>I only listen to FLAC
The majority of the fags that say this can't even hear the difference and don't even have the equipment to hear a change anyway
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.
so?
>>64417483
Well, I can. Tho I don't bother myself with this shit - life is too short.
>>64417516
this
/thread
>>64417516
all my CD rips sit between 700 and 1900 kbps. I think I'll be fine
>>64417516
This pasta is outdated. You can counteract the lossy properties of the mp3 by encoding with SCSI2, which lowers rotational velocidensity to the point where mp3s are only losing about 1 kbps per year. I'm anal though, so I stick to FLAC.
>>64417516
I'm really glad I don't suffer with autism
>>64417629
I've discovered during the last two years, since I can take CD-Rs home from the mastering plant, that there's an astonishing variation in quality between different CD plants. If you think digital is perfect, I have news for you. Many of us have been fooled by this myth that it's just 0s and 1s and therefore copies perfectly. It doesn't. The variations in quality are pretty wild, and random. Just the way you hook up a cable can make a difference. And there's no quality control in these CD plants, other than someone checking whether there's any level being transferred.
>>64417483
I participated in a listening test for someones thesis the other day comparing the difference of 320 mp3 and flac and there is definitely a difference
>>64417516
thing is most of the albums I listen to aren't on FLAC
FLAC files don't decay over time like MP3s
That's why I use 'em
>>64418341
kys :)
>>64418194
Someone made a thread some time ago linking a page that plays audio samples and asks you to pick the bitrate, it was pretty interesting.
A lot of people on this board apparently don't know much about sound quality and can't hear the difference so they just assume no one else can either.
>>64417516
lel topkek. Sure hope you're trolling. Not sure why people who failed at school or struggled at all think they can now interpret things on the internet. It's the same format, reading comprehension and most people fucking suck at it. If you sucked in school, chances are you suck at understanding anything you read.
>>64417516
COPYPASTA
>>64417817
do you work at a mastering plant or something
that's pretty interesting
>>64417817
then why do all these cds sound the same
>>64421966
>then why do all these cds sound the same
They don't, that's the point retard
>>64417483
It's called archiving. Storage is cheap, it makes more sense to store FLAC than have to recreate your whole library when you upgrade your equipment.
