I have hundreds of MP3s I downloaded from Napster and Limewire, back in 2000... transferred from old HDD to new HDD many times.
Listening to them now and they still sound outstanding on a high-end system.
Why do some of you faggots defend lossless audio formats so fervently?
BAITO DESU
metalica128kbps.mp3 sound pretty good right now.
du wat now?
I like lossless as an archive for my music. I transcode them into lossy when I transfer them to my music player.
OP here. Makes sense but my 'archive' has been tossed around for over 15 years now and I've yet to hear a 'loss' that a human ear can hear.
>MP3
>Sound the same on lossless
>On my head-end system
Perhaps it's time to upgrade from your iPhone earbuds.
$900 Onkyo receiver and Klipsh speaks. 15yr old MP3s sounds pretty damn good to me.
probably retard ears
guts
Just find one of that song in flac and see if you can see difference.
Then you will see that the sound is much more rich
I will reform my mp3 to flac and I will tell u the difference.
That's because, unless you really overdo it with the encoding, lossy formats are designed to only remove signals which are virtually imperceptible to human ears. People who say they hear the difference are just suffering from special-snowflake-syndrome.
>Why do some of you faggots defend lossless audio formats so fervently?
Because:
Autism
Asperger's
Elitism
Attention-seeking
Trolling
I have aspergers and I don't defend lossless codecs.
*formats
*autisms
Why do you archive them lossless if you want to transcode them into lossy anyways before listening to them?
I listen to pretty much only flac files, you should too.
IT'S NOT THAT WE THINK WE CAN HEAR ANY DIFFERENCE, THAT'S JUST WHAT AUTISTS SAY
THE REAL REASON YOU SHOULD USE LOSSLESS IS SO YOU CAN CONVERT TO OTHER FORMATS WITHOUT LOSING QUALITY
WITH MP3 YOU LOSE QUALITY EVERY TIME YOU CONVERT TO ANOTHER FORMAT. WITH FLAC YOU DON'T. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK MP3 WILL BE AROUND IN 100 YEARS?
i listen to a lot of bob dylan recordings, most all of the tapers release in FLAC or shn.
i guess i understand it, but it's kind of annoying since i can't tell the difference. takes a lot longer to download 3x the data and then convert it to 320 mp3. but i can't even tell the difference in 256 vs 320 mp3 so i'm kind of doing the same "better quality" thing myself.
What do you mean by "tossed around" did you encode your tracks back and forth in different formats?
Lossless retards are still around? Fuck me!
>DO YOU HONESTLY THINK MP3 WILL BE AROUND IN 100 YEARS
no but neither will you or i. are you the library of congress? i swear most flac collectors think their collection will be the only withstanding documentation of the audio they collect in 3000 years when aliens want to hear their discography of Chumbawumba
You'll just hear a flatter response with FLAC, OP. Like even the bassy MP3 will have decent trouble. And when you put an equalizer on top based on your preference, it'll not lose quality or mess up the balance with other frequencies as happens with MP3
File format doesn't change mastering, retard.
I can already hear the difference between a low quality MP3 and FLAC. High quality MP3 (v0 or 320) I can't but not everything I've ever downloaded is that quality. Nowadays that's less of an issue of course but historically V0 and 320 are not that common.
Will someone explain rotational velocidensity to this guy?
Seeing as storage space isnt much of an issue anymore why wouldnt you want the best quality possible, even if theres no difference
>converting mp3s to FLAC
STOP RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW THIS WORKS.
That's only acceptable if you want to fuck around with turbo autists on some torrent site.
no. MP3s definitely sizzle more. The funny thing is it actually improves the quality
user stop that creates mustard gas
it's Chumbawamba
All the 128kbps mp3s I downloaded about pre-2005 sounds like staticy shit now because available MP3 encoders around that time still sucked. But modern LAME encoders now are very good at 128kbps.
b-b-but...FRAUNHOFER BY RADiUM
all you "sizzle" loving autist's faces when i'm enjoying 24/96 FLAC vinyl sourced rips.
VINYL
RIPS
Rotational velocidensity.
I prefer lossless EVERY TIME for the same reason I prefer the highest quality possible when working on a product.
My SFX library are all in huge-ass WAV files, not shitty 128kbps mp3 files. If I start using compressed shitty sound bits on projects, it just sounds shit and in terms of converting it to other formats starts to go severly downhill.
In comparison, if I start working at the TOP of the pyramid (with a lossless file), I don't have to worry about quality loss since I can still do nessessary conversions and still have a great product at the end of the day.
It's like argueing "Why take RAW photos with your DSLR? JPEG looks just as good and it's way smaller!" Having that extra information in the file is VITAL to creating a professional product or creating professional results.
But no, have fun with your shitty compressed audio files and jpeg-artificated images.
vinyl has the quality of 96kbps mp3
I sold off my old vinyl collection years ago. But before I did I encoded them to MP3 using that really bad encoder that was superfast but super shit. And I encoded at 128kbps. I was so stupid. I have had to try and recover most of those tracks (including white labels and B side tracks) over time. It's not been easy and it is still incomplete.
...
>96kbps mp3 sounds outstanding on a high-end system
This wouldn't happen to be your authentic high-end audio system would it?
FUCK MAN! SORRY!
what i meant was: vinyl-sourced fedora-approved audiophile-quality frame-of-reference..."analogue-2-digitale conversion transfer" backup copy that definitely didn't come from what.cd and CERTAINLY isn't deserving of such meme-tier pleb lingo as "rip" in this day and age of modern techloligy.
kys
>2016
>seriously
>not storing your lossless audio on an SSD
Who says I don't.
Gotta keep those flax in perfect order.
You mention products and professionalism... if I were using audio files for a business-based purpose, I could understand the need.
However, I was referring to personal use and storage.
I still approach it with a similar midset though. If I have some 256kbps sound file, and (for whatever reason) I need to convert it, every time a conversion process happens I still lose (some) quality. If I start from the very top with a lossless version, I never have to worry about degredation in comparison to an already-lower-quality sound file.
>I use lossless so I can convert to other formats
>I need to convert to other formats because lossless is too big
If you'd just convert to lossy in the first place you wouldn't have this problem.
>if you store all your music in g.711 you'll never have to worry again!
Thanks man! will do!
>better not get anything with AC-3 or DTS! You'll never be able to play them again!
Oh wait.
>comparing the 64kbps mp3 you want to 1.5mbps DTS
Moreover both the example you just posted are deprecated examples that have been replaced by lossless codecs by their own authors on admission that lossless is garbage.
They've been replaced by proprietary lossless so they can sell more receivers, while the rest of the world has transitioned to AAC.
Bluray not having a proper lossy codec makes me mad.
>they shouldn't change codecs because it's ploy to sell more receivers
>they should change to my preferred new lossy codec though...
What? You don't English very well.
Why would you admit lossless is garbage and then replace it with more lossless
I only downloaded 320kbps MP3's back in the day too.
Fact is, even the old 320's sound worse then the new ones.
This. I like lossless as an archive and I like lossy for my music player.
Try converting those 128kbps MP3s into a new lossy format...
heh
Why would he need to do that?
FLACfag BTFO.