What is the lowest quality music I should keep on my macbook? If it's less thank 256 kbps does it hurt the music to listen
192 is my limit tbhfam
>
>>60302562
It really depends on the genre. A symphony in in 192 is going to sound more obscured than an audiobook in 192
>2015
>not having all golden cords
>not listening to lossless vynil rips only
my ears hurt just from being aware of your existance senpie
I once listened to a The Smiths song at 64kbps.
Just ugh.
>>60302625
Yeah 192 is the lowest. 256 to be safe.
I have a lot of 128kbps tracks because I'll rip them off soundcloud or youtube and I follow a lot of people on SC that just put shit up and immediately delete them.
a lot of times they don't sound that bad because they're already so compressed by soundcloud and the people who make it use a lot of dynamic crushing compression, saturation etc anyway
so yeah 128 is the lowest
>>60302562
Rotational velocidensity affects all audio files encoded with lossy compression. These include mp3, aac, and ogg.
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.
>>60302791
It's been a while since I've last seen this.
>>60302746
>a The Smiths
wew
Depends, if you want to listen to rare polish synthpop tapes it's pointless to get them as flacs or 256. 192 or 128 is enough.
>>60302791
>>60302805
Is this a meme pasta, or is this actually true?
>>60302824
Meme pasta.
>>60302824
Actually true.
>>60302824
as long as you store it in a cool, dry place you're fine. if songs are stored in a hot humid climate degradation can occur within months
>>60302824
It's true - why do you think people prefer FLAC when you can't hear the difference between FLAC and an undegraded 320kbps mp3? I really don't understand why people use mp3's anymore, especially since it's so easy to preserve your mp3s by converting them to FLAC.
just get V2 the whole time and you're fine
>>60302831
Are you just bitter because you failed the what.cd interview?
>muh youtube rips are just as good as flac!!! fuck off elitists!!!
>>60302870
>converting them to FLAC.
>>60302870
nobody cares about storing your music files for years, because there is really no reason to. the bigger the file, the unhandier they just get. yeah external hard drive are cheap as fuck, bigger iphone hard drive not
>>60302905
yes sir, just convert them to FLAC and the rotational velocidensity won't affect it!
>>60302824
>>60302791
This post is mostly right but not entirely.
Yes, you should always keep your mp3s in a cool dark place. Yes, a lot of people who don't even have the right audio equipment/ears to tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 opt for FLAC downloads because they think that rotational velocidensity does not effect FLAC files. Truthfully if I look at my own downloads from 2011, I’m noticing an average of ~2kbps loss per every 5 years (on a SSD not sure about SATA) compared to the ~12kbps loss that 320 mp3s experience per year. So technically FLAC files do decay a little bit but this could be because I live in a hot climate.
Still, if you're following the math that means FLAC files will decay 60 times slower if all else is constant. Now, keep in mind that there is a conversion difference of about 3kbps depending on whether you're using SATA, IDE, SSD, SCSI and other devices which will lead to this difference in roatational velocidensity.
>>60302943
Wait, but I've heard that .mp3 does degrade through multiple copyings. Can you prevent that by converting an .mp3 to FLAC? I mean, obviously the sound quality won't get any better, and it's a waste of space, but as dumb as that would be, it's possible to prevent loss through copying, isn't it?
(And yes, I know it's dumb to do this, as I keep saying, since you don't copy a file many times anyway. I'm just asking whether this would work)
>>60303031
That's correct, and it will prevent data loss from rotational velocidensity as well (although not entirely).
>>60302815
how rare we are talking here?
>>60302928
>not converting to lower bitrate AAC for iPhone syncs.
>>60302824
It's not. Data doesn't "degrade" in that sense, just lying around. True, your storage medium can become corrupted, but it doesn't matter what format anything is on your hard drive. For your HDD it's all just 1's and 0's.
Lossless/Lossy is about when you save something in said format. It compresses it in a way that either all the data is completely preserved or may be "simplified" for a smaller file size.
