Confidently Incorrect

lol. They can’t hear the difference even with the most expensive equipment. The resultant signal from decompressing a FLAC phase cancels with the original signal if you invert it. Meaning they are indeed 100% identical. Lossless, dare I say.

Literally all it does as a file format is merge data that is identical in the left and right channel, so as not to store that information twice. You can see this for yourself by trying to compress tracks that have totally different/identical L and R channels, and seeing how much they compress if at all

Audiophiles are just a victim of their own smugness. Human ears are pitiful to start with, but then the neural processing that goes on is even worse. We can't hear shit and what we hear we can't even all remember or recognize. And that's at a young age, at age 30 the hearing is already deteriorating. Hearing has never been a strong point for humans, when our fight or flight response kicks in, the processing of audio is the first thing to go. If we didn't use it for communication as much, we might have lost it even further. Even our sense of smell is better and compared to other animals our sense of smell is very weak. Audiophiles consider themselves special because they "honed" their skills and can hear stuff others can't. But you can't hone what isn't there, there's no fixing crappy hardware. In a double blind experiment almost all of them would fail even identifying a regular old Apple Music AAC file all the normies listen to compared to a lossless version. And when they buy expensive shit, that distorts the music in a way they like, they convince themselves that is the true version and all other versions must be wrong.

But hey, on the spectrum of all the bad and or dumb shit humans do, being someone with too much money who enjoys music isn't half bad.

I went to school to be an audio engineer and audiophiles amuse me. While it is true that expensive speakers and FLAC and so on will make music sound better than it would on the cheapest stuff- we mix so it will sound decent on the cheapest stuff. We never mixed with you guys in mind. When I was doing it, we were keeping mp3 players in mind. These days, most music is mixed with streaming in mind.

My professor told us to take our mix out to our cars and drive around somewhere noisy and listen to it and then go and remix it after that based on what you heard.

Sure, there are exceptions. Not very many of them. Because companies want to make money from albums and they know most of the people listening to the music aren't going to be listening to lossless audio on $4000 speakers.

I find it especially amusing because, until the digital era, all the greatest music that was recorded since multitrack recording started in the 1960s was on bits of magnetic tape held together with bits of scotch tape and the engineer prayed that nothing would go wrong when it they were making the final two-track mix. It is highly unlikely that "what will this sound like on super expensive equipment?" was given consideration.

That's why I've always said using Optical/Toslink etc. is a mistake. Sending music with light just means you'll hear shade in your music.

Actually, you see, it is not the original bits, yeah? They get compressed, and that removes bits, and then they are uncompressed, and bits are added. Those are RE-CONS-TI-TUTED bits. It's like reconstituted tomato juice, the taste of the original water is gone forever! And you can hear that. With music, I mean, not with the tomato juice. Like, who says it's even the same kind of bits, the same quality? You can so hear the difference. You want a double blind study? Well that's just silly, if it's double blind, it means its not blind, because the two blinds cancel each others out. Basic science, duh!

This is why I only listen to audio formats that add information to the music, not degrade it by taking away.

IVE HAD THIS GIF SAVED FOR OVER A YEAR AND I FINALLY GET TO USE IT

Every time I see audiophile stuff it makes my expetactions of them dig a deeper and deeper hole.
Why is it always some snublord jerking themselves off over they 25k setup, like their ears are blessed by Zeus themselves.

Still as relevant as ever https://www.avsforum.com/threads/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and-coat-hangers.1003197/

converts mp3 to flac

Kalm

::: print vinyl from flac :::

Technically, an issue with lossy formats is if they get saved, moved, and/or re-encoded then there is a risk of media degrading over time, over iterations. So you could potentially hear the difference.

But FLAC is lossless.

If the user likes the MP3 sound better then clearly they actually enjoy the lossy hum and buzz of compressed audio. I'm sure they would enjoy Vinyl.

TBH FLAC can’t do 32bit floating point encoding, neither more than 8 channels per stream, so he’s not technically incorrect that it’s not zipping a wave file.

The first one concerns recorded source material (there are 32bit fp recorders for the last few years really helped loudest and quietest recordings) and not a single end product.

The second one limits FLAC to 7.1, so as a container it’s not suitable for theatrical purposes, neither for Dolby Atmos/DTS, nor for higher order ambisonics (used in vr).

But neither of these limits concerns end users, and if we’re talking about music, they can get fucked with whatever exorbitancy they prefer.

What's the L stand for again..?

Audiophiles huh

He obviously is right! I have a mechanical keyboard because it transmits better key presses. Aviator connector helps reduce the noise as well.