Stop storing mp3 files.

quit it with this dead meme it's literally years old be more creative

>>70960943
>i disagree, therefore your opinion is a meme

>>70960932
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.

Most of us take it for granted that a CD is a CD, and we almost never discuss about varying standards of manufacture. I can't say too much about current US manufacturer's because I have few US made CDs. I have still detected a general shrillness to many US CDs ("let's tweek the high end to make them sound sharp to delude the general public that our CDs sound better than vinyl and tape"). Tweeking the high end also accentuated the hiss. After so many disappointments and revelations having heard import versions after getting US discs I have concentrated on acquiring import pressings.

As for maunfacturers themselves: on the import side I like the clarity of Nimbus UK but they can be hissier and lighter on low end than MPO France which produces well rounded sounding CDs. PDO have been fine except for the recent PDO UK disc rot problem. Sonopress in Germany are adequate. I used to shy away from DADC in Austria (Sony Europe uses them) but have realised that was a personal bias. Nimbus USA (Virginia) vary. Their reissues of the OMD catalogue were shoddy. DADC in Indiana (Sony/Columbia) are so so.

File: 1a5.jpg (7KB, 160x267px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 160x267px

My sis gave me some music the other day, and two of the songs were old mp3s that we had ripped from a CD 10 years ago. I knew it wasn't a fresh rip, because the CD had been broken years ago. I never believed this loss shit before, but listening to the file was like resurrecting a corpse - it was garbled, distorted and of very low quality.

I hate to admit it, but once I get another external hard drive, I'm going FLAC. It's a shame you can't buy a 20 TB drive yet, cause I'm gonna need it.

So how do I convert files to FLAC anyways? I don't want to have to hunt down FLAC versions of my songs, especially since I know I have a lot of shit nobody would ever FLAC since it was never popular enough.

>>70961209
Most file converters will allow you to convert from MP3 to Flac. Sure you will get an increase in file size but you will get x4-x5 increase in quality at the very least.

File: 1478274069879.jpg (20KB, 299x259px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 299x259px

>>70961249
>covert mp3 to flac with an increase in quality

>>70961376
The flac container changes the caustic space where all the 1s and 0s are, so while a "real" flac file is obviously the most ideal, best version, converting to flac is still gonna shuffle the data around into a more accurate "position" than an mp3.

Generally speaking what this means is your audio files is gonna reach frequencies a little higher and the response is gonna be accurate and closer to the original. Plus the flac container does not degrade over time, so it's a win win.

>>70960932
or i could just redownload the albums lmao

>>70961586
Since the FLAC is so big, what if that means it still degrades, but there's a lot more data to degrade so it just takes longer?

Or can I really listen to the same file with the same quality 50,000,000 years from now? Better not BS me cause I will be very angry if my music files die before I do.

>>70961657
Flac has only been around 16 or so years, so its possible lifetime has not fully been put to the test. Some experts argue that as time goes on, flac files will inevitably start to degrade, due to the lifetimes of packet compression - especially when transferred over tcp. When transferring flacs over a network, udp is reccommended. Also avoid any kind of encryption, as this will shuffle the data in more unpredictable ways, effectively adding noise to your audio.

It is also important that you sanitise any network cables, this ensures a strong and crispy connection.

>>70960932
stop forcing this meme

personally, i like to store my audio as raw data under a .bmp image header -- image containers are set up to maintain the maximum possible quality without any data loss and the bmp format has been around for decades by this point. a tried and true test -- even though you're gonna notice some immediate artifacting and distortion, the quality is gonna maintain itself over generations. you can even print them out and scan them in for a physical copy. can't wait for my grandkids to inherit this stuff.

If you ask me, the rotational velocidensity of modern CDs is wayyyyy worse than the CDs of old. Must be the lower-quality beryllium they use for the bits.

>>70961629
/thread

>>70960932
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community 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.

File: 1377906301208.jpg (115KB, 702x558px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 702x558px

>this thread

It's like reading that /v/ pasta about PC games running slow because your PC has too much memory for the game to handle.

>>70960972
Shit reasoning, fuckface. It's true and you know it.

Give me sources for your shitty baseless claims.

>>70961995
unfortunately you still have to deal with bit rot that way. do what i do and memorize the 1s and 0s and type them in every time you want to listen.

File: _DVDRAM.gif (93KB, 400x268px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 400x268px

I store all my music on DVD-RAM discs. No air touches these discs, as they are never removed from their protective shell. I have experienced NO bit loss in the 10 years I have been using these.

The only drawback is they only write at 1x speed. However, knowing my music is safe makes it completely worth it.

This is a lossy thread

This stupid fucking meme is lossy

Aside from durability, one huge advantage FLAC has over MP3s that often doesn't get mentioned is the fact that it's an open source format (also known as freeware, free of charge). That means it's 100% legal to download any FLAC of any song that's available.

With MP3s however, that's not the case. I have seen many of my friends who collected MP3s eventually getting arrested for their collections; the more MP3s you have, the worse the sentence. I've yet to hear of a case in which a FLAC collector gets arrested.

So, basically, why bother pirating Photoshop when you have GIMP? Why bother pirating Microsoft Office when you have LibreOffice? Why bother pirating Pro Tools when you have Audicity?

Why bother pirating MP3s, when you have FLACS?

>>70966909
Kek

>>70960932
I'll make sure to take them out and clean them every now and then

>>70961956
Jesus fucking Christ I will have to redownload all my FLACs via UDP.

>>70968156
At least you know now

File: 1485859006910.png (202KB, 374x345px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 374x345px

>This entire thread

I can't believe people still fall for this bait. So this... is the power... of underage b&...

>>70960932
So what you're saying is that MP3s gain dynamic range as they age? How is this a bad thing?

>>70960932
I literally hear no difference from a 2008 video and a fresh CD from a store. Unless you're some faggot who listens to music with everything off in the room and eyes closed it doesn't matter

>>70968998
MP3 age like fine wine, but I like my grape juice.

>>70968998
It's a spectrogram not a waveform, has nothing to do with loudness.

SAY IT WITH ME

ROTATIONAL

VELOCIDENSITY

>>70969115
Then explain 'dB' on the Y axis

>>70969285
i mean db is clearly the color spectrum while the y axis is hz, which is a range thing not a loudness thing