Proof FLAC 96000hz is better than mp3 320kb

>>58579741
>weebs

>>58579741
>literally two different sources
>not transcoding the flac yourself to make sure the source is identical

Proof that you're retarded maybe.

>>58580535

You have all natural sonically adjusted wirelifts and 24k gold plated audiophile ethernet cables? Without these you cannot become golden ears.

Of course it is, it's just the autists who look at compression theory and psychoacoustic models instead of listening tests who might otherwise

>>58579741

it really depends on how senstive your output system is

if ppl here, who use inexpensive headphones with limited amplification, do this AB stuff, the output system won't even register the differences

>>58579741
>320 kbps Mp3 cuts off before the upper register of normal human hearing range
>FLAC doesn't
Whoa.....You're telling me they sound different? That really jolts the synapses

>>58580689
Seriously, LAME 320kbps does a lowpass at 20khz, it's idiotic and ridiculously easy to ABX.

File: 1483578383835.png (473KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 600x706px

>>58580608
>his "audiophile" cables don't come with a certificate of authenticity and carrying case

>Someone brings up ABX results on Hydrogenaudio
>"What do you expect? MP3 is a lossy codec and 99% of people won't care :^)"

every time

>>58580715

If you're 12 years old. Are you 12?

>>58580785
31, grandpa. Still produces audible artifacts.

>>58580785
>Damn kids enjoying their loud rap music with their young healthy ears and playing outside with their supple, flexible joints and generally enjoying life
Fuck off, grandpa

>Comparing two sources
That's now how ABX testing works.

>>58579741
Here's that FLAC downsampled to 44.1kHz and LAME'd

File: Capture.png (3MB, 1920x1170px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1170px

>>58580962
*forgot pic

File: Capture.png (3MB, 1920x1170px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1170px

>>58580967
Here's the torrent MP3.
They're not the same.

File: 1482321482729.jpg (47KB, 450x428px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x428px

>cockona

File: 1460246848013.jpg (281KB, 1426x1169px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1426x1169px

>>58580999
nice trips

>>58580962
The FLAC is already probably a downsampled version from the source.

Mp3 is the CD version downsampled by the pros from the source.

Obviously your amateur downsampler won't give the same results.

File: 1461269560640.jpg (24KB, 400x376px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x376px

>>58581097
jesus christ I hope this is ironic

File: ;..jpg (139KB, 745x565px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 745x565px

>>58581097

>>58580982
>>https://www.nyaa.se/?page=view&tid=890473
LAME version / quality settings

>>58581268
They're not the same source. One's CD, the other's 24 bit 96kHz.

>>58581421
The source for both are the same.

>>58581504
LAME downsamples 96kHz to 48, not 44.1.

>>58581561
Do you really think the recording company will master two files, one for 96 kHz and another for 44.1 kHz?

Instead of making only one at 192 khz and then from this source resample to 96 kHz and also for 44.1 kHz?

If you resample from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz. That's two resample sfor the 44.1 kHz.

>>58581591
The sources are not the same.

Holy shit that FLAC had 90MB of album art embedded. I was wondering why my AAC was coming out so much larger than their CDRip.

>>58581744
>90mb
wew lads

>>58581817
It adds up, especially if I decide to forever-seed it on Nyaa.

There you go. ABX this.
https://www.nyaa.se/?page=view&tid=890473

>>58581906
*wrong link
https://www.nyaa.se/?page=view&tid=891368