Is FLAC audio a meme? I can't even tell the difference AT ALL between a 320kbps mp3 file to a FLAC file...

Yes. I'm just gonna leave this here :
quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-128-kbps-and-320-kbps-MP3-files
Audionoobs BTFO. Still, for an everyday/casual listening experience 320kbps mp3 is fine, but for archive purposes and any field where you work with sound (music, cinema ...) it is unacceptable. A trained ear will be able to tell the difference, you'd be shocked.

>I can't tell the difference between uncompressed and compressed.
>Why, yes. I have some plastic logitech speakers, why do you ask?

Crazy how many people with garbage headphones or speakers don’t realize that’s what the problem is

Wrong. You are talking out of your ass. Nice bait though.

I've got Audeze LCD-3s and the difference between flac and 128kbps mp3 is night and day. In theory the encoder does its job and 320kbps sounds just as good as a lossless file. Different genres are easier to discern the difference with.

These. Good use of dubs.
idk anything about the technical shit behind different music file types but what I do is keep a select few albums I really love as FLAC because it's lossless and everything else in 320. I'll settle for 192 if it's some really obscure album and that's literally the best quality I can find anywhere, but below that the sound quality just drops off too far to be worth it.
gif unrelated, I just never get the chance to use it.

Attached: r6.gif (249x190, 1019K)

I'm redirecting you to

Don't know why. I'm not wasting my time with any of that. If you get your info from quora you've got a lot of bigger problems.

I use Apple AirPods which are $200 headphones

If you're not willing to take the time to read that, why would anyone trust your opinion since you obviously wouldn't be willing to read anything longer than a couple sentences about the subject.

>I use Apple AirPods
That's really all everyone in this thread needed to hear.
Enjoy your "audiophile" gear.

You're fucking retarded. I could have just copypasted the whole answer here and you'd have believed it, except it actually has nice little screencaps so fucktards like you can actually SEE the difference since you can't hear it.

Nice bait

Because it's poorly written copy and pasted shit that should be common sense. OP wants to be spoon fed rather than doing his own research. Go on head fi to the sound science forum if you want to actually learn. People are dense as hell on here.

upgrade from your laptop speakers.

>so fucktards like you can actually SEE the difference since you can't hear it.
Angry man doesn't have a nice enough rig to do critical listening. Sucks to be you! I've done my blind abx testing, loser.

That just means that you're an earlet.

only on like a really good audio system. its literally pointless otherwise.

>I can't even tell the difference AT ALL between a 320kbps mp3 file to a FLAC file
understandable, at least depending on what speakers/headphones you're using
>Even 128kbps mp3 files are very difficult to tell the difference in most cases
fix yer ears bruv

>use headphones that compress and equalize all outgoing signals regardless of quality
That'll be a big YIKES from me dawg.

Surely you have a DAC and a amplifier, so you can actually hear how different FLACs and MP3s sound, right? You're not just plugging your shitty JBLs on your phones and using this as a benchmark, right?

Attached: 1503292191134.jpg (500x500, 50K)

>DAC
is a DAC necessary on computers?

How can you say FLAC and 320kbps mp3 sounds the same then lmao, you might as well throw your expensive speakers out the window because they're no proof for your intellect

>Optical out using wasapi event in foobar
>Pop pulse 24/96 DAC
>Lake people G109 amplifer
>Audeze LCD-2.2s with fazors.
I have every thing in 16/44.1 flac that I can get my hands on.

Pretty much this. Even tho raw archives are more likely to be used in pro fields.

keep being mad you can't hear the difference I guess. Never claimed I could hear the differnce between lossy 320kbps and lossless. Encoders are really fucking good and do their job. However when you drop it down to 256 or lower, yes you can absolutely hear compression artifacts. Some genres are a lot less forgiving than others.

Yes. It was spread by non-volatile storage shills working for WD, Seagate, Samsung, etc.

The point of FLAC is that it's lossless. Almost nobody understands this. They also probably have no idea why anyone would use PNG instead of JPG.

on board dacs vary in how shitty they are. But they share a pcb with all the other shit and there is always going to be some amount of interference regardless of what manufactures claim.