A good example is the lossy .jpg format vs a lossless format like TIFF.
If you take a picture and save it over and over as .jpg it will degrade over time, while with a TIFF, it wont.
The data you safe into a lossless format. Is the exact same data you get when you read it out of the file.
>>60303109
This is simply not true. Stop parroting these stupid memes. I'm not sure if you people actually believe this shit or if you're just trolling.
This thread is the fucking paragon of that Arthur quote.
>>60303109
>.jpg it will degrade over time
kek
>>60303055
>rotational velocidensity
Oh fuck you lol
>>60302791
So, what about the music that's simply not offered in FLAC? Are they doomed to decay? Will just re-downloading my library every few years do it? What if I just store all of my external for longevity, and then every few years I erase the music on my PC and import music from the external?
>>60302870
you honestly had me until converting to flac
>>60302824
You should probably leave your ipod in the freezer when it's not in use. Apple's planning on introducing in-freezer charging ports for your Apple products to minimize rotational velocidensity.
>HD crash, lose music
>replace some of lost library with music from friend
>Springsteen disco encoded at 112. one fucking twelve.
>bitrate bitch tries to sleep with my girlfriend
>gf tells him to go fuck himself, dumps me next week
>no one wins
>>60303109
I feel like you actually believe this. The thing is, I do too, so I don't know if I'm being swindled or not.
Like, I thought this was the reason why all those shitty meme .jpegs on normie humor sites were so fucked up (since they're copies of copies, or whatever).
>>60303221
You can simply convert it to FLAC to stop rotational velocidensity from occurring. The only downside is that you will need more storage space.
>>60303262
I suppose you've heard some people on this board complaining about transcodes, and didn't quite understand what they were getting at. The reason why transcoding is frowned upon is because people convert heavily degraded or low bitrate mp3s to FLAC and then try to pass them off as high quality. Transcoding does indeed halt data decay, but it doesn't magically improve the file quality.
>>60302625
192 sucks though
flac > 320cbr > v0 > 256cbr > v1 > v2 > 192cbr
>>60302928
Fuck off. I have mp3s old enough to post on 4chan. How about you come back when you're old enough to post on 4chan?
>>60303646
No one said it was good you fucking retard. Maybe read the OP, he's asking what's the lowest you will go.
If you ever grow out of top 40 and pitchfork territory you will find out there is stuff you can only find in 192 or maybe even worse.
>>60303656
D A M N
>>60303656
>mfw don't even have mp3s old enough to post on 4chan
>>60302746
>a The Smiths
>>60303656
great thread
>>60303656
>This response
>>60303656
Even though you bit, that was a spectacular insult.
>top download is 64kbps on slsk
why
For great justice,
Death Grips - Exmilitary(8kbs)
>Death Grips
https://mega.co.nz/#!9AwAkD4D!7JEapH4sezi-ktVck4RZkjG6gA4Wqiq_UcgGQ276tIs
>>60302562
Always use 320 or V0 in normal circumstances (or FLAC if you feel like it or have the space)
If the album is available in neither of these formats and can only be found in a lesser quality one, then go with the best you can get.
>>60302746
>a The
...
>>60303656
holy shit
this response is phenomenal
>>60304845
It's technically correct, I think, if "The" is part of the name. Still, it does sound fucked up.
>>60304596
God, this is worse than anything I could have imagined it to be.
>>60304596
o gahd
like listening through a tin can with a string connect to another tin can
>>60303646
>flac > 320cbr > v0 > 256cbr > v1 > v2 > 192cbr
wow you're very knowledgeable!!!!!!
>>60305713
No it isn't dipshit, you have to say "a song by The Smiths"
The fact that they have "The" in their name doesn't negate grammar
>>60306389
to clarify, that was from some album I tried from TPB a long ass time ago.
>>60304596
This sounds like I'm trapped in a car on acid sinking in a river.
>>60306408
If "The" is truly part of the name, then it would technically be correct in saying it's a The Smiths song (although we usually drop the "The", since it does sound awkward).
