Audiophile Thread

What's the difference between 320 kbps and FLAC?

Can anyone actually hear a difference?

Also audiophile general thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php
people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
qiita.com/keiya/items/7d14adff689207a63b4b
opentrackers.org/whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

MP3 320kbps is not enough for some critical samples. Try castanets, fatboy, etc.

lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php

you can't convert from MP3 to any other lossy codec without losing more quality

bags of sand.

i can hear it... the discreet cosine transform is a splashy watery kind of sound in the high end and the dynamics can be squished

mp3 is shit... its an ancient algorithm from the 80s and bit perfect flac is literally twice the file size.

mp4 on the other hand is pretty transparent imho and flac would be alot more popular if apple supported it on ios from day one... forcing alac on everyone really fucking shits me to this day

the differences are so trivial it's not worth much thought
get flac if you don't like lossy transcoding (e.g. mp3->m4a)

flac is like 800-1400 kbps, instead of 320.

>Can anyone actually hear a difference?
no
>i can hear it..
>word salad you know nothing about
shut the fuck up donny.

500kbps is possible for solo instrumental music. (piano sonate, etc.)

T H I C C

Sometimes.

I prefer to use Flac due to preservation purposes, mainly.

So, I've always used WAV format, since it's lossless.
I'm getting 1536kbps
I can't get higher than 16 bit sample size, or higher than 48kHz.

I know there are many other music programs, other than iTunes and Windows Media Player, but are there any that sample at higher rates?
>that's a serious question, plz help

As much as people would like to stroke their dicks and cum on their superior audio equipment and highly sensitive ears passed down from generations of sound engineers and music producers, you'd probably not hear the difference between a 192CBR MP3 and a FLAC if you were to do an ABX test. Now, there is loss of data of course, since LAME makes lossy compressions. But usually, the amount of audio data you lose (and where you lose it) isn't that noticeable when you encode something to 192CBR or higher. Pretty sure you can hear the difference between 128 CBR and FLAC though if you have good equipment and good ears.

They are both inferior to 96kbps opus.

Imaging getting whipped by those cables.

>96kbps opus
If you want frequency cutoff and inefficient sample rates.

>50MB for a 4 1/2 min song
for fucks sake, encode with APE! it too is lossless and you can always convert to WAV if you ever need it (you wont).

>muh rotational velocidensity etc.
Meaningless.

yes, most programs let you go up to 24bit @ 96kHz without problems, but anything beyond 16bit @ 48kHz is pointless for regular listening (and 24bit @ 48kHz for production)

people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

>192CBR MP3
Pretty obvious over 256 becomes very hard.

Avoid shitty MP3 codecs

Is he listening music near a toramak reactor?

Maybe. Sometimes.
Usually about as effective as Sup Forums picking up on bait threads.

>critical samples. Try castanets, fatboy,
Fatboy Slim is an instrument now.
Impulsive signals with large amounts of very high frequency content are generally problematic for constant mp3 quantizers. Apt use of VBR can produce better results at lower bitrate.
The place to go to for any serious codec testing is Hydrogenaudio.

I came across these audiophile resonator cups.

>Price in Euros: Basic 200; Silver 375; Gold and Special Gold 925; Platinum 1,695

you're suppose to glue/tack one of these to your dashboard to improve the sound in your car.

>his x61 is touchscreen
Mine is stylus-only

one more... wooden acoustic panels made from spruce. each is "individually tested" and "tuned". each panel costs $1,500.

Did you really have to make a thread for this when you could have asked this in the Headphone general?

You can hear a difference if you're blasting it through a big ass stereo. At least that's what they tell. I use flac because storage is cheap and lossy transcoding sucks.

>tfw you can only hear the difference while on drugs

This

>1500$ for a piece of wood worth 1$

>What's the difference between 320 kbps and FLAC?
There's no audible difference. The only real difference is that FLAC is lossless. MP3s can actually sort of 'disintigrate' over time just like how a .jpg can start to look like shit over time, which is why older CDs always sound like complete shit. FLAC, on the other hand, maintains the same quality over the course of years or decades.

