Still think FLAC doesn't make a difference? Here's the spectrogram for the FLAC and Mp3 of the same song. Pic related

Still think FLAC doesn't make a difference? Here's the spectrogram for the FLAC and Mp3 of the same song. Pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

www96.zippyshare.com/v/OT2yavZr/file.html
esrv.net/wireVSTape.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz#Human_hearing_and_signal_processing
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

what song is that?

WOW THERE ARE NO FREQUINCES THAT CANNOT BE HEARD BY HUMANS EAR IN THERE
SO MUCH LOSS

lol have fun with youtube to mp3 to get ur music

Sorry did you even see the picture? Look at between 3500 and 10,000. Much more delineated on the bottom, and the information extends to the limit of human hearing, rather than the information stopping at about 10.5k in the top pic. Do you even graph bro?

The problems here:

-I have literally no idea what that picture means or is supposed to represent. I don't know which of those is even supposed to be better

-I don't listen to songs with my eyes. I can't hear the improved quality by looking at spectograms

-You haven't even told us the bitrate of the mp3

>Arguing about digital formats
>Plebs still don't exclusively listen to records

Flac is purer unless you're listening to a brand-new record every time. Even then, you'll get some static interference

my music collection is already over a terabyte in 320, i literally couldn't fit it onto my computer if it was flac

flacfags don't actually like music, they just like sound

what lol

FLAC is a meme

>brand-new record every time

An analog pressing will always be far more superior in fidelity than brand new records (most commonly digitally sourced for Jewish reasons) And will also always be superior than your precious .flac.

Stop being autistic about audio quality and just listen to the music, if you really care about """"fidelity"""" then there's literally no reason for you not to exclusively listen to records

Sure, vinyl is better. I agree with you. But if you're listening to vinyl you're going to hear physical imperfections no matter what. FLAC won't have those physical imperfections, and like you said, vinyl is now digitally sourced.
So tell me again why vinyl is better than FLAC as far as objective quality is concerned?

Here's the 320 mp3

yt cuts off more than unaudible freqs tho.

anyway. here's a melody y'all familiar with, played in higher freqs. last note is obviously audible cuz it's around 13khz.
now if you tell me what melody this is by just listening to this file without pitching it down/stretching/whatever you should stick to flac. if not - fuck off.

www96.zippyshare.com/v/OT2yavZr/file.html

I don't listen to spectograms

but what song is it
look at all that noise

>can't hear 17k
does everything just sound like an Edison wire recorder to you?
>I have literally no idea what that picture means or is supposed to represent
>You haven't even told us the bitrate of the mp3
Nice try

tf is that supposed to be?

except pitch resolution around 12k is utter shit in humans, you can barely distinguish an octave

>the entire musical experience is just listening to a melody

what's the melody though?

If we're purely talking about reproduction, the distortion and artifacting in an analogue toolchain is miles above the the noise introduced during digitalisation.

>Nice try
I understand that better bitrates = better quality mp3s in an abstract sense but I don't understand exactly how or why and i can't interpret a visual representation of audio quality. it's not hard to grasp

How is this relevant
>I don't understand exactly how or why and i can't interpret a visual representation of audio quality.
>it's not hard to grasp
Nice try

Then the reason for the difference between MP3 and FLAC is lost on you if you don't understand WHY its objectively better

>two wrongs make a right!

Most albums these days come from digital mastering anyway... So tell me more about the 'noise' introduced. Won't that get transferred to the vinyl when pressed? funny, huh?

what if you want to listen to some lo fi music

>>can't hear 17k
>does everything just sound like an Edison wire recorder to you?
are you retarded or just can't b8 for shit?
wire recorders had max at 10khz if not less
now let me google that shit

>I don't listen to songs with my eyes
pleb

>now let me google that shit
Seems I can b8 for shit

.ogg any day

Same logic applies.

>i disapproved the b8
>thinking i took it
oh please. you're not really smart, are you?
i googled it out of curiosity of how low range there actually was. I thought it's 10k, but it's actually way lower.

esrv.net/wireVSTape.htm
>Frequency response: 200 to 5,500 Hz.

>i googled it out of curiosity, i swear!
Sure buddy

Thanks for another (you) and you're still deaf as fuck if you can't hear 17k

>FLAC vs mp3

Arguing against bait is taking it, friend. The only winning move is not to play.

b8 m8

Damage control

So you managed to get a great deal with a donut factory. For $1 a month they'll deliver a fuckton of freshly baked donuts to your door every morning. The catch is that only you can eat them. no sharing, no selling.
plus you can decide if you want to get 100 or 1000 donuts a day.

Is there a difference between 100 and 1000 donuts? obviously, it's 10 times more.
But it won't matter because you won't even eat a 100 donuts every day. and you'll have >900 donuts you have to throw out daily.

I don't give a fuck about FLAC because i can barely tell the differrence between lossless vs lossy 320 when i pay attention to it.
I'll consider it when i have a $1000 listening setup.

