I converted some music I downloaded from youtube to flac.And then did some blind tests.I couldn't tell the difference.
>>107256082Nobody can. They've tested it with double blinds.
>>107256082Hah, welcome to the club, anon. I've done the same dance—ripped a bunch of Bandcamp FLACs, A/B'd 'em against the MP3s I had lying around, and nada. Zilch. It's like my ears decided to unionize and strike for better pay. But here's the real redpill: at sane bitrates (say, 192kbps+ VBR), modern codecs like AAC or Opus are basically indistinguishable from lossless for 99% of mortals. FLAC's your lossless security blanket, great for archiving or flexing on audiophools, but if you're streaming or on the go? Save the space, bro. Your brain's already compressing reality into a lossy mess anyway. What's the highest bitrate you tested at?
>converted a lossy format to lossless>there's no differenceno shit sherlock
>>107256082>I converted some music I downloaded from youtube to flac.
>I converted some music I downloaded from youtube to flacBait thread
>rip music from YouTube>upload it as FLAC>get loads of comments saying how good it sounds>some people even want to donate
>>107256108GPT is now posting here fucking hell.
>>107256082>I converted some music I downloaded from youtube to flac.I actually used to do this to impress a girl with my .flac collection
>>107256082It's all voodoo bullshit after a certain point.
>>107256208
>>107256082You don't need more than ~128kbps Opus. Even that's overkill in many cases.
>>107256082
>>107256130are you people forgetting what a joke is?
FLAC is for archiving and converting.It's nice to have, but if you have a properly encoded lossy audio file it should sound exactly the same.
>>107256492
>>107256082youtube bait aside, with "genuine" flacs i could always get past 60% on foobar abx but was never able to go through p-value barrier
I upload some V0 transcodes of popular stuff to keep my user class locked in, but nobody seeds or snatches anything but flac most of the time these days. I do use opus for loading stuff on my phone though
flac? MP3? What kind of third world streaming services are those? Just use Spotify, bro
>>107256082Feeling 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 12 bumps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15 bumps on IDE, but only 7 bumps 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 feel any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320 bumps per centimeter, they just feel like crap. The bumpiness is terrible, the height...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16 bumps. FLAC rips from the same period still feel great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to feel the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.
>>107256082It literally depends on your audio equipment, mostly your speakers.I can absolutely tell the difference on my setup.
Ear training, and then, you can hear the difference.
>>107256208what year
Did you use 16 or 24 bits? Use 24 bits next time
>>107256082Are you actually deaf? I'm no audiophile, but I can detect the difference between music ripped from YouTube and a high quality 320kbps mp3 or FLAC 100% of the time in blind tests.320kbps mp3 and FLAC sound the same to me, but YouTube... come on.
>>107256082>download from shit source>blame file typeIt's just uncompressed audio. Do you know what coompression means?
>>107258087That seems niche when everyone uses flash storage now.
>>107258250do you? flacs are compressed
>>107256082Yeah that makes sense, FLAC encoding is lossless as the name implies, so you will not hear any difference at all between the source and a FLAC file encoded from it.
>>107256082It's like pretending you can tell the difference between a luxury expensive wine and a shitty store brand wine. Retards do it with everything to prove they're sophisticated -- as they're cattle without purpose or any real achievements to be proud of. Though to be fair FLAC, PNG, etc nowadays makes sense with how cheap storage, I just get FLACs because it's convenient to pirate, and PNGs because it gives me peace of mind I can edit photos without degradation or apply them as wallpapers without shit like windows compressing them.
>>107256082Besides the youtube thing, I feel that the whole lossless thing is pretty much irrelevant. I still can hear around 20 kHz, but mostly it's some cymbals and percussion overtones. And it's not like tone, but more of the airy feeling. It's not that useful. Besides even if you can distinguish it, what is the point? You can focus on it, but it's not 'critical music listening'. It's just some stupid game 'what can I hear'.
