My sister converts her MP3s to FLAC because "the quality is better".
>>53832573
Well MP3s lose quality over time so technically she's correct
You should be nice and educate her maybe then she will suck your dick
She's right. Rotational velocidensity affects all audio files encoded with lossy compression. These include mp3, aac, and ogg.
The most notable effect of rotational velocidensity is the loss of bitrate in files. A lossy audio file will lose an average of 12kbps a year. But, this can vary greatly depending on the type of storage media used.
Examples:
SATA HDD: ~12kbps
IDE HDD: ~15kbps
SCSI HDD: ~7kbps
DVD: ~16kbps
CD-R/RW: >21kbps
This can be overcome by compressing audio using lossless formats such as FLAC, APE, or TTA. These formats are designed to never lose quality over time, and will sound the same right now as they will in 10 years.
>>53832573
>>53832660
You forgot to mention that this can also be avoided by using counter balanced HDDs with pairs of plates that rotate in different directions.
Aunt tells my mom to close all her tabs and apps in ios because she thinks it uses up all the memory.
>>53832660
Glad to see F∆5644 comrade here
>>53832779
Shes right you know
>>53832779
it does.
>>53832660
Yes it is a real thing.
I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.
So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocidensity issue. I'm an audiophile myself and posses a vast collection of uncompressed audio files, but I do want to assure the casual low-bitrate users that their music library is quite safe.
>>53832600
laughable bullshit, I know you're a troll or either way a very stupid person.
>>53832779
It actually does and because apple mobile devices come with little RAM it's always a good idea to close all apps so the iPhone won't become laggy.
>>53832660
No wonder all the CDs I collected sounded shittier over time
>>53832962
>Digital files accumulate dust.
>this is well-known in academia,
troll or America has a college courses for all types of retards just to grab their money.
>>53833051
>the joke
>
>Europa, moon of Jupiter
>
>
>
>you
>>53833005
>he fell for the MP3 meme
>>53832660
This is also known as audiophiles trolling - this is how they bait people that are clueless what lossless means:
"when digital audio files are ripped from CDs in traditional formats (mp3, m4a, aac, wma, ogg, etc.), there is a certain amount of data that is lost during the process. Lossless audio formats eliminate these losses, and are essentially exact copies of the source material. The drawback to lossless audio is that it's not compressed anywhere near as much as standard digital audio files, and thus takes up roughly 85-90 times as much hard drive space as identical sounding "lossy" files. "
>>53832600
>converts MP3
>to another format
>hopes after conversion, quality is better than the source file.
Where is the extra quality coming from exactly?
>>53833093
I don't even have a single mp3 in my computer, nor a single music file...
...
???
...
what's your point?
>>53833016
No it doesn't. It will knock off the oldest app from memory if needed.
>>53832573
>tfw I converted 100GB of acceptable quality 192 to 320 kbps mp3s to 128 because hurr I cant hear the difference
I was poor as fuck and storage space was valuable, going from those 100GB to a third of it so it could fit on my phone felt like a triumph. Now that I have studio headphones the difference is clear and painful.
>>53833493
>192 to 320
wat
>>53833534
I mean ranging from 192kbps to 320kbps bitrates with some VBRs files in there. Overall everything was at least 2MB per minute and after the conversion went down to a little less than 1MB per minute.
>>53832573
I'm a tech illiterate retard desu
But I've been trying to get better
Anyone knows the feeling of "I don't know how to use it" hearing from your mother if you just move one icon on the desktop to a different place?
Or maybe someone knows the feeling to be "the stupid one" "don't know what you are doing" if you mails are sent and the other person doesn't get it, besides the server telling everything is fine and the mail is probably just in the spamfolder ?!
These fucking idiots drive me nuts. That shit is not good for my heart.
What's with all the tumblrites and newfags getting triggered by old, stale pasta
>>53833136
>85-90 times as much hard drive space
At least use a realistic figure you spazz
>>53833945
Quick, post the one with the laptop locked away by anons mother for anons sister.
>You should just buy a prebuilt PC instead of building your own because it's too complicated
>Winamp makes your music sound better
>There's no problem using a surge protector on a socket without ground
>>53833091
>Following for the bait
Fucking tard
My mp3s are now in the Google Music cloud on their magic hard drives which are not affected by relocational velocidensity
Eh why not just use an SSD?
>>53833178
>Mp3 degrades overtime
>Flac does not
My Dad wants to spend $300 on a motherboard
>>53838001
I spent 600.
how long would it take for an mp3 to degrade a noticeable amount? also, in what way does mp3 degrade?
>>53838016
Holy fuck, why on Earth would you do that?
>>53838033
About 2 years.
Bass gets distorted and there may be a slight pitch variation in the treble, but those are just the more noticeable.
>>53838083
X99 early adoption.
>>53832573
>>53838103
>X99
how's it feel falling for a meme?
>>53838170
Feels pretty good. Got it 2 years ago and still just as fast as what has recently released.
>>53832600
>implying flac is not susceptible to degradation as well
it depends on storage (like glorious cloud where your only issue may be quality of your cat5 cable), but flac loses quality as well, it's just less noticeable because there are more bits to lose
>>53833493
>128kbps mp3
sweet baby jesus why
it should be noticeable even on laptop speakers, it's terrible, it's absolutely unacceptable
i'm mad even though it won't me at all
>>53838968
>96kbps streams
>>53836865
>There's no problem using a surge protector on a socket without ground
TRIGGERED
>>53833220
The point being, you're a fucking retard
I use a Mac
>>53832573
>>53832600
>>53832660
damnit /g/
>>53832573
>Install FOSS and GNU approved software with decent antivirus and some useful proprietary software on friend's pc
>Get a call from them saying their computer is all slow and shit
>"Anon you must have downloaded some kinda virus when you last came over"
>Delta search, YouTube to mp3, bittorrent etc
Since then I've just made a text document with instructions to do a clean install and told them to fuck off.
>>53838968
I couldn't tell the difference between well encoded 128, 192 and 320kbps on decent equipment. Maybe I'm going deaf. I've settled on 192kbps as a safe value personally; yet to see a shit mp3 with that.
>>53842137
>those chat windows
You and your friends are cancer incarnate tbqh, kys senpai
>>53842329
I'm getting my iPhone this summer, also an iMac.
>>53832573
>Not converting to opus instead
top pleb
>>53832688
kek I didn't open that thread and regret it
>>53833016
There's no need to do that. Phones automatically free up RAM as it is needed.
When you close all apps what you're doing is just wasting your time in closing those apps and wait time when you're going to open them again.
>>53832779
It does. But you don't want empty RAM.
If you're finding you need to constantly clear RAM to prevent the device slowing to a crawl you should either get a device with more RAM or use less/lightweight apps.
t. iPhone/Android pro
>>53833220
then you're the retard
you're trying to contribute to a discussion that you don't know anything about with an insult as argument
>>53832688
Windows 7 is a cutie
>>53833998
I once had a 40mb album take up a a gig of space. Still pretty high.
>>53832600
thats only if its on disk drives
