>download lossless flac file. >look inside. >loss

>download lossless flac file
>look inside
>loss

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >2025
    >still using files to listen to music

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      streaming sites don't have my favorite nazi tunes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you have to be over 18 to post here

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        Go leave, subuhman.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Black person

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can you recommend some good neo-nazi songs?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Erika, Panzerlied, and Horst-Wessel-Lied are all you need tbh

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >RAC
        >high audio quality
        Choose one

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >like to listen to Nokturnal Mortum
        >people discover they play concerts for an obscure eastern european neonazi militia named Azov
        >they get cancelled, removed from spotify
        >russia/ukraine war starts
        >russia are the bad guys, ukraine are the good guys
        >Azov are ukrainian, they're still neonazis but they're GOOD neonazis so it's ok
        >their music is put back up on spotify
        i still chuckle thinking about this
        IQfy - Technology

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you think streaming services run on? Vinyl?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >buy most expensive microphone in universe
      >it does not capture the true sovl that you must hear in person

      bro... humans don't hear digital audio; stop putting so much faith into digital representations of sound.

      you have to be over 18 to post here

      [...]
      Go leave, subuhman.

      >half asleep
      >thought my comfy board was flooded with zoomers and redditors overnight
      >realize it's just IQfy
      thank frick

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >~~*stream*~~
      fricking zoomer. if you want your life controlled by israelites who can arbitrate life as a ~~*service*~~, fine, but don't impose that on us

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >everything is israelites
        hope your nurse renews your haldol script soon, grandma

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t. zoom zoom

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >zoomer
      >doesnt know how to use a fricking file or navigate a filesystem
      >forced to stream because of this

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >buy most expensive microphone in universe
    >it does not capture the true sovl that you must hear in person

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bro... humans don't hear digital audio; stop putting so much faith into digital representations of sound.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based, morons seething

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Lossless
      Hz
      What did they mean by this?

      Based, morons seething

      >what is the nyquist shannon theorem
      kys absolute morons

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What the frick did mine (the first quoted post) have to do with nyquist???

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Human hearing doesn't have a universal 20 kHz shut off. That is just a nominal value. Some young people can hear above that. kys

        It claims to only work with flac and wav files, and also doesn't claim to be 100% reliable either.
        >Try it with Opus.
        >loseless audio checker
        >"muh try it with an lossy format it doesn't work"
        I'm appalled.
        >transcoded a file from mp3 to flac, it's flagged
        >upscalled a file from mp3 to a 96KHz, 32 bits flac, it's flagged
        [...]
        >If they have any integrity they'll tell you it's impossible for something like that to be 100% accurate
        From one of the two cited research papers :
        >the detection of upsampling is mostly reliable (91.3 %). It seems that these detection errors are related to the design of the upsampler, which is not optimal. However, this problem seems very hard to solve.

        Don't bother with lossless audio checkers, they're fundamentally broken and cannot be trusted.

        Someone needs to teach IQfy an audio science lesson.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Don't bother with lossless audio checkers
          I don't, I get my files from trusted sources where you have to post the AccurateRip summary.
          >they cannot be trusted
          trusted to be 100% or trusted to be better at telling the difference than a human?
          >audio science
          "audio" is not a science, signal acquisition and signal processing are.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >or trusted to be better at telling the difference than a human?

            This

            >"audio" is not a science, signal acquisition and signal processing are.

            Fkn kek who taught you that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is fundamentally different between processing a mechanical or electromagnetic wave once it's acquired?
            What is fundamentally different between recording sound or biological electrosignal ?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no such thing as computer science, everything is physics

            >There's no such thing as science, everything is derived from Allah's will

            ngmi moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you for conceding by not pointing out a single counter example.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Human hearing doesn't have a universal 20 kHz shut off. That is just a nominal value. Some young people can hear above that. kys
          no, 20kHz is already a generous upper limit
          only babies/toddlers can hear a touch over 20kHz, by the time you're an adult you absolutely can't get to 20kHz

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            20 y/o here: i can hear up to 19,500Hz and i feel like it'd be entirely normal for other 20 y/o people to as well

