Friendly reminder that while original CD recordings cutoff around 22khz, once you convert it to a lossy format such as mp3 you drop to at least 16khz.
This means you are only hearing 72.72% of the original song when you listen to an mp3 file.
To exemplify how much you are missing, this Mona Lisa edit is 72.72% of the original painting.
Other urls found in this thread:
mp3ornot.com
youtube.com
machinadynamica.com
dictionary.com
twitter.com
friendly reminder that this is all bullshit
>friendly reminder that this is all bullshit
Flac on bottom, mp3 on top. Do you even know how to read a spectrogram?
A better way to show the comparison would be adding a white border instead of parodying The Next Day, and also fuck with the resolution while still keeping the picture the same size.
WRONG, mp3 files cutoff depending on the bitrate. A good mp3 320 ripped song cuts off perfectly ad 20 khz. 16 khz is for 128 kbps songs which sound like shit.
>This means you are only hearing 72.72% of the original song when you listen to an mp3 file.
True but not significative. You can't hear enything above 22 khz
The song above is a bad mp3. Probably 128 or transcoded shit.
>You can't hear enything above 22 khz
Speak for yourself.
OP, give me your most beloved flac track (zippyshare) and i'll convert it to a 128kbps high quality format and you will not hear any difference. Come on.
nice cherry picked picture you got from google images.
the frequency content stays the same because generally mp3 uses a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. Different mp3 algorithms do things differently but 44 is the industry standard.
cutting off at 20 kHz wouldn't even matter regardless at the mp3 stage, the general conception of human hearing limits is between 18 and 20 kHz. The reason there is this extra space is because of historic anachronisms from when companies were first trying to set standards for sampling rate and also to create a buffer of space in the file for necessary things in digital audio, such as track information and an anti aliasing filter.
FLAC and 128 are a joke to compare, even 320 and 128 are a world of difference.
If you can't hear the difference either your ears are broken or you have dollar store headphones.
>he listens to music and isn't an audiophile
>he's an audiophile and doesn't even calibrate his setup based on his test results from the audiologist
Your reading comprehension is awful
I'll repeat what i said. Give me your most beloved flac track and i'll convert it to a high compressing format and you will not hear any difference
Spoiler: The format i'll be using is NOT mp3
>Stop listening to a format that I don't like REEEEEEE
Friendly reminder you can't hear the difference
Like it or not your auditory sysem has a low-pass filter with a cut-off between 16 and 24 kHz. Adding to that, it is not an ideal LP filter: there's something like equal-loudness contours. You may hear simple sine frequencies up until 24 kHz, but they are so insignificant in normal circumstances and recordings (very high order harmonics) that you DO NOT need them in an audio file.
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.
128 has a very noticeable difference. 192 is the bare minimum, VBR above 200 is my favorite in general.
False. It depends on the encoder. HE-AAC is literally the same at 128 and 320. That's why it's considered the best high compression encoder.
Name a song and i'll show you it
Friendly reminder that this is bullshit. I once fell for the rotational velocidensity crap
>she listens to any album that wasn't released on SACD
This
Make me
>Friendly reminder that this is bullshit. I once fell for the rotational velocidensity crap
It's nice to know you have 0 understanding of audio encoding, thermodynamics and entropy. Please keep your incorrect opinions to yourself.
it's almost like you love the format more than the actual music
...
I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.
So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocidensity issue. I'm an audiophile myself and posses a vast collection of uncompressed audio files, but I do want to assure the casual low-bitrate users that their music library is quite safe.
Being an audio engineer for over 21 years, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. While rotational velocidensity is indeed responsible for some deterioration of an unanchored file, there's a simple way of preventing this. Better still, there have been some reported cases of damaged files repairing themselves, although marginally so (about 1.7 percent for the .ogg format).
>it's almost like you love the format more than the actual music
I bet you watch moving on a 1inch by 1inch iPhone screen.
movies*
One of my favorite memes.
