yes, it's easier when you turn volume up. those little details & music textures.

oh my god!

>>25481548 DUH!

> quality can be felt in flac Amazing how people always can tell, all the time, except in double blind studies. Then suddenly they lose all ability to tell a difference.

Music on Youtube just sucks, at best it sounds like 192kbps mp3.

>>25481579 played same music, one is .flac torrented, one is youtube video i can TELL.

People stop being able to tell at around 256 with standard codecs. Google for blind test lossy lossless.

>>25481588 Yeah, not gonna argue this bullshit with you. People always claim they can tell, and when they have to prove they can't.

That's not the reason to use flac. Youtube videos often have bad quality, but that's more because people upload low quality shit.

>>25481579 Except it's not, lossy formats introduce artifacts that aren't hard to hear.

>>25481595 way lower, it's more like 160kbps if you're over 25yo

>>25481579 on earphones is not easy but if you play it on speakers ans low kbps file would distort fast at high volumes, and high kbps file as flac can be tested with high volumes and keep fidelity, you can do it by yourself if neightbour is not problem.

i like opus

There's no actual difference between flac and mp3 320 kbps which you should really care about. This difference mainly affects the upper treble region which you can't properly hear due to natural human hearing ability if it isn't forcibly raised by your headpos (peace of shit).

>>25481608 Depends on how lossy we're talking. What's the format in the video OP tried?

>>25481608 Tru dat. I lifted quite a few tunes from yt and more than half of them have little blips and squeeks. All of these are from official and vimeo channels. When yt pirating, it's best to look for the arthourse college kid channels. They upload gooder stuff.

>>25481579 He's listening to music on youtube, he's obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, most likely his youtube videos are mp3s that have been downloaded off youtube and reuploaded when the original was taken down a dozen times, while it's likely the FLAC is a straight CD rip or WEB-DL.

>>25481588 YouTube video are more compressed than 320kbps mp3s

>>25482522 They're compressed more efficiently because they use a better format, Youtube does ~128kbps Opus (and some lower bitrates too for some reason) which is better than mp3 320kbps. I expect the kind of retard who uses Youtube for music to have uploaded an mp3 128kbps soundcloud download which then gets lossily compressed again though.

>>25482522 Youtube provides 128k opus, which is probably better than mp3 at any bitrate.

>>25482543 doubtful

The most distorting factor of the audio reproduction actually is not the format quality loss but the frequency response of your headpos or earpos.

>>25482573 Sure, but the frequency response of his headphones remains the same with either format.

>>25482604 I advise to use EQ and only then care about audio stream being compressed three times in a line before being played.

Honistly when working with audio flac sounds pretty much the same in my workflows to MP3. It's still compressed and still not a prefered raw format. If I wanted to work with a raw sound sample or clip then I would use wav. If it's for distribution then I would use MP3 with a decent bitrate. The technical differences in flac can't be heard in the mix on almost any common audio setup. It's basically a waste of time to export to it.

>>25482627 You realize that flac and wav provide exactly the same audio, right?

>>25482631 That is objectively wrong.

>>25482643 lol I thought maybe your post was just worded confusingly, but no, you're actually retarded.

>>25482643 Bernd moment.

>>25482647 Look it up.

>>25482643 Do you even know what lossless compression means? It's more like a zip file - if you don't *exactly* get out what you put in, it's broken. And FLAC is not known to be broken.

>>25482666 Dude, you're talking about "workflows" and audio setups and distribution and you don't even know the most basic things? Are you just making shit up? Or are you a self-employed music """producer"""? I've seen a lot of dumb shit on the internet and imageboards, but this actually amazes me.

>>25482675 He might just be a professional.

>>25482675 So what I am hearing is you refuse to look it up and just want to sling insults/guesses.

>>25482679 I would expect even the most incompetent professional to know something like this.

>>25482666 Done. You can google it yourself: "Is FLAC bit-exact?" and the answer is yes. You maybe-possibly get a few extra samples of silence at the end of the FLAC file for format reasons, but even that is dubious: why drop the claim for absolute bit-exactness when it's easy enough to prevent? (It is, just add a length field to the format and cut off the end as necessary)

>>25482682 Yes, I don't need to look things up that I'm intimately familiar with. You are either trolling or a complete fucking retard. That's all I can say to you.

>>25482685 In theory. In practice that is literally never the case. You can actually see and hear the difference when you look at the outputs visualized. Especially from analog signals.

Lmao, not this shit again

>>25482698 No you can't, just stop.

>>25482716 Do it.

>>25482732 You are wrong, it's okay. We're all wrong sometimes. Just stop using technical jargon you don't understand.

