Is there any real difference between 320 and FLAC?
file size
>>107590972Technically yes, but for normal listening, not really.Like sometimes you need 192kHz FLAC, i.e. oscilloscope music.
pseudoscience, 80k OPUS is all you need
I was waiting for the rotational velocidensity copy pasta.
>>107590972it's not about bitrate it's about the algo. mp3 at 320 is pretty much the same as lossless for playback. other codecs can achieve this at lower bitrates.
>>107590972I can hear the difference between flac and dsd.
>>107590972mp3 compression actually makes audio sound betteraudiophiles may seethe but its the truth
>>107591218trve
>>107591139I was pretty impressed by the 24b digital wav release of Syro.>>107590972There is definitely a better aesthetic to higher bitrates and sampling rates, yes.
>>107590972>Is there any real difference between 320 and FLAC?yesflac replicates the source faithfully, since it's losslesslossy encoders do not, as they are lossyfor actual listening it doesn't really matter, modern aac / opus at 192 kbps is good enough for everybody that isn't buying placebo cables and custom power sockets. but when you work with audio you really do want to be using FLAC
>>107590972I feel a satisfying fuzzy feeling seeing the .flac extension, I don't get that with .mp3
I hear too much when using flacs
>>107591218Stockholm syndrome
>be me>ripping Lain DVDs to MKV with MakeMKV>want to transcode with handbrake after>Original audio is 384kpsDo I transcode with 384kps or 192?
>>107590972Yes. Lossy audio compression causes cumulative brain damage. But I suppose at this point, its already too late. People are so over exposed there is little point avoiding it now. We have to accept that our auditory centers have been destroyed beyond repair. Personally, I don't even bother listening to music anymore, there is no point. Its over.
>>107590972You'll hear a difference if you slow it down(like zooming in on a picture).You'll hear a difference if it's two versions of the same track.You'll hear a difference in streaming vs local(streaming services use volume normalization so the volume will be different, most of the time quieter).In a local player with the mp3 made from a flac you own - not in a million years.
>>107591010/thread
>>107590972It depends. Mostly no, you won't notice any differences. Even if you can, why is it even important? Audioniggers make a lot of fuss about it. Consider comparing 256kbps mp3 to 320kbps mp3. Maybe, sorta, I think 320 sounds better, right? 320kbps to lossless have even less differences. It doesn't matter. If your mind wanders when you listen to music, it doesn't matter. If you like the music, it doesn't matter. Flac is about peace of mind. I listen to the best possible source on my shitty $15 IEMs.
>>107591623Cheap audio hardware is substantially more detrimental to perceived quality than bitrate, a thousand times over.
>>107592271>Consider comparing 256kbps mp3 to 320kbps mp3. Maybe, sorta, I think 320 sounds better, right?if it's properly encoded with a version of lame from the last decade, no, or at least, not for 99.9% of the populationfor most people 192 kbps cbr mp3/128 kbps vbr qaac/fdk-aac/96 kbps vbr opus is where transparency is achieved.320 cbr mp3 has been the most stupid audio encoding format for the last 20 years, anyone still using that is just a clueless retard.v0 is equal/better quality with same compatibility+30 (often more)% filesize reduction, aac has barely any less compatibility than mp3 and halves filesize.it just makes no sense to use in any scenario, you don't want to use flac because it's too big, but are fine with using the most inefficient lossy encoding that's barely 2/3x smaller, weird.
>>107592445Then just go with 256kbps mp3.
The real question is, why are people still talking about MP3s when ogg vorbis is a lot more efficient?>because muh compatibilityVorbis was made in 2000.
>>107592474aac-lc has much higher compatibility and is practically on the same level when it comes to royalties/patents, especially for private use.fdk-aac is about equal efficiency as aoTuV/latest reference vorbis encoder, while qaac (if you spend a bit of tinkering to get that working) is more efficient than anything you can get with vorbis.>Vorbis was made in 2000.release date isn't that relevant when it comes to diffusion of a certain codec, but besides, aac-lc came out 3 years earlier.i'd like to shill open codecs as much as possible and discourage the use of smegpeg stuff but i realistically cannot see a concrete reason to prefer vorbis over aac-lc beside morale.you either don't give a fuck about compatibility and use opus, or you do, at which point vorbis is probably not good enough, hardware support is lacking.
