|
do you think it's stupid that they don't put tracklistings (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| KilldaDJ |
i rar all my flac sets
/hipster cat |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
oh , has Del censored the log out-link? :haha: only on TA |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
oh , has Del censored the log out-link? :haha: only on TA |
Use tinyurl noob. :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Use tinyurl noob. :p |
Pppfttt.... the Japanese are way better at this! At least they know how to control minds :D
 |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Use tinyurl noob. :p |
brain not always work too good early morning no sleep
+ i didnt check the link before/after posting it? |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Pppfttt.... the Japanese are way better at this! At least they know how to control minds :D
|
i did absolutely not click that several times while scratching my head wondering what kind of lame film that was.
and im not being sarcastic at all. |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
That's a bit tricky, though, due to the differences that develop over time. For instance, 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. A lot of that would become increasingly inaccurate over time if posted. |
Interesting. Is there a source on this? |
|
|
| aquila |
lol sucker:stongue: |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chimney
Interesting. Is there a source on this? |
Oh, the irony. :stongue:
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. |
|
|
| Viber |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
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. |
http://www.google.co.il/search?sour...sound+like+crap
 |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| Anyone enjoy listening to a mix and not knowing the songs being played? |
|
|
|
|
