why did we pretend for years that what.cd was superior to soulseek?

You tell me. Sekrit klub trackers are the worst

T R A N S C O D E S

>>75152200
If you're a FLACtard then you deserve it.

>>75152232
flac is for autismos but 192 is for braindead retards

because muh secret club

>>75152200
actually no

>>75152325
yes

>>75152200
>>75152247
what about VBR? in excess of >192

Because WCD had quality control and better speeds since you're usually leeching from multiple sources

>>75152247
192 is quite ok

>>75153413
>Because WCD had quality control

haha : )

as if this is a legitimate issue with soulseek.

File: 8f70c45128f0a85cd4d2361461de5b00e0a9b4dc408c80aefd1f1b42cbedbe20.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>75153448

>>75152200
>>75152232
wut?

File: 14055005_320071258325769_8757530953370927621_n.jpg (26KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 539x960px

>>75153448

File: smug.jpg (105KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x800px

>tfw no red, waffles and apollo

>>75153522
How is it not?

File: 1424693052695.png (86KB, 244x252px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 244x252px

>>75153448
dude

File: 1446692798938.jpg (23KB, 358x272px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 358x272px

>>75153448
you what

File: 1448697109358.jpg (22KB, 404x404px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 404x404px

>>75153448
>192 is quite ok
why even listen to music

>>75152157
>>75153522
You've either never bothered to check your downloads or you're baiting. A massive amount of 320 kbps uploads on slsk are actually 192 at best (often worse).

And the download speed are a big thing too. If it's an essential or popular album, slsk is fine. But depending on what you're looking for, you may have to wait around for the 1 dude on slsk who has the album you want to get online just so you can download it from him at 60 kbps.

The best option is obviously to use slsk, /mu/ archives, and a private tracker all together. There's no downside to using multiple sources when necessary. I don't even get this debate really like they're completely different things all together.

File: 1488119693439.jpg (34KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x349px

>>75153915
>A massive amount of 320 kbps uploads on slsk are actually 192 at best (often worse).
Tbchwyf I don't think I've ever had this issue.

>>75153915
>A massive amount of 320 kbps uploads on slsk are actually 192 at best (often worse).

>But depending on what you're looking for, you may have to wait around for the 1 dude on slsk who has the album you want to get online just so you can download it from him at 60 kbps.

the delusions of a private tracker apologist, everyone.

none of this is remotely true.

>>75154013
I use slsk and this is my actual experience. Like I said, with more common albums it's perfectly fine to use.

>>75153974
Its happened to me.
I have to ignore any track that says 320kbps but doesn't show the duration, usually a give away.

>>75154013
>>75153974
seriously, check your downloads pals. i use slsk/red/apollo/rutracker for my music and i've encountered plenty of transcodes while using slsk (and terrible ones, like 128 to 320 or some dense shit). it's not that common tho, but it can be frustraiting at times.

>>75155070
Thanks for the advice but I generally check the quality of most everything I download because I'm an autist.

>>75155175
yes.