I think that people should aim at storing their music in lossless formats. FLAC is nice because you it's a compressed lossless format. 320/kbps MP3 sounds good enough for most folks, but you can discern the difference from lossless formats already on mid-fi equipment. Not that it matter much though. Most people enjoy shitty sounding music just as much. Most music is not about quality of sound, it is about quality of abstract musical patterns.

I feel like no one on this board even knows what the fuck they're talking about with this stuff.

mp3 320kbps is intended to sound very close, it's a sign it's doing a damn good job. It's compressed but still manages to retain enough audio quality that you barely notice.

The cutoff on 128kbs mp3s are like 15khz. It clips off everything above that to further save space. It's very high pitched but it's not just about hearing that, it's about how it can distort the surrounding audio when you lose that.
You can hear up to 22khz on average, and those tones are definitely present.
Besides the other things going on, you're losing a huge amount of harmonics especially in your percussion, which is where you'll notice the most.

Also people collect in FLAC because the mp3 algorithm is going to happen everytime you transcode.
If you have a library full of 320kbs audio and you compress it to 192kbs you're getting much less than 192kbs in truth, whereas if you transcoded from FLAC/lossless you're getting true 192kbs audio.
For most it's for preservation, but you can tell the difference too on good equipment.

Some people might not care about this and that's fine, but I always collect in FLAC because storage is cheap, if I want to put physical music on my laptop I just transcode it down.

I often stream from my plex server to my phone too and it'll transcode automatically, (and it takes half a second on a modern computer, literally) even though my library is in FLAC I can still listen in something that doesn't destroy my data plan, with the same space taken on my computer asi f I had one collection.
It's just smarter to collect at the top because you can always go down, not back up.

Kinda rambling but jesus. Do people not get that? Some people are stupid and elitist about it and I've seen it, but there are good fucking reasons to use FLAC.

But there's NOTHING wrong with compressed either.
MP3 V2 is my preferred on-the-go format if I'm just using earbuds or something anyways.

This is just talking about aac mp3 encoders. vorbis is even better for mobile devices or in your car when you aren't doing critical listening since it's cutting data from both ends rather than just top end

>320kbps sounds just as good as a lossless file
owo what's this ?
You're right for the most part and I apologize for getting mad, but please don't spread this false idea that FLAC and 320kbps mp3 are the same because they are technically undeniably not the same

>telling people to use mp3s so that over time they lose their files
Who are you working for? Spotify? Google play?

good to know, i want to build a gaymer-ass computer in the summer w/ a good dac and amp, i already have all my music in flac so might as well finally make good use of it

Get an external sound card instead Tbh.

if there's any you recommend i'm all ears user
or all eyes if you will

Good post. This is pretty much what I wanted to post.

Disagree. An external dac with its own power supply will always do a better job.

Attached: ComeOnNow.jpg (600x375, 15K)

Yup. Really no point in having a sound card if you're not going to record anything.

if it is exactly the same amount of work and same time needed to download mp3 and flac why wouldn't I download flac?
and it is obvious the quality of what you listen to is limited by your headphones'/speakers' quality

Just get any reasonably priced one. Behringer and Mackie make decent budget stuff. Steinberg or Focusrite if you're willing to spend a bit more.

This user speaks the truth, I read it online somewhere.

Well, there's space to consider.

Rotational velocidensity affects all audio files encoded with lossy compression. These include mp3, aac, and ogg.

The most notable effect of rotational velocidensity is the loss of bitrate in files. A lossy audio file will lose an average of 12kbps a year. But, this can vary greatly depending on the type of storage media used.

Examples:

SATA HDD: ~12kbps
IDE HDD: ~15kbps
SCSI HDD: ~7kbps
DVD: ~16kbps
CD-R/RW: >21kbps

This can be overcome by compressing audio using lossless formats such as FLAC, APE, or TTA. These formats are designed to never lose quality over time, and will sound the same right now as they will in 10 years.

Attached: 001.jpg (401x285, 29K)

I don't know if you're baiting but this is total bullshit.

It's for archival.
When you encode from lossy to lossy there are major generational artifacts, this is because the codec removes information from a song file in order to make the file size smaller.
Also, if you're not deaf and dumb you should be able to tell the difference auditorily.
For me lossy sounds washy and hissy.

/g/entooman here. this is 100% true.

this is my favorite pasta