Is FLAC just a placebo meme?

>>68674611
Die.

no, but you need to spend a shitload of money on audio equipment to really hear the difference between 320 and flac

>>68674632
How much?

.flac is the .rm/.ram of the 21st century. Unwieldy and inadequate

File: grizzly bear.jpg (188KB, 310x387px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 310x387px

yes, absolutely. 320kbps cuts off at 20.5kHz, and the human hearing range only extends to 20kHz, and even before then there's a big loss in sensitivity. The amount of people who really think they're an exception is absurd.

>>68675038
also: only reason to have FLAC is if you want to to be able to convert to other formats (v0/any cbr/etc) without loss of info. it's useful for that. if you're putting it on your phone you're a fucking idiot

>>68674655
not that much, but it really depends on the type of music you listen to.

Lots of mainstream stuff sounds about the same on whatever because it's produced to sound good even on the cheapest old radios. Listen to stuff where quality makes a difference and it will be much more noticeable.

imo, pop, rap, electronica, main stream rock tends to see the least benefit in about that order. Stuff that relies on crisp instrumentation is going to make the difference in flac easier to hear. Pianos especially easily sound like shit at low bit rates.

Any decent PC and pair of headphones can show the difference, but you're not going to notice it if you're not listening for it.

What the fuck is wrong with people

How do people not understand that it's for archival purposes, and that if you're downloading music instead of streaming it, clearly you are interested in archiving music and you should be downloading FLAC

>>68674655
A great set of headphones will set you back $200. But on a stereo you will never hear the difference

>>68675127
Archiving for what? Do you think your digital music collection will last even 10 years? What is your backup solution and when you did your last backup?

>>68675454
>Do you think your digital music collection will last even 10 years?

shit, I have music I downloaded at least 14 years ago. learn to fucking computer man

>>68675454
External hard drives are pretty good for lasting. You wilk get deterioration but i doubt you would hear that in the quality. But 10 years on a harddisk should not be unreadable

>>68675528
>You wilk get deterioration but i doubt you would hear that in the quality.

itt 4chan tries to understand digital media

>>68674611
>>68675038
that's like when they say that humans can't see the difference between 30 and 60fps, when you can obviously tell the difference. C'mon.

>>68675631
Bits will shift over time. 1s become 0s and vice versa. This does cause deterioration in sound quality but as a step encoding like MP3 this will be exaggerated compared to FLAC

>>68675634
I hope you arent defending flac

>>68675149
Good one

File: 1477312751256.jpg (79KB, 583x707px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 583x707px

>>68675696
>MP3 deterioration over time
>people still propagate this shitty meme

>>68675717
Are you not? People who haven't heard the difference haven't listened for it or have the ears of a baboon

>>68675528
>But 10 years on a harddisk should not be unreadable
This wasn't my point. My point was about the fact most people don't do proper backups or simply no backups at all. One unfortunate event and bang, everything is lost.

Some do automatic backups but don't realize that if you screw up the source (e.g. delete by mistake some files) you will screw up the destination too (the backup).

Also just one backup isn't enough if you really care about your data.

>>68675634
that's not the same at all. you literally cannot hear those frequencies. it's not a matter of perception like fps is (which is due to motion blur)

>>68675789
Plenty of my old songs have had problems.

>>68675528
>You wilk get deterioration but i doubt you would hear that in the quality.
Digital is all or nothing. It exists or it doesn't. If there's any deterioration, the files will be corrupt and maybe will not play at all. It's not like the analogue media where you could hear the music despite the degraded support.

>>68675949
*If there's any deterioration on the actual disks of the hard disk

>>68675488
nice dubs mr. robot :^) u're so tech savvy

>>68675717
>doesn't listen to music

>>68675796
Sorry, I dont believe in placebo and know how codecs work

plus I use the superior AAC codec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrfX-g8auc8

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 about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. 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 is 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.

>>68675922
>cant hear those frequencies
hmm anon that's weird, this track is completely empty. Guess I can't hear those frequencies. Damn FLAC meme.

>>68676007
>it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI

what the fuck kind of pseudo-science is this, anon? How come a serial interface for connencting drives is shittier than a parallel one which is then shittier than another serial one?

File: doors are open.jpg (212KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 500x500px

>>68675903
If you cared at all about your music archive, why wouldn't you frequently and effectively back it up? Plenty of people here download way more music than they could ever listen to, simply to have their own searchable repository of high quality, downloaded, and convertible files that will be supported on any player or medium in the future. If you download lots of FLAC, you don't need to worry about your streaming service losing publishing rights (something that affects me on apple music all the time) or failing as a platform, portable player changing their supported file types, etc. It's like having a really good CD collection that you don't have to lug around.

Just because "most people" don't back up their stuff doesn't mean people who are careful and passionate about their collection don't.

>>68676044
It's a copy pasta. It's like three years old, how do you not know this?

>>68676044
>THIS
>NEW

jesus

>>68676007
this is a shit meme.

>>68675932
jesus christ, kill yourself now, make the world a better place

>>68675999
>AAC
>not superior freedom-respecting Opus

>>68676007
>>68676132
it's a shit meme, but at least he's doing it correctly. mr "bit shifting" >>68675696 is just being a fucking twat

>>68675976
That isn't how the encoding works at all. It error corrects for itself, cause like i said some bits get flipped. And even if they get flipped it will still work unless the wrong ones get switched.

Never taken a cs course?

>>68676230
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you a memester? Did I say anything about encoding?

>>68674611
no but people act like it is and will call it a meme
they're ignorant people who can't even differenciate 320kb with flac because of the logitech 50$ headset they listen with