It's actually insane how much better FLAC sounds once you learn to tell the difference between it and shitty compressed MP3s.

>>127288080 (OP)
Unfortunately no one has ever learned

>>127288080 (OP)
You're right. BTW tell that to sample instrument software developers.

My lack of respect for my fellow man runs so deep that I don't think him worthy of clear, high quality audio.

>>127288080 (OP)
Not just lossy mp3's - lossy mp3's of garbage "music" over a bandwidth-limited Bluetooth connection through shitty little earbuds.

People who tolerate such horrors need to die.

Give me the absolute best song with which to compare MP3 and FLAC

Niggers acting like audiophiles, unless you are 12y old with 1000usd equipments, you wont hear a difference between 320kbps and 6000kbps.
Please dont be a bait.

>>127288388
Your favorite one

>>127288388
The first thing I ever heard in FLAC was Remain in Light so I would suggest that. It literally doesn't sound right to me unless I hear it in lossless quality.

>>127288388
anything with cleanly recorded and fairly prominent cymbals. instead of a realistic and metallic cymbal sound you can just get a "tssss" with poorly encoded or too lossy formats, it sounds synthetic and hissy, like an old drum machine or something
its rarely night and day though unless youre talking about dog water 128kbps spotify or youtube shit. the difference between 320kbps and FLAC is small and will by no means be audible on all recordings, and you will need decent phones/speakers and ears

>>127289393
Most people have minds like basketball-americans but think they have the ears of a top-level sound engineer with years of experience.

I can't decide whether it's funny or just sad.

A point I never hear mentioned in these bad faith arguments is simply that hearing high quality lossless is a skill and requires practice, especially with the songs you like. An A/B test isn't particularly fair unless the participant is well acquainted with the song at minimum, and well acquainted with the lossless version of the song. Sommeliers and brewmasters require training. Same is true with aural skills.

>>127288334
people do things you don’t like. billions of them. you’re outnumbered

You may not hear the difference but your ears/body will(?)

The difference only grows as rotational velocidensity begins eating away at those aging MP3s

>>127290625
Am closer to believe this bullshit than believing what people saying about noticing Hi-Fi music differences.

>>127290852
Literally seething

I only listen to music on cassette tapes that have been stored in the glovebox of a car from the midwest for a minimum of 20 years.

>>127288080 (OP)
To me, the difference between FLAC and lossy is in the bass. The bass sounds so much fuller and penetrates deeper into your ear.

Kinda blows my mind the implication that the mp3s I downloaded in high school are supposed to have degraded but I can't tell

>>127290516
I've been on this shitty site since 2011 and I think this post goes straight into the top 5 dumbest things I've ever read.
It's impossible not to think that the person who wrote all this and somehow found a logical reasoning behind their argument is showing signs of cognitive deterioration or a fundamental reasoning problem.

Unironically kys

Just did an ABX test, 320 vs. FLAC and got 5/5. The reality is that there is indeed a difference and while it's subtle, and case by case, it exists.

>>127289393
>you will need decent phones/speakers and ears
Duh. On shitty gear everything sounds like shit.

>>127289393
>the difference between 320kbps and FLAC is small and will by no means be audible on all recordings
Perhaps you just don't have good enough ears.

On any reasonable source material the difference between lossy (e.g. 320kbps mp3) and lossless is glaringly and painfully obvious.

>>127290516
>An A/B test isn't particularly fair unless the participant is well acquainted with the song at minimum
Not for everyone. I can hear lossy encoders working regardless of source material (I'm sure there are cases where I can't, but like the immediately visible lossy visual compression artifacts in JPEG the audio artifacts have been obvious within seconds in every case I've bothered to try).

An anecdote: I once purchased a CD re-release of an album by a famous (RRHoF, hundreds of credits) drummer. Excited to finally hear it at 44.1/16 instead of vinyl, within seconds of pressing play I was appalled at how horrible it sounded.

I contacted the drummer, and asked his assistant what the hell happened - and I said specifically "It sounds like you pressed an mp3?!?"

And the assistant sheepishly admitted that the drummer had lost the original 2-track masters when he moved to a new house, so in fact they *had* pressed a *320kpbs mp3-encoded copy* because that was the best they could find (they also couldn't find any clean copies of the original vinyl).

To the drummer's credit he sincerely apologized to me (not that I had any doubts about his integrity, simply completing the story).

If any of you don't hear a meaningful difference between lossy and lossless formats then I suppose you're lucky economically (though unlucky aurally). You don't have to worry much about how things sound to you.

But people with ears hear the difference, we hear it immediately, and I'd posit the widespread adoption of lossless formats suggests the number of us who can easily hear the difference is very large.