Reminder that you've been listening to your FLAC's wrong

Reminder that you've been listening to your FLAC's wrong.

Attached: SampleRate.png (410x455, 48K)

Who doesn't use 192000 Hz? It's the default for my PC.

Unless your audio driver specifically changes it when you install it. Windows always has it on 16 bit, 44100 Hz as default.

my laptop doesn't go past 24 bit 48000, what do

Ah fuck. Now I feel like a cunt.

>shared mode

Thanks, my Youtube albums sound much better now!

thanks op I cum on cat she hiss at penis

>listening to your FLAC's
shiggery diggery doo

Attached: shigerillo.png (1166x849, 984K)

well go listen to your favorite albums and enjoy the details

>implying there's any noticeable difference between FLAC and 320kbps mp3 other than placebo

Attached: 1519198147018.jpg (720x960, 52K)

why placebo? iirc their albums aren't mastered particularly well

there actually is and I fucking hate it

>tfw you forgot to take your meds

Attached: robocop glitch.jpg (480x480, 46K)

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.

If you are going through windows sound drivers at all you are doing it wrong. Set up Foobar for WASPI

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!

Attached: 1520229986709.png (836x900, 231K)

Okay nerd

he's right, though. streaming services are even worse because most of them refuse to publish the original encoding date of the files they have available to stream so you never know what quality you're going to get

I remember some guy on here proving that was a bunch of bullshit. Something about larger files like Flac losing more data in the long run since they occupy more disk space.

DESU I really dont care I swap out data when I get a new drive anyway.

doesn't this slow down your pc or make audio stutter if you don't have a dedicated sound card

fuck this pasta is still funny after all these years

anything higher than 16/44.1 is overkill for playback.

I literally only use FLACs because their spectrograms are prettier.

Attached: 1518676974351.png (257x250, 127K)

>he actually fell for the 24bit scam

Attached: 1327577400920.jpg (158x153, 14K)

the overwhelming majoirty is 16/44.1k so you won't notice anything

>anybody who knows how data is written to a disc would know that bits do get lost over time.
Are you retarded?

lurk more, newfag

that's true

100% of it is 16/44.1k or lower. going any higher than that for playback is autistic behavior.

Newfag detected

for my files it's 44100 Hz (97.4%); 48000 Hz (2.2%); 16000 Hz (0.3%); 96000 Hz (0.1%); 22050 Hz (0.0%)

>using more than 1 bit

Attached: 2014_09_24_1_3154dadb8af2d85bf4c2_16.jpg (602x450, 108K)

What the fuck is a "bit" Fuck off you computer nerds, I only listen to real music, not your dumb bleep blop bullshit.

You should rip it to MIDI then it can perfectly recreated at any time.

there is a huge difference and just because you can't hear it doesn't make the rest of us as pleb as you.

48 is for tv/film and above that is completely redundant and not used by professionals. how much amateur stuff do you have saved?

You know your FLACs are probably 16 bit 44.1khz?
There are further levels to lossless.
You're very unlikely to have any 192 khz 24 bit rips.
I have a small handful only.

>flac

Attached: 171117_13_2.jpg (1280x1920, 1.14M)

doesn't make a difference retard

>I have a small handful
why?

they just take up extra space and don't sound any better than 24/44Hz

>using more than 1 bit

Attached: a3075350746_10.jpg (1200x1200, 124K)

does this do anything if you have 80 € sennheisers and no dac?

it doesn't do anything if you've got the best audio equipment in the world
I mean if you don't have studio quality equipment your speakers/cans won't be able to actually produce frequencies far above 22kHz, but the frequencies are inaudible anyway.
additionally 24 bit is useless since 16 bit already has a dynamic range greater than the range of human hearing if dithering is used