Current year

>current year
>still using .mp3

Please tell me you don't...

Attached: Lossy vs Lossless.png (1512x2649, 791K)

>present day
>present time

Who cares

>current year
>still going on Jow Forums
SAD!

Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO.

Those charts don't tell us anything. A proper Flac rip with high quality headphones and a mp3 comparison do more.

i convert mp3's to FALC and upload it to TPB. comments are always "wow it's so amazing" but those idiots don't know it's just reencoded mp3s hahahahaha

Now this is epic.
Alexa play Ottoman March.

You have to go back.

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.

SO. MUCH. THIS!!!!!!

What the fuck, didn't know that was a thing. Are you for real?

>HAHAHAHA

Yes this is pretty common info. Vinyl is immune to this as long as you store it in an air sealed container.

Why do you think pic related is a thing? It helps mitigate that, it won't fix it, but it helps greatly.

Attached: sata hdd audio filter.jpg (3840x2160, 183K)

>new iterations of velocidensitypasta.png

Attached: 130221984383.jpg (600x578, 45K)

>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.


Fucking troll.

Short answer; No.

Long answer; No, MP3 files, or any other digital files do not degrade over time. The only risk is due to hardware failures, such as bad sectors or total disc failure. This is where backups come in.

FLAC does indeed have better quality, but that has nothing to do with degradation.

If you have to ask yourself this question you don't belong on /g

Attached: 1531127740808.jpg (583x640, 89K)

It's pasta

It's fine if you use the latest .LAME encoder at 245kbps VBR

Just started this today

Kinda weird but not bad

I bought a mystery novel online and waited too long to finish it, and now the end has degraded and i can't find out who commited the crime! AARRGGHHH

Back when I was in college I was in a communications course and there was this guy giving a speech on how people should buy audio CDs because MP3s are copied over-and-over-and-over and that will degrade them. I about fell out of my seat laughing.

is this bait? wtf

what a douche lol

Your ears can't hear more than 16kHz per second.

How much money do people charge for stuff like that cause I have orCAD and it would take my like 5 minutes to whip up a similar PCB. Sounds like easy money selling to idiots.

Where to even start on how bullshit this image is?
>little or no protection mechanism
True. Wav doesn't either though. If you're worried about this, store it in a filesystem that detects errors or put it inside an archive format that does. These random bit errors will generally not degrade the quality so much as add VERY audible glitches.
>mp3 can store more than 100 songs
What are we using, data CDs? You can easily fit thousands of uncompressed songs on a hard disk.
>faster for older PC
Objectively false. Take a 33 MHz 486 for instance. It's too slow to decode and play a MP3 file in real time, but has no trouble playing a CD quality wav file, even while doing other tasks.
>Degrades over time
Again false. It degrades when you re-save it. Playing, storing or copying it does not degrade it unless you're re-encoding it.
>Professional use
A 320 kbps MP3 will be fine for music in a youtube video. It's going to be encoded at a lower quality and then re-encoded by Youtube to send to viewers anyway. Still, FLAC would be a better choice for this or if you're planning to edit later.

>wav: chances of corruption are very slight
Again false. A bit error will often but not always be an audible click, but also often be more subtle.
>maximum quality
True. But FLAC gives the same quality and the same wav file when decoded, at a smaller size.
>Louder
Bullshit. No format lets you exceed the dynamic range of the PCM audio format you're encoding.
>Huge file size
Yes. Use FLAC to partially fix this, or go with a minimally lossy high quality format like Opus or AAC.

oh look, the autistic flac shill has arrived
why lie on the internet?

Attached: flac elephant.png (800x800, 370K)

>I need lossless quality of silent audio
if you use anything but v0 you're an idiot. if you can't hear a dog whistle you can't hear the quality flac gives over mp3, and you can't hear a dog whistle.

AND YOU DONT SEEM TO UNDERSTAAAAAAAAND

>803kb
>file is 370kb

really makes you think

at least it's a png

Attached: when to use png.jpg (600x900, 52K)

wtf

a) PNG is still compressed. It's just lossless compression.
b) Comparing png/jpg isn't the same as lossless/lossy audio codecs. There are instances, where png leads to smaller files than jpgs.
c) jpg with its generation loss is probably the worst contender to represent lossy compression.

Attached: flac elephant.png (800x800, 321K)

Fuck off newfags.

Happily whatever that image format derived from AV1 kills both jpg and png, gif animations too.

Hahahaha le ebin troll xD
This will surely confuse the newer users of the board!

I thought .mp3 only loses data from the conversion process coming from lossless. Do they really leak data over time?

Tfw you can't tell who's trolling who anymore

Who are you quoting?

>not exclusively listening to music from youtube rips

I use spotify

Nah mang, I use high bitrate AAC for most stuff these days. Plays on almost everything unlike Opus etc, and quality is more than good enough.

You know your "uncompressed" elephant contains jpeg artifacts, right? The source of that image was an average-quality jpg on the internet, so using it as a comparison is like saving a youtube rip to FLAC and then telling us all how is sounds no better than a 128 kbps mp3.

What about opus? I kinda relate flac with autism so that bothers me.

