Oh yeah I can totally hear the difference through my wireless earbuds which I'm wearing to somewhat muffle the shitty unproductive environment of...

Oh yeah I can totally hear the difference through my wireless earbuds which I'm wearing to somewhat muffle the shitty unproductive environment of my company's cost-saving open office plan.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just crack open a window and listen to birds sing. They produce much better songs than humans.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      All I hear is the neighbors shitbull

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        unfortunate. Perhaps doggy likes the taste of swimming pool chemicals wrapped in bacon.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Spain?
        Noise can really make your life hell.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the left more expensive than the right

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      its probably base + 10 + 5

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was an A/B pricing test they did in 2017. Clicking on the button did nothing. Spotify does not have a lossless option to this day.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My dad pays for Tidal so he can listen to lossless audio

    He sends it over wifi to a wireless receiver which feeds some 2.1 Logitech speakers from 2005 which are strategically mounted over the kitchen cupboards (including the subwoofer), facing into the dining area and living room.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Kek, based boomer. It sounds better in his mind i bet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He sends it over wifi to a wireless receiver which feeds some 2.1 Logitech speakers from 2005 which are strategically mounted over the kitchen cupboards (including the subwoofer), facing into the dining area and living room.

      i take it you've pointed out how pointless that is?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why?
        He loves it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Based, it's moronic to do and if it was some stranger i'd call them an idiot and rightfully so. But if my dad did this and it made him happy then who cares and i'd just be glad it makes him happy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Dude introduce him to vinyl.
          On second though, he might spend your inheritance on diamond cable risers.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Dude introduce him to vinyl.
            i think boomer dad is well aware of vinyl anon

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Boomers were born tech illiterate, they don't even know shit about the tech of their own era

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I listen to Deezer lossless audio via Bluetooth.
      DGAF that it's a waste of data, I paid for my internet connection and streaming service.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Oh yeah I can totally hear the difference through my wireless earbuds which I'm wearing to somewhat muffle the shitty unproductive environment of my company's cost-saving open office plan.

    so called noise reduction on them seems to be a joke as well. i hear everything on mine when i go out.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If they're not ANC you only have yourself to blame for cheaping out

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    should've been
    Oh yeah I can totally hear the difference from 320 kbps vbr vorbis to lossless flac
    (no human being on earth can, audiophools are just moronic)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      can someone actually send me shit audio and flawless audio of a same song. i wanna see if i hear it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >download any song you like in lossless form
        >install foobar2000
        >convert to various lossy formats at various bitrates
        >install abx comparator component
        >select original lossless source + lossy version
        >right click > utilities > abx tracks
        this is the only way to do it
        If that's too much effort, then don't even bother, you'll end up hearing a difference based on placebo effect alone like every audiophool out there

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          homie just send me a link to a quality song and then the lowbitrate fan edit youtube version.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ...why?
            first of all, that's not an abx test, you'll have no fricking way of knowing if you can or can't tell a difference, again, placebo effect is a thing that exists dumbass
            second... why would you compare flac to a low bitrate fan edit that you have no idea how it was encoded? what would be the point? no idea

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you fricking moronic? if i want to see bitrate difference in video i can just watch a high bitrate video then a shitty bitrate video and come up with my own conclusions.
            why are you against me doing the same thing with music? stupid moronic homosexual ass b***h. dont you ever fricking (you) me again. fricking idiot bastard, have a nice day.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            nice brain damage you got there buddy
            >why are you against me doing the same thing with music?
            maybe because you have no fricking idea how the thing you are using as a comparison was encoded???? what's hard to understand about that
            you have no fricking idea if you are listening to something that was re-encoded 30 times or not
            you have no idea how it was re-encoded
            and the same goes for video actually, I have no idea what conclusion you'd make if you have no idea what the frick you are looking at
            but alright, I'm the idiot, whatever, I'll go hang myself

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >maybe because you have no fricking idea how the thing you are using as a comparison was encoded????
            MAYBE I DONT GIVE A FRICK? I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SOUND IS COMPARED TO ANYTHING ELSE? FRICKING homosexual

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >anything else
            you keep missing the point, you are the homosexual

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Here you go. Here's "Thriller" by Michael Jackson.
        >FLAC
        https://files.catbox.moe/37898d.flac
        >128kbps
        https://files.catbox.moe/8qba00.mp3
        >Here's a difference between the two (what the mp3 decoder threw away)
        https://files.catbox.moe/3a7sv8.wav
        This is a worse case scenario because it uses an ancient codec and a paltry bit rate

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      can someone actually send me shit audio and flawless audio of a same song. i wanna see if i hear it.