There is nothing wrong with the structure "a [modifier] song". The modifier just happens to be the name of the band, as the band name describes the song. Since the band name is "The Smiths", it would be correct to say "a The Smiths song". You do not have to say "a song by The Smiths" in order to be grammatically correct.
An example that might make this concept clearer for you might be the band The World Is A Beautiful Place And I Am No Longer Afraid To Die.
Saying "a The World Is A Beautiful Place And I Am No Longer Afraid To Die song" is correct, since the band name isn't "World Is A Beautiful Place And I Am No Longer Afraid To Die", but rather, "The World Is A Beautiful Place And I Am No Longer Afraid To Die".
If you are going to insult people and try to correct them on their grammar, I suggest you actually learn grammar first.
Doesn't really make a difference to me. I just rip songs from youtube for 128 kbps and that works for me. Don't let /mu/ make your opinions for you m8.
>>60306924
>>60303646
underrated post
>>60303646
>not knowing v0 is around 200 kbps and below the itunes CBR
Guys, all this time Ive been listening to To Be Kind at 96 kbps.
what the fuck do I do
>>60306408
Faggot you could've say "a Smiths song" and it would've been fine.
But you just had to trigger everyone.
>>60302791
>Rotational velocidensity
troll
please google things occasionally
>>60307121
here lays a life
>>60307090
>not knowing average bitrate means nothing
>>60302707
This tbqh
>>60303140
underrated post
>>60303140
>that Arthur quote
What is this?
>>60307997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLgz3wH2n8
>>60302562
I tend to try as hard as I can for 320. 256 is acceptable, Anything less than that I'll usually hold out for a 320 option, even if it means not hearing it Tbh. I will occasionally go flac, but I have to really love the album, and it has to be worth it. I'm not going to listen to lo-fi garage rock in super high fidelity.
>>60303109
If you copy and paste a jpeg repeatedly, it will not degrade in quality. If you encode a jpeg file and then encode that jpeg file as a jpeg file and keep doing that, then yes, that jpeg file is going to look full of artifacts. Not sure if this would happen with mp3 compression.
>tfw I have blink 182 albums that I downloaded off of kazaa in 2002, at 96kb/s
>>60308362
>Not sure if this would happen with mp3 compression.
It does. Re-encoding the same MP3 file regardless of bitrate will eventually sound like a 70's robot voice. It's like that with any lossy compression - it is not transparent.
Btw, take this test: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/
If you can't pass it consistently (greater than 50% of the time after 20 or more attempts), 192 is fine for you. 192 is transparent for about 95% of people in blind abx testing.
>>60306924
Kys
>>60306897
what a splendid display of autism
>>60308455
I took the test when it was going around a while ago. On my setup, I usually couldn't tell between 320 and flac, but I was able to consistently identify the 128 without much trouble. I meant to do it again with my DAC, but then I never ended up doing it.
this whole thread is hilarious
>.FLAC
>not .WAV
>>60308469
Well, the explanation is pretty overboard, but hey, the other guy called me a dipshit. That's not nice.
>>60306897
i frequently refer to bands without a "The" in their name as "the ____". you know, like the Pixies or the Smashing Pumpkins.
WEEP BEFORE MY GRAMMATICAL ANARCHY
>>60307090
Are you some sort of retard?
>>60302562
I had to struggle with New Order Albums at a shitty 1xx kbps
thankfully because the band is not shit at producing and mastering everything still sounded great. It all depends on the genre really.
>>60308593
Yeah, I know, and I think that's completely normal and fine as far as ordinary conversation goes. It's just that if you're gonna insult people over grammar, you might as well get it right.
>>60308490
>I was able to consistently identify the 128 without much trouble
Yeah, it wasn't that hard. Still, it would probably be more difficult if your speakers/headphones were bad.
I only get wav format because im autistic about having the same format altogether
>>60308445
>I have blink 182 albums
