Tfw fell for the FLAC meme

>tfw fell for the FLAC meme

So much hard drive space taken up and I can't even tell the different between this and 320kbs

Other urls found in this thread:

npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory
twitter.com/AnonBabble

kill yourself retard

That's because you need $800 bulgarian headphones and cables made from wooly mammoth urethra, dumbass

Give me one reason, just ONE, why Flac is better than 320 Kbps? I'll wait.

Because its flac

But can you tell the difference between 320kb/s MP3, and 96kb/s OPUS? I definitely can (it's about 3 times as small), which is why FLAC is better because I can convert it to OPUS without unnecessary artifacts.

Maybe you can't tell right now, but over time those mp3s are going to lose bits and begin to sound awful.

>Talks about HDD space
>Can't tell the difference
>320
>Not V0
>Could literally type a one liner to convert all his music but bitches on a Himalayan martial arts forum
Install Gentoo then kill yourself

stream flacs with tidal, idiot

There is no audible difference between FLAC and 320kbps.
There are other reasons one would download FLAC.
OP, of course, downloaded all FLAC because he felt like his peers were telling him to, and that it must be 'better'.
And, as is common on the autism spectrum, he becomes extremely disgruntled and distressed when things dont go like he expects them to.
also lmao poorfagz cant afford diskspace looooool :^^^^))))

>Himalayan martial arts forum
kek

lol flac cucks btfo

>audiophiles

>I can't even tell the different between this and 320kbs
you probably can't tell the difference between FLAC and 256kbps, or maybe even 192kbps. most people really cannot hear that well, but on Sup Forums everyone is a Golden Ears™, 2m tall, 400lb olympic level PowerLifter™ with an IQ of 168 tested no less than 17 different times.

highest quality mp3 i can hear the difference is 192kbps, 224kbps i have no idea. i still like .flac though and i always download flac if i can

> 400lb olympic level PowerLifter™

on his bed

fucking anyone can hear the difference between FLAC and 192. anyone who doesnt suffer from old age or hearing damage.
almost noone can hear the difference between FLAC and 320, though.

>fucking anyone can hear the difference between FLAC and 192
doubt it.
no cheating: npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

archiving purposes and converting to whatever quality you want

DYEL manlet detected.

> he doesn't convert to placebo quality 192kb/s opus

When uploading FLAC to private trackers, you get more ratio

You dont have to be able to discern in a side by side test for the difference to matter, user.
When I was 13 I listened mostly to music on youtube, and sometimes roughly 192 mp3.
When I switched to mostly downloading music, I suddenly, inexplicably felt like it sounded better. Not that I turned on one specific song and could hear a clear difference, but it just seemed like the music was somehow inexplicably better. I wasnt even aware of audio quality making a difference at the time, so it wouldnt have been placebo either.
I also noticed this later, after taking note of audio quality, when replacing an album with a higher quality version sometimes. Generally from 192 to 320 or flac. I usually COULD Hear a difference, but if I was trying to listen for a noticeable difference, it was only very minor. But listening to the album in full, it somehow just sounded so much better in higher quality, in much the same way as before I was even aware of audio quality.

>It doesn't matter if you objectively cannot hear the difference between 192kbps and FLAC! The placebo effect makes it better!
You're fucking stupid and prove my point.

You apparently cant fucking read.
Discerning in a side by side test is not the only way to be able to 'notice a difference.'
I apparantly experienced this "placebo" before I Even knew what the fuck audio quality was and that it would have any effect on the sound. kys.

>private trackers
>ratio
Another plane of autism on top of being an "audiophile"

>320 Kbps
320 Kbps what?
320 Kbps wha?
wha?

>over time those mp3s are going to lose bits
wut?????

Time and time again studies have shown that people are absolutely awful at remembering things, and those memories can be falsified or changed by experiences in the present. If you can't tell the difference between 192 and FLAC now, then I seriously doubt the experiences you described about the music sounding "inexplicably better" are accurate.

If you cannot tell the difference between one bitrate and another in a blind test, then any difference you hear between the two is solely placebo. Most people cannot hear the difference between 192 and FLAC, and I'll stand by that. Your inability to hear the difference and damage control claims of "but it doesn't matter!" prove this.

Also,
>kys
Back to plebbit.

Why do you think its called lossy?

