Friendly reminder that while original CD recordings cutoff around

wow this deep. 200 like

>>74215429
Except that v0 and 320 MP3 cut off just under 20 khz, and it doesn't make a fuck because A) 20 khz is actually very uncomfortable even for children who can still hear it and B) if you're over 15 or so, you can't hear to 20 khz anyway.

It's not remotely like your retarded example. Your retarded example is a Portable Network Graphics image. Meaning it took an original image from a camera sensor and compressed it in a lossy way about 15x more efficiently than MP3 compresses a wav file. Before you blanked out the face on the Mona Lisa, your image was already compressed by much more than 30%. But you couldn't tell the difference. Exactly like high bitrate lossy audio formats. Fucking retard.

>>74215968
>png
>lossy
stop posting any time

>>74215429
If you like an album, buy the vinyl. That simple

>>74216131
Meant jpeg, point still stands. Lossy compression is not in any way like blanking out a gigantic part of an image even if you were comparing apples to apples (lossy vs lossless image compression) which OP isn't. It's an even poorer illustration of how audio compression works, because most of the loss comes from parts of a wave form that you are literally biologically incapable of hearing.

>>74216203
>the vinyl
Do you even know what a synecdoche is?

>>74216203
OP is concerned that MP3 is too lossy and you want him to buy an analog format that is, at best, equivalent to 12 bit/44.1khz digital audio, introduces artifacts like clicks and pops, and degrades every time it is played.

>>74216203
>people actually believe this

File: 1501252435707.jpg (269KB, 393x500px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 393x500px

>>74216258
>Lossy compression is not in any way like blanking out a gigantic part of an image
Pic related, looks like quite a large blank part.

>>74216425
shorten the length of your track and increase the length of your x axis, then say the same thing.

>>74216425
Try playing the file back instead of representing it as an image, since that's what digital audio is for. Looks like a big blank spot because that's what it's intended to look like. Doesn't sound like a big blank spot, because that's not how compression works.

You're also comparing a low bitrate lossy conversion to an original wave form. Now do it with a v0 or 320 MP3 so that you can see a visual representation of that glorious extra 3k at the top end where nothing is actually happening, and even if it were, you wouldn't be able to hear it.

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.

>>74216538
This got an audible chuckle out of me
Well played

>>74216538
I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.

So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocidensity issue. I'm an audiophile myself and posses a vast collection of uncompressed audio files, but I do want to assure the casual low-bitrate users that their music library is quite safe.

Being an audio engineer for over 21 years, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. While rotational velocidensity is indeed responsible for some deterioration of an unanchored file, there's a simple way of preventing this. Better still, there have been some reported cases of damaged files repairing themselves, although marginally so (about 1.7 percent for the .ogg format).