Am I just retarded or does FLAC and shit uploaded to Youtube

get better ears

You are either retarded or listening to music with a very limited range where losing fidelity on the highs and lows doesn't matter that much.

What kind of audio setup do you have? good quality headphones should make the difference very noticeable

>>72243381
Retarded

>>72243381
what are you listening with?

>>72243411
Using Sennheiser HD 598 Cs and using AIMP music player. I mainly listen to 80's metal

I catch myself going on Youtube more often which is why I needed to ask.
>>72243401
I have perfect hearing

If anyone can recommend any type of song that shows the difference I would gladly hear it

bump i need more insight on this

>>72243448
>>72243491

FLAC and a 320kbps mp3 have almost no audible difference, but a youtube video has a compressed 192kbps audio at best so you should hear the difference if you have a decent audio setup.

>>72243491
You're fine OP. Just make sure the youtube videos are running at 480p bare minimum or you'll get noticeable compression. Everything higher than192kps mp3s is a meme

>>72243491
> I mainly listen to 80's metal

That explains it, you're just accustomed to trash

File: 1486420653203.jpg (14KB, 184x184px)

14KB, 184x184px

>>72243996
>>72244051
Am I being meme'd

>>72243381
There's this driving myth that 128kbps is shite that everybody hears as such, and nothing but the most immaculate flac is acceptable.

A lot has changed in encoding since the release of the CD. When you hear 128kbps these days you're hearing a VBR encoder or Vorbis, this is much better than the 128kbps CBR of the past.

That said 128kbps is never ideal regardless of encoder, you may not hear much difference but it isn't acceptably transparent enough. VBR V0 on the other hand is indistinguishable from 320kbps.

Flac is a complete meme and I laugh in the face of any person that tells me they hear improvements in flac. Human biology says otherwise, but whatever Mr. "Audiophile"

>>72243854
>FLAC and a 320kbps mp3 have almost no audible difference
That depends on what you're listening to. I can tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio when watching movies; though you're right if you're talking about music.
>>72244152
>being this retarded

>>72244201
Enlighten me on why Flac isn't a complete placebo.

>>72244277
>placebo.
that's the word i was thinking of, holy shit
FLAC is literally just that

>>72244277
>>72244315
I've got a copy of a movie with lossless audio.
The first time I watched it I could tell the audio was lossless from the clarity of the dialogue.
I'm not claiming FLAC is fucking magic, I'm just saying under certain conditions some people notice a difference.

>>72244379
reason you hear a big difference with movies is cause lossless movies generally means the audio is 5.1 or 7.1

This makes for a fuller more detailed sound than the loud 2.1 ones.

>>72244572
Would 5.1 surround make a difference if I was listening through a pair of cheap Samsung earbuds?

>>72244618
You obviously don't hear the proper 5.1 sound on any stereo headphones, but you still hear a difference in the audio quality. Generally it sounds much smoother, I always found dvdrips to have really harsh loudness, whereas with a 1500kbps audio stream I can crank the volume up as loud as I want and it never sounds abrasive, loudness scales better.

I wish I knew the technicalities behind it, I just know from years of experience watching movies in good and bad quality.

>>72244760
I'll take your word for it, mate.
I've heard it's easier to differentiate between lossy and lossless audio when listening to something like a harpsichord, so try looking into that.
I would, but I have to attend a lecture right now.

>>72243491
>I have perfect hearing
Clearly not, because one of the two is literally missing frequencies

>>72243381
FLAC sounds better. Period. But I guess shitty little wannabe Reddit "mythbusters" like yourselves just wanna try to debunk every little thing so that nothing is good ever.

>>72245008
This times a million

>>72245008
i'm not mythbusting, i'm just suggesting it's placebo

>>72245329
How can it be placebo if there's literally frequencies missing?

I have a friend that pirates music by going to a YouTube>MP3 site and downloading individual songs

>>72245462
And 99% of them you can't even hear.