What a shitty useless spectrogram infograph. It doesn't even state the obvious that mp3s saves space because it replaces data using a white noise generator above 10k and below 100hz on a good day. It's why your cymbals sound like a garbage hiss and lows are horribly inaccurate

No professional uses mp3s and no mastering engineer has ever chosen flac over wav ever. Never will, specially when you can dither to flac

Cant

FLAC is a storage format and doesn't dictate anything about the processing before or after saving as it. It restricts options like dithering in a similar way to zipping and then unzipping your wav file would. A decoded FLAC is literally the same PCM stream that went in. Dithering is a thing that happens either when producing that PCM from IEEE 32-bit floats, or when playing it, neither of which FLAC plays any role in.

Pros don't use FLAC while editing for the same reason they don't zip their wav files mid project: saving as plain old wav is faster and disk space is cheap. It also isn't an editor project with lots of tracks.

Wow, there is a lot of fucking false information in this thread. Not only that, but a lot of misunderstandings about algorithms in general.

Jesus fucking christ, how do you live with such false ideas about how things work?

I guess pretty fine since you believe what you're actually putting on the internet is true...

Well... It's not.

I haven't read a single post in this entire thread that is actually.... factual.

What if I told you, the file format matters less than the actual audio engineering and spatial noise.

You might just lose your shit since you think FLAC / MP3 / WAV actually matter when it comes to quality audio.

Kind of sad. You should take an actual audio engineering class and realize how little what all of you are arguing about matters.

Only actual audio engineer in this thread.

>rip music from youtube
>convert to FLAC
>upload to PB, KAT etc.
>get tonne of praise on the audio quality
>one guy even wants to donate
Quality is negligible you retard.

>degrades overtime
rotational velocidensity is no joke

>TPB
2/10 you tried

>redditors first day on Jow Forums

so 128 kbps mp3 is the same quality as FLAC amirite? (considering it wasnt mastered to be "lo-fi")

>albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps
How the fuck would a digital file degrade over time?
What the fuck are you talking about.

You're using a fat PNG when your image could have been 50kb

Guarantee you will fail a double blind listening test between 320kbps mp3, wav and flac. Confirmation bias is a helluva a drug.

opus is ideal

Attached: comparison.jpg (800x1200, 950K)

It's an old meme called rotational velocidensity

>changing goalposts
i accept your concession

If there's anything that the png optimization autist who was here some time ago taught me, it's that any png can be made smaller. So yeah your fat png could probably be 50 KB too.

i use AAC

Attached: aac.png (386x498, 103K)

based and redpilled

only a tech illiterate would disagree

>Those charts don't tell us anything.

They don't tell anything to you. What are you doing on Jow Forums if you cant read charts?

Attached: 1390254764894.png (370x398, 285K)

you cant even tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and lossless formats

I hear this a lot that mp3 degrade in quality overtime, how does that happen? its digital and stored in pc, I am really confused

Good luck finding anything in that format or converting your library otherwise.

I spent years learning how to play stringed instruments, then brass instruments, then percussion instruments. I did all of this so when the music is no longer available on your computer drives, I can hijack it and replace it with my own.

(But seriously, I've learned all that shit. Don't fuck up reading recorded music, you won't like it when I reinterpret it. I'm a huge Glen Campbell fan.)

Why would that be possible? Do JPEG images also degrade over time? It's nonsense.

I still use atrac 292kbps brother. Atrac3 132kbps if I dont care and atrac3 66kbps for spoken word. If im feeling real fancy, maybe even atrac3+ at 256kbps.

This is my favorite pasta

png and jpg have different strengths.
Here a quick comparison, starting with the original png.

Attached: scrot.png (1272x556, 24K)

This jpg was converted via imagemagick. I chose quality 75 to show that you introduce noticeable compression artifacts before you could beat the png's size. Using the default quality (92) would result in a 67KiB jpg.

All files were optimized via ECT.

Attached: scrot75.jpg (1272x556, 35K)

Why aren't they sleeping together. I thought they were faggots.

reddit, the post.

A SHAME, YOU SEEMED AN HONEST MAN

Attached: Dancing_Lain.gif (800x533, 3.69M)

This is the most stupid post i have ever read
Every bit of data rots over time, mp3 has literally no protection for high frequency sound data

>come to Jow Forums because someone said the schizo templeOS guy is dead
>see this thread
>can't tell if bait or a legit issue with mp3

Attached: 1458869851558.gif (276x252, 585K)

/thread

youtube-dl -x

Everything this fool says is false

Everything this gentleman says is true

Yeah, because YouTube is known for being the source of uncompressed lossless music. They even have proprietary compression algorithms.

the amount of people that unironically try to point out all the 'mistakes' in those decade old pastas and bait images is astounding.

Attached: epic fart jokes.gif (1024x737, 142K)

>Can your eyes tell the difference between these two images?
>Neither can your ears.
wew

What alternatives for Opus encodes, other than encoding from FLAC, do you knoww then?

You don't find FLAC audio on YouTube now, do you? That's what I was referring to.

If you upload lossless they'll encode lossless, right?

bait aside, V0 is superior to 320 in every way.

>my ears can't tell the difference between those two images
Thanks sherlock.

This image is so ridiculously stupid, it really is unbelievable.
Even posting it shows that you understand literally nothing about how images work.

To have a proper comparison post the *actual* raw file in a lossless format and then the lossy files.
It is ridiculously dumb to embed them both in another image, especially a FUCKING 800 by 800 image when the original was most definitely much larger.

EVEN THE FUCKING FACT THAT YOUR IMAGE IS SMALLER THEN THE PNG SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING.

lol

I don't know who's trolling who but I know this thread is comedy gold

No. iirc they use OPUS now

(reddit)nigger