Anonymous 12/27/22(Tue)22:54:41 No.90556484 >>90556407 Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while is What this means is that for each year the

Anonymous 12/27/22(Tue)22:54:41 No.90556484
>>90556407
Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to
FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while is
What this means is that for each year the 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.
started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if try to play
any of the tracks downloaded back then, even the stuff
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 two, you'll be glad you did.
>>90556496 >>90557263 >>90559315