>>107256082>download 128kbps audio>test it in $10 headphones>hmmm everything sounds exactly the same
>>107258615it just makes more sense to store files in a lossless format unless you are hurting for disk space. As for listening more, clearer details are always welcome even if you are not focusing on them, but the difference between HQ MP3 and FLAC is so miniscule that it's not significant 99.9% of the times. There's a lot of fart sniffing in the audio world, look at the Sannon-Nyquist theorem and then tell me why some people seek 192kHz audio files
>>107258769>it just makes more sense to store files in a lossless format unless you are hurting for disk spaceIt does yeah. At least for the peace of mind. I have a home server and store flac too. I just kinda on the fence should I or not. >>107258769>why some people seek 192kHz audio filesThat's I just don't understand. I send 192khz at my reaciver, but I'm not really sure why.
>>107258769it's in a funny spot where there's both no reason to use flac and also no reason not to.you likely have plenty of space, so may as well get flacs, if you don't, then don't worry about it, because the difference is basically none>That's I just don't understand. I send 192khz at my reaciver, but I'm not really sure why.not him, but the limit of human hearing is ~20kHz, and even that is /generous/, like that's about where the threshold of hearing meets the threshold of pain in ideal circumstances (like when you're an actual baby that hasn't yet had any wear on your hearing).the nyquist-shannon sampling theorem /proves/ that a sampling twice the rate of the source signal is mathematically lossless, that is, 40kHz can perfect capture a 20kHz signal. practically, there are other considerations such as aliasing, so you usually want a bit more than 40kHz, but even CD's 44.1kHz is enough. many DACs are designed to run at 48kHz since it's just easier to design them that way. anything over that for recording is just for mixing or non-human-listening purposes, and any playback over that is just for non-human-listening purposes. there is absolutely /nothing/ to be gained by playing music at 192kHz over 48kHz, not even in theory
>>107258805>At least for the peace of mindsame reason why I keep the RAWs of all the pics I take with my camera. Over more than a decade I've gone back and re-developed an old picture less than half a dozen times, but I'd still feel bad throwing all that data away and keeping only the jpegs. In the same vein if I'm ripping a CD I might as well keep the FLACs, they don't weigh that much anyways.Now if your hobby entails shooting 6k videos or something then storing everything uncut and uncompressed might be unfeasible and dumb, but with music storage isn't a concern anymore
>>107256082>I converted some music I downloaded from youtube to flac. nigger, are you genuinely retarded or just baiting?
>>107258844>there is absolutely /nothing/ to be gained by playing music at 192kHz over 48kHz, not even in theoryWell, I don't think I have any media over 48khz. But the reaciver have 192khz dac, so I pit it on 192khz lol>>107258938>Over more than a decade I've gone back and re-developed an old picture less than half a dozen times, but I'd still feel bad throwing all that data away and keeping only the jpegs.I have redeveloped my photos. It's especially useful when after some time you want to re-edit the very best pictures. I finally stopped hoarding all the photos. Now I delete everything that is off-focus or just meh.
>>107258541I think OP meanshe compared between shitty store brand wine and shitty store brand wine, but put it in luxury expensive wine bottle
>>107259000>Well, I don't think I have any media over 48khz. But the reaciver have 192khz dac, so I pit it on 192khz lolit's unlikely to hurt anything, people might bring up resamplers but... i haven't seen any evidence to suggest people can tell the difference between non-resampled stuff and stuff resampled with anything resembling a modern resampler (any conversion between sample rates requires resampling, since that's what that means)>I finally stopped hoarding all the photosthat's a hard thing to do
>>107259000>But the reaciver have 192khz dac, so I pit it on 192khz lolmight as well, I use Tidal and I have it set to max quality just because with unlimited bandwidth I have no reason to stream music on low (which is 320kbps)Part of why I don't revisit photos is because I'm a bad photographer and my editing is barebones, if I was better and I could do fancy editing I'd definitely re-edit my stuff more often
>>107256082>placeboNo, flac is higher quality. Try 192kHz files for some other use case then listening to music compared to MP3 for example.
