• @ARNiM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    119 months ago

    Not everyone can discern the difference between a 96KHz FLAC and 256kbps AAC. I can’t. But I still can (barely) tell the difference between 256kbps AAC, and 96kbps AAC.

    But I can tell if a song was well-engineered or a mess.

    I believe those who can’t discern the difference between bitrates (especially on high bitrates), but have the appreciation for good music, good mixing, and good mastering, can still be considered audiophile.

    • @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      49 months ago

      That’s not the comparison at hand, we’re talking YouTube audio compression vs any actual music track.

      • @bloodfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        49 months ago

        Especially when your browser or application requests a high quality bitrate, youtube compression is opus 128.

        A person could make the argument that it’s not lossless so it’s not worth listening to, but opus is extremely high quality especially at that bitrate.

        If you wanna try it for yourself, take a flac or whatever, upload it to yt, then use something like yt-dlp -x that defaults to the highest quality to redownload just the audio stream.

    • @pezhore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      39 months ago

      As I get older and the abuse I put my ears through starts showing up, I completely agree. After upgrading my music library to FLAC from VBR mp3s, I stopped having the, “Oh! There’s a subtle instrument going on in this part of the song!” moments.

      It doesn’t stop me from trying to listen to the highest quality music formats that I can get my hands on, but I 100% know if I think there’s a difference to my mid-40s ears, it’s probably a placebo.