Why you should start using FLAC

GIANT_CRAB

New Member
I'm an expert on these matters, so listen up and listen good - I'll try to keep this simple but it won't be easy, because I am an expert, as I mentioned previously.

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.
 

MannDude

Just a dude
vpsBoard Founder
Moderator
I used to also be an avid collector of music, digitally. Hard drive failure back in 2006 or 2007. Was gutted. All my data gone. So sad. Started to rebuild. Slowly, but surely. Media collection growing and then... hard drive failure in 2009-2010.

You'd think I would have learned from the first one to keep proper backups, yeah?

Well now, I'm lazy. Too worried about recovering any of the music I had acquired in the past and nowadays just stream from YouTube in a low quality to play over my shitty $15 Wal-Mart headset because I broke my $80 muffs. If not YouTubin', streaming stuff from TurnTable.FM

:(
 

SkylarM

Well-Known Member
Verified Provider
Well now, I'm lazy. Too worried about recovering any of the music I had acquired in the past and nowadays just stream from YouTube in a low quality to play over my shitty $15 Wal-Mart headset because I broke my $80 muffs. If not YouTubin', streaming stuff from TurnTable.FM

:(
I run around with DT 770 Pro's. So picky with my headsets now :D
 

GIANT_CRAB

New Member
Last edited by a moderator:

fisle

Active Member
actually, the man knows what he's talking about, albeit, petty or nonsense to most people. when i've gone back to some really old mp3's from way back 'in-the-day' (90's, Napster, 56k modem) most of my mp3 library sounds like crap, mostly due to the technologies available at the time. i notice an unusually large amount of "pops" in a lot of songs and a 128k rip sounds more flat than a new 128k rip (both sound terrible regardless). anybody who knows how data is written to a disc would know that bits do get lost over time.

i'm an arrogant, elitist, analog snob with 2 vintage hifi systems (1 solid state/1 tube based) that can expose every imperfection in an mp3 file. it absolutely cracks me up when people think their crappy OEM soundcard, crappy best buy cables, and crappy desktop speakers are suitable benchmarks for judging sound quality.

it's pathetic how nowadays people have allowed themselves to compromise quality over convenience and cost. i'm only 34 but just as bitter and scornful as someone twice my age. just wait until i get my FLAC vinyl rip blog up and running!
 

GIANT_CRAB

New Member
@fisle There's actually quite a handy formula for you to calculate the loss so that you can show it to your cheap friends and convert them into quality product users.

I would transpose to account for the curvatures of space time and the increasing density and slowing clock associated with data transfer speeds as they approach the speed of light, and the gravitational effects of the speed of rotation.

The net equation comes out rather simple, as it turns out:

V = ma / c-t

where V = rotational velocidensity
m = mass of drive
a = acceleration of drive
c= speed of light
t = data transfer speed

Obviously, then, as the data transfer speed approaches the speed of light, the rotational velocidensity approaches infinity. One important result is that if data transfer speed exceeds the speed of light, you will get negative rotational velocidensity, a highly volatile state of data transfer to be avoided in the presence of hydrogen. This could result in a data hole, which absorbs and scrambles data at an indefinitely increasing rate.
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Why those old MP3's sound so bad is due to the codecs and encoding of those days.

Is your file losing data due to drive atrophy?  I don't think so.  If this were true, they would have increased drive redundancy eons ago.   Same would apply to all files and your spreadsheets, word processing, etc. all those files wouldn't even be usable / unable to be opened by now.

Surely, for the paranoid, non electronic storage would be the ticket.   Perhaps stone tablets stored in glass cases in climate controlled environment (i.e. the museum).
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Trolled, I suppose, could have ignored it, but too stupid to allow others to be deceived.  Tripped out that such misinformation spreads like manure in open fields during the spring.
 
Top