      Don't use A/B tests using songs selected by streaming services, they want you to use the low bandwidth versions.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ??? what the frick does that even mean

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly what it says.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think he tried to imply streaming services will cherry-pick songs that work well at low bitrates for any comparison tests.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            A perfect sine wave will probably sound exactly the same on lossless as on lossy, yes.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think the spotify alghoritm is pushing perfect sine waves

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            hahha nice meme
            unfortunately, all streaming platforms use vbr encoding, a song that's harder to compress will just use a higher bitrate, quality is pretty much the same no matter what you are listening to, some genres do score a little better in abx tests but barely, there's no significant difference with vbr encoding.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >all streaming platforms use vbr encoding
            Deezer claims they use "128 kb/s", "320 kb/s" and "lossless quality".

            I always assumed only the last one ("lossless quality") is variable bit rate, which is why they don't mention the bit rate?
            I've also heard it's not even true lossless, noting that "lossless quality" can be interpreted as marketing legal speak for "just as good as lossless but not actually lossless"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Deezer claims they use "128 kb/s", "320 kb/s" and "lossless quality".
            and?
            >I always assumed only the last one ("lossless quality") is variable bit rate, which is why they don't mention the bit rate?
            they don't mention the bit rate because lossless compression cannot have a specific bitrate by design, some stuff isn't compressable at all (and so will be 1411 kbps for cd quality) and other stuff is highly compressable, since the end result must be lossless, you can't choose a bitrate obviously.
            for lossy on the other hand, you can choose what to use as an average because you can choose how much data to throw out
            >I've also heard it's not even true lossless, noting that "lossless quality" can be interpreted as marketing legal speak for "just as good as lossless but not actually lossless"
            ??? no, flac is lossless, just as good as lossless would be any modern lossy codec above 128 kbps.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and?
            If it's variable bit rate why would they mention specific bit rates?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ...I literally already answered that
            It's an average, 320k vbr throws out less data and is higher quality than 128 kbps vbr
            a very complex track encoded in 128 kbps vbr might end up being 180 kbps on average and a 320k might end up being 400 on average (actually with mp3 that's not technically possible since 320k is the maximum but it is for vorbis/aac)
            deezer's mp3s are actually cbr, but that's not because they are specifiyng a bitrate... well spotify actually does say "about" before each bitrate number so maybe you do have a point... actually no, youtube music just says "128 kbps aac/opus" but aac is cvbr and opus is vbr

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They don't though? Only iTunes/Apple Music does from what I've seen so far, and not for all tracks.
            Spotify uses CBR Vorbis at 320k or AAC at 256k, YTM uses CBR AAC at 256k and Deezer uses CBR MP3 at 320k.

            >all streaming platforms use vbr encoding
            Deezer claims they use "128 kb/s", "320 kb/s" and "lossless quality".

            I always assumed only the last one ("lossless quality") is variable bit rate, which is why they don't mention the bit rate?
            I've also heard it's not even true lossless, noting that "lossless quality" can be interpreted as marketing legal speak for "just as good as lossless but not actually lossless"

            TIDAL used to market MQA as superior to 16-bit lossless, which was a lie. But MQA is dead now and AFAIK every service with lossless support serves FLAC or ALAC.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Spotify uses CBR Vorbis
            just ripped a song from spotify using doubledouble.top, 320k vorbis is vbr (see picrel)
            >YTM uses CBR AAC at 256k
            first of all, it's actually CVBR
            second, they also offer vbr Opus streams
            >Deezer uses CBR MP3
            deezer is also the only platform using mp3 so it doesn't really count imo
            amazon music also uses vbr opus fyi

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right, sorry. Vorbis doesn't have a CBR mode, does it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes it does
            https://xiph.org/vorbis/doc/vorbisenc/examples.html

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So for YTM, do you think there's no meaningful difference between Opus and the "premium" AAC encodes?
            I've been leery about ripping anything in Opus just in case they do something weird (they can't possibly get lossless masters from all artists, right?)
            I can also find some reports that YT uses SBR for Opus, i.e. lower quality over 16kHz, and the files I did rip do look kind of fishy in a spectral analyser.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So for YTM, do you think there's no meaningful difference between Opus and the "premium" AAC encodes?
            if you are asking whether there's a difference between free Opus 128 kbps and paid 256 kbps aac cvbr, the answer is most likely no, I have never seen anyone able to abx 128 kbps opus.
            But you also have to take into account that 256 kbps opus is also available https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/9076559?hl=en
            yt-dlp doesn't account for it, nobody has ever mentioned it anywhere, and I never saw anyone receive such streams with ytm premium... but according to google it exists, go figure.
            >I've been leery about ripping anything in Opus just in case they do something weird (they can't possibly get lossless masters from all artists, right?)
            why not? that's what every music streaming service does, including youtube.
            As long as you are downloading from an official auto generated upload, that's most likely the lossless source coming from the record label
            >I can also find some reports that YT uses SBR for Opus, i.e. lower quality over 16kHz
            by "some reports" you mean that single redditor that for some reason says it's a huge problem without ever explaining why that would be the case?
            why do you care if stuff over 16 khz is lower quality, when you cannot even hear such frequencies unless you are less than 18 years old?
            >the files I did rip do look kind of fishy in a spectral analyser.
            quit looking at spectrograms, they are useless when it comes to lossy audio
            yes, Opus sometimes has weird lines striking through when viewed through a spectrogram, this is normal and happens even if you encode yourself, no, your ears don't watch music, they listen to it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no human being on earth can, audiophools are just moronic
      It’s quite easy to tell a difference with a decent pair of headphones. However that difference is so insignificant it shouldn’t affect one’s enjoyment of music.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >no ABX test result provided
        the usual?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You will once they reencode their standard library in audibly poorer quality to promote it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Have other services done that?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no.
        every single music streaming service in existance has always provided high quality lossy and never downgraded, there's no point reducing audio quality even for freemium users because the bitrate is already so low with modern codecs (opus/aac/vorbis achieve transparency at 128 kbps or less for 99% of users) that the bandwidth costs are negligeable

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          TIDAL deliberately degraded at least some of their 44/16 FLAC library (down to 13-bit) to make MQA look better, back when that was a going concern.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can't find anything about that
            and i'm pretty sure flac doesn't even support 13 bit, how would that even work? the codec literally doesn't support such bit depth
            It would be like encoding a 44.1 khz Opus file

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's mentioned in GoldenSound's first video on MQA.
            Any tracks that the publisher (or TIDAL?) enabled MQA for would have their "lossless" versions converted to MQA FLACs without the "master quality" overlay.
            I stole the "13-bit" label for these from somewhere, don't remember where. They're basically FLACs for which some of the data has been thrown out.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            fair enough I guess, sounds like they made their own version of lossyflac then

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can pad the low bits with zeros and it will play just fine. The first CD player DACs were 14-bit and could play a 16-bit CD just fine.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ya. I don't get it. BT audio is basically just recompressed MP3 tier shit. V gay.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't need more than 128kbs Opus

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      *You don't need more than 96 kbps Opus

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not saying you'll hear a difference between a FLAC and a 320k file, but you'll absolutely hear a difference between a youtube video and a FLAC/320k. Anyone saying youtube is as good as a local file is moronic

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      no, you are moronic
      a youtube auto-generated music upload is lossless transcoded to 128 kbps vbr opus
      that's just as good as your shitty 320k cbr mp3 you clueless moron
      and even if you are watching a video with lossy audio, as long as it's decent bitrate aac the generational loss with a single transcode across modern codecs is negligeable
      again: you have no idea what you are talking about

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How come it sounds shitty in comparison to when i download a proper file then? Dumbass
        Even you would notice the difference easily if i put my headphones on you and showed you

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How come it sounds shitty in comparison to when i download a proper file then?
          how come you haven't provided an abx test result? Dumbass
          >Even you would notice the difference easily if i put my headphones on you and showed you
          that's not how you prove that you can tell the difference, dumbass

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's a clear difference in my ear, that's all i care
            I promise you would notice it as well if you tried

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's a clear difference in my ear, that's all i care
            yeah, what's placebo effect anyways am i right? it's not like that can have a huge effect of some sort...
            >I promise you would notice it as well if you tried
            I promise I'm not that moronic, thanks.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your loss dude, just trying to help you be less of a moron and to enjoy your music more

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm enjoying music just fine
            you are the moron that's not enjoying streaming because you believe placebo effect isn't a thing
            the irony

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Post video link or something. I've been ABXing stuff unsuccessfully so far, maybe your track will finally be the one.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How come it sounds shitty in comparison to when i download a proper file then? Dumbass
      Even you would notice the difference easily if i put my headphones on you and showed you

      it's peak of mount stupid time

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not saying there's a difference between the file types when you compare them by themselves, but youtube compresses everything to shit themsleves when you play it. Maybe if you use youtube music it streams at a higher quality with less youtube compression? but who the frick pays for that
        It's like saying a 1080p youtube video is the same as a 1080p local file

