Can you tell a difference between FLAC and MP3?

320kbps mp3, not really. 128 or 192, or even 256, yes

>>127168637 (OP)
They 2 different formats.
Both have potential for a good quality sound, and a bad one.
Flac is lossles therefore better for music storage

>>127168637 (OP)
No, but there seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

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.

>>127168637 (OP)
yes but it's not particularly important to my music listening

>>127168637 (OP)
No, no one can. Not even 256 kbps mp3 either. There doesn't exist a single human being on the planet capable of telling 128 kbps mp3 from FLAC. It's all audiophiles deluding themselves.

>>127168837
this fact makes a lot of audiophiles go nuts

yes, it's very easy with good gear and good recordings. mp3 is a dogshit codec that can't even go above 16khz kek. now flac from vorbis or APE, that i cannot do.

>>127168837
>There doesn't exist a single human being on the planet capable of telling 128 kbps mp3 from FLAC.
bait

>>127168637 (OP)
yes but only because I play close attentio to hi-hat cymbals and drumming
>t.drummer

>>127168837
>my audio equipment is shit but I dont realize it yet
please tell me you are judging quality on your $20 earbuds

>>127170491
Why wouldnt that be an adequate test? 90% of music worldwide is listened to on devices such like that.

>>127168637 (OP)
yes on my $400 IEMs, anything else is hard to tell unless its a 64/128 vbr shitter

>>127168837
there's a huge difference between 128 and 320 kbps tho

>>127168637 (OP)
you can easily tell the difference even between 16bit and 24bit flac by cranking up the volume and listening the quiet part of the song and compare the noise floors.

>>127168650
You sound like you know your stuff. Would you be willing to set up a really hifi listening room for me for a couple bitcoin?

>>127168650
when I was a teenager, I filled my phone with youtube-to-mp3 tracks, and when I tried to play them ~ten years later, they wouldnt even play, though the phone remembered all the tracks and playlists and such that I'd made. Could it be because they were mp3's? I'd always wondered why that happened...

I can't tell the difference between FLAC and 128 Opus
A lot of retards ITT, I doubt you would pass a blind test