Mp320kbs to FLAC
May 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM Post #16 of 46


Quote:
a love supreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

 
I don't mean to question your credibility but in all curiosity and confirmation is this factual? If so, this is definitely something new i've learned today. 

 
 
May 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM Post #17 of 46


Quote:
pepsi said:
 
I don't mean to question your credibility but in all curiosity and confirmation is this factual? If so, this is definitely something new i've learned today. 

 
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Didn't bother to post but wondering as well. (Not doubting you or anything, just don't know for sure).
 
 
May 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM Post #18 of 46
Quote:
pepsi said:
I don't mean to question your credibility but in all curiosity and confirmation is this factual? If so, this is definitely something new i've learned today. 
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure it's a joke, guys. If it's not, I'm going to have to not only relearn everything I know about memory storage, but also figure out how I managed to preserve my mp3 collection so well 
biggrin.gif

 
May 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM Post #19 of 46

 
Quote:
a love supreme said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's why they came out with solid state hard drives. Quality loss is minimal with those.
 
But really though, this is definitely a joke. It's impossible for digital sound files to lose quality as they sit on a hard drive. (Source: I'm a software engineer + common sense)
 
May 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM Post #21 of 46
Quote:
a love supreme said:
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.
Click to expand...


lol reminds me of that one thread when a new member posted saying pretty much the exact same thing, and that caused a few pages of "What are you smoking?" replies. Needless to say, the guy never replied to any of the questions or criticisms.
 
May 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM Post #22 of 46
Quote:
A Love Supreme said:


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.
Click to expand...


Are you ******* serious?
confused_face_2.gif

What about Flash Memory?
 
May 28, 2010 at 7:59 PM Post #25 of 46
Quote:
a love supreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

possibly one of the best trolling ever. :D
 
*edit: ok, maybe the OP is better.
 
May 28, 2010 at 8:06 PM Post #26 of 46

 
Quote:
zenemano said:
Quote:
a love supreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

possibly one of the best trolling ever. :D
 
*edit: ok, maybe the OP is better.
Click to expand...

How's the OP a troll?
 
 
May 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM Post #27 of 46
I have done a lot of non DBT of flac vs 320mp3 and honestly I can really only tell the difference in well recorded classical music. Which I suppose your OST would qualify for, OP. MP3 compression seems geared towards rock music and FLAC classical and jazz, to my ears.
 
May 28, 2010 at 9:07 PM Post #30 of 46


Quote:
andhyka said:
   If that mp3 is converted to lossless format such as flac, ape, wave, the sound will be exactly same as the mp3 and will not match the original.
Click to expand...


Sure Andhyka, no one disputes that.  But it should be no problem to put the same song in mp3 and flac, or lossless on a source, and hit shuffle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top