Loseless audio

You have lost data by copying the file so many times compounded with data decay from old files. This has greatly effected the rotational velocidensity meaning sound quality is nowhere as good as the original file.

>This has greatly effected the rotational velocidensity meaning sound quality is nowhere as good as the original file

C'mon man... it sounds exactly the same. Pull up your oldest files and have a listen.

lossless is not about audio quality

>velociraptor rotational density

What the fuck?

>>58908891
Some can hear the difference between a lossy and a loseless file, a good few cannot.
Even as someone who has a hard time telling between something like a 256k MP3 and a Flac I still download loseless when ever I can because I'm not running out of hard drive space anytime soon.

>>58909177
So it's better safe than sorry, right?

>>58909217
Pretty much, no reason not to go lossless unless your just that tight on space. and on a phone or MP3 player or something which is tight on space, rencoding to lossy takes almost no time at all unless you have like 10k songs

>>58909298
My argument is, a 20 year old file copied several times sounds just a fine as the day I downloaded it.

Where's this Loss?

>>58909344
You fell for a dumb pasta that people have been posting for 10 years.

>>58909368
I didn't fall for anything because I didn't do anything.... except wait for my files to mature... mind putting me up in the loop?

>>58909408
What exactly made you think your file would be different after 20 years?

>>58909428
Some kind of ...loss?

>>58909344
Unlike analog sound, Digital sound doesn't degrade regardless of format since its just 1s and 0s which is much easier to transfer. The loss on the 192k MP3 is the fact that the MP3 encoder used throws away audio data from the original lossless source in order to have a smaller file size

>>58909442
If you're worried about data corruption, save a SHA1 sum somewhere.

Digital media doesn't lose quality over time like audio cassetes do.

>>58908891
If you kept a lossless copy of your music, you could take advantage of advances in lossy encoding in the years since you originally ripped it. You could re-encode your music at a higher quality using the same amount of space on your devices. Conversely, and perhaps more usefully, you could fit more songs on your devices without lowering quality.

>>58909442
Dude, rotational velocidensity isn't real. It's a joke intended to make fun of audiophiles.

>>58909584
stop spreading hate speech and fake news pls

File: 16427307_10155080509789758_5479592279548465858_n.jpg (23KB, 552x437px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 552x437px

>>58909537
It's the same damn thing unlesss you have a dog-like sense of hearing

>>58908891
I honestly mainly use FLAC for archival reasons.

Dear god if audiophile actually believe such velociraptor shit, you dumbass didnt belong here, get out.

Also digital data IS NOT an analog magnetic signal like what was stored on a fucking vinyl and tape cassette. You may copy your fucking hentai gazillion of times and the audio/video would not go static or blurry. If there is loss of quality on data stored on digital storage, it will be in the form of bit decay OR damaged data block. The latter is much common if you bought a cheap ass drive.

>>58908891
Good luck getting maximum bit-fidelity without Monster™ SATA cables pleb.

>>58909908
5 rupees have been deposited into your account.

>>58908891
>20 years ago
You've just lost most of your hearing, welcome to the < 20kHz club :).

What's the difference between wav and FLAC?

>>58908891
>high end system
Such as?

>>58909458
Isn't it possible to save checksums as mp3 metadata? I think there is a tool doing that.