ITT: Essential FLAC core. Post albums that are more enjoyable listened to in Hi-Fi. I'll start

ITT: Essential FLAC core. Post albums that are more enjoyable listened to in Hi-Fi. I'll start.

all of them

>he fell for the FLAC meme

> all of them
This.

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.

never change Sup Forums

I remember seeing that pasta on a different website.

By being stored in a lossy format instead of in lossless, it's like food going stale and expiring, but that post isn't 100% right. I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from U 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).

Absolutely this. Hot DAMN those crisp-ass drums!

...

the remaster of this album is the best-sounding thing I've ever heard on my setup

Also the new Yes remasters. god damn dude

I assume this mostly depends on the producer and the attention to detail

>he thinks he can tell the difference between FLAC and 320

>Have hearing damage
>cant enjoy that beautiful 16khz+ air anymore.
feels bad man

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

This and loveless

...

I'm pleb and cannot tell the difference between FLAC and MP3-320
but this is my choice based on the technical detail in the sound design

the only album to mention when talking sound quality