music, wipping their heads autistically to the beat of some artsy high quality flac song
doing nothing besides that
while every other human on earth just goes on with his life

>>57787908
>imagine someone sitting in their room listening to music
>what a loser autist LMAO
???????

>>57787435
>Placebo would be consciously noticing an audible difference because you're imagining it
Is that not what you did? How could you possibly notice an audible difference subconsciously? Unconsciously? Did you realize it in a dream?

You /consciously noticed/ the difference between the recordings, only at a much later date and after becoming deluded by the audiophile meme, so your memories are inaccurate.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory

>>57787636
>a hundred times better
Jesus anon, you must've cared about that drummer farting a whole heck of a lot.

>>57788010
read it again and don't twist my words this time

>>57787908
You can make these ridiculous statements about any hobby or profession...

That being said,
>their tube amps doing all kinds of nonsense shit
Tubes sound better than digital. They always do. Playing back audio, playing an instrument through a tube amp, etc. It's always better than digital.

>>57788018
No, its not.
>How could you possibly notice an audible difference subconsciously?
What kind of fucking stupid question is this? Feeling like it sounds better and not understanding why. You perceive the difference without consciously realizing 'this has higher audio quality, that must be it.'
>After becoming deluded by the audiophile meme
Oh, aren't you so smart, anon? these losers are all deluding themselves, and here you stand, above them, realizing that its all a sham, reality is the very oppisite of what these autists tell themselves. Keep on, fellow thinker.(drink bleach)
So anyways, yeah, nah cunt. I wasnt aware of the 'audiophile' meme and Im not any 'audiophile' now. I didnt visit any forums for that sorta shit, read any aritcles about FLAC or whatever, and I sure as hell dont post in the headphones threads now.
Anyways, by the point you're resorting to
>NUH UH UR REMEMBERING WRONG UNRELIABLE MEMORY MAN U CANT KNOW WHAT U HEARD
none of it matters anymore. it just boils down to
>your memory is wrong
>no its not
>yes it is
>no its not
etc.

>>57788155
>Feeling like it sounds better and not understanding why.
Doesn't happen lmoa. Didn't read past here.

>>57787771
>before that happened you can go fuck yourself
my dick can't bend like that

>>57788168
>subconsciously noticing something without fully realizing it or knowing what it is, but it having some effects on you perception
>OMG THATS IMPOSSIBLE RETARD
>doesnt happen lmao haha placebo
Noone reasonable would say this. You're in an Internet argument and have decided the other person absolutely must be wrong, no matter what, and thereby memed yourself into perceiving the very idea of perceiving something without consciously noticing it as impossible magical bullshit they're just using to justify something.

>>57786365
Look on the bright side, since you picked flac instead of mp3, you can easily convert them into a superior format like ogg with no loss of perceived quality.

>>57788233
I didn't say it doesn't happen anywhere at all. I said it doesn't happen with music. Did you happen to read the article I linked about your faulty memory?

>>57788267
>ogg
>superior
>Not just using opus

>>57788277
>it doesnt happen with music
>because /g/ listens to flac on expensive headphones, and /G/ AUDIOPHILE MEME MEME AUTISM PLACEBO LMAO KYS PLACEBO
there is literally no reason to suggest it would happen with other things but not with audio.
>did you read the article tho
I already fucking know about this. You seem to be imagining Im an 'audiophile' who plates their computer in gold for muh sound quality and buys the idea of high quality audio and equipment as part of their dogma and identity, so they'd therefore be very ready to retroactively convince themselves of whatever to maintain this.
I've never had more than cursory interaction with 'audiophile' anything. The most 'audiophile' thing I have is a pair of AKGs, because a music reviewer said they last a long time. I dont even look at the audio threads on /g/.

>>57788416
>You seem to be imagining Im an 'audiophile'
If you are not an audiodumb then why are you arguing that not being able to tell the difference between low bitrate recordings and FLAC is irrelevant? Why are you arguing that there is some nebulous factor that influences the perception of music?

>>57788155
New anon.
Your memory is untrustworthy, so only a double blind experiment would satisfactorily answer this retarded question of whether or not you, the anon from Satan knows where, can discern the difference between fuck knows what.
Incidentally, unconscious perception has an effect on conscious behavior (see priming for an example), so a double blind setup would work even if you discerned fuck knows what only sub or unconsciously.

