Stop using MP3

Associate
Joined
7 Jun 2009
Posts
388
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.
 
You should see my JPEG compressed porn after a few years... degrades like crazy... or maybe thats due to something else :S
 
Do you think he actually read that somewhere and genuinely believed it.

Thanks for the advice mate... you know UK bread goes stale in three days but USA bread takes 3 weeks to go stale.
 
Last edited:
I have my first ever MP3 i downloaded in 1999 playing right now, 128kbs MP3 named even the same as i downloaded "loca-tnpg"

Ricky Martin - Livin la vida loca. Sound quality is as bad as the day i downloaded it....

Not sure why i still have it tbh but it certainly didnt reduce in quality over the hundreds of copies from hard drive to hard drive over the years.
 
Do you think he actually read that somewhere and genuinely believed it.

Thanks for the advice mate... you know UK bread goes stale in three days but USA bread takes 3 weeks to go stale.
Heh, I remember seeing an article in the paper comparing photos of a burger and fries bought from Maccy Ds or similar from when it was bought and then a year later just being left uneaten. You could barely tell the difference.
 
i guess were he is, it might be april fool all year round in the insane asylum... and i am sure FLAC take more space so that mean you would need a mainframe NAS to store all your music if you are a collector like me with 300+ old classics
 
In all seriousness I find my old mp3s that I ripped years ago at 192kb/s almost unlistenable - especially if they have prominent cymbals. If I rip at 192kb/s now it's not so bad.

Why? I put it down to better encoding (I use LAME these days) and the fact that W7 and Vista don't resample from 44.1khz to 48khz like XP used to. I rip most of my music as lossless now but still use mp3s for portable listening.
 
Back
Top Bottom