Am I autistic if I convert .mp3's to .FLAC just because it sounds superior?
>>54366740
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PZYrn9EaoQ&autoplay=1
>>54366740
No, just stupid
converting mp3 to flac won't improve the sound quality
however, it is a good idea as it prevents further sound degradation since mp3 is a lossy format
>>54366761
Why? They'll last longer.
>>54366740
Most """""""""""""""""""""""""""audiophiles""""""""""""""""""""""""""" wouldn't tell the difference.
>>54366774
>>54366773
Wait, am I missing something?
MP3's don't just degrade for no reason, right?
Is this some Rotational Velocidensity joke?
>>54366994
No it's a lossy format so like a jpeg it looses quality when shared
>>54367029
>it looses quality when shared
that's not true
it only loses quality if re-encoded, aka modifying the image
>>54367118
NO YOU STUPID SHIT IT IS A LOSSY FORMAT IT LOOSES QUALITY WHEN MOVED
>>54367118
lmao you should take a look at your image folder some time.
>>54367118
>it only loses quality if re-encoded, aka modifying the image
Which happens when its transmitted over the Internet in the byte p2p lines.
>>54367029
>it looses quality when shared
>using mp3 instead of opus or aac
>in 2016
>>54367144
Yes because it gets played when shared and then a microphone picks up the supersonic sounds on the other side of the world but this means some noise etc
nope. just did this for my entire 900 track collection
>>54367134
>>54367142
Are you fucking stupid? The data is the exact same when transferring the file just like any other file transferred under a reliable protocol. It only changes if you were to encode it again, just like that anon said.
Please, stop posting.
>>54367336
>>54367277
You retard
>>54367336
lmao
>>54367336
kys
>this thread
>>54367392
I'll just point out that kys is associated with a strange youtuber who even sounds like his fanbase; skipped by puberty
>>54367397
Fuck you and your generic pretending to be retarded memery, on reddit you'll get some karma
OP here, looks like I'm far from being autistic when I saw the replies.
>>54367446
OP here I like the red dragon dildo
>>54367358
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27222k/eli5_how_do_digital_images_degrade_over_time_from/
>>54367475
k'm not touching some virus link to shady sites I'm protected by common sense 2016
>>54367277
>>54367508
A digital image doesn't degrade from being passed from computer to computer. It degrades from being recompressed - i.e. edited and saved again, but only sometimes.
The most simple type of image format is a bitmap (.bmp). This simply stores the color for each (and every) pixel. However, a .bmp file isn't ideal for most ways we use images today, as the file size is very big, causing it to take a lot of time and bandwidth to transfer from the website to your computer.
Lossless files are getting to be more popular - .png is the most popular type, and all modern browsers support it. When the computer program compresses this file, it stores multiple pixels at once to save space, but only if those pixels are EXACTLY the same. This way, the file size is lower, but the file still looks perfect when displayed on the screen.
Lossy files are what you're used to seeing - .jpg files are a good example. This is the image equavilant of an MP3. It's not perfect, but it's hard to tell the difference between the perfect original and the jpg. When the computer program stores multiple pixels at once, it is programmed to think "This whole block of pixels is so close to being the same that I'm going to save them all together". This way, the program can save a whole block of pixels as one value, but it looses the very faint differences between those pixels - they did not start EXACTLY the same, but the program made them exactly the same. The program does this to reduce the file size.
Now, once an image is compressed as a lossy file, it looses some quality. However, to edit a file, it must be returned to an uncompressed state like a bitmap. Once some changes are made, it is compressed AGAIN. The program that compresses the image doesn't know that it has been compressed before: it thinks it is a perfect new image. So it, once more, looks for pixels that are similar enough to be stored as one value, resulting in another loss of quality.
>Am I autistic if I convert .mp3's to .FLAC just because it sounds superior?
No, anon. You are just delusional.
>>54367684
>>54367204
i've never even heard of those formats. fuck off you meme loving nigger
>>54367300
>900 track collection
This is actually low key the worst bait ITT
>>54367760
It's a copy-paste from the reddit thread posted above
ROTATIONAL VELOCIDENSITY ITT
>>54366740
Absolutley
>>54367336
Yes holy fuck
>>54366740
Placebo.
>>54366740
What makes you think you gain quality by changing file formats?
OP YOU RETARD
Of course it sounds better, flac is a lossy format so even 128 kbs mp3s will gain significantly more clarity
>>54366740
>>54367029
LOOOOOOOOOL
WHAT NIGGA?
>>54367397
>gif
literally loses twice as much quality as jpeg when copied
>>54367684
This is bullshit
Why do you think black twitter images are always low quality? It's because they smash that like button and share the image and it loses quality throughout
>>54368606
>share the image and it loses quality throughout
Right, because in the process, the image is re-compressed
>>54367029
>looses
>>54367029
>looses quality when shared
The amount of purposeful misinformation in this thread is amazing.
>>54366773
All MP3 decoders should return the same decompressed data for the same encoded bitstream, shouldn't it?
I meant that the format name sound superior not that the actual sound will sound superior jesus christ
>>54367029
>>54367277
>>54367029
0/10
This whole place is retarded
>>54366740
It depends on how superior you want
Flac will only unloss half of the mp3 loss, so it'll be better, but you need to do it twice to get back to lossless
but yes you probably should
>>54367397
perfect circle!!!!!!
>>54370086
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AVHXMLDvWA
here's all the music transfers recorded from space with a supersonic microphone, this is what it sounds like, it's amazing that computers can even get the music out of this mess
>>54373538
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNyG-xu-7SQ
the world has truly become electronic, supersonic
>>54366740
I dunno OP. Is it autistic to collect your poop and try to build a house out of it?
>>54367029
>>54367277
>>54366773
I believe (and fucking hope) this is a joke. Mainly because the OP was clearly a joke as well.
>>54373629
>>54366740
Lossy audio does not have an exact bitdepth, so going from mp3 to flac will lose quality because you dither to 16/24 bits. If you want to keep the full quality, convert it to 32 bit float wavpack.
>>54367684
woah too long did not read
>>54367397
is this loss
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.
Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.
>>54373812
>>54373812
>even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place
multikek
God reading this thread makes my laugh, I like how people are continuing their sarcasum to the maximum level
>>54367118
>>54367144
>>54368400
>>54369227
>>54370086
>>54370136
>>54373629
>being this stupid
Please do not attempt to reproduce
>>54367778
>not having heard of opus - the superior format used by privileged youtube videos
