4 ms·
To put it simply and honestly, you are not paying enough attention. There is no human-discernible difference between FLAC and V0/320kbps. But implying that 192k
by bryans 12y ago
To put it simply and honestly, you are not paying enough attention. There is no human-discernible difference between FLAC and V0/320kbps. But implying that 192kbps and 160kbps are sufficiently perfect is somewhat ludicrous. You can still hear noticeable artifacts on cymbals at 192kbps. They will sound like an absolute mess of warbling, and all of the audio will be imbued with a slight tinge of white noise.
There is a reason the mp3 scene moved away from 192kbps, and it doesn't have anything to do with bandwidth availability. It's because 192kbps sounds terrible.
- cthalupa 12y ago>There is no human-discernible difference between FLAC and V0/320kbps I can't on almost any modern music (which is the majority of what I listen to), but when I was going through the philips golden ears course, I did a fair amount of blind ABX on harpsichords, cymbals, and a few other instruments at v0/320kbps and didn't have much trouble identifying them. Granted, at that point I had been going through something specifically intended to help train you for discerning differences in audio, but they were distinct enough I don't think I would have had any trouble beforehand, either. On some stuff I couldn't immediately tell that some sounded better - just different. Though on some of the samples the FLAC was easily better to my ears. (My criteria for a 'successful' ABX was accuracy of at least 8 out of 10 using the foobar ABX comparator plugin)