320kbps mp3

>320kbps mp3
do normies actually find this acceptable?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-oSlbyLAksM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

it is, factually, acceptable.

unless you're using a PA system, in which case you should use wav.

>muh audio quality
you probably fight over amd and intel

I feel you, 320 is unnecessary. V0 sounds as good but wastes less space

320kbps mp3, Flac - both are good. If drive space is no issue then use .WAV for 1:1 copy w/zero compression (yeah flac is lossless but it does use compression.

Wav is pointless unless your CPU is too slow to decode it in realtime, in which case you should really ditch that Pentium MMX.

lossless compression on most music doesn't even save that much space. You might go down to 1mbps on some music but most will average with a 1.2-1.3 mbps

You get it down by about 1/4 to 1/3 in my experience. Not much, and I still prefer to use high bitrate lossy AAC, but FLAC is definitely worth it over wav, and with no difference in quality.

>not 128kbps

Not sure why you'd use CBR. VBR can get as good or better quality with a lower average bitrate.

It could always be my headphones, but I can't tell the difference between 320 and FLAC. tried a couple of CD rips of different genres. 192 sounds pretty bad though.

My phone is mostly full of FLACs.... It does make difference from mp3... Mostly because of the superimposition of bass lines... In mp3 it's shit and results in distortion if you hear carefully, FLAC is real smooth and preferred for EDMs

yes it does. it saves quite a bit of space especially when you get into multi gb

>Buy 3000 dollar sony walkman
>Sound quality is the same as my smartphone

WHAT THE UFCK

Stop using mp3 and start using opus you neanderthals

>not 256 AAC

>dynamic headphones
Do normies actually find this acceptable?

>>>/facebook/

Or better yet, just use something like Vorbis or Opus

wav is fucking patrician

>wav
>not a codec
>a container format

>mfw he doesn't know the difference between PCM and RIFF WAV

>Sound quality
what headphones

I have 128kbps music
How fucked am i? Or this is normal? Does it really afect your brain and the ears?

>(yeah flac is lossless but it does use compression.
I'm not sure I understand how something can be lossless and compressed

Lossless compression. Like zip.

Not fucked, just missing the whole song. Highs are cut off and bass is definitely missing. Actually you're missing some of everything if you listen closely when comparing the two

>he doesn't use .FLAC, a free and open-source codec

Like density. There's more data per bit in a compressed file than an uncompressed one. The data is all the same.

>"open sores"

I use 328Kbps music and Flac through my stereo and it comes up great. Can defiantly the difference compared to 128kbps however when my subs go down to about 25hz that's probably to be expected

They find even worse qualities acceptable. Ignorance is bliss. Many don't even know file formats or anything. Think about how the term "mp3 player" blew up when there were several other audio formats. Many don't even interact with real CDs anymore, so they're going to bet getting 256K AAC music from the iTunes store, or more likely these days, they'll just listen on Spotify and not even think about the files at all.

There's a difference between analog signal compression and digital recreatable data compression.

It is acceptable.
It's the audio crushing that is not.

Anything more is diminishing returns. You're listening to music, you audiofools don't care about music you just get off on the technical aspect of audio fidelity. 320kbps is great for anyone who isn't autistic.

This picture should clarify this dang question every time it is shot.

Stop using mp3

try doing a blind study where you're given a bunch of samples, 320kbps mp3 and FLAC. Make sure to have two versions for each sample. See if you can tell the difference.

I bet it will be noticeable if he tries to use a Dolby stuff.

But no dolby, splitting audio in 7 channels, thus no audible difference.

>tfw deaf in one ear
>tfw have to set PC output to mono so I don't get fucked over by sources with only one channel (more common than you would think)
>tfw will probably never experience true surround sound unless someone figures out how to 3d print ear bones or something
>tfw always at a disadvantage in gaymes (or RL) because it's way harder to determine where sound is coming from
It honestly could be a lot worse but it annoys me to no end that my directional sound perception is so limited. I get pretty self conscious in loud places like a restaurant or stadium setting where I can't hear what someone is saying because theyre speaking into my bad ear

You probably still can listen to forward/back:
youtube.com/watch?v=-oSlbyLAksM

I imagine flac has algorithms to look for similar data desu. In a PNG image its compressed by using runs, for example if there were 10 blue pixels in a row it would be stored as 10 blue instead of blue being stored individually for each pixel. I imagine there is something similar to this in flag compression

pro-tip: perfect audio reproduction has been solved long ago and mass produced cheap DACs are just as good as expensive audiophile ones. the only difference is that the audiophile ones might support something ridiculous like 32bit 768khz which is honestly wasted on human ears.

let me guess, you had meningitis huh?

I literally can't tell the difference between 128kb and higher. Means I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars to enjoy my music, literally used 1$ earbuds for the longest time until i needed noise cancellation for flying. That said I download everything in flac because I'm an archivefag.

I have a mystery for you all.
Since the Super NES, every nintendo console and/or game operates it's audio at 32.7Khz, but not the 32000hz as the PC standard, but exactly, 32768hz.
Even if the console supports a higher frequency like N64 and up, even if the console have no significant disk space limit like the WiiU, the music and samples are always, ALWAYS 32.7Khz.

Any clue why this magical number?

128 is crap, I can clearly hear a difference to 192, which should be a minimum.
320 is however too much, variable bitrates are the better option here.

Uh, pc standard is 48000Hz.

eh, my 128kbps 2007 techno sounds fine while high

Thoughts on FLAC-HD? Much better than CD quality (3x) apparently.

Yes, that's the second best quality you get by standard on a PC.
But there's also 44100Hz and 32000Hz (also 22,11 etc..), but no such thing as 32768Hz.

2^15

>EDMs
>Flac

negro, all EDM music is sold max in wav

Just like deaf people you can still appreciate good base and drums

just because I can't hear sound at those frequencies doesn't mean I can't feel the air vibration

This is also how people can pass ABX tests with 320k vs FLAC. Lossy inherently reduces the air pressure on your ears compared to FLAC, even if you can't hear the frequencies omitted.

Lossless simply means the data can be reconstructed perfectly, i.e no information is lost. Huffman coding is an interesting and simple algorithm for lossless compression

Look at kikestar he plays r6s and he's deaf in one ear. Never give up buckaroo.

If you have speakers wouldn't tilting your head IRL give a clue of which direction the sound is coming from?

Switching to BA/planar magnetic headphones makes the biggest difference, even with low bitrate music.

>V0
V0 uses VBR which actually sounds better than CBR320. VBR algo has been improved lately, whereas CBR has not.

caring about 'free and open source' is a manchild thing.

they're the same.

Why are we still using ancient PCM codecs when most modern audio amplifiers are by design suited to play DSD?

FLAC or this desu

The human ear doesn't go past 4Hz

there's no advantage. .wav is necessary for venue scale sound reinforcement. mp3 is fine for consumer applications, unless you make your music on a PA system. beyond that it's snake oil.