>>129573418
>What do you think? Is the audiophile culture plagued by lying cocksuckers, or do some people have golden ears?
FLAC is a good archival format because you can reencode it an infinite amount of times without any degredation.

>>129573418
Buy some quality headset or speakers instead of the cheapest chinkshit from a street vendor and you will hear it. And if you still don't hear the difference with a quality gear,maybe go to a doctor to check your hearing.

File: graph.png (226 KB)

226 KB PNG

>>129573418
as long as its the bitrate's not too low (<128kbps mp3), who cares. frequency response is way more important. you want something with not too much treble and a lot of bass

File: 1711656342708786.webm (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB WEBM

Hardware matters. You need good quality speakers or headphones with an accurate top end to hear the difference between digital formats and bitrates, unless they’re very low bitrates or lossy-lossy transcodes etc. The difference between properly encoded high bitrate lossy formats and lossless files is minute, not audible on all recoding and may need familiarity with what to listen for to detect at all but can be consistently detectable given the above caveats.
Also,
>golden ears
This is a common misconception, by which I mean the idea that there are some select group of people with "golden ears," and everyone else has "normal hearing," doesn't reflect reality.
Hearing acuity, like eyesight, varies widely from person to person on a continuous spectrum. Just like some people don't need glasses at all, some people need mild correction to read fine print and some people need glasses that look like telescope lenses to see a damn thing, hearing varies in the same way. The difference is that we rely so heavily on sight everyone knows how good their vision is, but people get through life just fine without being at the most acute end of the scale of hearing they mostly don't realise where they sit on that scale or even that it exists at all unless they have a fairly serious hearing deficit.

>>129573418
Genre and source quality make a difference. Listen to an 80s CD transfer of some 70s classic rock. Pay attention to the decay of the cymbals. Even with bad ears you should be able to distinguish 128kbps MP3 from FLAC. But with modern pop slop it might be impossible.

>>129573418
Do not listen to too many of the hoo-hee's in here honest. IF you are settled you are fine. That is what matter beyond starting fanning the flames and argument based on anecdotal evidence-threads in here. I always choose .Wav, and there is not reason to impose or argument WHY as to that at all. I just do. That is it

>>129574177
I like the enthusiasm! Pop slop is produced, as a newer "return"-standard, in what bit-rate and sample-frequency?
OH MY GOSH!!!! 88.2Khz

>>129574916
I thought everybody was rocking 24bit/48kHz these days

>>129575122
They don't

>>129573418
>Is the audiophile culture plagued by lying cocksuckers, or do some people have golden ears?
Hearing the difference between bitrates takes practice. It's not exclusively a physiological thing (i.e. are your ears good enough) and it's not exclusively a hardware thing (i.e. are your headphones good enough). It's also a skill (i.e. is your brain trained enough).

I almost never hear this point get brought up. You can train yourself to hear the differences in bitrate. This is why ABX tests aren't all they're cracked up to be.

If you can't hear the difference, consider yourself blessed and move on.

>>129573418
This is all you need.
>FLAC for archival purposes
>Opus 160 kbps for transparent audio quality (no discernible difference in blind tests)
>Opus 96 kbps for phone (earphones degrade quality anyway)
>Opus 16 kbps for audio books/podcasts
I don't know why anyone uses mp3 or even ogg/vorbis anymore. You get much smaller file sizes and better quality per kbps with opus and nearly all devices are compatible now.
Of course if you're using shitty speakers with some cheap DAC on the circuit board you're not as likely to hear a difference even at lower bitrates.

File: Debrox-Earwax-Removal-Kit-0-5-fl-oz-Ear-Drops-Bulb-Ear-Syringe_325884dd-d156-4fa5-867b-4ed82a45c85e.f5d29358c9d9704c169cdf817fd8bfab.jpg (344.6 KB)

344.6 KB JPG

>>129573418

>>129574916
You can't hear ultrasound so it doesn't matter. Important part is mastering and instrumentation. You want something with reasonably high dynamic range and extended detail over the full frequency range. Something with distorted guitars and real non-synthetic cymbals is ideal, but not metal because you need something with more space in the mix to really hear the details.

>>129573418
Shut the fuck up

>>129573418
>im legally deaf!
why we have such posters

>You can't hear ultrasound so
proof?

>>129575555
>Of course if you're using shitty speakers with some cheap DAC on the circuit board you're not as likely to hear a difference even at lower bitrates.

This.
I could hardly tell the difference between 256kbps MP3s and lossless FLAC files on a standard built in PC audio output.
I don't have the experience to properly describe it, but hearing the same files on a high end interface with monitor speakers it becomes blatantly obvious when you are listening to something lossy.

>>129576650
>blatantly obvious
Prove it:
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.256.html
Should only take a few minutes if it's as easy as you claim.

>>129576434
>I can't see the difference between 360p and 4k, are the blu ray jews a bunch of lying cockcuckers?

File: nectar.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>129576300

File: audiotest_workpc.png (91.1 KB)

91.1 KB PNG

>>129576684
So this is the result on my work PC using the onboard (Realtek) sound card, cheapest pyle amp on amazon, and two Klipsch bookshelf speakers.
When I am done at work, I will try the test on my studio PC.

>>129576862
wait
it says there is a 42% likelihood you got that score by chance, which means a 58% likelihood you got it by picking right answers, so "probably can't" should be "actually maybe you can" imo

>>129576928
It would be better with an option to pick just one track IMO. Difficulty isn't equal for all of them. Maybe you can tell the difference for The Killers but not the others. In my own testing I found The Eagles to be the easiest, although I still can't tell the difference at 256kbps, and even 192kbps takes very careful listening.