The human ear can't distinguish between 320kbps and lossless

The human ear can't distinguish between 320kbps and lossless

Attached: 1644364169191.png (220x221, 56.34K)

I can.

Attached: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg (976x850, 57.91K)

*192kbps

>frogposter
kill yourself

I'm not a human nigga I'm a gorilla

audiofags are the most embarrassing little self hating cucks there is

>download all releases to pick the best one
>every so often, accidentally open the wrong legally downloaded folder
>"damn this sounds like shit, did i open the mp3 version?"
>turns out i did
many such cases

I can. For most people that just enjoy listening to music it won't matter. When you get into music production and sound design your ear really does evolve to catch everything( if you're doing it right i guess). You notice the weird compression flange on guitars on bad quality, you notice that icy cutting synth sounds like blubber on lesser quality. all sorts of things. then you start to realize some music sounds better in a lower quality and some sounds better in a superior quality. idk it's not a big deal, let audiophags enjoy things.

>t. has only ever listened to music streamed in AAC with airpods

Based black man

I've done blind tests with 100$ senheisers and couldn't hear a difference

generally true
generally what the fuck is wrong with you

dont care dumb frogposter fuck off

whereas my storage space certainly can, sad!

192kbps mp3, even. Not even talking about AAC. Any reasonably optimized mp3 encoder will produce results where test subjects will be unable to tell the difference between the mp3 and the original losless source in double blind tests, meaning that their guesses do not noticeably deviate from random baseline.

If you even start to argue otherwise, post DOI to paper presenting results of such a double blind test. If you can't, discussion is over.

Yeah but if you don’t save your music in lossless formats then that 320kbps will be like 250kbps in 6 months time. Why would you willingly choose an audio format that degrades over time?

>BTFOs FLACtards on a 100 mile radius

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 108.76K)

yeah but the point of losslessness is that.. it's lossless... as in, you can keep it stored for a long period of time and edit the files without losing quality

This.
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.

This. Or when someone transcodes a 320 MP3 to FLAC thinking it makes it higher quality and ends up sounding like absolute ass. There's definitely a difference between 320 and FLAC.

>he thinks 100 dollar headphones are high quality
FLAC legitimately makes for more fidelity in the higher register of frequency. 320 compresses these frequencies and sometimes simply doesn't include them. Can't tell you how many times I pull a 320kbps file into a DAW and look at the spectrogram of it and anything above 20-22khz is almost non existent