Is FLAC a meme or does it actually sound better than mp3s at

>>60335156
you wont notice any difference.
flac is nice for achiving.

File: audiophiles.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>60335156
I can't really hear a difference honestly. It's probably a placebo effect but I think it sounds a tiny bit clearer especially with higher frequencies.


Where there is a difference though is clipping. All the MP3 files I've run across always fucking clip, at least with most FLACs that you get from the artist or CD or whatever have no clipping (unless they were mastered by some shithead because muh loudness).

>>60335156
On my end I can hear the difference easily, even though I have shitty audio equipment. (Just a laptop and headphones.) So it might be your ears, idk.

>>60335244
nice shitposting

I heard that if you want to store vinyl discs digitally there is a difference between these two (better noise recreation or shit like that, not an expert)

>>60335156
FLAC is better. Even if you can't here the difference there is one. 320kbps vs 513kbps etc..

noticeable only with incredibly good headphones/speakers, DAC and amp. Even then you need good ears. I probably can only tell the difference on a few songs that I know really well. I use flac for everything anyway, because 99% of albums are under a GB, and it's better for archiving because you can just encode to a smaller format that doesn't suck, like vorbis.

>>60335156
No. For 99% of music its pointless. Its only occasionally noticeable with music far into the highs with a lot of complexity past like 15k.

FLAC is nice for archival. MP3 V0 is perfectly acceptable elsewhere.