Redpill me on audio formats and quality

I've never really cared. If I want a song I'll usually just convert a YouTube video of it to mp3 and download that or use grooveshark. When I mention this people freak out and start talking about how I'm not getting the optimal experience due to compression and not using the right formats. Is this actually noticeable or just bs?

Attached: Blank+_bb8f8aee1b9e75010e9404f67d7635bb.jpg (208x250, 8K)

google.com
a thread died for this

It is actually noticeable.

Kill yourself you worthless pile of shit.
Usually, in practice, the difference is negligible. And there are lots of ways to compress audio so bitrate doesn't tell the whole story. A 128kbps file can sound good.

the fact that you're asking at all means your joy in music clearly outweighs your concern with format. if i were you i'd stick with the joy and forget about turning yourself into a miserable nitpicker

Well first off all only plebs download single songs

Thanks. It's nice to hear someone not be so elitist about music for once :)

fuck me this tripfag is retarded. He's always the first, so he must spend his entire fucking day on this board, just to come here and post some shit about him being better even though he suck cock.

It's actually really noticeable if you have a decent pair of headphones that can present the mix uncolored. Another thing you might want to know is that lossy compression like that of your .mp3 and .aac, takes a lossless file usually .wav or flac and crunches down on the bits of information in the sub 20Hz and 16kHz and above. This compression levels the data and usually ruins the dynamics in a mix, that is if the mix isn't already compressed due to the loudness wars, but that is a whole other topic. In conclusion, if your happy listening to your mp3's don't worry about it, but if you want the optimal listening experience lossless FLAC is the way to go.

>and usually ruins the dynamics in a mix,
Why would you that, go on the internet and tell lies?

Compression is fine. But you have to admit that youtube to mp3 is the most complicated way to download music which optimally takes a couple clicks for full albums which you should be listening to instead of songs.

>someone on a music discussion board asks a legitimate question about audio quality in music
>FRIENDO: just google it lmao
what the fuck is wrong with you
why do you even post if 80% of your posts contribute nothing to the thread and make everyone think you're a socially inept cunt

Uhm... because it's true. Think of dynamics as the peaks and valleys, compression takes these peaks and valleys and levels them, effectively smashing the dynamics all for a perceived volume.

fuck off, this isnt even music related dumb shit. Maybe G might be so desperate as to spoonfeed the OP but yeah a music thread probably died for a wojak post about youtube2mp3. kys

There is a difference between dynamic compression and file format compression.

I am aware of this but mp3 compression still removes those bits, crushing dynamics.

Not really.

It compresses the file size. Dynamic compression compresses the dynamic range. Two different concepts.

correct
retarded

How so?

I'm both of those posts btw you fucktard

Lorde - Greenlight FLAC uncompressed

Attached: Capture lossless.png (908x470, 217K)

Lorde - Greenlight MP3 (LAME) V0

Attached: Capture 2 compressed.png (908x470, 207K)

>frequency spectrum
Not what we are asking. Nice try. Post the waveforms

temper tantrums are unbecoming, I suggest you stop throwing them

this isnt music
you can very easily figure out the question by google searching "audio quality kbps comparison" or any similar query
just because you morons finally get to feel special for knowing surface level info about audio codecs doesn't mean you're having a good discussion

If your argument is "You can find it elseware so don't bother talking about it" than that makes pretty much every conversation on here pointless. Even opinions could be substituted with statistics.

Some people enjoy having a discussion in addition to learning something you flaming tripfag.

this t b h
simple questions like this can be easily googled and you'll find a better answer than you would on here
imagine if everyone started making threads asking whether flac is better than mp3 or what bit depth means or how to add artwork to a fuckin album. we'd have a board of morons asking stupid questions and a bunch of self-proclaimed "knowitalls" giving them misleading and contradictory answers

>if your argument is
fun tip: if you have to make this statement, you most likely didn't understand the argument or are intentionally misconstruing it
what would be more accurate to say is that questions about very easily verifiable facts "e.g. who originally wrote this song, what year did this album come out, is piano a woodwind instrument, how much of an impact does audio quality have" which have a wealth of information on them should probably not be the sole purpose of starting a thread
i wish we had a "stupid questions that dont deserve their own thread" because those seem to work pretty well on the boards which allow them

it doesn't make every conversation pointless retard. there's still /prod/ and /gg/ and plenty of discussions you wouldn't have anywhere else.
>Some people enjoy having a discussion in addition to learning
if they still haven't learned the basics of audio formats, why the fuck would their opinion have any weight in a discussion?

honestly man if u want the goat easy way to do it

• download soulseek
• share some of your music library
• look up album you like
• download it in 320kbps
• tag if necessary
done

There's no fucking difference between a normal mp3 and a flac but music downloaded from youtube sounds like utter shit.

