Hey, "audiophiles", can you show me a clear difference

128k sounds like shit and 320k doesn't.

File: Nig Cigs.jpg (44KB, 601x516px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 601x516px

>>74729757
Idk, but that face makes me a something-phile.

File: maxresdefault (4).jpg (61KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x720px

>>74729757
if you can then so can I fair lass

>>74729757
i'd say the difference is about 192k my man

>>74729757
fugg off, don't soil lavren with 128kps

>>74729757
It depends entirely on the quality of the original recording itself.

>>74729757
>>74729757
You seriously can't hear the difference?

>>74729757
Do the spectral analysis yourself.

It makes you smug af

File: 181959.jpg (8KB, 183x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 183x200px

>>74729757
Have you tried yourself? Its pretty easy to spot it. Just downlaod the two qualies of a same song, put your headphones and give it a go.

File: 1500527097905.jpg (139KB, 1200x1171px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1200x1171px

you defintively use iphone earbuds or shit speakers

File: 1502197104444.jpg (145KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 683x1024px

What the fvck are you guys thinking ? I'm obviously waiting for someone to put a song in 320kps and the same song rendered in 128kps. Get to it, ya cvnts!

>>74729906
see>>74729871

>>74729906
You can't really do that over the internet using free streaming services because everything is automatically compressed and you have no idea how much.

File: wqwqwqwwq.jpg (29KB, 512x584px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 512x584px

>>74729757
Sure.

1. Take 1 320k MP3 copy of a song

2. Take 1 128k MP3 copy of the same song as above

3. put them both into a audio editing software or DAW

4. Sync them perfectly

5. now invert the phase on one of them 180.

What you can now hear is what you miss out on when you listen to a 128k MP3.

Most likely transients and alot of 16-18khz top end.

>>74729816
this is the only correct answer and why I don't fall for the FLAC meme. Also mixing, mastering etc

>>74730832
>FLAC meme

FLAC is for archival purposes, and you're supposed to transcode them yourself to MP3 if you want to save space in, say, a phone or PMP. Since you transcoded them yourself, you can be sure that the file will sound good because it came from a FLAC file, as opposed to getting the original file from an MP3, which might've been transcoded numerous times, losing its quality each time. The only meme FLAC files are vinyl rips.

>>74729757
At 128k the difference is detectable in blind A/B tests. At 192k less than 5% of people can consistently pick out the difference, and even then only on very specific recordings.

>>74731418
VBR slightly above 200 is my favorite format.

File: ab.jpg (2MB, 2804x3797px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2804x3797px

>2017
>running out of storage space

>>74729820
You can't either, retard.

>>74731612
Ok, buster, tell me how I can fit my 200gb of music in a 128g memory card without resorting to butchering the sound quality.

>>74731644
Ok?

>>74731742
Delete the 120 GB of shit that you've never listened to and will never listen to that you only keep around to boost your ego.

>>74731776
america speaks

>>74731776
>he doesn't respect ecletic taste in music

File: flac vs mp3 spec.jpg (43KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x305px

>>74729757

her you go OP... we use spectrograms to check that releases are really flac on release group sites

its commically easy to see... here is an article

http://www.walterdevos.be/how-to-check-quality-of-mp3-file

>>74731898
thats really great except it has nothing to do with whether it makes a difference or not listening to it.

i only download flac when im planning on sampling a track and i cant think of any other reason to do so.

if you don't notice the difference then it doesn't matter.

>>74731898
The one on the right is pretty obviously not 320, more like a 128 transcode

File: 160600eb502c308602b56cfef7d3412e--chvrches-lauren-mayberry.jpg (17KB, 236x296px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x296px

>>74731898
At last, someone actually shows what I ask for!

Thanks anon, I'll credit you in our next ĹP, be on the look-out!

>>74730832
If anythings a meme, its mp3's.

File: gui.png (2MB, 1920x623px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x623px

>>74732039

no problemo... its just tiring when you have to put up with people like this fucking guy >>74731938

>thats really great except it has nothing to do with whether it makes a difference or not listening to it.
>brick wall filter at 16k
>information visibly missing
>cant hear a thing la de da

what is confirmation bias....

>>74730866
i'm no audiophile, but doesn't this picture just show the differences in volume and not audio "quality"?

>>74729871
Have you done an ABX test? If not, and you claim to tell the difference, you are full of shit and have fallen for the placebo effect.

>>74730550
Correct, but misleading. All the sound you hear when doing that is sound you can't hear since mp3 uses a psycho acoustic model to remove all the information you can't hear.

>>74730866
Juding how something sounds because of the way it "looks" is utter retardation.

