Do a test between FLAC and MP3 256kbps VBR

>do a test between FLAC and MP3 256kbps VBR
>can't even tell a difference

To think I almost fell for the audiophile meme. *whew*

Other urls found in this thread:

hydrogenaud.io/musepack/klemm/www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/mpp/audio2/Short_Block_Test_2.wav.bz2
qiita.com/keiya/items/7d14adff689207a63b4b
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>do a FLAC is almost the same size as 256k VBR
>can't even use up my $40 1TB HDD in 2017

That's nice. Retard.

Flac is for archiving.

Does not make a difference for overcompressed music but use a high quality voice recording and listen to it on studio headphones. You will hear it
Also the extra bytes come in handy when you slow down a song for guitar practice or some shit.

>do a test between 64kbps and 320kbps
>can't tell the difference

What the fuck is the point, do I just not know what to look for?

Being able to enjoy music for the music is a luxury that audiophiles will seldom know.

Daily reminder that the master is what matters most
doesn't matter how high quality your audio file is, if the master is shit you'll hear
I would rather take an insanely well mastered low quality file than a badly mastered high quality file
Main reason why I can't listen to war dogs

But I can't find the music that I listen to in FLAC :(

That's pretty serious though.
I was listening to some of my music and I suddenly noticed it sounded especially shit and found out it was 192 instead of 320.

>FLAC is almost the same size as 256k VBR
FLAC is typically around 900 kbit/s. Even 320k MP3 is less than half the size.

>can't even use up my $40 1TB HDD in 2017
I want to do more with my 1 TB drive than store music. I also want my music collection to fit on my phone and still have plenty of space for other things.

I'd use fairly high bitrate AAC or Opus, and only use FLAC if I have a master of something that I need to edit later.

MP3 cannot encode this sample without awful artifacts.

hydrogenaud.io/musepack/klemm/www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/mpp/audio2/Short_Block_Test_2.wav.bz2

Happily that sample does not occur in real music. Also MP3 is not the best lossy audio compression.

Killer samples don't count, that's why they're called killer samples.

This. There are also killer patterns of pixels that cannot be encoded well by JPEG, but that doesn't mean JPEG is shit. JPEG is designed to encode photos with little to no visible loss in detail, and MP3 is designed to encode real world sounds and music with little to no audible loss. And both do a pretty fine job of it, given a reasonable quality setting.

Of course in both cases newer, better encoding schemes exist, but they're not used as frequently.

You might find a similar passage on a techno track, though. Also, that is not really a killer sample for other lossy codecs with shorter MDCT block and no 320kbps limitation.

OP if you stick a 6.2L V8 in a piece of shit it's still going to go 0 mph

You really need to listen to a setup first hand to really be "memed" by the hi-fi movement (which has been going on for quite few decades desu).

On top of The Who being one of the best artists of their respective craft, Pete Townshend (lead guitar/vocals/main song writer) very meticulously mixed his records, some say in an almost OCD like manner. If you're interested try to find the videos of him talking about him mixing the Tommy record for surround. Most albums/songs are never mixed for surround because why do that in the first place? Well it's something only someone who "fell for the audiophile meme would understand".

picture very related

You use FLAC so you can transcode to whatever you want however many times you want not because much quality. It also allows you to listen in a decent sound system without sounding like the speakers are inside a cellophane bag.

can you give me a quick rundown on rotational velocidensity?

i go all flac all the time. lossy audio is so 15 years ago.

>Listening to Digital Music

>Calling yourself an Audiophile

Do you even have a good Amp bro?

Dear sir you are needing an inviting to passing the headphone!

Both do a bad job compared to modern standards. WebP and Opus are better (and less supported as well).

MP3 VBR is the best lossy format.

It will make a difference for some files but not others. Different audio streams require different bitrates to avoid noticeable loss of quality.

Also

>256kbps
>VBR
Pick one

If you can't tell the difference between 64kbit and 320kbit then you have some serious issues.

And not just age issues, that level of compression ruins more than just the higher frequencies.

MP3 is a dropoout festa compared to Opus.

qiita.com/keiya/items/7d14adff689207a63b4b

I listen to analog music bro.

I mean, mastering matters the most and 320 to flac doesn't matter, and people saying they hear a difference with thousand dollar gears are just under placebo but 64 to 320 is really noticeable, you might have a hearing problem, or it's your listening gear?

LAME 126kbps mono: Opus 49kbps mono: this pic

nice, have you heard the new Gorillaz Album?

> trying to tell the difference on apple earbuds
> probably has shit ears to begin with

Hey, glad you like cassettes.

I prefer Vinyls

on a good master, you are able to hear the difference between mp3 and flac, Hell, I have tinnitus and hearing loss and I can tell the difference, again, on a good master mp3 v flac comparison.

That said, to even begin hearing the difference you need decent headphones, not the best, just decent, and decent starts around 100$

My speakers are fairly shit, they get the job done bue they are nowhere near good, but the difference between them and my headphones are night and day.

keep your favorite shit in flac/lossless, keep the rest in mp3

Gotta love that snap crackle and pop

>Buying a 50$ Record Player or not cleaning your Vinyls
Why?

all i can tell between 192 and 320 is volume wise. 320 all the way for m

The point of FLAC isn't that you can noticeably hear the difference but rather you can feel the difference.

>>do a test between FLAC and MP3 256kbps VBR
>>can't even tell a difference

Consider suicide.
I've done a multiple blind tests, i cant tell 320 from 128, same shit, but i could tell lossy from lossless 100% of the time because of compression artifacts being apparent every time.

Hey Guys
If I convert a 320kbps mp3 to a FLAC
will it make it better?

why would you rip to a lossy format when you can have a 1:1 copy? there's literally no arguement beyond "muh file size" for lossy compression, the entire hierarchy of which will eventually be depreciated as storage keeps getting larger and the price keeps going down. stupid mentality to think otherwise.

it will be identical but bigger filesize. you can't upconvert to reclaim the data that was stripped during lossy compression.

>don't own $500 headphones
>can't tell the difference between FLAC and mp3s ripped from youtube

ok thanks

>I spend thousands of dollars on harddrives collecting uncompressed bluray rips of movies
>when there is no noticeable difference between that and a well-encoded ~2GB release

>$500 headphones
>Chink 50$ OEMs
>10$ discrete soundcard
>you're golden

Pajeet.

>digitally mastered
>digital samples used
>album ends up on analog medium
Modern music industry everyone.

>thousands of dollars
are you retarded? A 4tb drive is only ~$120
>no noticeable difference between that and a well-encoded ~2GB release
you definitely are retarded