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?
Even if you can't hear a difference between lossy and lossless audio, you should still get the lossless audio. It's dumb but that's just how things work.I will say this, I've been listening to FLAC all year and Spotify feels weird when I bother to check out anything on there. Like my ears can't process as much information or whatever.
>>128934477if it was a song you made and you heard it tons in high quality and then heard a 128 mp3, you’d get it.
i just cant fathom this being true for anyone except grannies and old deaf cunts. im not gonna claim differences between 256aac/320mp3 and lossless because as far as i know studies show that blind tests make it mostly negligible for daily listening on consumer hardware, but you're actually fucked if you can't hear how shit all the high-end information in a track is if the file is below ~192 in mp3 format. apparently .ogg is fine at as low as around 166 or something but nah your hearing is fucked if you think an mp3 below 190ish kb/s doesnt sound worse than a lossless or 320 mp3.
>>128934477You're literally just deaf, anon. Between 128 kbps and lossless there's a big difference for all but the shittiest-produced music.
i can't hear the difference, but i can feel the difference when the flac flows through my soul and my veins
>>128934477you probably have hearing damage if you can't easily tell between 128 and 320 or 128 and losslessyou need a good ear and good hardware to hear the difference between 320 or v0 and lossless though. personally i've never been able to
>>128934477>>128935355You can't hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless, it's just placebo.
>>128935364you can absolutely hear the difference between 320 and WAV. especially with lower frequencies which sound worse when compressed. when you crush and compress, there starts to be a notable muffling. cymbals don’t ring as crisply, low bass sounds garbled. it is easily to tell with certain songs and less noticeable with others but there is a difference. particularly try with good headphones and you’ll notice. and as an anon said, if it’s your on song you will really hear it
>>128935393*own song
>>128935364Maybe not with airpods
>>128934477There's only been one song where I've really been able to tell the difference at least fairly easily between FLAC and MP3 320, but I don't have it on me right now. I remember that the guitars sounded actually really clear and defined as their own instrument as opposed to getting kind of swallowed together with the drums and other instruments.Pretty sure it was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX-ZmnD9JdYBut as for myself, I still rip everything in FLAC, but then just convert it to MP3 320 because it's practically the same and with a much smaller filesize. Listen to MP3 on my iPod, CD in the car, and then FLAC at home if I really care.
>>128935462converting a flac to mp3 is going to sound worse than an mp3. download mp3 or convert wav to mp3
>>128935454Probably not, I have never used bluetooth headphones/IEMs but as I understand it the quality is a lot worse.Slightly related: how do USB-C IEMs compare with "normal" 3.5mm ones?
>>128935471>converting a flac to mp3 is going to sound worse than an mp3Are you baiting or just retarded?FLAC -> MP3 is identical to WAV -> MP3>download mp3How do you think they got those MP3 files?
>>128935471Well I originally did a test to see what it would sound like if I ripped the CD to MP3 320 too and compared it to the converted-from-FLAC 320, and while it was maybe a smidge better than the converted one, it was like nearly imperceptibly noticeable, and even then it could have been placebo. I was using Exact Audio Converter and then it was converting straight from the WAV file it rips to MP3 320, so I dunno.
>>128935509wav is higher quality than flav. every time you encode, you lose quality. you wan your mp3 coming from wav or aiff uncompressed, not flav which is compressed (lossless is a nonsense term)
>>128935534*flac not flavor flav
>>128935534FLAC files get uncompressed while you listen, they are literally identical except that FLAC takes less space.
>>128935550WAV is uncompressed (larger files) while FLAC uses lossless compression (smaller files). FLAC USES COMPRESSION. it does not sound as good as wav and never will
>>128935550>FLAC files get uncompressed while you listenthis is so retarded that you should hang your head in shame if you aren’t baiting
>>128935564So you are saying that if you put an image in a zip archive and unzip it, the image will have lost quality? You are retarded.
I only noticed a positive difference with FLACs when I got a headphone and an AMP. Fucked my ears up doing that though and now I can't hear the difference anymore hohoho.
>>128935564What do you think the 'lossless' in 'lossless compression' refers to? You're claiming quality is lost, show us a spectrogram compariaon and demonstrate it
>>128935644He has to be baiting, no one can be that retarded.
>>128935525Ignore him.
>>128934477convert a store bought CD to mp3@128/kbps and tell me you can't tell the difference
>>128935564FLAC is a container and you are mentally retarded. lossless is lossless.