>>74731992
Wrong, that's your average 320.

>>74732248
It does neither.

>>74732039
But that's not even what you asked for, you asked for 128k vs 320k mp3 not flac.

Not an audiophile but I can say that 128 seems to be quieter than 320

>>74732248
It shows artifacts in the 128k sample

>>74732211
i'm not saying that stuff is missing, i'm saying that what's missing isn't important unless you're manipulating it. you're saying you can tell the difference looking at it - obviously you can tell the difference looking at it, but i'm saying that's not very important. if you can tell the difference with your ears, then we're going somewhere in my book. but if you listen to music with your eyes go ahead.

>>74732302
Have you done an ABX test? Otherwise it could just be placebo.

>>74732345
>i'm not saying that stuff is missing
meant that i'm not saying stuff isn't missing. i hope you don't think i'm stupid enough to think that mp3 isn't missing audio information but you probably do.

File: edec88cbc7dddabc3dfbbc5af5357915--lauren-mayberry-style-diary.jpg (38KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x600px

>>74732300
I suppose you didn't check the link, dvmmy.

File: MP3 MP3 SPEC.jpg (46KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x305px

>>74732300

ITS IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU CONTRARIAN KNOB

if you can't hear the difference you probably just need better headphones. no need to get all autistic and try to argue that "noo u couldn't POSSIBLY hear something different than what i think i hear!!!"

>>74730832
>>74729816
this is also wrong as fuck.
there is a huge difference between digital compression and poor recording/mixing/mastering quality.

a shitty recording in 320k will sound like a shitty recording.
a great recording in 128k will sound like obvious digital compression and artifacts.

>>74732401
Have you done an ABX test since you claim to tell the difference? If not, you are full of shit and have fallen for the placebo effect.

>>74732039
if youre talking about bitrates for sampling for your album you should not be using even 320 if you have messed with it. but if its something else then whatever.

File: c8ebe9430442fe924f1bc257687e73d0.gif (1MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x400px

>>74732425
I don't care much about mastering, mixing and all this shite. I let the lads do it.

>>74732511
do you honestly think you can fix low bitrates through mixing and mastering?

File: abx.png (49KB, 1023x823px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1023x823px

Haven't done one of these for awhile

What are some funny ways for her to die?

>>74732622
drowing in blacks cums

>>74729757
m4a > mp3
FLAC/ALAC >> m4a

easy

>>74732578
upload files to make the test please?

File: f3cd97d88270cc65886a566ef508b02f--lauren-mayberry-under-eyes.jpg (50KB, 500x648px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x648px

>>74732554
Do you think you can invest in more brain cells and ask your prod questions to my prod crew ?

File: 1503438336845.jpg (102KB, 673x1200px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 673x1200px

>>74732622
i will protect my bb

File: oggvorbis1.gif (13KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 490x333px

>>74732718
What about this? /g/ was pissed that I converted my stuff directly from mp3 to ogg. It was a fun day.

128k honestly sounds like shit. You can hear it quite clearly on the high notes.

File: 1502225764806.png (45KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 778x512px

>>74729816
Gib Daniel Johnston demo .flacs

>>74733414
Lossy to lossy results in worse quality regardless of the starting and ending format. Vorbis is actually a more efficient compression algorithm than MP3 though. But you would have to rip to Vorbis from the original source.

>>74733414
You get a lot of audio quality loss.

>>74733431
t. never done an ABX test

>>74733571
I don't need dumb test, I have 128k files around and they sound like crap.

>>74733588
nice placebo

>>74733588
>dumb test
And world is flat, brother.

>>74729757
>>>/tv/
If you want to post pictures of little girls go back to your containment board you sick fuck

>>74730866
See that tail on the 128 version? That's the sibillance you get on every crash cymbal, ever vocal line, pretty much everything on the upper range. Hideous.

>>74732772
Please, stop posting Lauren pics, it's making my pipi hard

>>74732274
>Have you done an ABX test? If not, and you claim to tell the difference, you are full of shit and have fallen for the placebo effect.
We're not discussing FLAC vs 320 kbps MP3s here. Go listen to a jazz standard in 128 kbps and 320 kbps and tell me with a straight face that drums don't sound muddied.

>>74729757
>>74733571
>>74732420
>>74732274
>>74729816
While you're correct, especially for some live recordings and early jazz bands, ABX tests exist. And apparently some of you have done ABX test and still claim that there's no difference which can be heard between 128 kbps and 320 kbps MP3s. Relevant:
>>74735870

https://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.lame.html
Here it is for anyone interested.