this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
1593 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
81451 readers
4558 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most people can’t tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and lossless, but hey if folks really want to waste their money on snake oil like gold-plated cables then I say let ‘em.
At that quality of MP3 you'd really need either a track that specifically pushes the limits of the codec on technicalities, or a one in a million hearing + high precision monitors.
Albeit FLAC is generally a better option still because it compresses things losslessly, reducing raw file size 50-70% (comparable to MP3 at 128kbps bitrate) and is a royalty-free, meaning it can be freely implemented as a hardware codec.
For example, a bunch of microcontrollers in the ESP32 family have built in FLAC codecs that outperform their MP3 counterparts, meaning a FLAC library can be directly streamed to them, and with the right DAC combo, one can build inexpensive, low power adapters to hook their existing AV systems up to Sonos-style streaming. And with many AV systems supporting bidirectional RS232 (or other serial) communications for controlling the system and querying it's state, you can literally smartify them completely AND provide high quality audio streams to them.
128kbps files are roughly 90% compression from raw, so not comparable. I'll admit that I haven't bothered with FLAC much, but in my limited experience it generally is pretty rare to see much above 50-55% compression from raw.
Anything that requires remuxing multiple times pretty much requires lossless compression. Else it'd become like screenshots of memes because the compression adds up.
That being said, last time I was working with professional audio people, they still preferred WAW as their intermediary format.
Probably because of habit?
Thing is, storage isn't at a premium anymore, so there's no reason not to use lossless even if you can't hear the difference.
U sure about that?
Old mp3 players used to measure space in megabytes, so yes, I'm sure of that.
Good for you, i had one of those.
Now go check the storage prices now and please define what "premium" is, 'cos last i checked they're being overhyped - not as much as RAM, but on a similar trend.
I think FLAC is considered lossless so the comparison should be with WAV; whereas for lossy you have MP3/Vorbis.
MP3 patents expired a while ago i think, but for the longest time i've used Vorbis because of that.
I'd be surprised if anyone could.
However, 128kbps vs. 192kpbs+ is like night and day, and it's especially obvious with better equipment.
People who say 128kbps mp3 is fine, are full of shit. I've been to weddings where it's been so obvious that whoever's in charge of the music is just blasting 128kpbs mp3s and it's brutal.
I did a blind test, and found it depends on the genre.
Slow, chill music is completely transparent when compressed, no matter how hard I “audio peep.” It’s not even a question.
But something “dense” like System of a Down has audible distortion. It loosely (not always) coincided with the bitrate of the flac files, which kind of makes sense, though even the extreme end is hard to notice unless you know the particular song very well.
Also… a lot of recordings kind of suck. It’s crazy to worry about tiny bits of distortion when a bit perfect master is already noisy and distorted.
Audio codecs like MP3 usually do a Fourier transform to move the sound into the frequency domain, discard any frequencies that you're unlikely to notice, and encode 'rate of change' for the remaining ones. So the encoding problem is usually sound with fast changes in intensity or frequency, which is basically what percussion is.
System is quite percussion heavy, so will sound bad.
Recently moved from Spotify to Qobuz, because fuck Dan Ek, and the fact that they've got better bitrates across the board really makes the difference for jazz and jazzy stuff. Neglected, sounds crap on Spotify. Sounds great on Qobuz. But that's the change from 'bad' to 'quite good' bitrates; additional bits are very much a case of diminishing returns.
That makes sense.
Heh. Spotify used to stream 384K Vorbis, which should be sufficient. But now the web app is apparently AAC. And the app-apps are conspicuously listed with "equivalent to" bitrates, whatever that means:
https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/
Heavy classic music is a beast too, vivaldis energetic parts in the 4 seasons for example. Or Rimski Korsakoffs the flight of the bumble bee I'd wager. Or painkiller/turbo lover/... by judas priest 😁
The funny thing is that the people who can afford all that overpriced garbage are usually so old, they can't hear all that well anymore.
I found I can detect VBR but yeah at that bitrate I really can't tell the difference between 320 and flac, always thought it was just my ears!
I recently switched from 320kbps to lossless, and there are very few moments where I can tell a difference. The biggest one is in the cover of "Tom's Diner" by AnnenMayKantereit. There's a section of the song at 320kbps where it goes almost silent, other than faint whispers of the band counting out the silence, but in lossless you can hear them actually singing the song quietly
Most people don't have proper home stereo setups any more either, and they prefer shitty overcompressed music through earbuds. They don't know any better, sadly.
And Ive probably spent less than 400 dollars on my home setup. But it blows away anyone who hears it. Just takes some smarts in setting stuff up and getting good used equipment.
Just another part of the cheapening of everything in society , and why music isn't appreciated as much anymore. No wonder everyone has depression.
Hell, I can't even tell the difference between 128kbps and flac. Realizing that saved me a whole lot of hard drive space :D
It's still a good idea to have your main music library in flac for future proofing, but yeah 128kbps opus or ogg is what I use on mobile devices.
Isn't Ogg a container format?
TIL that Opus replaces both Speex and Vorbis (the latter of which i was about to question on).
Yeah, it is. Vorbis is the actual codec.
My hearing isn't extraordinarily acute, bit I can hear the difference, especially in transient-rich sounds like cymbals.
With quality headphones, back to back, I'm confident that you could
And even if you can - is it worth it? I mean - do I care and should I care? Is the point of music detecting every detail of the recording or can I appreciate it without paying that much attention to production? For instance, I find it much more convenient to use Bluetooth headphones as it allows me to move around the house. Flac immediately stops being relevant, as Bluetooth codec is really bad compared to almost any codec. I recently tried ldac codec on my headphones - couldn't really tell the difference. Mp3 128kbps is just fine for me. Almost any situation. I care about musical content much more than production details. Other people might care more. I don't.
This is the other part. Idk if it's me, or my equipment, but like... I listen to music for the music. I might like certain genres (noise music comes to mind) more on higher end equipment, because that's the point, but also... Eh? Not why I'm here.
Depends on the song really, if it's just a standard pop song it's mixing will usually come through just fine on a shitty MP3. The more layers a song may have the muddier it gets at lower bit rates. Like I've found the noisier spectrum of punk always benefits from higher bit rates.
Reminds me of the lengths people go with their peripheral purchases to save 1-2ms of input latency for playing games with like a 20 TPS tick rate on a wifi connection
I noticed something similar with video. Like, if I am paying attention, the difference between the highest quality encoding and the next level is usually visible.
However, I have a harder time telling the difference if I don't do a side by side comparison.
And even when I can easily tell the difference, once I'm watching the thing, I get into the story and I don't care anyways.
Obviously a slightly different criteria compared to music, but people do make a big deal out of stuff that even they don't actually care about.
I kinda want to start a snake oil audio cable company. It's gotta be one of the easiest paths to retirement
I downloaded the same track from soundcloud at 320kbps mp3 and bandcamp FLAC and played them at the same time in the VDJ changing from one song to the other and couldn't feel any difference (the graphic Soundwave was also exactly the same). I had not tried it in actual club environment, but when the mp3 is really compressed it shows visually on the Soundwave
Yep, and an especially fun fact is that people with high-end equipment prefer MP3 over lossless.