>There's no fucking difference between a normal mp3 and a flac
Wrong.

All you poorfags on here make me laugh

>too poor to afford deezer premium at 9.99 a month
>too stupid to torrent their music

if your ears can't detect the difference between 320kbps and 1400kbps then you are pleb to the max and should kill yourself immediately

>music downloaded from youtube sounds like utter shit.
And the quality of YT rips depend a LOT on whether it's a high quality 1st generation upload, or some random re-upload of a re-upload from 2006 with the source files originating from some shitty 128kbps Napster downloads that got transcoded around at least a few times before reaching the original YT uploader...

While far from ideal, YT rips can sound pretty decent at best.

>this

I for one went onto a quest of getting the optimal rip. Went from 128kbps to flac. Ripping and re-ripping my cd thru EAC making sure I have all the appropriate settings. I dubbed my cassettes as well, converting them into mp3/flacs. Went full autismo. These days I just download whats available. Its simpler and saves me time.

nobody cares about your anecdotal bullshit. double blind studies show that people cannot consistently tell the difference between high quality mp3 and high quality lossless.

audiophiles are quacks.

>physics and math are anecdotal bullshit.

Honestly just buy a Spotify subscription and tick the high quality options in the settings, it's higher quality than you'll ever need unless you have some $2000 audio setup. If you don't want to pay you can usually just google the album you want to download with a search like "x band - x album 320 rar". 320kbps is the highest quality MP3 available and it sounds fantastic.

If any audiophiles want to correct me go ahead, i'm just giving OP my 2 cents on the matter.

There is a technical difference between 320 kp2 and lossless flac or wav. You are literally missing information.

This mu/tant gets it. Use LAME to encode your rips with VBR (Variable Bit Rate)

Good posts. You are correct.

Artist : Brand New
Album : Science Fiction
Genre : Rock

>mp3 rip
Quality : 247 kbps / 44.1kHz / Joint Stereo
Encoder : Lame 3.98.4 -V0
Size : 114.12MB
Time : 61:22 min

>flac rip
Quality : 908 kbps / 44.1kHz / 2 channels
Encoder : FLAC 1.2.1
Size : 416.20 MB
Time : 61:21 min

>web rip
QUALiTY ..: 300kbps/4410kHz
MODE .....: Joint Stereo
SiZE .....: 171,81MB
PLAYTiME .: 61:22 min

You can't tell the difference between a 160KBPS OPUS file and a 1440 kbbps wav file. You literally can't, it's placebo.

Use dbpoweramp to convert them and test for yourself. High kbps formats should be used exclusively used for archiving purposes.

>Joint Stereo
Why?

>I can't tell, so that means no one else can!
Brilliant

>listening to compressed music

this is as bad as watching a 4:3 movie in 16:9. you're literally distorting what the artist wanted you to hear.

Don't know if you are retarded or yu have shitty reading comprehension. Maybe both.

As I said, test for yourself.

>As I said, test for yourself.
Done

There's a difference

Extremely stupid comparison, post your IQ so we can all laugh at you. You are literally the stupidest person I have encountered today. And I just needed that phrase of yours to realize.

I'm even shaking with how stupid your logic has been.

not an argument.

...and?

humans can't accurately tell the difference between the two.

Except it is. Read it again and use yer noggin
See

not an argument.

what song do you plan to kill yourself to?

If you really think that comparing the aspect ratios of an image or movie with the compression of a sound file is valid, then you are stupid and do not deserve any counter-argumentation.

>what is placebo

Cannot be a placebo is the difference is measurable.

Nice try though

Measurable doesn't always equal audible.

Ok, I understand you. The difference is measurable. There is an existing mathematical difference, and that can not be denied by me or anyone. But do you really think there is a discernable difference? I repeat, listenable. One that you can notice with your eyes closed, not looking at a data graph or a sound spectrum

not an argument.