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, you don't. Not even with the volume raised to deaf threatening levels.
            Either your test source or output is flawed.
            Or your test methodology is flawed (not double blind).
            Or you just made this up.
            And even for the young children that can theoretically hear them, higher-freq sounds close to 20KHz are low-energy and masked anyway.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yep, even in small children who may hear close to 20kHz, it's still only barely, and requires a lot of energy to be heard, which is probably not very safe
            no music uses frequencies that high intentionally, because none of the people producing it can hear it
            also, cd's run at 44,100Hz, meaning they can record and reproduce frequencies up to 22,050Hz (a little less in practice for an anti-alias filter, but the point being even if you had superhuman hearing and could hear 20kHz at 20yo, CD is /still/ more than enough)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lmao yeah
      >GUISE I GOT A FLAWLESS COPY, LE AR SAYS SO
      now mic up your shitty speakers for analysis and compare the output to the file that played, bet you lost 80% of the high and low end. audiophiles are catastrophically moronic

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AR is a thing for a reason. Makes sure all your albums are not only authentic lossless, but also that they are bit-for-bit copies from the CD.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >AR is a thing for a reason.

      >nobody can tell the difference
      If you're smart and try to verify them through AR, it immediately tells you that it's not a lossless file.

      >verify them through AR
      What is AR?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        AccurateRip. Verifies your rips against a database to make sure it's a bit-for-bit copy from the CD. If it's not gapless, lossless, or a perfect rip, it'll tell you. foobar2000 has it as an option, so does CUETools, and of course the creators own pay software. I'm 99% positive the creator is autistic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ahh, right. Now I remember EAC.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ive been reencoding mp3s to flac forever to share on soulseek and private trackers.
    nobody can tell the difference and it bumps my ratio.
    literally victimless crime, really.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nobody can tell the difference
      If you're smart and try to verify them through AR, it immediately tells you that it's not a lossless file.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > nobody can tell the difference
      Neither can you tell the difference when your food is contaminated by fecal matter and mercury, but it still harms you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no, you havent,
      private trackers for music can verify your shitty rips straight away and you'd get banned.
      and anyone with half a braincell can use a spectrum analyzer to detect mp3 to FLAC homosexuals.

      you're a liar and a moron.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >anon genuinely thinks someone is hand verifying every upload
        >thinks upscaling algos from 20 years ago are the same as they are today
        boomers lmao

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >anyone with half a braincell
        So nobody on a private tracker, lol.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sorry for your loss.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Begutachtet.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was probably a flac from Apple Music or whatever other streaming service sells flacs.
    Someone who ripped an Audio CD doesn't do that.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    | ||
    || |_

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lel

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >loss
    where?
    there isn't even a low-pass
    do you think the lack of inaudible high-freq noise a sign of lossy-ness?
    then opus must be the most lossless codec out there

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you're sure that's not just the result of the mastering?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Lossless
    Hz
    What did they mean by this?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >leftcel
    you realize you're a race communist, right?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    on your image, what part do you think is a loss?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NTA, but soft shelf around 15k and artefacted looking bands at the lows strongly suggest lossy encoding. It could also be that they sample lossy tracks or the album is just comically over-produced. That's why AccuRip is important.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >codec is updated
        >still lossless but with far better compression
        >moron thinks it's inferior because it's not bit perfect to the one encoded 15 years ago on a p4 in some neckbears basement that is now the baseline
        if you can't see the issue with databases you're ngmi

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >codec is updated
          >still lossless but with far better compression
          How is that going to effect the decoded output genius?
          >moron thinks it's inferior because it's not bit perfect to the one encoded 15 years ago on a p4 in some neckbears basement that is now the baseline
          That's why AccuRip works on a confidence basis over many rips. CD audio is fallible and bad pressings are common.
          >if you can't see the issue with databases you're ngmi
          Why are you so angry about tech you've obviously never interacted with? Christ zoomers are fricked in the head.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >AccuRip works on a confidence basis
            explain to me how the hash of a digital file can have a 'confidence basis'
            either the file matches or it doesn't

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because it compares multiple rips dumbfrick. If 90% of respondents report the same hash for the same CD text, it's probably correct.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just verify your files through auCDtect or something like that.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Flak - Troonfolder

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Varying shelves in different sections seem like a mastering issue.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Opinions?

