He hasn't converted his mp3s to flac yet

>but if there isn't any easy lossless resources
>login
>type what i want
>download
that's easy imo

I think I can hear the difference actually

>not converting to WAV

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-27 at 1.54.54 PM.png (792x476, 147K)

I don't know if the posts are bait or not

Fucking retard. Mp3s still lose data annually due to rotational velocidensity. Converting to FLAC preserves your music.

Attached: 361e73f3.jpg (2048x1536, 725K)

>digital files will degrade

>mp3s to flac

Attached: 1537220433429.jpg (399x687, 52K)

>what are lossy formats

hownu.ru

mp3 that is above 256kbps is not in any capacity an improvement, unless you print out the audio stats instead of listening to it.
Whenever I used the 320kbps settings, even with such overkill quality mp3's were much smaller than flac's of the same files. Flac is the bmp of audio. Why use it when you can have 1000% quality progressive jpeg's, unless you actually edit the files?

>bmp
> fucking botnet format
youre a retard. flac is the png of audio formats, mp3 is the jpg

fucking retard

>flac is the png of audio formats, mp3 is the jpg
Not really. Unlike FLAC compared to MP3, PNG can produce smaller files than JPG depending of the picture's content.

I am concerned by the amount of people in this thread that can't read into jokes as clear as OPs.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you newshits?
Do we need some kind of [this post is a joke] warning before you get it?

>lossless formats are a joke
people like you disgust me

I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University 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.

Why use either of those when AAC exists?

Pleb poorfag. I've already converted my DVD to M-XPM.

>not de-gaussing your HDs regularly to clean off the digital dust

>tfw you're just sifting through different densities of shit

>He downloads the MP3 version instead of FLAC
fify

i'm looking forward to posts in a few days from people who did this, thx op

You know, every time I read something like this I wonder if something actually happened there. Like, maybe this guy's FLAC decompressor was buggy.
Nice.

All retard audiophiles must die

opus is GOAT

>tfw you fell for the lossy to lossless conversion meme

WavPack is better than either, preserves all WAV header bullshit unlike FLAC, and the hybrid mode (lossy compression + correction file) is brilliant.

Poe's law.

This reads like satire

>Anonymous 10/27/18(Sat)14:28:12 No.68244585▶
> (OP)
>i'm looking forward to posts in a few days from people who did this, thx op
click
codecFLACaudio hz ffmpeg
diamond

Attached: test-normal__instr-x86.jpg (10x10, 702)

This reads like satire

i am become OP
destroyer of threads

This reads like satire

No you can't silly user.

Attached: boom.webm (480x360, 785K)

No, it doesn't.

based and redpilled

OP is a master baiter