>>25482748 Audiophiles are really something.

>>25482748 Lmao

>>25482757 Fuck that, there's no way you can claim to be an audio professional and be wrong about this. But at this point it's obvious he's just having a laugh.

>>25482757 >something I read somewhere says a thing so it must be true >real world conditions being different from theory is impossible because my book said in theory if done perfectly it will be as the book says >anyone who says otherwise must be wrong because the book says so It's like talking to a religious person.

>>25482771 Take a raw analog wav file, convert it to flac in a DAW or video editing program Then look at the two files waveform in a audio program like audacity at the same time or two different tracks. You can quite literally see the difference.

>>25482781 Just stop, it's not even funny anymore.

>>25482771 >there's no way you can claim to be an audio professional and be wrong about this Yeah but he clearly isn't, he just wanted to sound smart. I don't think he's trolling tbh... >>25482773 You're using audiophile logic here, friend. Please stop. >>25482781 >You can quite literally see the difference Post screenshot.

Turkïye bernd, would you be kind to explain to me what is that?

>>25482786 He is 100% trolling.

Unfortunately for him, he doesn't know enough about digital audio to actually be good at trolling. It's kinda sad.

>>25482794 Lol >>25482800 Yeah, his last post confirmed it kek

>>25482800 >>25482804 >>25482807 Even when presented with evidence the faith of the believers carry them through.

>>25482826 Dude, you've just demonstrated that the loudness of your track has raised. If this happened due to format conversion, this isn't actually the good thing. You could perform the same thing even without reformatting.

>>25482826 You clearly used a compressor on the bottom track you doofus. Stop trolling.

You should convert all your mp3 into flac.

>>25482841 >>25482846 Lol, the bottom one is the unaltered wav file.

Youtube is shit, of course you hear the difference.

>>25482748 Who's the editor in charge of this publication?

Youtube audio has a distinctive sound because of dynamic range compression, as well as data compression.

>>25482781 The fault may lie with your video editing program. Have you tried ffmpeg -i in.wav out.flac and then compared in audacitiy?

>https://abx.digitalfeed.net/ I cannot tell the difference at all pure placebo

>>25484437 >68% correct >you probably can't tell

>not listen to Vinyl Lmfao digital sounds

>>25484493 >listening to a needle scraping a plastic disc

>>25481548 FLAC is cool to put it in the depths of my archives. If you buy stuff on Bandcamp, of course you download the best quality available

>>25484416 >Have you tried ffmpeg Is that the fetish where women impregnate men?

>>25484647 Try ffmpeg and report back

>>25484647 >ffmpeg I see it now, too Female-female-male pegging

>>25484810 >ffm I also see how the two females are behind the kneeling man

>>25484816 I thought they'd pegg his ass and mouth.

>>25484839 That too, but I guess they are currently double penetrating him

>>25484870 Or it's human penetration centipede time

which formats support 5.1 Surround speaker system? any good site on internet?

>>25484922 why is she bothering to put plasters on her nipples women are so weird >captcha >bbobjo

>>25482788 .flac is like .mp3 you download from torrents/soulseek and it is basically better quality music

>>25484922 All modern formats do. The real question is what kind of music comes in 5.1 or why you would want that.

>>25484942 My thoughts >Nudity laws = covered nipples OK, uncovered = indecency Not sure if this is in Brazil, could be in EU soccer party championship thing >Easier to paint on, because her nipples are "rough" or something like that

I have a lot of mp3 at 320 kbps plus 720 kbps flacs, I think it just wastes disk space. >>25484962 Same. It's almost always stereo sources, so you could upmix/resample to use the other channels but it's not really "quality", it's a bit random. There are only a bunch of real 5.1/7.1 sources for music.

why does it matter. A bigger painting has no reason to be better than a smaller painting. Same with photograph resolution. Giving too much importance to this, especially in art as opposed to something purely documental, seems a mistake. Focusing on this one simple thing seems coping like obsessing over musical instrument brand or price while not knowing how to connect two chords.

>>25485036 because when you go to restaurant, you would like to eat best food there, not the average one

>>25485040 Not me. No pizza is worth paying or waiting significantly more than for an average pizza. Even between a 60MB FLAC and the same song in a 60KB file for SNES or Genesis or OPNA, I'd definitely take the later.

>>25483203 Lol... I just image searched your pic, very low effort troll. https://rolandcorp.com.au/blog/beginners-guide-compression

>>25484962 i bought used notebook with 5.1 want to test it. all mp3s are strereo so no way

>>25485724 Movies are 5.1, but surround sound is a meme anyway. And how does a notebook have 5.1? You need speakers all around you for that and you can plug such speakers into any kind of PC.