FLAC is only useful for archiving for future converting of tracks to other formats, whoever uses FLAC daily "because it sounds better" is a delusional placebo brainlet.

>>72245606
>And 99% of them you can't even hear.
Not relevant
>>72245606
>delusional placebo brainlet.
Not what a placebo is. If there was no difference between lossless and 120kps encoding, then it would be a placebo. But since there is a mathematically quantifiable difference, it is not

>>72245506
Normies don't notice

>>72245653
dude I hate to say it but you're a dum dum. Frequencies above 20Khz are inaudible to human ears, which is what you have, and those the frequencies mp3s cut out.

They were engineered so as to have no audible difference over FLAC, and teams of audio experts have basically said that they've done so successfully. This has been the case for years.

I don't know what difference you're hearing but it's all placebo. V0 and above are literally indistinguishable from Lossless audio

>>72245653
When we are talking about FLAC vs mp3, it's implied we are talking about a 320kbps encode which most people use daily.

>>72245787
if you're heavily processing sounds, all differences in formats have varying results

try paulstretching different versions of the same song and you should begin to see artefacts.

>>72245850
We are talking about audio playback, not processing.

Ofcourse you would use the highest quality audio in production, and that's mostly wav files, FLAC is not for production it's just for archiving.

File: FLAC vs mp3.png (950KB, 1000x890px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1000x890px

>>72245787
>and those the frequencies mp3s cut out.
Incorrect. As you can see, it's topping out at about 16k

Also
>If I can't hear it, no one else can!
Yikes
>>72245829
>it's implied we are talking about a 320kbps encode which most people use daily.
OP literally stated youtube rips, which are about 128kps. Read the thread before posting.

>>72243381
I honestly cannot stand listening to music over youtube. 320 kbps vs 192 kbps is definitely noticeable to the human ear.

>>72245850
first you, I'm talking about listening not audio processing. Obviously with any processing I'm starting from a lossless file. No questions there

>>72245994
Guess what dude, that's an MP3 128kbps. A V0 will not chop out anything under 20khz (with some exceptions like silent parts) and neither will a 320. If you're seeing a cutoff at 16khz then you're dealing with a 128kbps, which pretty anyone will tell you sounds like shite

>>72246045
>A V0 will...
Not relevant

>>72245994
what you're saying is basically
>since I can hear it, there must be a difference
so don't start with me on that.

If I can't hear it, and the engineers who designed it designed it not to be heard, and the math behind their processing algorithms say it shouldn't be hearable, and the teams of audio exports who make up the audio standards committees can't hear it, then I'm gonna go ahead and claim it can't be heard.

File: Screenshot 2017-04-17 16.50.21.png (140KB, 903x403px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 903x403px

>>72246078
>what you're saying is basically
>>since I can hear it, there must be a difference
No I'm saying there is a difference, there is a difference.

Lean2read.
>>72246045
>A V0 will not chop out anything under 20khz
Pic related

>>72246159
Those are v2s it looks like if they're chopping under 20khz. VBRs do pick some spots to encode at a lower bitrate so that's why you're seeing the dips in there. Generally those are silent parts.

>>72246251
>Those are v2s
Wrong. Just encoded it myself, it's a v0, and it's cutting off at around 19k
>Generally those are silent parts.
A guitar and strings playing is silent?

>>72246301
Silent, quiet, whatever. It will pick and choose where to encode at a lower bit rate where the difference is minimal.

Now are you arguing about how it works? Whether you can hear it? I have no idea where you're going with any of this.

Check your settings, the lame encoder has a variety of settings so maybe that's why it's cutting off under 20khz, which is the VBR V0 standard cap

>>72246337
>Silent, quiet, whatever
Nice backpedaling
>Now are you arguing about how it works?
Not needed. Read the thread to know why
>Whether you can hear it?
There are cases of people hearing upward to 22k so it is possible for one to hear the difference

>>72246373
And with that, my job is done.

>>72246387
Your job of being wrong?

You've done great!