Is there a difference in dynamic range? If I ripped a CD to mp3, would the dynamic range be lower than flac?Also, is the quality noticeable different as long as you have a somewhat decent setup?
Here we go again....
>>128232395pretty sure it's not noticeable in a blind test (320kbs, not the shit in your image)you should be using flac to avoid the rotational velocidensity anyways though
>>128232395An mp3 can be 96k and 24-bit. Also that graphic doesn't accurately explain the difference.
>>128232395I download music in flac because it's easy to get and I have space on my computer. There's not much noticeable difference in quality though.
>>128232395>dynamic rangeno. but the increased fidelity is worth it.>>128232411>Not noticeable in a blind testfor me it is, absolutely. mostly around cymbals, horns and vocals. I'm guessing for dance music it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, but for actual music performed by actual musicians, it does.Same with strat vs gibson. when Glenn Fricker does his blind-test things to illustrate how pickups don't matter, I've always been able to tell the strats from the gibsons. But can't tell the difference between x pickup and y pickup if they're the same kind of pickup.
>>128232471It doesn't affect dynamic range at all, even a little?
>>128232534no - dynamic range is in how they master it (the compression is what kills the dynamic range) - that's what the loudness wars were all about. Basically in the interest of making everything as loud as possible, they made everything as loud as possible, thus destroying dynamic range.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQthe difference in sample rates determines the clarity, e.g. how close to an analog wave form you can get. the higher the sample rate (the greater the resolution), the greater the approximation of the original sound. picrel is a visual metaphor for what I'm talking about. Can you still tell there's underboob with a low sample rate? sure. Is it the same? naw. But in either case there's a point at which you can't really tell the difference between high vs highest resolutions, which is what you have to figure out. At what point is the increase in file size worth it?In my opinion, with disk space being so very cheap these days, I say go for flac or other very high-resolution formats; why not.
>>128232395FLAC files are bigger so take up more hard drive space and you need to buy more hard drives to store them which cost money so you can be smug and call the mp3 users poorfags
i downloaded a flac album that was 6 GBs recently for what purpose?
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.
>>128232797what album? Flac album is usually about 1 - 2 G
>>128232802>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.what in the name of an AI slop answer is that supposed to be
>>128232792disk space is dirt cheap. even poorfags can afford lots of drive. there's literally no good reason to not have flac if you can have it.
>>128232395there is no difference in dynamic range, that's down to masteringmastering is 1000x more important than lossless files, but retards will still download bad digital remasters in FLAC because placebo>>128232852newfag lol
>>128232843illusion of choice by michael thomas, it was the only download available on soulseek
>>128232852newfag
>>128232875>>128232895>newfagI've been here since the beginning, apparently I missed the whole "your mp3 will degrade" meme or whatever.
>>128232395Sound quality has been a solved problem for over 20+ years. Stop worrying about it and enjoy the music instead.
>>128232875True, but if you had a CD, then there's not much of a reason to rip to mp3, right? When ripping, FLAC is the better choice.
>>128232876hmmm the 24/96khz version of this is only 1.5 GB - what's the resolution on what you downloaded?https://hdmusic.cc/2024/03/01/michael-thomas-the-illusion-of-choice-2024-hi-res.htmlI mean, I really can't tell the difference between 16 and 24-bit resolution, and definitely not 32-bit, so I can't imagine the extra 4.5 GB is worth it
>>128232941>Sound quality has been a solved problem for over 20+ yearsabsolute bollocks.DACs and amps have got a lot better but its still literally impossible to make a perfect transducer with a flat response. if you think youre getting the same detail and transparency out of consumer gear as you get from good studio monitors youre lying to yourself. not to mention that the hifi that used to be present in most living room a couple of decades ago has been largely replaced by shitty bluetooth speakers, crap earbuds and TV soundbars so most people today have no idea what music actually sounds like on a a good replay system.
>>128232411>rotational velocidensityOooooh fuck...
>>128232802how does this work with streaming services?they're not going to let shit degrade ...right?
>>128233257I suppose on solid state drives it stays put. The data is stored using quantum physics.
>>128232395Yes there's a difference, but your ears are probably not sensitive enough to hear it, esp if you use a 320k bitrate instead of 128k.You might be able to hear the dynamic range difference between For dynamic range, it depends on if your sound system is big enough that you can hear the quietest signal or not. I think you'd need something big enough that you'd get a stern talking to by the police to really hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit.
>>128233278>The data is stored using quantum physics.only in the cloud, that's why the streaming services have a clear advantage over on-prem storage.
>>128232395>Is there a difference in dynamic range.No; that has to do with the mastering process of the record.>Is there a difference in audio quality.Yes, but you need to have a decent pair of speakers / some good headphones to notice.
>>128232395>Also, is the quality noticeable different as long as you have a somewhat decent setup?Test yourself, listen to digital radio (~192kbps) and then a lossless CD copy. Most people prefer CDs to digital radio, the exact bitrate where mp3 becomes transparent to you depends on your ears and equipment
>>128233474>only in the cloudIt adds a layer of safety because the data is stored on multiple servers probably, but solid state storage nowadays works with quantum physics already for sure, on your SSD right now or in your phone.
>>128232395MP3 is outdated shit, go with opus instead
>>128232797It was probably a 24/192 high resolution FLAC file .
>>128234970>picthat's not how it works
>>128232395>dynamic rangeThis has nothing to do with the file format or bitrate. The mastering is what determines dynamic range. FLAC files have a higher bitrate and more detail/clarity than mp3. If you’re listening with AirPods you probably won’t know the difference but with good IEMs or open backed cans it is a nice upgrade.No matter what format you use, the source is important. Avoid loudness war remasters and seek out rips from older CD pressings.
>>128235471yeah i know, its marketing bs from Qobuz.
>>128232395your fucking ears can't differentiate a flac from a 320 mp3
The only difference is in the volume of the tracks. Flacs are usually louder, except if it's something like a SACD.
>>128236569silly thing to say
>>128236684You can't tell the difference:https://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html
>>128234970its a funny graphic since those are all the same after low pass smoothing.