>Give me one reason
it's not lossy

>so much hard drive space taken up
FLAC isn't much larger than 320kbs CBR MP3. Stop being a peasant drama queen and splurge on a 4TB HDD.

>Wasting space for no reason

>data is lost 'over time'

>nuh uh did not!!!
Well fuck off then.
>If you cannot tell the difference between one bitrate and another in a blind test, then any difference you hear between the two is solely placebo
is fucking retarded, though. You can perceive a difference without consciously noticing it.

while I do agree that the difference between 320kbps and FLAC is negligible, it still is there.

you need decent headphones and a quiet room to truly appreciate flac, but honestly if you just want to listen to your music in good quality 320kbps is just fine

You are doing it wrong op. It must be your audio cable setup senpai.

>used space is wasted space
>I'm saving all those expensive gigabytes for something important, i swear!

>You can perceive a difference without consciously noticing it.

that's the placebo effect, retard

>>data is lost 'over time'
What is computer SDRAM

No it isnt you fucking retard. Do you even know what the placebo effect is?
Placebo would be consciously noticing an audible difference because you're imagining it, convincing yourself it would be there.

do you store all your files on RAM?

and what does 'RAM' have to do with data loss 'over time'?

Put data on a ramdisk and turn off your pc

>implying you will ever notice the loss

MP2 128 Kbps is were it's at

> not owning a pair of 1000€ headphones to notice it

is cutting the power = lapse of time ?
what if power is supplied permanently?

It must trigger you to know the only lossy compressed media I have was distributed that way.

>Mfw I use Bluetooth headphones and stream my music on Spotify

My life has gotten a hundred times better since I stopped caring about if I can hear the drummer fart or not

>What is entropy

>implying you notice it and it's not 100% your autism/placebo

let a not-audiophile-autismus-maximus blind test you
before that happened you can go fuck yourself

320kbs is shit tier though, if you really care about space you use 128kbs opus. You can't hear the difference between 128kbs opus and lossless.

The price of storage is so low that you might as well get everything in flac though.

>data loss is a thing
>implying
>implying implications
you have to be incredibly stupid or naive to believe that
You don't lose a "bit" here and there
that's utter bullshit
if you lost one bit in the wrong place the file would be entirely unreadable
fucking audiphiles being this stupid really triggers me every time I visit /gee/

this
just imagine the disgusting filthy audiophiles sitting in their rooms
the cables hanging in the air so they don't touch the ground
their tube amps doing all kinds of nonsense shit
just sitting there on some cheap chair listening to music, wipping their heads autistically to the beat of some artsy high quality flac song
doing nothing besides that
while every other human on earth just goes on with his life

>imagine someone sitting in their room listening to music
>what a loser autist LMAO
???????

>Placebo would be consciously noticing an audible difference because you're imagining it
Is that not what you did? How could you possibly notice an audible difference subconsciously? Unconsciously? Did you realize it in a dream?

You /consciously noticed/ the difference between the recordings, only at a much later date and after becoming deluded by the audiophile meme, so your memories are inaccurate.
psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory

>a hundred times better
Jesus user, you must've cared about that drummer farting a whole heck of a lot.

read it again and don't twist my words this time

You can make these ridiculous statements about any hobby or profession...

That being said,
>their tube amps doing all kinds of nonsense shit
Tubes sound better than digital. They always do. Playing back audio, playing an instrument through a tube amp, etc. It's always better than digital.

No, its not.
>How could you possibly notice an audible difference subconsciously?
What kind of fucking stupid question is this? Feeling like it sounds better and not understanding why. You perceive the difference without consciously realizing 'this has higher audio quality, that must be it.'
>After becoming deluded by the audiophile meme
Oh, aren't you so smart, user? these losers are all deluding themselves, and here you stand, above them, realizing that its all a sham, reality is the very oppisite of what these autists tell themselves. Keep on, fellow thinker.(drink bleach)
So anyways, yeah, nah cunt. I wasnt aware of the 'audiophile' meme and Im not any 'audiophile' now. I didnt visit any forums for that sorta shit, read any aritcles about FLAC or whatever, and I sure as hell dont post in the headphones threads now.
Anyways, by the point you're resorting to
>NUH UH UR REMEMBERING WRONG UNRELIABLE MEMORY MAN U CANT KNOW WHAT U HEARD
none of it matters anymore. it just boils down to
>your memory is wrong
>no its not
>yes it is
>no its not
etc.

