Is .flac really just a meme?

Yes there's no audible difference between FLAC and MP3 320kbps

It's for archival purposes. I can't hear the difference from 192kbps vorbis to flac.

There's literally no difference between FLAC and 8kbps ogg.

>>59783278
Human hearing is around 20Hz - 20,000Hz. If you can hear below or higher than that, you must have autism powers.

>>59783333
There is, it's the file size.

>>59783296
/thread
If you're transcoding for any reason, it's imperative to have flac or any other lossless format as your source. Build your music collection in flac, share in flac, cut down to mp3 or ogg for use on personal devices.

>>59783336
By the time you're 20 it's generally less than 19KHz

>>59783278

A lot of more recent research have proven that 96Khz 24bit audio is audibly different than cd quality (48Khz 16bit).

So yea, flac isn't a meme but only if you have a decent audio setup and the source music is mastered properly.

Now, can you hear a difference between a master violin player and a "decent" one ? No,not unless you heard ton of live violin in your live. Your ears can be trained and you have to start young to build that skill.

Same thing goes with screens, some people can tell if the colours are a little off on a IPS monitor but yet other people cant' see the difference between a cheap TN and an IPS.

It is.
When something is only shilled by old people,
you should instantly know that it is a meme.
Because old people can't hear shit, they only hear what they want to believe they are hearing.

>>59783413
Don't you fucking dip. Do a double blind, triple blind, just any blind test on 10 dollar or 10000 dollar equipment there is zero fucking audible difference. There are dozens of dozens sources proving it and you can test it for yourself.
t. Someone that isn't a retard and also has a 4000 dollar setup

>>59783288
Not common but there are several killer samples for 320kbps MP3.

>>59783413
Yeah, once I attach the $10,000 space crystals to my headphone cords, the difference is night and day.

>>59783443
give links

meanwhile my nigga XXXTENTACION purposely rapes his audio quality for who knows what purpose

it's almost funny to hear the bass drop and be able to distinguish nothing

>>59783466
castanets, fatboy, etc. Basically, any sharp sound can cause audible preechos.http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php

>no respect for artistical integrity
>listen to a degraded version of what the artist intended
>using bass boosters or equalizers on top of that
If you dont use flac dont pretend you care about art at all, people not using flac or wav are the same to me as basic retarded bitches at coachella

>>59783413
>Now, can you hear a difference between a master violin player and a "decent" one ? No
Yes.
One is a master violin player who doesn't miss or fuck up notes; properly slides the bow along the wires and doesn't skip, or push too hard, or push too lightly, (all actions being very audible).
The other is a dumbass who makes the above mistakes.
You are a retard.

Its not a meme, but its also not for listening either. Download in FLAC to convert to OGG Vorbis or (if your music player supports it) Opus. FLAC for actual music playback is placebo tier.

I stopped caring after I noticed that a lot of FLAC files aren't truly FLAC but 320kbps MP3s converted.
Waste of space and a waste of my time.
When I do run into a true FLAC files they sound fucking amazing though.

>>59783493
Rap is trash, please keep your garbage taste to yourself.

File: foobar2000-convert.png (45KB, 807x536px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 807x536px

>>59783278
All my FLACs come from real CDs.

I went to chiru.no and heard the difference

>>59783830
>implying those CDs were properly mastered to begin with
placebo idiots doesn't begin to describe it

>>59783288
Depends on the way it was recorded. If it was recorded digitally then yes. If it was actually recorded then there is a difference. Same with vinyls.

>>59783534
>>59783582
>>59783708
>>59783949
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php
Do the blind tests and find out.

I'm getting tired of seeing this stupid thread and the retards in it every day.

The point of flac is not placebo listening quality but storage without unnecessary loss. Why degrade the sound quality to some arbitrary shitty level if you can just as well keep the full thing and degrade it to a lossy codec of a low bitrate as needed on the fly (bulk convert to a portable device)?

Purposefully not getting the maximum quality available is only good if you lack storage space, cpu power for the conversion, or fucks to give in which case you might as well not have your music at all.

>>59783947
gb2 >>>/g/ptg

>>59783947
All my flacs are from live concert performances recorded using my smartphone.

File: Capture.png (50KB, 866x636px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 866x636px

>>59784041
>Can you hear the difference? Of course... You cant.
BULL FUCKING SHIT
Im no audiophile, but I like having great audio quality, and its VERY noticeable when the audio quality isnt where it should be
first attempt

>>59783830
>ripping CD to FLAC with foobar
I Seriously Doggy Doo

File: Untitled.png (5KB, 550x118px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 550x118px

>>59784349
i have a shitty 15$ headphone, i can tell

File: FLAC-tool.png (18KB, 505x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 505x500px

>>59784382
What.

>>59784481
I was using Superlux 668b's, and its noticeable. Its even worse when played in stereo speakers and way worse in 5.1

>>59784497
How's the foam of the speaker??

>>59784349
>>59784497
>>59784481

How do you know the difference? Can you describe it? Serious question.

Does it affect specific part of freq spectrum?

>>59784349
>Can you hear the difference? Of course... You cant.
>BULL FUCKING SHIT
I was trying to refer to the difference between FLAC and 320 kbps MP3s. You still can't hear the difference. No human can.