>>57788443
>some nebulous factor
What? Bitrate is about as nebulous as jpeg artifacting.
also, im advocating that theres a real difference between 192 and 320 mp3, noone can notice a difference between 320 and FLAC. Maybe a few people in very quiet rooms with very good headphones and very good ears.
>If you are not an audiodumb then why are you arguing that not being able to tell the difference between low bitrate recordings and FLAC is irrelevant?
I dont know exactly what you mean by this mess of a sentence, but it sounds like you're suggesting anyone whos not an 'audiophile' should be perfectly happy listening to low bitrate shit. Reasoning that
audiophiles=HORRIBLE LOSER FAGGOT AUTISTS OMG
audiophiles "care about bitrate and audio quality"
therfore, people who arent LOSER FAGGOT AUTISTS must NOT care about either of those things at al, and be perfectly happy listening to 128kbps mp3 on youtube.
I just want my music to sound good, man. the mid 200s kbps is also acceptable. I dont have to obsess or anything, I Just search 'FLAC' or '320kbps' at the end when looking for files.

>>57788562
>What? Bitrate is about as nebulous as jpeg artifacting.
You said there is some factor that influences music perception without unconsciously.
>theres a real difference between 192 and 320 mp3
There's a real difference between 320 and FLAC, and FLAC and WAV, too, but no one cares because nearly no one can hear it. Unsurprisingly, most people can't tell the difference between 192 and 320kbps either.
>sounds like you're suggesting anyone whos not an 'audiophile' should be perfectly happy listening to low bitrate shit
No, what I'm arguing is that you should only listen to what you're capable of hearing. If you can't tell the difference between 192 and 320, then you shouldn't listen to 320 because you get nothing out of it. It's just a waste.

You are arguing that it actually doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference between 192 and 320. You are arguing that you should always choose the higher bitrates because of some undefined magic factor that makes music sound better at some later date as long as the bitrate is high.

Your argument is silly.

>>57788619
>some factor that influences music perception without unconsciously.
what?
>some undefined magic factor
>subconscious perception=undefined magic woo
you're just deliberately being retarded now aren't you? That, or you cant understand english, in which case stop posting.

>>57788650
Subconscious perception of music doesn't happen you dumb cunt. The reason the music sounds better to you now is because you are not remembering objectively.

>>57788671
>your subconscious shuts off and stops perceiving aural sensory input when you listen to music
Whats wrong with you?

File: 1456279189245.jpg (97KB, 433x419px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 433x419px

>download 320kbs youtube videos
>convert to FLAC
>upload to private tracker
>watch all the numale "audiophiles" lap it up
>mfw

>>57788288
I don't keep up with meme formats, anon. I just picked ogg as an example of a format that's objectively better than mp3.

>>57788728
Except people will call you out on your bullshit by looking at the spectrum.

>>57788701
you're not getting it, so i'm going to spell it out for you.

If you cannot determine the difference in quality between two recordings, then you should only listen to the lower quality/smaller filesize recording. Listening to higher bitrate music and having it "inexplicably sound better" later is not due to some unconscious or subconscious perception of the frequencies preserved by the higher bitrate recordings. It is either: placebo, nostalgia, inaccurate memory, or that thing that makes you like music more the more you listen to it (albums growing on you).

Get it now?

>>57788775
>judging music quality BY LOOKING AT IT
oh wait THATS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO

>>57788785
>Subconscious perception of music doesn't happen you dumb cunt.
>subconscious perception magically stops when you listen to music
You can notice the difference without being able to discern between the two in a short side by side test, because your brain doesnt magically either shut parts of itself off or make you consciously perceive absolutely all input.
In this manner at least, anyone can hear the difference between 192 and 320 kbps mp3. This is to be expected given that one can also tell the difference consciously pretty often.
Pretty much noone can consciously hear the difference between 320 and FLAC, nor can they notice FLAC sounding better without consciously differentiating them in a side by side test. It is actually indistinguishable from 320 mp3.
so, you shouldnt get FLAC for audio quality over 320 MP3, expecting it to sound better.
But you should get at least 200s-320 kbps over 192 kbps mp3.

Of course, blind tests should still be able to tell if you if you can actually perceive a difference or not, but not with as few trials as in that NPR article. If I'm right, you should get a score higher than 50% accuracy. But, again, with more tests than that NPR article.

