Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ubv02 wrote

Reply to comment by No-Context5479 in HD 650 ruined me by GLikesSteak

It’s a shit platform for audio quality? Not really a secret.

−13

No-Context5479 t1_j5uc92o wrote

Ain't no way you wrote that with a straight face and hit send on that🤣... If 320 kbps is shit then your ears must be that of a bat (which I know it's not) and needs that good"Hi-Res" or whatever it is straight from the studio... Funny

14

GLikesSteak OP t1_j5ue1dl wrote

He must have them GOLDEN EARS /s Or you know, just a gatekeeping snob.

9

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ucj86 wrote

It’s Oggs so yes it is. Codec matters

−1

No-Context5479 t1_j5udw74 wrote

OGG isn't the codec... The codec is called Vorbis. OGG is the container like MQA, FLAC. With Vorbis being the codec used to store data in OGG container.

Also Vorbis is a very efficient codec, much better than mp3 and generally able to maintain a higher level of audio quality at lower bitrates meaning less data used for the same fidelity.

MQA is trash and also lossy like OGG Vorbis but that's a talk for another day... Have a good day

12

PetersenIsMyDaddy t1_j5vlt0q wrote

FLAC is a codec, it’s literally in the name

1

No-Context5479 t1_j5w7y79 wrote

FLAC is both a container and the codec... Yes I should've been more specific in that regard but you can store .wav files in a flac container... Same as lossy files being polished as flac files when they're not lossless files

2

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uevt1 wrote

It’s ogg Vorbis, I was shortening it.

It’s efficient but it doesn’t sound good vs other options that offer lossless audio streaming

0

No-Context5479 t1_j5ufuuj wrote

The only objectively "better" service would be Apple's Hi Res Lossless Option for streaming, AmazonHD's Hi-Fi, Qobuz, Deezer Hi-Fi but in the end most people can't tell the difference unless they're actively listening for differences... I can tell the differences but honestly for most times I'm not looking for which pin dropped in the studio Spotify is near identical when actually enjoying music and not trying to not pick. I have lossless CDs and stuff saved through Qobuz but I use those rarely and would cancel my Qobuz subscription soon.

What even is better is getting a well mastered and dynamic range checked piece of music... If it's lossy, doesn't matter, that would sound far better than a terribly mastered and dynamic range squashed recording that is in lossless form.. but hey, "lossless" is better I guess.

7

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ugh8f wrote

Generally lossless files are mastered better. That’s why apple has its digital masters or “mastered for iTunes” badge as they’re mastered for lossless playback

−1

No-Context5479 t1_j5uhbcj wrote

I can list so many lossless albums with terrible dynamic range and shit mastering but yes generally Lossless albums should have more fidelity honestly

6

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uhhes wrote

And if they can’t master for lossless then they’re not going to be able to do it for sub CD quality either will they?

1

No-Context5479 t1_j5uhprl wrote

Reason why I said mixing and mastering is actually more important than fussing over if something is lossy... I'd take a genuinely good master at 256kbps over some jumbled mess of a dynamic range read at 1411 kbps

6

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ui288 wrote

Point was that the masters of a particular song will be the same regardless so the same file in FLAC vs say MP3 will have the same bad master. The FLAC will still sound the better of the two

1

No-Context5479 t1_j5uiqtv wrote

I think we'd have to end it here... I'm just of the view 320kbps OGG Vorbis is very capable and .flac or .alac files will be "better" but not by a humongous margin that will call for people to overhaul their listening services. You're on Apple Music, kudos. Someone too is on Spotify, more power to them. Another loves their .wav offline stuff, they can carry on and be satisfied regardless.👍🏾

3

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uj2um wrote

Again it’s more that you’re spending money on headphones, DACs and amps. Why use lossy audio formats? You’re literally wasting money on the amps and DACs at that point

1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5ud4a9 wrote

Another "FLAC sounds much better" cultist or just a troll?

7

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uf9rr wrote

Lossless is better? That’s well established. But even then I’m not saying everyone should have a library of 24 bit FLAC files it’s just competing services have lossless audio if you want it as standard. Buying hugest end equipment and not using the service that has the better audio uplift just seems a bit dumb

−1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5uffuq wrote

I said "much better", not just "better" about sound quality. In some scenarios it can be better of course, but I don't think that better sound quality in lossless can be detected every time. And it can't be "MUCH better" than Spotify

2

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ugu3f wrote

If you did a blind test between oggs and a lossless file like a FLAC or ALAC people would be able to tell. Point is if you’re spending money on shit you don’t need like amps why would you not just get a better source when it’s readily available.

−1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5uhd05 wrote

Ok, maybe it is just your brain that tries to pretend it (the big difference in sound quality)

5

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5uhita wrote

Dude Spotify isn’t near the same as FLAC. It’s worse than AAC at a lower bitrate

−1

NecroFantasy9 t1_j5ui4ee wrote

I use Spotify 24/7 and also have LDAC library. Can't find much difference and Spotify is just comfortable.

Also, it is pointless to argue with you. Either it's your brain or you are just trolling.

3

chnch0 t1_j5ukeav wrote

Isn’t AAC only at 256kbps max? Btw, YouTube Music’s quality is also at 256kbps, max. AB’d Spotify and YTM, can’t tell the difference.

Let people enjoy their music, man. And maybe be more respectful in giving your opinions.

2

Pigeon_Chess t1_j5ul3p7 wrote

Sample rate isn’t everything. Layman’s terms lossy codecs strip bits of the file away to keep the “important” part but reduces file size by getting rid of less import parts. Different codecs do this in different ways meaning you can get one that sounds better at a lower sample rate.

1