I legitimately can not discern the difference between 128kbps audio and anything higher bitrate. For years I've seen anons argue about 320kbps, FLAC, WAV, and so forth. But honest to God, the difference to my ears is near imperceptible. I listen to headphones for 8+ hours every day, and even I can't tell the difference. Sure my equipment is not top-tier, but I doubt that explains it.For my favorite music, I can just about tell the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. Like if I really try hard. But anything above that.. forget it. I really feel people are lying when they claim they are able to hear nuances beyond 320kbps. I believe higher than 320kbps is hardcore placebo-tier and people who hoard FLACs are raping their limited storage capacity for no reason.What do you think? Is the audiophile culture plagued by lying cocksuckers, or do some people have golden ears?
>>107677878how old are your ears?
>>107677891im 22
>>107677878Most people are suffering from profound levels of brain damage, due to almost exclusive exposure to lossy audio. Its a use or loose it kind of thing we have physically lost the ability to hear properly, lossy audio transparency is a self-fullfilling prophesy. At this point, I have straight up given up, I don't even bother listening to music anymore.I am of the opinion that lossy audio compression needs a complete ban. Our brains have suffered profound levels of damage. And the injury just continues.
>>107677878>>107677912The human ear cannot hear more than 24 fps
>>107677878MP3 compression causes an unpleasant high frequency in its output. WAV generates a polite output. FLAC should replace MP3 because it sounds awful.
>>107677878sucks to have shit listening skills and/or broken audition OP, fuck off btw.
>>107677878It might not be your ears but those shitty-ass tinny speakers or headphones you're using.
>>107677948You silly bunny! :3
>>107677948I think you're colordeaf
>>107677878It’s not really about the sound. It’s that it gives me peace of mind knowing I have my music in the best format possible and keeping anything else just feels redundant. Plus I’m not a poorfag so storage isn’t that much of a concern. Hell I'd even keep my music in .wav format if they were readily availablet. former mp3 connoisseur
>>107679470Same. Once you go FLAC, there's no turning back.
>>107677878128kb audio sounds shit on large speakers, if it's a concert with lots of speakers, you will hear the difference, but honestly with headphones you can't tell.
>>107679470me too, I used to have all my music in mp3 (ripped myself) and I thought 160/192 kbps was plenty.. A few years ago I ripped all my cd's and vinyl AGAIN this time in flac.. it took me over 6 months of free weekends and evenings to get it done with.. Now I carry my music in flac.. I can fit about 500 albums in 150GB
128kbit opus is kingWished more devices would support it
What headphones do you have?
>bro i can't tell the difference between 60fps and 240fps on my 30hz monitor
>>107677878I noticed a difference straight away from ripped YouTube MP3s, even on my shitty $30 Sony earbuds. I think it depends on the type of music you listen to. Vocals will sound "smoother", almost creepily so. Background instruments are a lot more discernable, they don't just blend like mush. I'm retarded though.
Complete AI generated thread and replies.The one who generated you deserves a slow and painful death.
>>107679470>It’s not really about the soundThere you have it lul
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.
>>107679817I'll try to demonstrate that with these two tracks. One ripped off of NewPipe in 128kbps M4A, the other in FLAC from a CD.https://files.catbox.moe/p7svo6.flachttps://files.catbox.moe/tj5alq.m4aThe FLAC version is about 3x larger, and while I wouldn't say it's 3x as good it's still an improvement.
>>107677878Yes audiophile culture is plagued by faggotry, but it should be quite easy for you to tell the difference between 128 and 320 kbps
>>107679859shut the fuck up anon
>>107679470this. avoid lossy compression as much as possible. each byte should be in distribution forever.
>>107679874Flac is not even audiophile. Audiophile is things like those fancy oxygen free cables and $10k amplifiers.If we make an analogy to food. Audiophile is like some pretentious 5 star restaurant with all those weird delicacies. Flac is just normal regular food. And lossy is Indian street vendor food, with extra feces.
The point of FLAC is archival and conversion, not listening. You can listen to it, but if you're doing things right your lossy files should sound the same as the FLAC.
>>107677878Ear quality is highly variable Some people are fine with Vorbis -q -1Others can ABX -q 10Most are in the middle somewhere And there’s a very wide middle
>>107680070Why would I keep lossy dupes around when I can just listen to FLACs directly
>>107680083Why would you use FLAC on something like a phone when you can just use lossy audio?
