>mfw I realized 50% of the music in my library is less than 320 kbps because I was an idiot when I first got into music
nice thread
>>65336394
thx
some music was meant to be listened to in 128 kpbs
>>65336451
Yeah but Deathconsciousness sucks.
>>65336540
hey that's not true
>>65336558
it kinda is
>>65336589
hi i'm the supreme judge of all opinions and i'm here to tell you that yours is wrong
the next step is to kill you're slef
thank
>>65336540
i was thinking more like no wave
vo > 320
>>65336696
>vo
Pretty soon they will all be less than 320. That's what lossless means, it loses quality over time. I give it a year tops before your precious MP3 of Death Grips and Loveless sounds like a 2003 rip of a Britney Spears CD.
>>65336648
where can i get a slef
>>65336777
the same place you got those trips
>>65336754
lossless literally means "without loss" the formats are meant to keep audio quality intact.. can't tell if you're retarded or trolling
>>65336865
>not caring about rotational velocidensity
>>65336865
seemed like pretty obvious b8 to me
>>65336375
Luckily I never trained my ear to notice quality so I won't tell the difference between 128 kbp and flac. It's just easier to be ignorant. The only thing that bothers my are the difference between headphones and earphones but that's mostly because of comfort reasons.
>>65336375
>TFS 90% 320 and 10% flac
>>65336865
>he doesnt use counter measures against rotational velocidensity detrioration
enjoy your 17 kbps in a few years
>>65336865
enjoy your caveman music in 5 years when it all degrades lmao
>>65336799
the liquor store, awesome
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.
>>65337024
THIS IS A /g/ MEME
DO NOT FALL FOR STALE BAIT
>>65337123
actually, the man knows what he's talking about. when i've gone back to some really old mp3's from way back 'in-the-day' (90's, Napster, 56k modem) most of my mp3 library sounds like crap, mostly due to the technologies available at the time. i notice an unusually large amount of "pops" in a lot of songs and a 128k rip sounds more flat than a new 128k rip (both sound terrible regardless). anybody who knows how data is written to a disc would know that bits do get lost over time.
>>65336916
>>65336977
>>65336980
>tfw 3 different retards try to troll me
feelsgoodman
>>65337275
considering you fell for the first post it looks like you're the only retard here
>>65337275
No one is memeing pls read
>>65337024
>>65337238
>he didn't use XingMP3
>alternatively he didn't use BladeEnc
I am just going to make you folk who care about music or file storage in general aware about a phenomenon which could ruin your stored files.
This is caused by a 1 going turning into a zero spontaneously or due to environmental factors like temperature entropy generation.
I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Texas at Austin. 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. (cont.)
>>65337634
So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocity density 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 partially quite safe.
Being an audio engineer for over 18 years, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. While rotational velocity density is indeed responsible for some deterioration of an unanchored file, there's a simple way of preventing this. Better still, there have been some reported cases of damaged files repairing themselves, although marginally so (about 1.7 percent for the .ogg format).
The procedure is, although effective, rather unorthodox. Rotational velocity density, as known only affects compressed files, i.e. files who's anchoring has been damaged during compression procedures.
Simply mounting your hard disk upside down enables centripetal forces to cancel out the rotational ruptures in the disk. As I said, unorthodox, and mainstream manufactures will not approve as it hurts sales (less rotational velocity density damage means a slighter chance of disk failure.)
Also slower hard drives like 5400 suffer less due to a lower rotational speed.
I'd still go with uncompressed .wav myself, but there's nothing wrong with compressed formats like flac or mp3 when you treat your hardware right.
Now digital dust could make your compressed files unreadable and even uncompressed files flawed as the decoders stutters or stumbles over the digital dust.
>>65337661
In other words the files even on your hard drive are subject to it including flash memory types and may explain the high failure rate of flash memory to spontaneous flipping of a 1 to a zero and vice versa.
I know error correction but this limited and the cascade effect has turned many flash memory computers useless as well as loss of stored data.It is little known that flash memory is less reliable even than hard disks,some only lasting a year up to 18 months before failing.
What this means is digital files will suffer storage losses just like paper files suffer from decay.
>>65337634
Kek
So, what's the difference between 128 kps and 320 kps?
>>65337763
about 192 kps
>>65337763
http://www.richlymiddleclass.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/disguise.jpg
When I was in high school, I friend of mine gave me a USB with music on it to listen to. One of the albums was the King Crimson one and a few metal tracks. I've been listening to the exact same mp3s for about six years and I never noticed the were 128 kbps.
>>65336865
new
>>65337024
So true man, I downloaded ''Kid A'' back in the day and now I just call it ''A'', because that's how much the album degraded it just sounds like noise
I like lo-fi so it's pointless to have 320 for that