>>57788978
>Goes back to original point when presumably he couldn't tell the difference between 192 and 320
>Still claims everyone can
I'm done with you.

Why is everyone so mad? :(

File: 1472711514206.jpg (467KB, 1504x1000px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1504x1000px

>>57786365
>>57786395

this is my amp & speakers
my source is an X60s ThinkPad

i can hear a subtle but substantial difference in about 50% of FLAC/WAV tracks versus 320kps mp3

mostly in the high treble and the dynamic range in the midrange

the speakers i bought from an audiophile for $400 and the amp i bought used for $250

>>57786516
>>57786871
>>57786940
>>57787351

post your gear

File: muhhearing.png (190KB, 1027x782px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1027x782px

>>57786404
mp3 @ 320kbps is a backwards speciest format designed for humans, while flac let's you show your sick tunes to your animal buddies in all it's glorious splendor

File: Audiophile compares cables.jpg (268KB, 1203x945px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1203x945px

When I listen to FLAC (more-so with speakers than headphones) I find the imaging placement of things like symbols and other similar treble parts to be slightly more distinct sounding. That's about it, it's pretty subtle, and I think it's only discernable on certain recordings, where-as others I'd probably not be able to tell the difference.

320 is totally fine, I listen to them a lot but if I have access to lossless that's what I'll put in my digital library for the peace-of-mind of it. It's not like hard drive space is a problem these days, especially since my music library is pretty selective and not at all huge. I convert down to mp3 for portable application, though.

>>57786365
Convert to 320kpbs mp3s, delete your flacs and then do what >>57786380 said.

>>57786365
The human ear can't hear above 192kbps

>>57787080
Private trackers? Like What.cd?

>>57788775
>looking at the spectrum

They should look at the autism spectrum while their at it, and find that they are ROYGBIV'ing the fuck out of it.

>>57790936
ok grandpa

>>57786458
>transcoding from lossy to lossy

Disgusting. RIP your ears.

>>57787135
>you objectively cannot see the differenc e between this glass of distilled water and this glass of distilled water infected with ebola virus therefore it's placebo

ITT: the equivalent of poorfags using 640x480 30fps monitors to view DVDs remastered from scratchy VHS tapes provide advice on why people shouldn't be able to see improvements with 4K displays playing ultra HD media

>>57787636
>damaging your ears voluntarily

wew

>>57790333
> thinkpad as source
found your problem :-)

>>57786365
transcode your library to v0
archive your flacs onto another hdd or two
stop crying

people who say there is no difference between 320kbps and FLAC either have shitty gear, shitty ears, or both

if you can't afford good gear then stick with 320kbps, theres no need to be ashamed

>>57791187

The audio chips in most modern computers provide compatible response as the audio chips in audiophile tier dedicated DAC consoles -- except for recording.

>>57787636
>2016
>not wanting to hear Mercedes Lander rip ass

>>57786404
Burning music cds.
/thread

>>57787018
that isnt a reason to use flac, specifically.

>>57791676
that also isnt a reason to use flac, specifically.

god damn it this board doesn't know anything about file types, do they? for such a technology board obsessed with personal computers, you guys really dont know how to use personal computers, do you?

>>57791757
It's a reason flac is superior to 320k lossy, which was the criteria specified.
Faggot.

>>57791804
lol, get a load of this guy.
you know, it's a good thing you called someone on the internet a Faggot, you know?

Otherwise you might just be wrong.

That still doesn't qualify FLAC as better than 320kbps... because you can create CDs from other file formats.

>>57786404
Of course it's objectively better, but practically it doesn't matter

I wouldn't use FLAC unless I had some extremely rare CD that I had to back up in the best possible quality to preserve the sounds in a lossless format

>>57791711
what is? I've never heard a convincing argument for archiving in flac and converting as needed for devices. or do you simply leave everything as flac? what are the benefits of flac that offset the filesize?

>>57792010
>to preserve the sounds in a lossless format

sounds you like need better speakers.

320 kpbs has shrieking highs, and cut lows on half-decent drivers. get some bass music (like Ghost by Mala) and play it on a proper set up, then on computer speakers.

>>57792038
That's like saying JPEG has darker colors than PNG, it doesn't make sense to me...

MP3 is lossy, the highs and lows have nothing to do with the codec. What you're talking about is probably a result of encoding at a Varible 320kbps bitrate rather than Constant, which saves more space.