>>59783413
>cd quality
>48Khz 16bit
that's wrong

>>59783278
Ive been doqnlpading standard mp3s, taking them down to 60ish kbps and then converting back to .flac and uploafing for ages.

No one ever complains.

>>59784653
audio quality isnt as clear and crisp as it should be
You can hear fizzling noises that constantly drone in relation to whats playing.
Also the highest and lowest parts of the dynamic range get worse the closer you get to those extremes
Imagine listening to techo, and the bass is supposed to be full and clear 4 on the floor, but instead of it being full and clear, its muted and fizzly
Being honest, a normie who just listens to whatever youtube compilation is on, they wont know (unless the rip is just super shitty), but anyone who actually has an interest in quality sound will pick up on the nuances

>>59784752
>you can hear the noise floor
fucking bullshit
Even shitty 320 masks the noise floor so that's inaudible at regular volumes.

Youtube is much worse than 320, so you may be able to hear the difference there.

>>59783278
It's good if you're making music as it doesn't degrade over time the more you move things around and convert from lossy to lossy to lossy.

But if you want to just listen to a finished product and store it in a reasonable amount of space? Just use vorbis, you fucking pleb, there's no difference at all

>>59783393
This

>>59784653
I'm the one with the shitty headphone.
Mainly the High and Low Freq, since my hp is open i can't hear the noise clearly.

>>59784793
this, flac is meant for archival

>>59784782
>Youtube is much worse than 320, so you may be able to hear the difference there.
Has their staff ever released an official statement discussing the audio quality? I don't doubt that it's much worse than 320 kbps though.

>>59784925
Nope. But from spectrograms made by anons here and there you can tell they use some sort of low pass filter on top of the lossy compression that they use, making it REAL bad.

>>59783534
what if the artist considered his music to degrade throughout time, reflecting the synopsis of life?

>>59784925
Youtube is worse than any compressed file you can play.

Youtube compresses the already compressed music, and then lowpasses some of the quantization noise out, and on top of that, some of their compression algorithms are frequency specific which is the real sin, because you can hear really, really, really bad artifacts when certain instruments such as cymbals are played.

File: 1491053123125.jpg (174KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x600px

>>59783830

>>59784706
because aint nobody got time to argue with fags like you, people just move on and find better copies

It's just the PNG of audio formats. I don't get why people are so autistic over it.

What part of lossless archival format is hard to understand? You know, I'm glad I have a fucking FLAC copy so I don't have to defend absurd bitrates (and thus absurd filesizes) on an obsolete format like MP3 when I can just encode to Opus with a piece of mind.

>>59784482
you use EAC for ripping CDs you dumb shit

>>59785166

PNG is compression of graphics with easily detectable pattern like gradient or solid colour. It is shitty comparison.

What you want to say instead is probably TIFF or JPEG2000.

>>59783493
Don't listen to rap

>>59785229
Nope.
JPEG would be MP3 at this point.

Just because flac is lossless doesn't mean it isn't compression. FLAC is basically PNG because PNG has a setting for 0% loss.

>>59784706
would there be a noticeable difference in file size when doing stuff like this?

>>59785309
>JPEG would be MP3 at this point.

JPEG2000, faggit.

>FLAC is basically PNG because PNG has a setting for 0% loss.

Wrong. You can reduce quality of both image and sound before coding them as FLAC/PNG, no codec can force you out of this ability.

JPEG2000 has lossless variant.

>>59785343
>JPEG2000
>JPEG
still, all the main companies uses compression. so yeah, MP3.

>>59785401
>still, all the main companies uses compression.

You can use compression with any lossless codec period

>>59785199
This

>>59783413
>I sexually identify as an audiophile

>>59783278
that anime was so shit

>>59783288
Don't listen to this autist, I've never heard an MP3 without a 60hz hiss in it. Stop being poor, get a pair of focals and hear for yourself

>>59786230
What anime is?

>>59783296
/thread

>>59786660
gakkou gurashi

>>59786744
Looks comfy

File: 1490152548326.png (42KB, 399x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 399x322px

>>59783949
>vinyls

>>59783534
Is appeal to art a fallacy? I feel like it should be.

What if my listening audio equipment costs 3x as much as the mastering equipment used to record the song in the studio? What then?

>>59783296
This
If you're not sure why then read up on lossy and lossless compression

>>59783493
>Distortion
>Audio Quality

>>59784041
I'm not even going to bother. Every audio file has different bitrate requirements when converted to lossy formats to be indistinguishable from lossless to the human ears. Any such test you find will be inherently flawed.

Listen to some led zeppelin. Mp3 generally sound shit on any tracks with lots of symbol trashing.

>>59783825
>>59785290
>>59787156
I dunno why the first two quotes here had to strawman I listen to him and be passive aggressive to the strawman they created. I said he does a thing to his music (which I've observed), and if you know anything about him you'd know he's gained popularity for like 2 months now from Drake stealing whatever from him. If you watch VEVO shit or similar on yt at all you'd see him in your feed from multiple sources and wonder who is this nigga.

But yeah that was my bad saying distortion is less integrity. You can still see each distinct jpeg artifact mspaint adds, which is to say FLAC would respect and propose the full extent of whatever despite that.

inb4 backpedaling or something because all you had to offer intellectually was passive aggression