is it true flac's sound better?

yes even better than CD quality flac. if you deny this you are a pleb.

FLACs are objectively better than lossy formats, but whether or not you have the setup or ears to hear the difference is up in the air

nobody can tell the fucking difference including you kys
>>72602295

>>72602265
They don't sound better, they have more sound.

>>72602345
no i am going to keep on living and enjoying my patriction 24bit vinyl flac rips friend but thank you for the suggestion

please rethink, do some tests (flac vs mp3 320 ) and than admit that you've fallen for this meme
>>72602370
and after that I'll allow you to live.

>>72602423
>please rethink, do some tests (flac vs mp3 320 ) and than admit that you've fallen for this meme

Ok, I'll be serious for a moment. The whole 16 bit v 24 bit and vinyl v CD v SACD etc. is garbage in my opinion, but flac v MP3 really isn't. I listen to music through an ODAC, 02 Amp and HD600 or K701s (not even an expensive setup in audiophile terms) and with this setup you definitely can hear a difference. I'm not saying 320kbps MP3 is bad by any means, but there is a marginal level of distortion with it that you don't get with flac, assuming the music is well produced. Knowing the difference I find it a little distracting and I now only listen to my music in lossless either via Tidal streaming or my own flac files.

Now that terabytes of disk storage and ultra fast broadband is the norm you really might as well use flac over MP3 if you have an audio setup decent enough to benefit from it. If you don't or if you just don't care that much about high fidelity it's no skin of my teeth though, but really, lossless music isn't a meme.

By the way I don't listen to lossless music through portable devices or in ear devices, that really would be fucking autistic.

>>72602265
Yes, freedom has a much better sound desu.
Why aren't you using a libre encoding?

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 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...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.

>>72602835
How do I stop my jpg files from going blurry? My porn collection from the early 2000s is starting to look really bad. Is PNG the only way to go?

>>72602265
Better than what? MP3?
Yeah, it does. On paper. Human ears are unable to tell the difference between FLAC and MP3, however.

>>72602295
...flac doesn't specify sample rate or bit depth, so in general this is nonsense

>>72602370
I don't think 24 bit makes any sense with vinyl rips.

>>72602658
16 bits isn't great if you're really, really picky, but it depends on the source. If you're synthesizing something entirely in software that has a huge dynamic range, it's not inconceivable that there would be a clearly audible difference between 16 and 24 bits. But with proper recording and dithering, there's a high enough noise floor from most analog sources that it won't make a difference.

File: 1398891320223.jpg (27KB, 285x298px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 285x298px

>>72602887
>the human eye can't see more than 24 frames per second

>>72602920
The fuck's your point? You can't tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3 exported with the same properties.

>>72602887
>Human ears are unable to tell the difference between FLAC and MP3, however.

Bad generalization. 320 kbps from a good encoder pretty is close to transparent, but there are still a lot of poorly encoded, terrible sounding MP3s. Plus you can't edit without re-encoding and degrading the sound quality further, etc.

>>72602999
Read:
>>72602948

The frequencies in these are actually really good
these are actually 600 dollar cans

>>72603005
yeah but "exported with the same properties" doesn't mean anything

>>72603347
You're either trolling or just very, very stupid.

>>72603360
No, you can't compare FLAC and MP3 that way. It's meaningless. The sample rate and bit depth can be the same, but that doesn't say anything about the MP3 bitrate. The FLAC compression ratio only describes the amount of time it takes to encode/decode the file.

>>72602265

Depends on your gear.

>>72602920
That's why I hated pc gaming. Some rich spoiled fuck could spend 10 thousand dollars on a rig that ran cod at 200 fps. It's literally cheating because he saw me twice as fast and I could see him.

>>72603877
network latency still dominates though

>>72602265
these cans. there's so much detail in the higher frequencies

>>72602423
>please rethink, do some tests (flac vs mp3 320 )

I did. My brother bet me that I couldnt tell. I picked four for four the correct one. MP3s suck and I can hear them instantly.

>>72604027
I thought autism was rare but 2 brothers both getting it is pretty interesting.