FLAC thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Bow down to the holy audio codec. It simply makes any music sound better, even on my £20 Yoga CD32's. Just switched from the mp3 cancer race yesterday, now I can't go back.
>>54768888
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.
>>54768888 (check'd)
>>54768932
10/10
But what if I use SSD. How will rotational velocidensity affect me?
>>54768969
They still suffer it, now it's just the electron spin instead of the disk spin.
>>54768932
Wait, I've seen this post before...
>>54768932
>What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps
>/g/ will believe this
>>54768969
>>54769667
>disk
you meant magnetic spin right
>>54768932
I came to this thread to read/post this. Good job.
>>54768932
nice meme
my oldest mp3/wav song are from 2007/2008 and they are still good
just encode everything in mp3 320kbps, it saves space and you can't hear the difference compared to a lossless format
>>54768932
hilariously wrong
>>54768888
HOLY QUADS WITNESSED
>>54770814
No.. save as mp3 v0 and it'll save even more space, and you won't hear the difference.
>>54769937
/g/ won't believe anything that's true
>>54768932
I read this post years ago and thought it was legit.
I wasted so much hard drive space updating my library to flac.
>>54768888
I love flac, but...
1. Adobe Premiere Pro don't support it.
2. Stupid ass car from 2013 don't support it.
>>54768888
Aside from the memes, what is the actual reason to prefer one over the other? I can't hear the difference at all
>>54770826
there's nothing hilarious about it
>>54771386
this on the other hand :^)
>>54771642
>using the smiley with a carat nose