>>57792030
There's more than one open source format for storing uncompressed music. FLAC being only one of them (there are even more closed course ones, too).

Additionally, if you want to hop around lossy formats from a single, non-lossy open source source, then FLAC isn't your only option either.

But hey at least the internet thinks you know what you're talking about!

The only benefits i can think of right now for using FLAC are:

1. If you buy a piece of music from a digital retailer and the quality is higher than 44.1k / 16bit.

2. If your hardware only decodes FLAC (i dont know of any).

>>57787636
>I stopped caring about if I can hear the drummer fart or not
kek/10

>>57787636
>Bluetooth headphones
Maybe in a car that would make sense, but I don't think I would use them at home.. is there any hissing?

>>57787636
>Bluetooth headphones
Enjoy your brain cancer.

>>57787014
>>57786994
I think how your listening to affects weather you can tell the difference . for example I can tell the difference between 198 and flac with my shenhiesers but I can't tell the difference between 10 kbs and flac on my phone speakers .

>>57786395
Sensiblechuckle.jpg

>>57791915
The question wasn't "one reason flac is better than other formats", it was "one reason flac is better than 320kbs"
Retard.

>>57786404
mp3 is lossy

there's your reason

>>57791068
So lossy has a purpose after all?? xD

>>57791109
/g/ really is that retarded. If you can't hear the exact difference it must not exist... This is actually a very apt analogy.

File: Capture.png (161KB, 1245x437px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1245x437px

HEY, SHUT UP!!

>>57788785
Here is what I don't understand about your arguement... Whats being wasted by my flac? Cpu cycles? Hard drive space? Why would you care about either. I download all my music in flac because I have like 16tb of hdd space. But get this revolutionary shit right here. When I put that music on my phone I encode it v0. I can do that because I already have the lossless audio and it only takes a minute or two extra.

Stop thinking everyone who prefers different things to you is wrong. If I have the option to listen to my music in flac how am I affecting you? Why do you care? How am I wasting anything?

>>57790333
>thinks speakers are great way to tell
Holy shit, with high en dend headphones it is kinda easy to tell but even with my studio monitors it really isnt that easy unless you really listen for it. Headphones have way better detail separation.

I'm playing with the thought of converting to AAC-HE 80 KBit/s. Sounds like 128 kbit/s MP3.

That's like super tiny, you know.

>>57794329
>thinks speakers
Depends on the capability of the device, right? What speakers do you have.

>>57786435
is this /g/ or what?

>>57794520
JBL LSR305, flattest shit ever. Comes close in separation to HD600/800 and the likes, but it is obvious when you look for it. This is literally the reason why great mixers use both to check on tracks.

>>57794691

Have you ever heard/used higher-end speakers powered by a good amp?

Transcode all your flacs and delete then then.

>>57793658
>Why do you care?
Because being wasteful is wrong. You should strive to be as efficient as possible. Listening to music in a format that preserves frequencies you are incapable of hearing while bloating filesize is wrong.

>>57794747
Ive heard KEFs Klipschks, Genelecs. I have had some very close dealings with Genelec and I can attest that the JBLs are so close if not better than other monitoring speakers Ive tried or worked with. The waveguide is an literal miracle.

>>57794863

Allowing people with autism to live is wrong, but we've been merciful and permitted you to exist.

Try returning the favour.

>>57794895
>people with autism
Didn't read past here. You are a brainlet.

>>57794906

Why are you wasting bandwidth arguing on 4chan? That's not very efficient.

>>57790628
damn, jelly of ferrets 2bh

>>57786365
>caring about space
I have more than 500 GB of music on my 2TB Seagate USB drive I bought specifically for this purpose

>>57794936
>hurrr muh black and white false dichotomy

>>57794959

>muh dicks in my mouth and ass

>>57786365
Convert it too fucking ogg you retard

File: ss (2016-12-01 at 07.54.06).jpg (115KB, 966x384px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 966x384px

>>57793305

File: capture.png (15KB, 652x177px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 652x177px

>>57786404

>>57794888

If you have an opportunity, you might sample your music with other speaker/amp set ups.
Most better-arranged systems using very good speakers are substantially better than the best headphones.

>>57794948

I don't think space is an issue anymore, but some neckbeards are still stuck in the 90s.