>he thinks of popular music like some high art form
l m a o
delusional
humans can't hear anything above 20kHz
if you're above the age of 25 you probably can't hear anything above 18kHz, and you will continue to lose higher frequencies as you age.
If you're sincere then I'll accept that you THINK you can hear frequencies above 22kHz, but that doesn't mean you actually can.
Who said anything about popular music?
Very poor attempt at strawman.
>Friendly reminder to download 320 kbps MP3s and leave this thread
I feel genuinely feel bad for the people who fell/fall for this
Not that user, but I'll repeat what he said. If you actually can't hear the difference between mp3 and flac, you either have shit headphones or shit hearing. That is a fucking fact.
i only listen to youtube rips, my hearing is so fucked i don't even benefit from flac so fuck it
Yeah, that is a fucking fact if the mp3 is shit. Now im talking about bitrates. And a 128kbps well-compressed song sounds the same as a 10000 kbps flac song. Give your favourite song and i'll show you.
>I'm retarded and can't fathom other people not being exactly as retarded as me
>he listens to jazz without Monster Cables™
why even bother?
>he doesn't even use cable risers to keep his cables off the ground to reduce noise contamination coming from static
hol up! you forgot to add the crystals
Sup Forums is a board for popular music. quality of recording is irrelevant, no one here listens to some intellectual music
>Sup Forums is a board for popular music
[citation needed]
>no one here listens to some intellectual music
Speak for yourself.
I bet Pink Floyd is your favorite band
You'd lose that bet.
Bigly.
if i loved the movie and it was my only option, yes, i would. obsessing about format is a surrogate activity to make up for one's lack of enthusiasm for the song in question
This is the most autistic thread on /mu ATM
Lynch's argument there is poor. No one who watches movies on a phone would watch Lawrence of Arabia but some forgettable action flick. If people watch his movies on the phone, that's his problem of appealing to that demographic. Complaining about it is pointless
>if i loved the movie and it was my only option, yes, i would.
If you're too poor to watch a movie on anything other than an iPhone screen, you have bigger things to worry about than what you're watching movies on.
>If you're too poor to watch a movie on anything other than an iPhone screen
An iphone is probably more expensive than your computer and your monitor together
Please tell me this isn't real.
It absolutely is! Audiophiles are legitimately autistic and insane people
my point is if if "buddy holly" by weezer starts playing in a bar at 1 am literally nobody is going to complain that it's encoded in a lossy format
...
But who cares?
this whole site is insane
machinadynamica.com
if you scroll down there's a " Particle Accelerator Ion Gun"
you can't make this stuff up
This reminds me of the famous quote "progressive rock fans don't listen to the music, they listen to the instruments"
>" Particle Accelerator Ion Gun"
I...
FFFFFUCKING TELEPHONE
best post
That quote is stupid as shit.
>significative
nigger that's not a word
that quote literally only makes sense in the context of EAI and musique concrete
>using an outdated word to make you seem smarter
>using an outdated word
I believe you mean 'archaic'
>using an outdated word to respond to someone calling out your use of an outdated word
Archaic isn't archaic.
it literally is
>all that fucking shielding and insulation
>cables end in bare wire
I'm laughing my ass off
Anything above 16khz is useless in terms of hearing, but flac is still useful for lossless > lossy conversion, you don't want to keep converting lossy > lossy as that can actually degrade the quality (think multiple jpegs)
no im gonna keep listening to whatever i want
>Friendly reminder that while original CD recordings cutoff around 22khz, once you convert it to a lossy format such as mp3 you drop to at least 16khz.
I have great hearing, I often hear things people never hear. I ran a test and 16KHz is my hearing limit, I can't hear anything above it. So a cutoff of 17KHz doesn't matter to me and probably isn't a big deal for 99% of people here.
That said FLAC >>>> MP3 320 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else
I heard that they are going to finally kill mp3, who else /happy/?