Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: tumblr_n78vzgqGj51rbsj9do1_1280.png (47KB, 720x349px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 720x349px
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.
pic unrelated
>>
but wat if i store mp3 in my ass?
>>
>>56420107
Young man that meme is an antique, and as such needs to be put back in the museum where you found it. Please be more careful with our artifacts.
>>
Firefox has FLAC, mp3 is in the process of deprecation.
>>
>implying I didn't reverse the rotational velocidensity by turning my hard drives upside down
my mp3s gain more bitrate by the minute. I started with 128kbps songs and they've already upgraded into 320kbps
>>
>>56421512
You have to reverse the spin on your discs for that to happen, that's how my Wii games now upgraded to HD.
>>
>>56420107
Why all these FLAC threads all of a sudden? FF decides to support it and now babbys like OP hear it for the first time.
Wait one year before posting, you fag.
>>
File: 1472828584811.jpg (70KB, 353x500px) Image search:
[Google]
70KB, 353x500px
>>56422056
Make Firefox Great Again
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2