I can't notice the difference between FLAC and Vorbis 320

No one does but some people like to pretend they do so they can justify spending lots of money on expensive audio equipment.

>>59915784
>both are 320 kbps
no shit

>>59915784
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 velocity density. 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.

>>59915784
That's because vorbis is an actually good encoder. Try doing the same thing with MP3 or MP2.

>>59915784
You are experiencing the correct response.

>>59915876
Been a while since I've seen this one

File: man-who-sold-the-world.jpg (7KB, 285x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 285x200px

>>59915876
>rotational velocity density

god damn its been a while and just realized im too fucking old already

>>59915784
Have you been putting your hard drive above your headphones? The electrons from Vorbis collide less in the wires when moving with gravity than against it, otherwise the two will sound the same. Don't let them pool too much in the wire before it comes back up to your headphones either - buy stands to hold the wire higher if needed.

File: 1492322684172.jpg (52KB, 438x438px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 438x438px

>>59915876
>tfw download so much music i grab mp3s to save space
>realize i dont need to worry since i can always grab flacs years from now when its an issue

File: 603.jpg_large.jpg (65KB, 680x619px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x619px

>>59916040
is this meta-bait or are you actually retarded?

File: 1492317097761.png (7KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 420x420px

>>59916051
This is sincere anon
Why should i grab flac now when i can do it later

it takes good equipment and a trained ear

>>59916115
>I'm going to spend thousands of dollars and countless hours so I can enjoy music less!

audiophiles.txt

Vorbis at 320kbps is transparent. You can try 160kbps or lower to save even more bits. Also, Opus gives you transparency for even fewer bits, fyi.

>>59915876
>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

Funny thing is there is actually a little bit of truth in this, MP3 encoding algorithms have improved significantly, one ripped way back then might be noticeable.

>>59915784
you're deaf OP, get your hearing checked.