>>57795082
>inspect element

>>57786365
That's what you get for being a fucking retard

>>57795157
That's what popped up to me, I dare you to google it.

>>57795144
No they arent sadly unless we are talking about 50k speakers vs 1k headphones. Just listen to it yourself, I know you arent rocking any magic high end ones since you posted yours also. It is easy to hear why the ehadphones are more detailed and it is commonly agreed upon fact in the mixing world.

>>57787636
Same here m8

I also think the LG quatbeats3 that come with LG G4/G5 phones sound better, more detailed and way more "fun" than any of my expensive headphones. Also, no sound leakage, good isolation because they are closed in-ears and amazing soundstage for such.

Seriously, the Sennheiser 598Cs and DT770 sound like shit compared to 13 bucks closed in-ear headphones... how pathetic is that. I've been jewed for the last time.

File: mp3vsflac_1.png (25KB, 1370x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1370x600px

>>57786365

>>57786404
>Give me one reason, just ONE, why Flac is better than 320 Kbps? I'll wait.

uhh, it sounds better

File: 1434175470409.png (108KB, 389x597px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 389x597px

>>57796909

>>57786365

There isn't really a great reason other than HDD space is cheap and if your pirating music, usually a FLAC is better bet for not being some garbage encode.

Lot of 320 is like upsampled or was fucked up, poorly encoded all sorts of stuff.

I dunno anon. Sometimes I store things with more precision not because I need 30 points after the decimal but because I can and it doesn't cost much to do so.

>>57787112

> People actually unironically think like this

>>57796887
>96khz
willfully degrading the audio quality because "moar hurtz"

>>57786365
>2016
>Not having all your music streamed

>>57795917
>LSR aspie only heard four kinds of speakers in his entire life and is now audio expert


>>57797017
imbeciles on here use garbage equipment and cant hear the diff anyways

>>57794691
>flatest shit ever
u got the shit part right

>>57790972
Too soon

>>57798392

Go to bed Paul

You should always get everything in FLAC just to make sure you're always getting the highest quality version of the music, even if the music itself is dynamically shit. A lot of times 320 is just re encoded 256 or some bullshit joint stereo 320 that sounds horrible and was ripped by people who don't know what the fuck they're doing. You'd be much better off just getting the highest quality and doing 320 yourself or listening to it as is.

>>57787234
>Being new

>>57795026
i mean i guess if you want ot take a gamble with a used drive

>>57786404
FLAC is better because it literally isn't 320 kbps.

CBR is outdated and overall plain garbage, under no circumstances you should be storing 320's. Even if you're a lossy cuck, you should be using V0's which are smaller and superior in quality.

>>57786365
use ffmpeg and convert them all to mp3.

>>57787908
They are chasing a dragon. Experiencing feelings you never have, but will claim you don't care about. You're probably just upset that you don't understand. This is definitely a case of ignorance being bliss, but if you ever do want to join them, just start training your ears and upgrading your equipment.

>>57800676
so they are experiencing blown ear drums

>>57786365
Get your ears cleaned. They're full of shit.

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

File: 1458100713163.png (14KB, 1092x684px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1092x684px

THE POINT
by Bryan O'Sullivan

you could spend an hour counting the petals in a flower
it might take you a year to count the veins in each petal
if you spent ten lifetimes, maybe you could count its cells

but you'd have completely missed the point
you fuckhead

>96khz meme
because nyquist didn't know shit amirite

>>57787636
So much this
I cycle daily so being able to just change track etc no cable while biking along has made life so much easier

File: 1459109513487.png (209KB, 1000x1003px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1000x1003px

>this whole thread

>>57798557
>>57798485
>this discomforted since their purchase of a random"high end" audio brand nobody in the pro scene never literally has heard of, has been obliterated by speaker design that originally cost 20k per speaker

Nigga pls JBL is pro grade and since I have fucking compared to other monitors I have worked with or extensively listened to.

They are flat as fuck and their stereo imaging currently rapes any other studio monitor. And let me tell, I'm friends with a guy who works at genelec, and even he admitted they sound better as a whole since their imaging and the waveguide makes it far better to work with...

>>57801103
But also Genelecs are great for other reasons than sound, I don\t hate them since they come close, but the 8k series doesnt just sound as good....

>>57790333
You can leave /g/ any time bro or just quite spreading misinformation. Why do you even post this crap?