>Feeling like it sounds better and not understanding why.
Doesn't happen lmoa. Didn't read past here.

>before that happened you can go fuck yourself
my dick can't bend like that

>subconsciously noticing something without fully realizing it or knowing what it is, but it having some effects on you perception
>OMG THATS IMPOSSIBLE RETARD
>doesnt happen lmao haha placebo
Noone reasonable would say this. You're in an Internet argument and have decided the other person absolutely must be wrong, no matter what, and thereby memed yourself into perceiving the very idea of perceiving something without consciously noticing it as impossible magical bullshit they're just using to justify something.

Look on the bright side, since you picked flac instead of mp3, you can easily convert them into a superior format like ogg with no loss of perceived quality.

I didn't say it doesn't happen anywhere at all. I said it doesn't happen with music. Did you happen to read the article I linked about your faulty memory?

>ogg
>superior
>Not just using opus

>it doesnt happen with music
>because Sup Forums listens to flac on expensive headphones, and Sup Forums AUDIOPHILE MEME MEME AUTISM PLACEBO LMAO KYS PLACEBO
there is literally no reason to suggest it would happen with other things but not with audio.
>did you read the article tho
I already fucking know about this. You seem to be imagining Im an 'audiophile' who plates their computer in gold for muh sound quality and buys the idea of high quality audio and equipment as part of their dogma and identity, so they'd therefore be very ready to retroactively convince themselves of whatever to maintain this.
I've never had more than cursory interaction with 'audiophile' anything. The most 'audiophile' thing I have is a pair of AKGs, because a music reviewer said they last a long time. I dont even look at the audio threads on Sup Forums.

>You seem to be imagining Im an 'audiophile'
If you are not an audiodumb then why are you arguing that not being able to tell the difference between low bitrate recordings and FLAC is irrelevant? Why are you arguing that there is some nebulous factor that influences the perception of music?

New user.
Your memory is untrustworthy, so only a double blind experiment would satisfactorily answer this retarded question of whether or not you, the user from Satan knows where, can discern the difference between fuck knows what.
Incidentally, unconscious perception has an effect on conscious behavior (see priming for an example), so a double blind setup would work even if you discerned fuck knows what only sub or unconsciously.

>some nebulous factor
What? Bitrate is about as nebulous as jpeg artifacting.
also, im advocating that theres a real difference between 192 and 320 mp3, noone can notice a difference between 320 and FLAC. Maybe a few people in very quiet rooms with very good headphones and very good ears.
>If you are not an audiodumb then why are you arguing that not being able to tell the difference between low bitrate recordings and FLAC is irrelevant?
I dont know exactly what you mean by this mess of a sentence, but it sounds like you're suggesting anyone whos not an 'audiophile' should be perfectly happy listening to low bitrate shit. Reasoning that
audiophiles=HORRIBLE LOSER FAGGOT AUTISTS OMG
audiophiles "care about bitrate and audio quality"
therfore, people who arent LOSER FAGGOT AUTISTS must NOT care about either of those things at al, and be perfectly happy listening to 128kbps mp3 on youtube.
I just want my music to sound good, man. the mid 200s kbps is also acceptable. I dont have to obsess or anything, I Just search 'FLAC' or '320kbps' at the end when looking for files.

>What? Bitrate is about as nebulous as jpeg artifacting.
You said there is some factor that influences music perception without unconsciously.
>theres a real difference between 192 and 320 mp3
There's a real difference between 320 and FLAC, and FLAC and WAV, too, but no one cares because nearly no one can hear it. Unsurprisingly, most people can't tell the difference between 192 and 320kbps either.
>sounds like you're suggesting anyone whos not an 'audiophile' should be perfectly happy listening to low bitrate shit
No, what I'm arguing is that you should only listen to what you're capable of hearing. If you can't tell the difference between 192 and 320, then you shouldn't listen to 320 because you get nothing out of it. It's just a waste.

You are arguing that it actually doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference between 192 and 320. You are arguing that you should always choose the higher bitrates because of some undefined magic factor that makes music sound better at some later date as long as the bitrate is high.

Your argument is silly.

>some factor that influences music perception without unconsciously.
what?
>some undefined magic factor
>subconscious perception=undefined magic woo
you're just deliberately being retarded now aren't you? That, or you cant understand english, in which case stop posting.

