Spotify Music Quality

>he doesn't have a family plan with friends so it only costs him $2.50 a month

Attached: 1557413642971.png (707x731, 376K)

I can't tell the difference between V0 and FLAC.
But I still download in flac and listen in flac on PC, because I can do whatever I want with those files without loss in quality. But on phone I have V0 and it's good enough

exactly, on the client it's 320k Ogg Vorbis, it's audibly transparent.

Yeah, really wish they let you stream FLAC quality

You can't. That's placebo for you. Do an ABX test and you won't be able to, even if you have 600 dollar headphones and perfect pitch hearing.
The transparency for cutoff for the latest MP3 encoding is at around 160 kbps.

Streaming in FLAC is a stupidity.

I don't have friends or a family

noone can tell the difference between FLAC and OGG. The only people that "can" listen to the same song over and over again for thousands of times to listen to nuances in the recording. Which is cheating. It should be immediately apparent in every song, chosen at random, with above a 90% success rate to be conclusive.

Get your ears checked boomer. Or get some non-shit headphones cuck.

post your setup then. HD600s on Aune S6+S7. Also post your results!
abx.digitalfeed.net/list.lame.html

>perfect pitch hearing
What would that have to do with it?

>do this test that is brimming with confirmation bias
No thanks

>excuses because i want to parrot garbage and not be held accountable for my claims
w e w

I know more about audio than you do.

There are literally missing frequencies in 320kps mp3s as compared to lossless. You can't get around that.

The missing frequencies are literally inaudible when there is already so many other louder frequencies going on at lower frequencies. Like the guy said, you are saying bullshit without even bothering to prove yourself right.

>when there is already so many other louder frequencies going on
Nice goalpost shifting

Also, with 320 kbps on particular, the only missing frequencies are frequencies that are LITERALLY inaudible. What an idiot you are.

Also
>without even bothering to prove yourself right.
But I have. Just not by this confirmation bias text

Psychoacoustic models have determined that you can remove certain frequencies under certain conditions and achieve complete transparency while at it.

You literally haven't. Your only proof is "I claim X is true, therefore X is true", which is not proof.

>If I can't personally hear it then no one else can
kek

I actually can tell the difference between 24/96 FLAC and 16/44.1 FLAC, but why should I bother proving this to you?

>paying to not own music
What kind of retard does this

>Psychoacoustic models have determined that you can remove certain frequencies under certain conditions and achieve complete transparency while at it.
Only if the listener can't already hear the full frequency spectrum, which is often.

>You literally haven't.
I have. You can easily make an audio sample of those frequencies ellimanted in the encoding process. The end result is not silent, there are audible frequencies.

Hence, there is both a physical and observable difference.

idk why you'd want to demonstrate something i can do too.

post your audiophile setup :)

>paying for music
LOLOLOLOLOL
I have 1tb of flac+mp3 music on my external hard drive and there's nothing spotify can do about it.

The frequencies eliminated are not audible because they get "drowned" by the remaining frequencies, so you end up with a product that is LITERALLY transparent. Fucking idiot. Learn what psychoacoustics is all about.

>The frequencies eliminated are not audible
They are. You can hear them, as I just demonstrated
>they get "drowned" by...
Not relevant.

You know, the point of lossy encoding is that you remove the frequencies that are inaudible in the original audio, to reduce size, so the encoded version will have those frequencies removed to achieve the desired reduced size, so you end up with a result that is transparent and smaller. It doesn't matter if you can listen to the individual removed frequencies on your own, because you are listening to them with all the other frequencies from the song. Also, just in case, but the frequencies removed are only specific ones at certain points, so you can still listen to the entire frequency spectrum with MP3.

>so you end up with a result that is transparent
Then it did not work, because audible frequencies were removed

Also
>only I define your listening experience
Stop

No.

2 tin cans and some yarn

>be autist that only pirates music
>to listen to new songs, he has to go pirate a fucking album from some weird Russian site
>if he's lucky, he'll find it
>want to listen to it on your phone? Have to go through the process of downloading the music, putting the music in your phone, then organzing it
>meanwhile Spotify Chads have listened to hundreds of new albums and have fucked hundreds of sluts while you were trying to get ITAOTS on your shitty cracked screen Chinese Android phone

Kill yourself

use tidal bro

>no
t. poorfag, should've known

Use google play, you mong

use a student discount

The frequencies are not audible if you listen to the entire song. If you remove the entire song except the removed frequencies then you are obviously only going to listen to the removed frequencies.

It's pretty funny, because Spotiplebs are usually Yea Forumsdrones. Just use Soulseek and it's just as convenient as Spotify and even more, since it doesn't lack artists.

>The frequencies are not audible if you listen to the entire song
>the experiment only works if I control the conditions!
Not how it works
>then you are obviously only going to listen to the removed frequencies.
Then obviously there is an observable difference between 320kps and lossless FLACs

you two should just fuck and get it over with

Cope

>Soulseek
"Hey babe, can you put on this song while we make out? It's my favorite."

"Sorry, I don't have that song, let me go on SOULSEEK and download it"

*10 minutes later*

"Ok I'm leaving"

"WAIT! I just found a good seed! Just got to wait 5 hours while waiting for 1 seeder to download it!"

Meanwhile normal people just type the song into Spotify and call it a day

The condition is a listening condition, so yeah, you are the one changing the condition to a completely arbitrary one.

The difference is observable (by using a spectrogram) but not audible (by using your ears listening to the encoded song).

I'm that case I would just use YouTube.

He doesn't have the cracked versions on phone and pc for 0$ a year

>YouTube
Cringe

Works for me.

>The condition is a listening condition
Goalpost shifting
>The difference is observable (by using a spectrogram) but not audible (by using your ears listening to the encoded song).
Incorrect. I already told you how you can hear it (and then you admitted I was right)

>premium
>256kbps

Attached: 1398582671985.jpg (902x600, 143K)

that was almost an hour and a half ago faggot, is that how you win arguments is to wait for the other person to fall asleep?
weak
just admit you want to bone and fuck off

I left to run an errand. Now I'm back.

Also, not an argument.

Im not the twat you were having a bitch fight with, obviously

Quote me where I said you were

>not an argument.
like I was supposed to be arguing with you instead of just pointing out how lame you are

Ooops you didn't answer my question!

Quote me where I said you were.

Also,
>discussing music on a music discussing board is lame!

wew lad! I guess you are two for two here, having bored one person to sleep and playing semantics with another
go have a wank to celebrate

waiting till your opponent leaves before coming back to "win" is lame. learn to fucking read

Not an argument
>waiting till your opponent leaves
When did I do that? I already told you I had an errand to run.

Don't you ever get and and leave your parent's basement?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz