FLAC listeners are snobs

Gå med Dela

24 medlemmar| 65 hojtningar

Ledare: d3hm
Policy för att gå med: Öppen
Skapad den: 21 maj 2008
Don't act as if you people have the best ears on earth! Nothing wrong with the quality of mp3 files.

Veckans toppartister

Denna grupp har inga listor. Grupplistor beräknas varje vecka för grupper med mer än 2 medlemmar.

Förbundna artister


Lämna en kommentar. Logga in på Last.fm eller registrera dig.
  • ohmessylife

    they ARE snobs!

    17 feb 2015 Svara
  • Lukarox

    128 sucks ass.. I'd never listen to anything under 192 and even that is bad. v0, 256, and 320 are the only acceptable ones. [2] I don't need FLAC though because the quality is really not different at all so it's a waste of space

    16 jan 2013 Svara
  • manrush

    Here's what some bitches here don't get. If you're trolling, never say you're trolling. It makes you look like a pathetic e-thug.

    19 jul 2012 Svara
  • JD3V3N3Y

    Dammit. I'm in the weird part of the surface web again... How the Hell did I get here from YouTube? Well, I might as well stir up the hornet's nest while I'm here! "Don't act as if you people have the best ears on earth! Nothing wrong with a good old 128 kbit/s mp3! :)" >Implying that 128 kbps is old. >implying that people that have decent audio equipment have bad ears. If their ears are bad, I wonder how shitty 320 kbps sounds to someone with average ears. >Implying anyone in this group is mature enough to stop being whiny little bitches about music quality. >Implying that I actually give a flying fuck and aren't just doing this to fuck with all the idiots in here. Hey! I just remembered why I stopped going on websites like this! Awesome!

    10 mar 2012 Svara
  • Auland

    Still, no.

    10 apr 2011 Svara

    Personally I couldn't give less of a shit about bitrates.

    27 jan 2011 Svara
  • SupahShadow

    128 sucks ass.. I'd never listen to anything under 192 and even that is bad. v0, 256, and 320 are the only acceptable ones.

    9 jan 2011 Svara
  • ZILtoid1991

    I throught there is no problem with MP3. Until I got a better audio system. And yes, you can hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC, but sometimes it's bit harder because the type of the music. Also, there's a lot difference between 16/44 and 24/96.

    30 dec 2010 Svara
  • Auraomega

    @Auland: I can't understand that reasoning personally, you can pick up a hard drive way bigger than you'll likely ever need for about £20, that £20 will give you music that sounds better. Obviously if you can't tell the difference it's a different matter entirely and that would be a wasted £20, but if you can it doesn't make sense to forgo spending a nominal amount of money and fitting a hard drive (which is trivial at best, I do it daily). When storage was expensive it was a valid excuse as I too ripped my music to lower bitrates to get them onto my hard drive back when you paid roughly £1-2 per gb, now though a medium to large hard drive costs less than a low end pair of headphones...

    18 dec 2010 Svara
  • Auland

    Sorry people. I don't want to have to store all of my music in an extra hard drive. I'll stick with .mp3, thanks.

    25 nov 2010 Svara
  • Auraomega

    128 is painful for me, the clipping and outright distortion gives me a headache. mattmacneil made a good point which I don't think anyone else here has made: listener fatigue. When you listen to low bitrate/low frequency audio, I.E. audio with unnatural distortions, clipping etc, music gets very tiresome after a time. If I listen to anything 256 or below for more than a couple of hours I become agitated. Even if you can't tell the difference in quality your ears are still trying to remove unwanted sounds which is what causes this fatigue, a damn good pair of isolating headphones (plus noise cancelling if you can afford it) also help if you are in a somewhat noisy environment.

    20 nov 2010 Svara
  • mattmacneil

    fuck everyone who disagrees, flac sounds leagues better than mp3, plus it doesn't hurt your ears after hours of listening. it just sounds nicer. bass and drums have way more warmth and crack to them adne verything just sounds way better.

    26 okt 2010 Svara
  • Xalio15

    Fuck flac listeners. I listen to my all my music in 8 kbps!

    18 okt 2010 Svara
  • xFabby

    flac users just think they can hear a difference just to hide themselves from the fact that they are wasting space on their harddrives [3] Of course, I also think 128 sounds fine and I see nothing wrong with using it...

    15 okt 2010 Svara
  • Auraomega

    To be fair, it's becoming more apparent that most flac listeners *are* snobs... I listen to flac because I can hear the difference in quality, a friend uses 192 because he can't tell the difference, should I be looking down my nose at him because he can't hear the difference? Hell some people use Youtube for music, Youtube quality (or lack thereof) is horrid but some people do it because they see no reason for high bitrates. I listen to music almost non-stop from waking up to going bed so high quality is very important to me. For a casual listener? Nay.

    2 okt 2010 Svara
  • Sesquideus

    hoarmouth: except for Mozart, the hell it does, and would sound even better in 8 kbps. Areskelian: You just can't understand someone has an ability you don't. As for my music, I can ABX FLAC vs. 320 kbps with indubitable confidence even with mediocre hardware. Disk space is cheap and I am sure I would regret it once I get some better audio system, if I were to convert my music library and delete originals. And yes, you are only hiding from the fact you can't hear well ;)

    25 sep 2010 Svara
  • SirSinnlos

    You want to judge flac? Buy yourself some snobbish hardware, then we are going to talk about lossless formats again. 128kbps AAARRRGHHH!!!!! That hurts.

    13 sep 2010 Svara
  • DunHout

    I listen music in .wav. am i a snob?

    28 aug 2010 Svara
  • Auraomega

    I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference between 256 and 320 on a first listen due to how close they are, but I'd like to think I could. I personally use flac for masters, MP3s go on any portable device I use (thanks to my 4ghz i5 it's blazingly fast to convert). My main concern is when you convert from a lossless to a lossy you lose a minimal amount of detail, when you convert from a lossy to a lossy you not only lose quality between the original, master copy, but between the lossy to lossy conversion. Again I'm not sure if I could hear the difference as I haven't tried, but using flac as master has other upsides too... my only regret is I didn't realise just how much hard drive space I would require to house it all; I'm now using a dedicated internal hard drive for music alone!

    27 jul 2010 Svara
  • Sesquideus

    michas_pi: Sure thing they don't. The problem is, a common person is a moron and listens to pop shrieks and screeches for which even 128 kbps mp3 is more than enough. Anyway, many instruments are less susceptible to compression (e.g. guitar - I personally don't care if it sounds like original or its sounds contains an artifact, it's pretty much the same for me, so I'm fine with mp3 metal and rock). However, voices, high-pitched synthetic sounds, smooth transitions and such usually sound much worse when mutilated with lossy compression, and even 256 kbps would be a pain to listen to.

    24 jul 2010 Svara
  • Alla 65 hojtningar