Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: [visible confusion].webm (665KB, 280x302px) Image search:
[Google]
![[visible confusion].webm](https://i.imgur.com/G2lBpWS.jpg "[visible confusion]")
665KB, 280x302px
Is it bad if I'm having a hard time discerning Opus 192kb/s from lossless FLAC?
I'm testing with this 24-bit FLAC demo and I just can't really notice any significant difference for the life of me, especially one that would justify me personally using FLAC for anything other than archival.
https://vox.rocks/hi-res-music
>>
>>61715244
I uploaded the two files to mixtape.moe:
>Source FLAC
https://my.mixtape.moe/cbejub.flac
>Opus 192kb/s
https://my.mixtape.moe/cluqwg.opus
>>
Play 128kbps mp3 through my earbuds, can't tell difference from flac.
Burn cd from flac and cd from mp3, and play on a good stereo, your granny with a tin horn stuck in her ear can tell the difference.
Now delete this thread and leave /g/ forever.
>>
>>61715244
>converting a gif to webm
fuck you, you fucking cocksucker.
>>
>>61717327
ABX or it didn't happen, audiophool
>>
>>61717381
The GIF was over 3MB.
>>
>>61715244
It has been scientifically proven that flac is a meme.
>>
>>61718108
Maybe for listening, but FLAC is not a meme when it comes to archiving.
>>
>>61715244
>Opus
Well no shit, Opus even in 96kbps vbr is transparent.
>>61717327
>Play 128kbps mp3 through my earbuds, can't tell difference from flac
>128kbps mp3
Either you're deaf or your earbuds are pieces of shit.
>>
File: 220px-Marx_old.jpg (19KB, 220x294px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 220x294px
>>61718108
Das meme.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2