File: 1471794663589.jpg (119KB, 839x835px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 839x835px

This thread is the epitome of /g/. Bait OP, retards who think that they know something about audibility of compression spewing bullshit, blanket statements, half truths, sighted listening "tests", nobody even once defines proper conditions for listening and the exact codec/settings/encoder/audio/data rate used so that we could actually FIND OUT whether something is audible or not, people thinking their *insert any price or brand here* audio gear or *insert any profession here* job has some bearing on the subject or gives them some authority and at some point the words "amplifier" and "DAC" are thrown into the mix to complicate things further by broadening the discussion to gear which yet again nobody fucking knows about even if they think they do. Kill yourselves.

>tfw don't know anything shit about PTH or waffels

>>57800558
there's absolutely no reason for me to go find FLACs of all of my music, replace everything, and then reconvert it to whatever meme format with the /g/ stamp of approval (of the current month).

>>57788105
>Tubes sound better than digital.

Absolutely illiterate retards like you is why I wholeheartedly support everyone mocking audiophiles, even though I myself am partial to overly expensive gear and lossless-faggotry.

Solid-state amps are better than tubes in every objective way and have been for a long time now.

>>57802471
>Solid-state amps are better than tubes
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA
never touched a guitar or a solid state amp, have you?

File: wtf.jpg (90KB, 951x840px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 951x840px

>>57801884
>expects factual discussion on a Taiwanese clay pottery forum for teenage autists

>>57802480
We're talking about hifi listening chains, not instrument amps, you brain-dead autist. Solid-state has won here years ago.

>>57802570
you're wrong though, and the fact that tube amps for an instrument sound better than solid state should prove that to you. the two are hardly any different.

>be me
>leave /g/ to their shit cause they are always talking about the same crap with no experience in the field
>muh FLAC thread x1 millionth customer
>solid state amps are better than valves for audio despite myself having no experience in the industry, and have probably never been to a rave
this bait is thread.

im not even responding to your crap its the same regurgitated shit over and over again and you don't know what you are talking about.

consider this your (you).

>>57802577
>the two are hardly any different
Amps are designed from the ground up specifically for the chain they're used in. Guitar amps in particular have custom tailored frequency response, work with high impedance inputs and allow for high distortion. All of that is cancer to a hifi listening amp. Take a fucking introductory course in EE or at least Google for 30 minutes before you engage on the topic, you're clearly know fuck all about. Then kys.

>>57802577
You really don't get it. Think of it is this way:

Instrument(electric guitar or a bass for example) is driven with a tube amplifier which in this case is considered good sounding(subjective so this isn't always the case). These amplifiers are far from linear and designed so on purpose. This is part of the music creation process where literally anything that sounds good or is wanted, goes. You can mess and distort the signal as you like as long as the end result sounds pleasing. Guitar amplifiers make use of distortion as a way to color the sound and create unique sound. Now in order to retain this sound as it was during the creation, you NEED gear that does not add anything to the signal and behaves linearly when listening to it.

Now the next thing I have to add: tubes do not inherently color the sound in any way more than solid state does. It doesn't come down to how the amplification was done, it's what comes out from the amplifier what matters. Tubes, solid state, hybrid designs or whatever can achieve transparency as hi-fi amplifiers. You can achieve transparency eeasier and cheaper with solid state, likely with higher efficiency and longevity too.

Oh and in the case a triode amplifier does color the sound, the result isn't necessarily warm which so many like to think. Triode amplifiers clip softer than solid state and this is the "warm" tone people associate with guitar tube amplifiers vs solid state. You do not want to clip any amplifier for loudspeakers/headphones, it'll sound like ass.

File: fdc829fa20068f33d32a4efb5bb71c29.jpg (52KB, 390x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 390x600px

>>57801103
>their stereo imaging current rapes any other studio monitor

When real professionals refer to JBL, they're referring to the pro tier monitors with bass and quality amplification. The kind that cost 3 to 20K a piece. Not your cheapfag shoebox 305s scratching out your shitty kindergarten curry tunes.

Speaking of professionals, get some professional help for your delusions of grandeur.

>>57802632
>been to a rave

Is it 1999 all over again gramps?

>>57802632
Wow, you are incredibly intelligent!

