There are still people who believe in the FLAC meme

>there are still people who believe in the FLAC meme

what does this picture prove
the left one is obviously much clearer

>there are still people who still listen to youtube mp3s

i can tell the difference between those pics tho

>he thinks he can tell the difference

they're labeled obviously, try a double blind trial and you wouldnt know the difference

>make an image in a typical bait format
>make it very easy to tell the difference between the two
>posts greentext in support of the image that was probably created for the post
this is some advanced bait memery. I don't even know who it's supposed to troll

Just look at the edges of the buildings, they're much blurrier in the picture on the right.

too many layers of irony user, pull it back a few notches

HAHAHAHAHA, you fucking IDIOTS are 0wning yourselves right now. Sup Forums is a COMPRESSED IMAGE BOARD. You physically CANNOT tell the difference between lossless and lossy images uploaded here, because BOTH HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPRESSED. Holy SHIT. Just, leave, right now. Spare yourself further shame.

Ok so...what was the image supposed to prove again?

>he doesn't use the 4FLAC safari extension for a lossless Sup Forums experience

That you placeb-KEKS will believe ANYTHING if someone attaches the word "lossless" to it, hahahaha I can't believe this forum sometimes.

>There are still people too poor to afford a decent sized hard drive

Disdain_for_plebs.png

And how is it doing that?

i didn't see the caption before and I could clearly fucking tell the one on the left was lossless

If I showed you the compressed image and you didn't see the uncompressed one and I told you it was lossless, you'd accept it.

So really, it doesn't actually matter and yet one is over 5000% bigger in size...

except the image on the right is blurry as fuck
no one with working eyes would agree with you

Honestly dude you're just like one of those faggots that downloads FLAC and insists that they can hear the difference on their shitty ipod buds.

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

I don't have a single FLAC file because iTunes doesn't support it
I'm sorry your eyes are failing tho, maybe you should invest in glasses

I've discovered during the last two years, since I can take CD-Rs home from the mastering plant, that there's an astonishing variation in quality between different CD plants. If you think digital is perfect, I have news for you. Many of us have been fooled by this myth that it's just 0s and 1s and therefore copies perfectly. It doesn't. The variations in quality are pretty wild, and random. Just the way you hook up a cable can make a difference. And there's no quality control in these CD plants, other than someone checking whether there's any level being transferred.

Most of us take it for granted that a CD is a CD, and we almost never discuss about varying standards of manufacture. I can't say too much about current US manufacturer's because I have few US made CDs. I have still detected a general shrillness to many US CDs ("let's tweek the high end to make them sound sharp to delude the general public that our CDs sound better than vinyl and tape"). Tweeking the high end also accentuated the hiss. After so many disappointments and revelations having heard import versions after getting US discs I have concentrated on acquiring import pressings.

As for maunfacturers themselves: on the import side I like the clarity of Nimbus UK but they can be hissier and lighter on low end than MPO France which produces well rounded sounding CDs. PDO have been fine except for the recent PDO UK disc rot problem. Sonopress in Germany are adequate. I used to shy away from DADC in Austria (Sony Europe uses them) but have realised that was a personal bias. Nimbus USA (Virginia) vary. Their reissues of the OMD catalogue were shoddy. DADC in Indiana (Sony/Columbia) are so so.

actually, the man knows what he's talking about, albeit, petty or nonsense to most people. when i've gone back to some really old mp3's from way back 'in-the-day' (90's, Napster, 56k modem) most of my mp3 library sounds like crap, mostly due to the technologies available at the time. i notice an unusually large amount of "pops" in a lot of songs and a 128k rip sounds more flat than a new 128k rip (both sound terrible regardless). anybody who knows how data is written to a disc would know that bits do get lost over time.

i'm an arrogant, elitist, analog snob with 2 vintage hifi systems (1 solid state/1 tube based) that can expose every imperfection in an mp3 file. it absolutely cracks me up when people think their crappy OEM soundcard, crappy best buy cables, and crappy desktop speakers are suitable benchmarks for judging sound quality.

it's pathetic how nowadays people have allowed themselves to compromise quality over convenience and cost. i'm only 34 but just as bitter and scornful as someone twice my age. just wait until i get my FLAC vinyl rip blog up and running!

>macfag doesn't understand digital media

why am I not surprised?

this is really good

Twice in a row wrong with your assumptions (I own a PC). Maybe its time to take a break.
Anyway, my music library habits has nothing to do with your shitty eyesight and this even worse thread.

anyone with fucking functioning eyes could tell you the one on the right isn't lossless

holy fuck are you actually defending an image that's a joke on /hr/ so common that it's the board's fucking banner

it has everything to do with your need to have lossless audio/pictures/video that do nothing but take up a shit load of hard drive space

where did I say anything about that?
Three strikes and you're out. Sorry OP, better luck next time

I'm convinced all these bait threads are set on a timer or something. Or someone's autistic enough that they calculate exactly when to post them - just far enough apart that people don't catch on to the fact they're pastas

>the amount of people being trolled by OP itt

It's not trolling if they're actually retarded!

>not saving the picture as a jpg
You fucked up, OP.

If you can't clearly see a difference please contact your optometrist.

Even though the thread is bait, lossless audio can make a difference. It's not necessarily "better" but on my $3000 audio setup there is absolutely a difference. I pass ABX tests for most songs.

That doesn't mean that they are of equal quality. The left picture obviously has more detail. If you can't see that you have bad eyes kiddo.

His pic has a point though, guys.
My ears can't tell the difference between a lossless png and a compressed jpg.

my eyes can definetaly tell the difference

...

Please tell me the one on the left is not clearer

Thank you for explaining this. I literally had no idea, I've only 'seriously' listened to music for about 1 year now, so I had no clue. I'll be saving in FLAC from now on.

is this real?