/mu/ - Music

Discussion of music.


New Reply on thread #430
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]


thumbnail of out.jpg
thumbnail of out.jpg
out jpg
(32.3 KB, 299x400)



thumbnail of wifbearklain.jpg
thumbnail of wifbearklain.jpg
wifbearklain jpg
(361.59 KB, 900x1359)
You should switch to FLAC because it's lossless unlike ogg. 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 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 is 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.







thumbnail of 07. 源屋 — Acceralation.ogg
thumbnail of 07. 源屋 — Acceralation.ogg
07. 源屋... ogg
(34.66 MB, 0x0)
thumbnail of 07. 源屋 — Acceralation.ogg
thumbnail of 07. 源屋 — Acceralation.ogg
07. 源屋... ogg
(3.93 MB, 0x0)
 >>/1434/
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as lossless ogg, is in fact, ogg/FLAC, or as I've recently taken to calling it, ogg plus FLAC. Ogg is not an audio codec unto itself, but rather a container component of a fully functioning audio format made useful by the codecs it's compatible with.



Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


12 replies | 7 file
New Reply on thread #430
Max 20 files0 B total