>>57803551
It seems you dont actually work with audio, nigger, I do. And a lot of professionals use Genelecs which cost around 1k per speaker. Fuck a lot of shitty producers use rokkits ya fool. Ive been working at different studios so I have experience, none of those setups are as good as simple JBLs, its just a fact. Deying it is being deaf and ignorant. They are flat as can be flat, their non directionality is a god send for anybody who actually works with audio, you would know if you did, since it means you dont have to be placed at the exact same centimeter to hear music and sound correctly.

Also thinking you need 3k to 20k speakers for modern music and audio youre being retarded, consumer grade speakers has taken a nose dive hard, everbody uses logitech computer speakers or soundbars which I also own to give it a reference listen.

But this ends here, I know youre incompetent now and Ive made a fool of you enough.

>>57786365
Unless you specifically require high quality audio, like having an actual job/hobby involving doing nothing but listening to music for extended periods of time, there is little to gain.

File: do you poo in your shitty 305s.jpg (2MB, 5501x3668px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5501x3668px

>>57803734
>you dont actually work with audio, nigger, I do. And a lot of professionals use Genelecs which cost around 1k per speaker.

Those aren't professionals -- those are hobbyists. Now scurry back to your curry mother's basement. 5 rupees have been deposited into your poo account.

>>57790986
>They should look at the autism spectrum while their at it

Legit laughed, only ruined by the shitty spelling

File: smiling_galko.jpg (252KB, 1270x1022px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1270x1022px

Just convert it to 256K Opus for maximum transparency at ⅓ of the disk space.

>>57791154
Those aren't equivalent things at all, because your ears aren't your eyes.

Now the real question is, how much of a difference is 24 bits over 16 bits? Most of my music library is 16 but I just started it.

>>57786516
>download 320kbps track
>half of the track sounds like it was recorded underwater
>highs crack down on peak
>basses waver

>download same track as flac
>wow, suddenly none of these things exists anymore

here's your (You)

>>57792881

If there is a reason FLAC, specifically, is better than a 320 kbps file, it isn't because it's lossless. Lossless music is not specifically attributed to FLAC.

again, you're wrong. I'm sorry you feel the need to call people names on the internet for being wrong. life must not be easy for you.

>>57803980

he can't hear any difference using his shitty set up anyway

>>57803823
Just keep posting, youre making yourself look more and more retarded.

And remember professional only mean sthat youre getting paid fulltime

>1 rupee has been deposited to your Audiofool account which can only be spent when you have 10 million rupees on High End Speakers Anon Cant Even Imagine

>>57786365
Sucks for you OP, I just stream all of my flacs from chiru.no. No disk space wasted

>>57801103
>rapes any other studio monitor
>I'm friends with a guy who works at genelec
Another /b/-tier audiophile whose dad works at Nintendo. The LSR's are fantastic speakers virtually unbeatable in value per dollar, but there's plenty of flat out better monitors out there, you just have to be less of a poorfag and fanboy to realize it. Come back and discuss when you're friends with someone from Adam or Focal.

>>57787014
Those are just samples. You have to listen to an entire song a few times.

>>57786365
Flac is great for archival stuff, but i typically use mp3vo for on the go and pc listening. I usually own albums on CD or, more rarely, other formats (vinyl, cassette) and listen to that on speakers from a proper sound system. Sometimes i keep flac around, i use it to store many of my album masters once I've released something, a lot smaller than an uncompressed wav file.

>>57796909
>I can hear the difference, I swear!

>>57786365
>>57786404
I have a 5tb hard drive, so I have the space for flac. Also since it's lossless that means I can convert it to lossy formats when I want to put it on different devices with different storage capacities. For example I converted my flacs to 192kbps opus for my phone and I used to convert it to mp3 for my iPod.

>>57806922
>192kbps opus
>using a niche format that has zero advantages over MP3/AAC/Vorbis for bitrates above 128kbps and forces you to resample to 48kHz

Literally brain-dead.

>>57807018
I wanted transparency, and opus has amazing compression rates and respects my freedoms.

>>57807018
It sounds better at those bitrates than other formats though, it's literally an advantage.

>>57805988
So your friends with someone at Adam or Focal? Ok buddy keep on keeping on

File: 1255068407037.jpg (151KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 480x480px

>>57788728
>>57788775
>>57788798

File: 1458440149169.gif (404KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 342x342px

>implying I need FLAC for my 808s
METRO BOOMIN WANT SOME MORE NIGGA