See

If by audio quality you mean mp3 vs lossless it doesn't matter

For most people 320kb mp3 is indistinguishable from lossless

What matters for audio quality is the master. Generally you want to go with original masters.

>If I want a song I'll usually just convert a YouTube video of it to mp3 and download that or use grooveshark

dios mio...

Are you saying you can differentiate a 1400kbps file from a 320kbps file? Can you do an ABX test and corroborate it with screenshots?

To make it 100% reliable, compress the file from 1400kbps to 320. In this way, the source of the files is the same. Let's check your ignorance.

Posts I made way back in 2013, you can find them on the archive. The definitive guide to audio quality.

Attached: zZQt35K.png (1750x895, 183K)

What is the cutoff between the two? Is it 16khz?

Yes I can hear above 16khz. can't you?

320 kbps mp3 files cut off at 20khz. You don't know what you are talking about. Done with you.

Nice goalpost shifting

It's simple, download a song using youtube to mp3, then download the same song in 320kpbs. Compare it and if you can't tell a difference your headphones/speakers are probably shite but that's okay

Wow what a shit thread.

>Redpill me on audio formats and quality
Well you see lower quality audio equipment and audio formats pushed on western culture by (((The Chinese))) and (((The Music Industry))) cuts off the higher frequency Fourier components (see figure). You may not think that's an important thing, but when you remember the important finding that prolonged exposure to music with a high-pass filter rolloff with a dB per Hz cut-off of more than around 24 is linked to lower testosterone levels in men and higher levels of oestrogen (Phys. Med. Rev. Berlin 192(20), 2015, pp.198-223). Again this is a statistically significant result and has been cross referenced with several meta-analyses using extremely multivariate regression eigenanalysis (EMREA) (see Pub. Med. Psyc. 129(3), 2011, pp. 1202-1230).
Basically if you listen to lossy audio formats or use cheap headphones/speakers, which have a less accurate encoding of low frequency Fourier components and absolutely no representation of Fourier components above the Nyquist limit it is almost certain that your testosterone levels will have dropped to around that of a effeminate left wing soyboy like Anthony Fantano (Note Fantano's androgenetic alopecia (male pattern baldness), indicating low levels of testosterone, see South. Med. Jour. 68(11), 1975 pp.1359-1365.)

Basically you need to go out and get yourself some Beats by Dre. They're the best in audio quality, and might just save your hairline and your fertility.

Attached: images.png (271x186, 6K)

Nice b8

Facts don't care about your feelings.

And your feelings aren't facts

t. soyboy with vaccine caused autism

>le buzzwords is an argument
kek

ah, yes, because a completely fucked up song at master with no dynamic range makes a fucking difference whether it's V0 or flac.

Green Light peaks at -0.01 dB with an RMS of -7.8 dB, the DR is awful - as are most songs nowadays.

What you SHOULD be aiming for: peak at ~ -0.3 dB (reallly want to avoid clipping).

Just go for LAME V0 so you can listen to your music on any device. flac is a waste of time if you're not listening on HIFI, and especially a waste of time if the music has no fucking dynamic range.

Either way - Just get the highest quality music you can, V0 mp3 preferred, and then just have fun with whatever you like listening to and don't listen to cunts like this tripfag.

>What you SHOULD be aiming for: peak at ~ -0.3 dB (reallly want to avoid clipping).
I go for -1 dB

Ultimately youre not gonna find major issues with 128kbps audio, but in select cases or good audio source it will be noticeable.

What gets on my nerves is the lack of metaformatting with youtube to mp3, so i simply google 'albumname 320 rar', download it and format everything with mp3tag then move to my phone via USB/Google Drive.

it's really arbitrary, as long as you can turn the volume up on your listening device high enough, just start compressing earlier and limit it at whichever volume you want. just absolutely make sure not to peak that shit.
I think compression really does the job, although if the mix is bad, your dynamic range is going to the shitter.

Reminder that audio formats do NOT exist.

There goes user again, shitposting, as he always does...

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

Wait, really?

[citation needed]

I don't think that's true user

lol samefag

Who here /192 kbps/?

No. It's pasta to scare people. You are fine with 320kbps and so am I, this year or in a decade.

troll detected

I did that a few times back in 2008 and could hear the difference, probably

what about 320kbps cbr?

>rotational velocidensity
lmao I love this pasta

hi friendo