>Download album in flac
>Covert it all to 320 kbps and load it into my itunes
>tfw have to convert everything to 128kps so I can fit it on my phone
>>61027338 (OP)
and that's a good thing. flac is bloated format good for making mp3s from it. using flacs you're sure that those mp3s 320 are legit and not some shitty transcodes. (i'd use v0, but anyway)
flac would be the equivalent of huffyuv (losslessly compressed video). those files would be damn huge. there's a reason why it exists lossy codecs.
for flac fans: demand the video to be also lossless, not just audio. ask for 600GB lossless blurays, to not mess even with one pixel.
>>61027338
I do this, otherwise I couldn't have my favourite tunes on my phone.
>>61027454
That much data doesn't fit onto a bluray anon, and if I could I would download lossless rips instead of these horrible super compressed 2GB rips.
>>61027338
can you gimme a printout of oyster smiling
>>61027484
dumb hampusposter
>>61027454
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.
>>61027484
you missed the point. i meant why these flac maniacs are obsessed with only the audio to be lossless, and not video too. they should demand a new kind of blu ray (or something) to be also lossless. of course the files will be gigantic, but if they want lossless why stop only at audio?
bascially i have a problem with double standards. they want the untouched quality but they're fine with the lossy dvds/blu-rays. why?
>>61027509
I'm aware of this pasta but on a related not, the difference between image formats like JPEG and PNG is stark. After repeatedly saving a JPEG image, it will deteriorate over time whereas the PNG image will remain true.
>>61027509
will this pasta ever die?
>rotational velocidensity
my fave part
>>61027543
>of course the files will be gigantic, but if they want lossless why stop only at audio?
You're actually answering your own question: lossless audio isn't gigantic. As storage capabilities increase and space gets cheaper, I'm fairly sure we will see a surge in demand for lossless video as well.
>>61027509
thank you finally someone with sense
>>61027553
>After repeatedly saving a JPEG image, it will deteriorate over time whereas the PNG image will remain true.
true, if you re-encode them from lossy to lossy (because the encoder is like a filter, a data meat grinder). but if you keep them as they are, they stay the same. same for mp3s.
that pasta implied that mp3s degraded over time without re-encoding them, and that's absurd.
>>61027509