>>107259088>for some other use case then listening to musiclike what? Analysing the spectrogram or something like that?
>>107259080>I don't revisit photos is because I'm a bad photographerThat's the reason I shoot RAW. My exposure and white balance are always off. Plus now with raws lightroom can make some ai voodoo shit with denoising.
>>107259120>Analysing the spectrogram or something like that?Sure. I had to use flac too when I made oscilloscope music.
>>107259143>oscilloscope musiccool stuff
>>107259060didnt even realize the retard is converting youtube videos to flac kek wtf, probably was meant to be a bait thread but nobody on 4chan reads posts
>>107256082> And then did some blind tests.Should've done deaf tests.
opus won. get over it. I can't tell any difference and I have incredible audio gear including airpods. its all placebo
>>107256082Because the YT music was already lossy. You cant tell the difference because the FLAC conversion was lossless as it should be. Youd need some upscaling ai bullshit if you want BETTER >>107258087No it fucking does not. Lossy means the encoding is lossy. if this was true, programs would get corrupted files over the years even without updates. I couldnt have these ancient exes from 2005 that still work.
>>107257373suppose to be funny innit?
>>107259489finding a lossless source is nigh impossible in the first place unless you buy a cd
>>107256082Any compression fucks up the sound.I always convert my youtube music to wav.
>>107256082Too bad about the lossy encoding of your intelligence.
>>107259523oh no, this nigga actually replied seriously to the rotational velocidensity copypasta
>>107259588get used to it, we're getting lots of super smart newfrens recently
>>107258087what a strange copy pasta, if the archive/file is losing information wouldnt that make it corrupted with time and deemed it unreproducible? also, a lot of flac albuns around in the trackers have 10-15 years, if they loose information you'd get an error seeding, torrents dont auto-correct; if the information/flacs are still there, the bits are intact.
>use EAC to rip CDs from my personal collection/the library to flac>share them on nicotine+>nobody but my bro downloads themWhich is fine with me because its not super obscure but I would feel so bad if I had nothing to share
>>107259000>the reaciver have 192khz dac, so I pit it on 192khz lolTheoretically harmful because ultrasound can make loudspeakers distort. In practice probably makes no difference.
>>107256119It is called archiving, anonymouse; perhaps you have considered people don't want to lose access to quality music so they make sure to store it in the best possible way. I convert all music I find on Youtube to flac. There is no better way to do it.
>>107260063thread still makes no sense as converting a mp3/4>flac cannot magically give it more data and remove all lossy regressions
>>107260072I am not saying that, so it is obvious you don't understand the benefits of FLAC in regards to storing and longevity. ``lossy regressions'' only exist if the file was first lossless and then lossy. Someone creating an audio file as mp3 initially will not have any ``lossy regressions'', and therefore transcoding it to lossless preserves the file.
>>107260072>he doesn't have the secret build of libflac that can reverse lossy artifactsloling at your life
>>107259559$2 nigerian Tidal subscription + Tidal Downloader (assuming it still works)
>torrent some albums>ls -Recurse -Filter '*.flac' | ForEach-Object -Parallel { ffmpeg -i $_.FullName "$($_.Fullname).mp3" }>ls -Recurse -Filter '*.flac' | rmDelete that shit
ls -Recurse -Filter '*.flac' | ForEach-Object -Parallel { ffmpeg -i $_.FullName "$($_.Fullname).mp3" }
ls -Recurse -Filter '*.flac' | rm
>>107258087How many years has it been?
>>107260243According to desu archives, 15 years since ``rotational velocidensity'' was recorded by them.
>>107256208And was she impressed?
>>107256082> I converted some music I downloaded from youtube to flac.So you casted the already lossy music data onto a lossless format? And you think that'll magically restore the loss of data? From the already-done compression?