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://losslessaudiochecker.com/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fake tech

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fake tech
        I would rather trust an assistant professor from the CNRS than you, anon.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you can trust yourself by trying it with different codecs.
          Try it with Opus.
          Try it with non-low-passed USAC (exhale unfortunately doesn't encode non-audible frequencies, even with the highest quality setting, but it's trivial to patch the encoder to do so).
          Try it with ML codecs like TSAC.
          It's fake tech.
          Unreliable false positives.
          Impossible to prevent false negatives.
          And you can prove this for yourself without needing to appeal to CNRS authority, or a random IQfyer authority.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It claims to only work with flac and wav files, and also doesn't claim to be 100% reliable either.
            >Try it with Opus.
            >loseless audio checker
            >"muh try it with an lossy format it doesn't work"
            I'm appalled.
            >transcoded a file from mp3 to flac, it's flagged
            >upscalled a file from mp3 to a 96KHz, 32 bits flac, it's flagged

            If they have any integrity they'll tell you it's impossible for something like that to be 100% accurate. They were sure as frick taught that in undergrad.

            >If they have any integrity they'll tell you it's impossible for something like that to be 100% accurate
            From one of the two cited research papers :
            >the detection of upsampling is mostly reliable (91.3 %). It seems that these detection errors are related to the design of the upsampler, which is not optimal. However, this problem seems very hard to solve.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If they have any integrity they'll tell you it's impossible for something like that to be 100% accurate. They were sure as frick taught that in undergrad.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why do morons (specially the ones on soulseek) create fake flacs? seriously, what do you even gain with this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Grifting and vandalism for the sake of it. Intentional chaos and destruction. I wonder what purpose this behavior has, in terms of evolution.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what do you even gain with this?
      a ban from any decent tracker

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      tbf there are a lot of label releases which are fake lossless

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So what makes you believe clipping a sound at 15 khz wasn't an artist's intention?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dw, I got it, Anon 🙂

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can't believe I had to scroll this far to find one

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >download album from the internet back in 00's
    >it cuts at 16kHz
    >download 320kbps mp3
    >still 16kHz
    >download flac from qobuz/deezer
    >still 16kHz
    >buy CD from ebay for gorillion of dollars because the band is literally who and dead for a decade
    >still 16kHz
    >this year they suddenly re-release their whole discography, digitally and limited CDs
    >buy the digital release
    >still fricking 16kHz
    Sometimes that's just how the life goes. It's a sad life but that's all we have.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >spent money on cum sucking prostitute just to find out the guy that mixed it was a moron
      nice

      Because it compares multiple rips dumbfrick. If 90% of respondents report the same hash for the same CD text, it's probably correct.

      reread my first post you dumb boomer, I said if you reencode with a newer version of the codec the hash won't match anymore even though you have a superior file. how are you on a tech board and don't understand file hashing

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if you reencode with a newer version of the codec
        It works on a hash of the decoded output. Lossless encodings all have the same output regardless of codec.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there's absolutely nothing on the accuraterip website to support any of the bullshit you just said

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Probably because the target audience isn't zoomers who have never touched an audio CD trying to win internet arguments. If you use the database or read the API docs, it's immediately obvious that's how it works.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, I actually skipped that part, it's not worth it. Especially now when they re-released the whole material and it really looks like the original mix is just fricked.
        The rest is true, and the new re-release was only one dollar on bandcamp, and I love this band.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just a matter of time until somebody makes waifu2x but for music, and they start selling rereleases that you can't distinguish with spectral analysis.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >look inside a decoded flac file
    >it's everything the encoder originally captured
    this is suprising because?

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >buy a 7-up "The Uncola"
    >taste it
    >it's basically cola

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >FLAC of a web release

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mp3 320

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >not 80kb v0
      goml

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      16-bit PCM @ 44.1KHz

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Many such cases. Some companies are even selling this for extra with added high frequency noise it's called mqa

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Remember kids, never buy a DAC with a MQA sticker.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >implying pic related offers anything less than ultra-high end sound quality

        16-bit PCM @ 44.1KHz

        WAV master race

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I bet your wife's son loves it.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    sage

    imagine being on such a tracker with no quality control lel

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>look inside
    So you couldn't tell just by listening?

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FLAC isnt lossless. Its just the closest Lossy gets to lossless

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        FLAC cuck

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      proof?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >FLAC isnt lossless. Its just the closest Lossy gets to lossless

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for me its opus

    • 3 weeks ago
      SpiritualFreedomFighter

      And where do your opus's come from?

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i don't think spek is the best way to tell if a file is truly lossless. i encoded a flac rip to 195kbps AAC and it looks nearly identical to flac.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      update, increasing the bitrate to 263 kbps makes the AAC practically indistinguishable from the flac.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *