Even though you can’t tell the differences.
You must log in or register to comment.
Not always. I had Dark side of the moon in DSD 256 but then found digitised copy of Japanese vinyl in flac 96/24 and it sounded so much better. If you can it always better to download it in highest resolution but it probably depends on soure(CD, SACD, vinyl or tape)
Yes, then I convert to opus 255kbps and delete the og file.
If I didn’t want the highest quality audio files I’d just stream it through spotify
Yes. And I oversampling every song I listen to, because someone told me I should do this for better sound quality. Even though I can’t tell the differences…
always get the FLAC so you can transcode down to 128vbr.
if i can, then yes. tho i wont go the “extra mile” (=paying) just to get a higher quality file. ripping my stuff straight from youtube is enough for me
Same. I can hear the difference between lossless and YT when I listen to it side by side, I even hear the difference between 128kbps mp3 and lossless, if the mix is good. Of course, that is with good headphones.
But if I play sound through my lo-fi system at home, then no, I can’t really tell.
No… I don’t care any longer if I download flac or mp3 320.
Yes, my DAP device have SD-Slots and I don’t care about the sd storage, but waste space because of differences that I can’t hear? No, sorry.
In the meantime I heard some bad flacs too. Flac means not always good quality.
I can tell the difference. Granted, I think it largely depends on the music compositions themselves.And even then, admittedly, it’s not a HUGE OMG WOW difference even when it’s FLAC. But it’s at the very least cleaner sounding IMO.
No you can’t.
I’d bet a lot of money that’s 100% placebo and you’d fail a frequency test.
Most people can’t even tell the difference between regular lossless on a frequency test.
Stop giving into your own placebo. You’re claiming you can tell a difference on music which was recorded on lower quality microphones than what you think you’re listening at
Or are you a dog?
I agree that anything beyond 44.1Khz isn’t able to be heard because that value DOES correlate to OBJECTIVE frequency ranges. That being said, what is the difference in larger kbps amounts with lossless doing then? Data degradation over long-term storage? stability of audio signal? I really do want to learn more about all this.
You can’t even hear half of 44.1khz unless you’re not human. Differentiating bit rates above 16 require lab conditions, being a professional trained listener and being blasted with severe hearing damage levels of audio in 1-2 second snippets - That gets better than a coin flip. Sometimes. There is no exception to this. None. You do not hear anything different because it’s impossible. The human ear has limitations regarding frequencies and resolutions and these would be within those limitations.
For me it’s convenience above sound quality to a certain degree. I want to spend the time I would’ve spent sourcing high quality files on actually listening to my music. If it’s just a setting on my streaming app and I’m on wifi then it’s a no brainer. Why wouldn’t you choose the highest quality?
No.
Most of them high audio quality files are recorded on much lower quality microphones.
It’s hilarious when people act like they can tell a difference when it literally can’t be with what it was recorded on.
Placebo is one hell of a thing. There’s a reason why they have to test for placebo in medical trials. Humans will really make themselves believe something.
Unless you’re a dog, you don’t need higher than regular lossless.
Interpreting your “highest possible” as “highest quality”.
If I have to choose between a lossy format and a lossless format e.g. $5 for the MP3 and $10 for the FLAC, I choose the lossless version simply to future proof my collection and to avoid even the tiniest possible artifacts inherent to lossy compression (Fraunhofer & Co never claimed MP3 to be 100% transparant all of the time).
If I have to choose between CD quality (16/44.1) ar $10 or Hires (24/96) at $20, I choose CD quality simple because I don’t hear the difference.
If I have a download in 24/176 or 24/192, I always inspect the content using a spectrum analyzer. Often there are all kind of artifacts like high amount of quantization noise, some gear injecting a spike at 88 kHz, etc. I downsample them to 88 resp. 96 to get rid of the garbage https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/Spectrum.htm
This is the answer I agree with.
Lossless vs. lossy, always lossless.
Uncompressed lossless vs. compressed lossless, always compressed lossless.
The uncompressed lossless takes up an unnecessarily large amount of space for no audible difference.
MQA FLAC
MQA
No.
I use at home 16bit/44,1khz FLAC and on the go 270vbr MP3
No. I don’t go above 96KHz sample rates because I use optical connections in my setup and some gear doesn’t support more than 96KHz via optical (while some does).
I had some 192Khz files for a while, and had foobar down sample to 96 while playing if I was using components that didnt play it, but decided that it just wasn’t worth the storage and hassle, so it all got converted to 96 KHz.
When I purchase song, it comes as FLAC.
Can’t be bothered to convert it, so just use it as is. Storage is fairly cheap anyway compared to all the money I spent for the gear.Yep, FLAC or nothing for me. Regardless of whether I can hear a difference or not, why choose lossy when lossless is the same price. The storage space argument died years ago when you can get storage for super cheap.