>Sure buddy
re-read my first post, dumbass

>Thanks for another (you)
same goes to you, and you can take all of them desu
i'm that lonely and have nobody to talk to anyway

man, i'm not even a fatty but if i could get unlimited daily donuts for $1 a month i would definitely be dead within 10 years

It's actually more like if a baker had a super LIT recipe, and they were gonna print it out on paper for you. But the problem is that their list is too long for the paper, but they give it to you like that anyway cause they're mp3 plebs that don't care about the real donut experience, they just want something easy

>re-read my first post, dumbass
Ok let's re-read together
>WOW THERE ARE NO FREQUINCES THAT CANNOT BE HEARD BY HUMANS EAR IN THERE
>SO MUCH LOSS
As you can see form OP's pic, there are specific frequencies that can be heard by humans (17k) that are missing. So you would be in fact incorrect. is that what you wanted me to read just now? To remind me you are either 1) deaf or 2) an idiot? Which is it?

Probably both...

FLAC beats vinyl every time unless it's an analog recording, as well as being transportable, transferable, easily replaced, easier to access, free and has far more options as far as customizing sound than a record player.
Vinyl only succeeds in offering a unique listening experience and for the novelty of collecting.
No reason to exclusively listen to records other than faux elitism.

that's not my first post
my first post is>wire recorders had max at 10khz if not less

are you sure you was talking to right person all that time, boy?

>faux elitism.
But vinyl listeners better appreciate soundquality and the listening experience, so it wouldn't be faux elitism. It would be actual elitism, and warranted.

Ah! The ol "I Swear It Wasn't Me!" Defense. If you wish.

>wire recorders had max at 10khz if not less
If this is what you could hear, then indeed you would not be able to hear 17k, making my initial statement true

Thanks for playing. Try again when you've learned some reading comprehension

Lol. Now you're just trying too hard. Why you always wanna be a winner?

Damage control

>Damage control
Do you even understand what it means, or you just like to throw everything you meme brain can remember when you have nothing really to say?

mp3 tastes better

you're all like "GREEN BANANAS ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY'RE DENSER AND FIRMER"

but no

squishy yellow is better u peice of shit

Nah green is better

Just stop posting if you have nothing to say. You got rekt, just suck it up and move on out.

False equivalency

>You got rekt
I think you got it backwards.

Also stop parroting me.
>Just stop posting if you have nothing to say.
I literally just typed that in the post you quoted.

>plebs who think mp3 is acceptable compared to flac
cancer.

>I think you got it backwards.
How so?

well now you have to fold this spectrum with the spectral output of your headphones, so you see whats left.
And then you have to check the resolution of your ears to see if you can resolve those tiny differences

it only makes a difference if you're using good speakers/headphones. those who say it doesn't are tone deaf.

Obviously I can tell the difference but that's purely subjective. The visualisation of it is objective evidence
And ya, I've got planar magnetics

Stop pretending you don't know.

Not answering my question. Try again.

It makes barely a difference.
I only have mp3's because they eat up less space and the type of music I listen to hasn't sounded better on FLAC. I gave it a good try, listened to exlusively to FLAC files and didn't hear a damn difference when I switched to it back. Maybe I'm deaf, or maybe these 300euro headphones are ass and maybe my speakers are diarrhea.

>Maybe I'm deaf
Well there you go

ot maybe you're a dirty fucking hipster who doesn't enjoy any of the 300GB+ of mp3 shit he listens to for status?

got it?

The mp3 version looks like a vbr mp3
All variable bitrate mp3s have specs that look like that

sure

everyone with a few brain cells knows that lossless audio makes a difference. It's sampling rates higher than 44.1KHz that don't make any difference.

>she doesn't judge music by smell

you are wrong. 24bit sampling is unmistakably superior, and I'd wager going up to 96kHz is markedly different as well.

Look up Nyquist sampling theory. You don't ever need a sample rate higher than double the maximum frequency you're trying to reproduce. It's why CDs use 44.1kHz

Honestly, any sampling rate above that will sound exactly the same.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz#Human_hearing_and_signal_processing

Wrong and wrong.

>24bit sampling is unmistakably superior
another deluded audiophile
there's no way you could tell 16bit and 24bit apart in a blind test

care to explain why I'm wrong? I'm actually interested as to how you would think otherwise.

the only difference with 16 and 24 bit is dynamic range

Only on fucking Sup Forums would a guy be proven wrong, then still try to stick it out like a salty dumbass, then the other guy would fall for it and argue for an hour incessantly when you'll forget about it in probably 10 minutes

with the right setup, absolutely.
digital audio is a simulation of live, "analogue", IRL sound
it follows that a higher sampling rate = more data = better simulation.
regardless of whether you can perceive the difference between 44.1 and 96kHz, it is there. Though I doubt sampling above 96 makes any difference, 44.1 is still a truncated version of an analogue-to-digital simulation.
The current standard of 44.1 is based on human biases and the desire to "round off" frequencies, rather then looking for the most accurate, non-destructive standard to sample by. Thus, while 44.1 does preserve the majority of the signal, it's not a fully accurate representation.
44.1 isn't even acceptable in professional film audio production settings, which should tip you off.

This thread is gross and reeks of anti-intellectualism. I'm sure op doesn't really understand what he's looking at but will pretend he does

that my friend is a REALLY shitty analogy

L M A O
underrated post

Audiophiles don't listen to music, just their headphones and codecs.

MP3 listeners don't listen to music, just the sound of dick cheese filling their ear canals.

>doesn't tell us the mp3 bitrate
>already +80 replies made of the same old slate arguments
Nice bait OP
Disappointed that nobody posted the rotational velodensity pasta yet though