>>107592585I click the opus file and it plays. Luckily for me, I'm not autistically obsessed with audio like you, I just want my PC to play shit with minimal disk usage
>>107590972super nkdshi and impregnate mio chan
>>107592619>completely ignores the fact that i'm replying to another anon suggesting to use vorbis for compatibilityI literally already suggested opus in case compatibility isn't a concern, and it's what I use for my library exactly like you do, retard.
Much of this converdation is utter retardation.Truth is both storage and internet speed are virtually unlimited and cheaper than ever. No need for mp3's anymore. Use flac or get fucked. Anything else is brown and thirdish.
>>107592768Would you rather download a 8MB FLAC or a 500KB Vorbis file? If you said FLAC, then multiply that by 500x. It all adds up.
>>107590972Yeah but its minimal, but in the era of cheap storage and fast internet there is no reason not to go FLAC. >>107591010OPUS is a replacement for mp3, not FLAC.
>>107592768>storage virtually unlimited and cheaper than evernot only has this not been true since the moment phones dropped sd card slots and even expensive models got limited to tiny storage amounts, but in this day and age? with all the ram/nand shortage stuff going on? when the fuck are all of you going to stop repeating this lie?>the jews will keep providing me with cheap reliable storage for the next 100 years instead of pushing for the death of personal computing like they've been doing for the past decadelike, you TRULY believe that? lmao
Is Opus superior to MP3?
>>107593147If you don't compare about compatibility, yes. Next time you ask a stupid question, go on Google.
>>107592445Yeah, I completely agree. But philosophically (lol) 320 mp3 is like lossy to lossless. It's an overkill, but you feel good about it.
>>107593147>is the new audio codec from 2013 better than the one from the 1990s?no, they just made it for fun as an hobby project, just for the hell of it, and we like to mention it for funzies.seriously, I don't understand why people even ask these dumbass questions, it's bait, right?
>>107590972Yes, there is a real difference, you can see it when looking at a spectrogram. Lossy compression removes information deemed unimportant for the application.Does that difference matter though? Can you hear it? Will you care? The answer is probably no.
>>107590972Lossless obviously means variable bitrate, sounds the same as the original. 320 is constant, which means variable quality. Sometimes the difference is noticeable, sometimes maybe not, in my experience.
>>107594233ok so if you encode an mp3 with variable bitrate it will sound the same as the original, didn't know that thanks anon.but besides...>lossless obviously means variable bitrate....no it doesn't? linear pcm (the most common lossless audio format) isn't variable at all, why did you decide to randomly spill a bunch of pointless nonsense? not only is all of this irrelevant to the discussion, but it's also completely wrong.
>>107590972not at all
>>107591734you copy audio stream
>>107591698This. If I'm downloading off of bandcamp it has to be flac. I'm not paying good money for a 320kbps mp3.>>107592792>multiply that by 500xadds up to... 4GB. A minute fraction of my harddrive.
sars we have xhe-aac, 8kbits is plenty :^)
>>107590972The fancier / lower bit rate audio encoding you use, the greater your odds of noticeable generational loss as it goes through layers of streaming and wireless transcoding. High end streaming services use lossless audio because people have wireless speaker systems, not because many people can identify first gen lossy encodes.
>>107590972yeah, I can transcode the FLAC to fucking anything, for ex. to -V 2 (which I may need to do if I'm copying to a mobile device with limited space) and at worst I'll have a first generation lossy copy. With 320kbps if I transcode it to -V 2 the quality will be far far worse since I'm using an already lossy source.
>>107595910Sir, Opus 1.6 just dropped, rendering xhe-aac obsolete.
>download FLAC>it's just some shitty mp3 that someone converted to FLACYou will never know that you're listening to an inferior recording.
>>107597468
>>107590972There are many factors that will influence if you can hear the difference. How it's recorded/mastered is one but also your DAC and speakers/headphones. And your hearing of course. In most situations there is no noticeable difference.
Why not use AAC instead of MP3? I understand that people don't use Opus for compatibility reasons, but AAC is supported by anything that's not ancient