Subconscious perception of music doesn't happen you dumb cunt. The reason the music sounds better to you now is because you are not remembering objectively.

>your subconscious shuts off and stops perceiving aural sensory input when you listen to music
Whats wrong with you?

>download 320kbs youtube videos
>convert to FLAC
>upload to private tracker
>watch all the numale "audiophiles" lap it up
>mfw

I don't keep up with meme formats, user. I just picked ogg as an example of a format that's objectively better than mp3.

Except people will call you out on your bullshit by looking at the spectrum.

you're not getting it, so i'm going to spell it out for you.

If you cannot determine the difference in quality between two recordings, then you should only listen to the lower quality/smaller filesize recording. Listening to higher bitrate music and having it "inexplicably sound better" later is not due to some unconscious or subconscious perception of the frequencies preserved by the higher bitrate recordings. It is either: placebo, nostalgia, inaccurate memory, or that thing that makes you like music more the more you listen to it (albums growing on you).

Get it now?

>judging music quality BY LOOKING AT IT
oh wait THATS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO

>Subconscious perception of music doesn't happen you dumb cunt.
>subconscious perception magically stops when you listen to music
You can notice the difference without being able to discern between the two in a short side by side test, because your brain doesnt magically either shut parts of itself off or make you consciously perceive absolutely all input.
In this manner at least, anyone can hear the difference between 192 and 320 kbps mp3. This is to be expected given that one can also tell the difference consciously pretty often.
Pretty much noone can consciously hear the difference between 320 and FLAC, nor can they notice FLAC sounding better without consciously differentiating them in a side by side test. It is actually indistinguishable from 320 mp3.
so, you shouldnt get FLAC for audio quality over 320 MP3, expecting it to sound better.
But you should get at least 200s-320 kbps over 192 kbps mp3.

Of course, blind tests should still be able to tell if you if you can actually perceive a difference or not, but not with as few trials as in that NPR article. If I'm right, you should get a score higher than 50% accuracy. But, again, with more tests than that NPR article.

>Goes back to original point when presumably he couldn't tell the difference between 192 and 320
>Still claims everyone can
I'm done with you.

Why is everyone so mad? :(

this is my amp & speakers
my source is an X60s ThinkPad

i can hear a subtle but substantial difference in about 50% of FLAC/WAV tracks versus 320kps mp3

mostly in the high treble and the dynamic range in the midrange

the speakers i bought from an audiophile for $400 and the amp i bought used for $250

post your gear

mp3 @ 320kbps is a backwards speciest format designed for humans, while flac let's you show your sick tunes to your animal buddies in all it's glorious splendor

When I listen to FLAC (more-so with speakers than headphones) I find the imaging placement of things like symbols and other similar treble parts to be slightly more distinct sounding. That's about it, it's pretty subtle, and I think it's only discernable on certain recordings, where-as others I'd probably not be able to tell the difference.

320 is totally fine, I listen to them a lot but if I have access to lossless that's what I'll put in my digital library for the peace-of-mind of it. It's not like hard drive space is a problem these days, especially since my music library is pretty selective and not at all huge. I convert down to mp3 for portable application, though.

Convert to 320kpbs mp3s, delete your flacs and then do what said.

The human ear can't hear above 192kbps

Private trackers? Like What.cd?

>looking at the spectrum

They should look at the autism spectrum while their at it, and find that they are ROYGBIV'ing the fuck out of it.

ok grandpa

>transcoding from lossy to lossy

Disgusting. RIP your ears.

>you objectively cannot see the differenc e between this glass of distilled water and this glass of distilled water infected with ebola virus therefore it's placebo

ITT: the equivalent of poorfags using 640x480 30fps monitors to view DVDs remastered from scratchy VHS tapes provide advice on why people shouldn't be able to see improvements with 4K displays playing ultra HD media

>damaging your ears voluntarily

wew

> thinkpad as source
found your problem :-)

transcode your library to v0
archive your flacs onto another hdd or two
stop crying

people who say there is no difference between 320kbps and FLAC either have shitty gear, shitty ears, or both

if you can't afford good gear then stick with 320kbps, theres no need to be ashamed

The audio chips in most modern computers provide compatible response as the audio chips in audiophile tier dedicated DAC consoles -- except for recording.

>2016
>not wanting to hear Mercedes Lander rip ass