weedblunt: That First Time You Listen To A Flac File On A Decent Pair Of Headphones

weedblunt 10.12.13	gone
Trebor. 10.12.13	>weedblunt
oltnabrick 10.12.13	mfw lil b - based jam ))))))))))OOOOOOO___________OOOOOOOOOO))(((((()())))))))))
someguest 10.12.13	The chances are you can't tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC.
Parallels 10.12.13	"The chances are you can't tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC." on headphones, yeah. i cant believe how fast i stopped using my headphones when i got a sound system for my car.
weedblunt 10.12.13	the flac version of no devolucion sounds a lot better than the 320 kbps version so idk
luci 10.12.13	have too much porn to get into flac
jdennis31 10.12.13	"on headphones, yeah." wut? A good pair of headphones makes the difference much more noticable. FLAC files have more depth since they aren't completely squashed with compression, and headphones seem as if they'd make depth more noticable than a sound system.
Parallels 10.12.13	idk i dont really like headphones anymore since my car sounds so good. i never wanted to blow money on a pair of quality headphones (i think of quality above 30$ imo) that would inevitably break in 6 months with my aggressive handling. Even when I'm gentle to them they break in a year
jdennis31 10.12.13	Ahh i see. Yea I get really uncomfortable when I have headphones on for an hour or so.
LambsBread 10.12.13	you call 30 dollars quality? 30 dollars won't even hardly get you a shitty pair of ipod earbuds
weedblunt 10.12.13	i got a pair of audio technica ath m-30s for pretty cheap($50, retail at) and they're great headphones imo
Butkuiss 10.12.13	First time you listen to a flac on a quality sound system you're like HOLY SHIT ITS THE SAME SOUND EXACTLY. Any differences between 320kbps and flac are to do with rip quality and methodology rather than inherent differences between format encoding capacity in the normal hearing range; people who rip to flac are just more likely to pay more attention to their ripping methods and produce higher quality rips, and quite often a lot of mp3 files aren't ripped directly from the source, but from .wma and .flac and .aac files, allowing more loss for data. Kind of how most people who swear by vinyl are unaware that many vinyl records sound different because it's a different master to the digital release.
someguest 10.12.13	I already said it but BINGO
someguest 10.12.13	although you do get DEEPER tones with vinyl, it has nothing to do with QUALITY like you said, it just sounds different
MisterTornado 10.12.13	that first time you listen to blind willie johnson on a decent phonograph wholy shit
sideburndude 10.12.13	placebo files
jdennis31 10.12.13	@Butkuiss The difference isn't really perceptible to the human ear, but the frequencies that are cut out of mp3 conversions can be "felt", and the stereo image seems to be narrower. I guess it doesn't really matter unless you have a sound system or headphones that can reproduce the inaudible frequencies, and after that, you'd probably have to focus on the music to notice the added "depth". I can see why hardcore audiophiles would enjoy that aspect, but it seems inconsequential to the casual listener. Some folk seem to notice a sort of brightness as well for flac since the high end frequencies aren't filtered out, but others have said that it actually makes the sound harsher. No expert on the matter, just been looking around message boards to educate myself, feel free to correct me. I can't seem to find any sources with actual studies.
Butkuiss 10.12.13	I'm pretty sure I remember reading a paper that had double blind tests where participants couldn't tell the difference between 256 kbps mp3/vinyl/flac, and consistently identified the vinyl as the "low quality mp3" version.
Necrotica 10.12.13	Dat username
skeames1214 10.12.13	is flac really that much different than 320 hz mp3? edit: nevermind, explained in an above comment
sniper 10.12.13	yeah 320 AAC is as good as anyone needs. i keep done lossless files so i can burn CDs but otherwise fuck that, you physically can't tell the difference, esp with AAC, but even the regular MP3 codec is perfectly adequate at 320. obviously you can keep using lossless if you think it sounds better, but i'll save the HD space and get the same experience.
sniper 10.12.13	through studio headphones (no boosted frequencies) i can tell you that i can hear the difference between 192/256 and 320 but not 320 vs 1411. there have been studies on this. the human ess doesn't know the difference, the rest is confirmation bias.
Itishappeningagain 10.12.13	Audiophile's son here. It makes no difference with headphones. Maybe with some good dynamics but not headphones.
jdennis31 10.12.13	What?
anarchistfish 10.12.13	"The chances are you can't tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC." yeah 'audiophiles' are lol
menawati 10.12.13	not through headphones no because the stereo separation gets skewed anyway but thro a half decent system using loudspeakers the soundstage is often wider and more open on Flac than any lossy format
weedblunt 10.12.13	this website is such a buzzkill
skeames1214 01.16.14	can't honestly say I can tell the difference between high quality mp3's and FLAC files on my sennheisers, even with the headphone amp.
Masochist 01.16.14	I've got a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 770 80ohm headphones running through an audio interface. When I'm casually listening to music, I can't tell the difference between 320MP3 and FLAC. But when I'm running audio experiments on my PC, like say playing around with the ToneBoosters Isone dynamic speaker program (which emulates the sound of a speaker system through your headphones), and I'm testing an album done by the same artist in both FLAC and 320kbps MP3 (in this case, BT's 'A Song Across Wires'), then yes, I can hear a difference. I'm NOT an audiophile, so I can't describe it. But when I visualize the difference, it's like an accordion stretched open just a bit wider than it was before, and just a few more of those in-between tones in the songs become exposed for listening. Not much to ever notice a difference if that's not precisely what you were listening for to begin with, mind you, and certainly not enough to go to FLAC exclusivity (again, not an audiophile), but there is a very subtle difference. A point to emphasize is that I can't really notice a difference at all if I'm not using the Isone program for Foobar. That program takes into account sound coming through open speakers in a virtual room, and allows you to change the speaker distance, angle from your head, and even your head and ear size. I think my headphones sound 100x better when using it, and it's only though that Foobar plugin that I'm able to discern any difference at all between HQ MP3 and FLAC.
Masochist 01.16.14	Also, people usually get most things wrong when it comes to their senses. There was a blind taste test done with wine, where people were told that one of the two wines was much, much more expensive than the other, and 70% of the time, they chose the wine which they were told was more expensive as the better tasting one (in actuality, they drank the same wine twice). That being said...I don't think things like that should be ignored. If someone reports FLAC as sounding better than 320kbps, even if it is physically impossible for the human ear to notice a difference, the pleasure center in their brain is probably stimulated more as a result of knowing that they're listening to a FLAC file, and they probably enjoy it more anyways. Same with the wine. Same with vinyl. It's a stupid thing we humans do, but it's not at all irrelevant.
Masochist 01.16.14	(Sorry for the triple post) And oh, yeah...the first album I listened to on FLAC was Black Swan's 'Black Swan (In 8 Movements)'. The first albums I listened to on FLAC with a decent set of cans were BT's 'A Song Across Wires' and Panacea's 'Ink Is My Drink'. If I were to get any more albums on FLAC, they'd be BT albums.
Dunpeal 01.16.14	i mean if you're coming from 128 mp3 maybe but otherwise... http://www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-audio/