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >youtube compresses everything to shit themsleves when you play it
          I already told you that's not fricking true, 128 kbps vbr opus is the exact opposite of "compressed to shit"
          >Maybe if you use youtube music it streams at a higher quality with less youtube compression?
          this shows once again that you have no fricking clue what you are talking about and you aren't even reading the posts you reply to
          >It's like saying a 1080p youtube video is the same as a 1080p local file
          if the 1080p local file is a 2 mbps vp9, or a 10 mbps badly encoded h264 it certainly is, dumbass
          just like your shitty ancient 320k cbr mp3 isn't any better than youtube's 128k opus

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >download audio/video from youtube
          >it's now a local file
          >quality is improved
          see ya later virgins

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Same here.
      Not an audiophile/nerd so I don't use special ABX software whatever the frick that is, it just sounds bad.
      And it's not "placebo" because the difference is big enough to easily tell which is which from listening alone (I wouldn't care if it wasn't since I'm no audiophile/nerd)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >And it's not "placebo" because the difference is big enough to easily tell which is which from listening alone
        this bullshit again???
        you are underestimating the power of placebo, period.
        If you are so sure about it, why insist on not doing an abx test? if the difference is so obvious it should take you 1 minute to do 8 tries

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't even know what an abx test is dude.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            so you have no fricking idea what we are even talking about, great.
            that makes your shitty opinion entirely pointless

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you an Audio Science Review brown or yellow?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Example?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nothing in your pic hints that quality differs between those two plans. in fact it clearly states it's the same (audio quality). stop huffing glue you inbred mongoloid.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >hit the library
    >CDs for free
    >rip to FLAC
    >??????

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      why do all of that when you can just rip from qobuz/deezer/any other streaming service and soulseek exist
      are you also going to go to blockbuster, rent a couple of dvds, rip them, and store them on your hard drive? wake the frick up grandpa

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      all those words when you could just say
      "regular people use audio equpment to listen to music, audiophiles use music to listen to audio equipment"
      that way even zoomers understand it, no subway surfers gameplay required

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even if there are ever so slight difference with lossless and a good lossy encode, I don't give a shit because I'm just trying to listen to music, not ABX

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bot has been changed to a modular structure, making it faster, more customizable and easier to add new features.Lets go over some of the changes and additions.

    • Podcasts and Artist (platforms that were missing them) requests have been added for the current supported platforms.
    • Extra metadata acquisition has been improved, it is now faster and more accurate.
    • Status will now be displaying the various stages (Processing/Downloading/Post Processing/Zipping/Uploading) of the process of your request along with a live progress bar.
    • Cancel feature has been added and will be displayed below your request in the status message (Used both in private messages and group).
    • An Invite command has been created so you can get the current group invite and share it.
    • Countries command will now display dates as well.
    • Search has been improved and the results will now be displayed natively on telegram as well as on graph (When searching for Amazon music videos, please note that you may encounter some videos that are no longer available on the platform. These videos cannot be requested, as they are remnants in the API).
    • A Config command has been created, allowing you to customize the end result of your request. Run the command for better clarification.
    • New request parameters have been introduced, check Help command for better clarification (Quality ID 0 has been removed).
    • Idagio, Kkbox, Napster and Bugs
    • Apple Music ALAC and Dolby Atmos support has been added (track/album requests only, with a queue of one per time for albums, long duration tracks wont be ripped).• Amazon FLAC will now have matching md5 sum with Qobuz FLAC etc.
    • Deezer will now support Sony 360 Reality Audio.• Soundcloud original files acquisition.
    • Tidal FLAC has been added but you can also pick MQA.
    https://t.me/+VaGYPZOnz5c4ZGZh

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      meds

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why yes, I pay a monthly subscription fee to listen to the same 15 songs on repeat that I have repurchased in a dozen different physical and digital formats over the years, why do you ask?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pay monthly fee to listen to song over and over
      >it just caches it locally so they can save on bandwidth

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        spotify's aggressive caching is another reason I quit using it
        on android it literally caches every single song you listen to... for at least a second
        after 1 month of barely listening to music on my phone I had 4 gigs of cache, there isn't even a limit to how big it can get, and 99% of cached songs were probably stuff I never planned to listen to again
        at that point, storing locally the stuff I actually listen to takes up the same amount of space and is actually accessible offline

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          TSMT

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not just writing and performing your own music

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe if you spent $10000 on audio equipment this service would make sense.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >lossless audio is pointless
    I can literally listen to music and transcribe it into binary in real time. If I did that using mp3s it would be full of errors.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I can literally listen to music and transcribe it into binary in real time
      is this the new standard for perfect pitch

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you can't even sight read a MP3 in hex format, you're not going to make it in current year

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