I have $1000 speakers and I can't tell any difference between FLAC and Spotify 320kbs. What a scam

I have $1000 speakers and I can't tell any difference between FLAC and Spotify 320kbs. What a scam.

Attached: flac.png (1200x595, 45.18K)

that is correct, you shouldnt be able to notice any loss of quality of an mp3 properly encoded at 320kbps

Daily reminder that flac (and other lossless codecs) are archival formats. Use whatever lossy meme you are subscribed to, be it mp3, ogg, opus, etc. Etc. We have the technology to make lossy sound transparent if:
> the bitrate is high enough (320 for mp3 and ogg, I don't know for opus)
> and the encoding was made from a lossless source (cd or flac)

that’s cuz you need to be listening to WAV files fool

If you can't hear above 16k you'll never hear the difference, and if you can you're more likely to hear it with IEMs because they'll block outside noise. Encoding quality is not even in the top 3 most important things in the audio chain.

God I want some IEMs so bad but damn they're all so expensive.

The room you listen to in matters

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.

even with expensive headphones the human ear can't detect the difference

Yes you could tell, at least and avid listener that likes paying attention to everything in a song to the point of listening to it several times just to notice a different detail each time. If you are the "hurr hurr thiing makes sound i like"
neanderthal type, then yes, you won't notice shit

My collection is 95% full of flac. is it a bad thing?

why would it be?

takes a lot of storage

I *can* hear it. However I have to really really focus. It’s higher frequencies. The most obvious place is drum cymbals. The MP3 cheats here and you get a more static-y swishy sound. It’s not something that is important Imo.

If you have the storage space its ideal

you should be able to hear more quality overall and if you paid with any other goal in mind youve wasted your time

There is no reason to encode in MP3. It's a garbage compression that was made when HDD were more expensive. I would question if WAVE files need compressing at all in 2022 when HDD are as cheap as chips.

the thing is, I don't

maybe it was a fake flac

the 320 will degrade over time because it is lossy

Good speakers ironically make it harder to distinguish between FLAC and MP3

>he fell for the FLAC meme
Another retard bites the dust.

then your speakers are overpriced because i can hear it with my $300 studio monitors

Unless you're using studio monitors in a treated room, this is probably what an untrained ear will experience
Any good Hi-Fi setup will just make your music sound better and sweep that stuff under the rug

FLAC is just for preservation and archiving. At this point, a high quality MP3 and a FLAC file will largely sound the same to 99.99% of people. The only real argument toward a FLAC file is for archiving your music. Not for some otherworldly new musical experience.