>he insists on having all his music in 320kbps or lossless when there is no noticeable drop in quality until you go below 64kbps
He insists on having all his music in 320kbps or lossless when there is no noticeable drop in quality until you go...
Tyler Rodriguez
Other urls found in this thread:
hydrogenaud.io
twitter.com
Bentley Hughes
Nice bait retard
Logan Cooper
128kbps is already notably different from 320kbps, sorry to tell you but you're a poorfag with shit headphones.
Benjamin Richardson
nice thread
nice bait retard
Angel Peterson
>he shitposts about it on the internet
Noah Russell
>he insists on wasting disk space / bandwidth on music
>he doesn't just play it out in his head
Angel Butler
>320kbps MP3
>not V0 VBR MP3
Carter Bailey
V2 is the best
Jaxson Baker
More like objectively true, you fucking pseudo science turd.
I give you a double blind tests with FLAC vs 128kbps AAC audio (encoder+presents of my choice) and I DOUBLE DARE you to tell what is what beyond the randomness baseline.
Yeah fuck yourself.
Joseph Turner
128kbps is already notably different from 320kbps, sorry to tell you but you're a poorfag with shit headphones.
>Shut the fuck up asshole. It is not different. You would fail any double blind test so fucking hard and you know it.
Go take your homeopathic pills and tell yourself that gold plated audio cables with 2 square inches cross section sound "objectively better".
Fucking hifi voodoo cunt.
Connor Wilson
DUURRRR THERE IS AN AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 128kbps and 30763782337kbps AAC! I refuse to do any double blind test but I won't budge on that statement, ever.
Anthony White
Insofar as today's music has no quality whatsoever, I can't really disagree with this.
Andrew Adams
>Oh my god, the hi-hats of my ripped Game Boy Color ingame tunes are so much more crystal clear with 320kbps that with 128kbps, even though both encode well within the Nyquist frequency of the audible spectrum and have a PSNR below any audible threshold. It just FEELS better.
Samuel Kelly
unless lossless, music degrades in quality as time goes by. Read about velocidensity
Aiden Ortiz
NOOOO YOU CAN'T ENCODE THE NEW SOLANGE KNOWLES ALBUM WITH LESS THAN 320 KBPS! IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE EXPERIENCE! YOU ARE ALGORITHMICALLY MARGINALIZING POC!!!!
Alexander Thomas
You mean "read about bullshit".
hydrogenaud.io
Hunter Gray
>subhuman starts spamming wojaks
Samuel Hughes
You need to get your ears checked, retard.
Andrew Gomez
Based schizo poster
Oliver Cook
I'm so sorry for your hearing loss
Sebastian Hughes
I'VE DONE SEVERAL AND WAS ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE EVERY TIME. YOU LOSE.
Justin Jones
I have a 1TB external harddrive only for music so i might just as well download it in flac. It's not like it's any harder it just downloads a bit slower.
Brayden Parker
Interesting strategy with the reverse greentext. You're right about gold plated audio cables but wrong about mp3s.
James Howard
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.
Robert Brown
Lmao damn good effort with that bait
Adam Young
Kek
Aaron Davis
Christian Jackson
Opus at 96 kbps > MP3 at 320 kbps
Aaron Wright