But immediately, there's no discernible difference; it's just like how a really sharp .jpg and a .png look exactly the same, except the .jpg will wear down over time.

Your so fucking stupid, “MP3s can actually sort of 'disintigrate' over time”

I keep hearing how files start to disintegrate. Is this real or just a meme? Is there no point to store images?

You don't use FLAC for audio quality, you use it because it's lossless and you can convert FLAC libraries into lossy formats for mobile usage. You should also be using a superior format/container anyway like Ogg Vorbis, so whether MP3 is worse is a moot point.

It's just easier to play music directly from it if it's stored on your personal box.

>MP3s can actually sort of 'disintigrate' over time
>just like how a .jpg can start to look like shit over time

You cant be that stupid

the difference is one is higher bitrate. whether or not the difference is audible differs from song to song, but anyone who asks this question gets barraged by nothing but poorfags claiming it's all a placebo and shills who literally do it for free claiming anyone who doesn't own $12000 electrostatic headphones with cables made of pure antimatter might as well kill themselves so nobody ever learns anything

why still use vorbis when opus exists?

Opus is better, but support isn't nearly as common, IIRC. Pretty much everything works with Ogg, in comparison.

i guess it depends on the devices you use for playback. ogg is a container btw, and can contain both opus and vorbis encoded audio.

>posting anime
You can't be THAT stupid!

This post is a beautiful work of art.

You can only hear the difference using $1500 headphonse with $1000 amp with $1200 music player all connected with $500 custom cables

...

Wav is not lossless idiot, it's uncompressed.

Good luck with 700MB's per CD-quality album....4-5x as much if its 24/96

>opus 128kbps
this is the new standard. the audio practically transparent. hell, you can even go as low as 48kbps (depending on your ears). MP3 is deprecated legacy technology.

HOW TO MUSIC AS A Sup ForumsENTOOMAN
>purchase 64gb micro-sd for your phone
>download foobar2000, mobile version
>transcode your flac collection to opus
>tag all that shit with with coverart 300x300
>don't forget the "style" tag in addition to genre

>What's the difference between 320 kbps and FLAC?
One is lossy and the other is lossless. What's so hard to understand?
MP3 is only useful for ludic listening and useless for production or critical listening. FLAC is good for everything.

whats a toramak?

>he doesn't play >5000kbps 24 192khz flacs from his phone

>download foobar2000, mobile version
foobar2000 on android is absolute shit
it can't handle FLACs, it can't show you file details, it has horrendous UI

jetAudio is foobar's equivalent on mobile

Forgot pic

why in hell would you want to tag files on your phone? foobar2000 mobile is a jukebox, nothing less, nothing more.

and it does handle flac, you giblet-head...
>play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.foobar2000.foobar2000

>foobar2000 mobile is a jukebox, nothing less, nothing more
well some people want more from a player than being a dumb jukebox

>and it does handle flac, you giblet-head
have you actually listened any flac on foobar mobilie?

however i love foobar on desktop, in this day its mobile version is trash and there are plenty better choices

MP3 is shit in $CURRENT_YEAR, but don't go falling for lossless memes.
Download lossless, convert to modern lossy formats for ultimate sound/size ratio.

Now that's what I call ear speakers.

Do phones even have DACs to take any advantage of 24/192?
Unless you have external DAC hanging of your phone, then you should kys immediately.

>well some people want more from a player than being a dumb jukebox
that why you got the desktop version.

>have you actually listened any flac on foobar mobilie?
no, because i'm not a giblet-head. if i wanted hires-portable-playback, i'd purchase an fiio or something similar.

i manage all my music on the desktop, like all people with common sense.

i actuallly do this user with a dac

most of the time though i just downsample my hi res library to 24/48 and play it on my 128gb iphone 6... i fit quite a bit of 24bit music that way.... just my opinion but anything more than 24/48 is wasting space and autism

also its funny how iphones and alac top out at 24/48 ... its almost as if steve knew something... funny

>Do phones even have DACs
What is the LG V20.

All phones have DACs.

