>he prefers vinyl over high quality FLACS
who
>>61375121
>le high quality FLACS
>2016 almost 2017
>STILL unironically living inside the matrix
yikes
>not having your entire library in v0 mp3 / wav
who are you guys talking about?
>>61375121
>he prefers FLAC files instead of space saving mp3s
>he still thinks that he can hear over the mp3 v0 sound range with his sub$1000 headphones
>>61375427
I really hate this meme. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions on /mu/ 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.
>>61375519
thanks for the copypasta.
Only 128 kb mp3s reveal the heart and soul of masterpieces like this
>>61375321
muh lpcms
>>61375321
>STILL unironically living inside the matrix
how do I escape?