Just use OPUS u fucking moron.
It's literally the best for all purposes.

Is anyone out there actually still powering their shit disgusting AC? Who here battery masterrace?

I can vouch. On hdds the flacs are heavy and end up getting pulled to the edge, but mp3s are tiny and just fall apart.

Can someone just post some fucking graphs

>What's the difference between 320 kbps and FLAC?
320 kbps is a bitrate, FLAC is a codec.

qiita.com/keiya/items/7d14adff689207a63b4b

Allow me to expand on this, you're talking about something called rotational velocidensity. Rotational velocidensity affects all audio files encoded with lossy compression. These include mp3, aac, and ogg.

The most notable effect of rotational velocidensity is the loss of bitrate in files. A lossy audio file will lose an average of 12kbps a year. But, this can vary greatly depending on the type of storage media used.

Examples:

SATA HDD: ~12kbps
IDE HDD: ~15kbps
SCSI HDD: ~7kbps
DVD: ~16kbps
CD-R/RW: >21kbps

This can be overcome by compressing audio using lossless formats such as FLAC, APE, or TTA. These formats are designed to never lose quality over time, and will sound the same right now as they will in 10 years.

True but the LG V20 is the only phone right now that kills other phone DACs.

...

This is a load shit because I have MP3s going back to 2000 and they sound the same since I first got them.

Music is too stimulating or rather distracting to any task at hand so I don't care.
If I did choose to lower myself to a degenerate stimuli sponge I would probably choose FLAC or WAV to perform the preposterous act of listening to mundane drivel at it's best quality.

when someone says ' it's a lossless file/it's a lossy file' they mean that the way it's compressed is lossless/lossy.
When encoding wave to flac, the audio is compressed without loss of information.
When encoding wave to mp3, the audio is compressed lossy, it loses data.
This can be seen here

Are the "humans cant hear a difference between 320/FLAC" faggots serious?

I can CLEARLY hear distortion in MP3s and no distortion in their flac counterparts. Like what the fuck, are people deaf or something

>"""distortion"""
ebin

Yes, user, cutting frequencies off causes audible distortion
Problem?

>being this dense

they explain it better than I can

opentrackers.org/whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/spectral-analysis/index.html

tl;dr 320 kbps mp3s cut everything above 20,5kHz and there's a slight shelf above 16kHz
Now if it's audible that's another story

>tfw professional pianist
>tfw i mostly listen to music on jewtube because 2poor4spotify premium

wew

>Admitting to being hearing impaired
Top kek.

what do you play m8

it's placebo. not even high end hardware will allow you to hear a difference.

Bitrot is a real thing, but it wouldn't lower the sound quality of mp3's or make a jpg look worse. It'd just corrupt the file.

Whatever

Yeah, your terrible bait is a problem.

Not an argument

Accompaniment at an opera

placebo, you can keep the flac files for storage and then just convert them to any reasonably lossy like mp3 or opus and be done with it.

Why wouldn't you listen to the flac files instead, if you have access to those anyway? I see no reason to choose for lossy when you have free access to lossless files locally anyway.

my flacs sound amazing on my logitech speakers, so much better than mp3

that's up to you. I convert them because I have finite space thanks to my jav addiction.

Player?

I thought you said you kept them for storage. Anyway, keeping them for storage and converting them is stupid, and then not listening to the flacs is stupid. If you have space considerations then obviously you do not keep them.

>I convert them because I have finite space
so you convert them to lossy but keep the lossless files because you don't have enough space? makes sense

Until I hear a $100,000 properly setup system, I couldn't tell you if it makes a difference.
I do know a 64gb microsd card is cheap as dirt so I have the space to keep FLAC. I'll download it in FLAC if I can find it, otherwise mp3 is fine

Poweramp 3.0 alpha

Full release never ever.

>MP3s can actually sort of 'disintigrate' over time just like how a .jpg can start to look like shit over time

>tag
Use PowerAMP, put songs in folder, use folder list, done.

[reply]

>being this rotationally velocidense

THATS NOT HOW DIGITAL WORKS