Soc Gdt

[vikingshadow]

^^^Agreed!

It's srs business for those little tricycle motors....

[HelpDeskHustler]

Just got around to sorting some music... 300GB of flac, no repeats. I'm in trouble if they come knocking.

[UKwithPride]

Originally Posted by marvin-martian

People need to learn how to drink without being retarded/almost killing yourself. Speaking of, played a drinking game last night with some random guy in a tavern (skyrim). Best quest ever.

*Like*

[marvin-martian]

Originally Posted by HelpDeskHustler

Just got around to sorting some music... 300GB of flac, no repeats. I'm in trouble if they come knocking.

lol audiophile .flac. So that's like two albums right?

[HelpDeskHustler]

Originally Posted by marvin-martian

lol audiophile .flac. So that's like two albums right?

I'm an archiver. It's not that I can't listen to 320kb/s because it's not good enough for me or my speakers. It's that I don't believe in mp3 format. I honestly can't tell the difference for 99% of songs at 320kb/s on my headphones (Logitech g930) and 85% of songs on a Klipsch 5.1 system over fiber optic. That doesn't mean that I have any desire to "save space" or store lesser quality files. My desire is to have 1 copy of that song, and never need to have a new copy of it. My copies are CD's -- there's no need in the future for me to find a new version. If a friend comes to me and wants 192kb/s, that's his choice -- I can generate the best 192kb/s file possible from the non-lossy version, not the 320kb/s version. I'm not an audiophile, and I only listen to music on occassion. I have it because I'm the data master, and it's desire to have information and have it be correct.

Also, you can mock flac all you want, but I'll just mock you for being too cheap to get more storage. Flac files are (on average) 3x as much information (excluding the value of having that information be lossless) as a 320kb/s rip and fit in only 2x the space of a 320kb/s mp3 rip. 300GB of flac is roughly 12,000 songs. @$30/500GB in hard drives (aside from the Thailand flooding inflation right now) I'd say that my space investment was worth it.

Having lossless information is, to me, much more valuable than having a few more GB of space I wasn't using anyway. WIth lossless audio, I can rip from multiples of the same cd and reduce rip errors, you couldn't even do that with an OGG level 9 file and be sure you weren't messing with compressed bytes.

[Team Ramrod]

Originally Posted by HelpDeskHustler

I'm an archiver. It's not that I can't listen to 320kb/s because it's not good enough for me or my speakers. It's that I don't believe in mp3 format. I honestly can't tell the difference for 99% of songs at 320kb/s on my headphones (Logitech g930) and 85% of songs on a Klipsch 5.1 system over fiber optic. That doesn't mean that I have any desire to "save space" or store lesser quality files. My desire is to have 1 copy of that song, and never need to have a new copy of it. My copies are CD's -- there's no need in the future for me to find a new version. If a friend comes to me and wants 192kb/s, that's his choice -- I can generate the best 192kb/s file possible from the non-lossy version, not the 320kb/s version. I'm not an audiophile, and I only listen to music on occassion. I have it because I'm the data master, and it's desire to have information and have it be correct.

Also, you can mock flac all you want, but I'll just mock you for being too cheap to get more storage. Flac files are (on average) 3x as much information (excluding the value of having that information be lossless) as a 320kb/s rip and fit in only 2x the space of a 320kb/s mp3 rip. 300GB of flac is roughly 12,000 songs. @$30/500GB in hard drives (aside from the Thailand flooding inflation right now) I'd say that my space investment was worth it.

Having lossless information is, to me, much more valuable than having a few more GB of space I wasn't using anyway. WIth lossless audio, I can rip from multiples of the same cd and reduce rip errors, you couldn't even do that with an OGG level 9 file and be sure you weren't messing with compressed bytes.

TL;DR? :maybedodgy:

[HelpDeskHustler]

Originally Posted by Team Ramrod

TL;DR? :maybedodgy:

Flac isn't that big; it's better not just for quality but also in a practical sense than mp3 for my storage purposes.

[marvin-martian]

I just see no point in getting larger files if I'm not going to notice a difference. You keeping them in that format in order to be a purest is respectable, I just see no practical use for it other than having it. I have been burning mp3 files onto cds for years and have experienced very few, if any problems provided the files you have are good.

[HelpDeskHustler]

I don't think you'll notice everyday, but you'll notice if you use your music a lot for more than just listening. If you manipulate songs, you'll notice, or if you listen to the cd version as a comparison, you might notice. But the reason I keep it isn't that you'll notice on the master copy, but that you'll notice when you re-encode it for somebody or some other reason. Compression loss is multiplicitive, so if you were to ask me to encode mp3 from my collection, you'd get a copy with 'x' distortion. If I had a collection of mp3 and you wanted ogg of the same level, the distortion would go up to 'xy' distortion. I re-encode for a number of reasons and I have a reputation for having things people need. My dad keeps a collection of .ogg L6 audio on a media center and I periodically give him music. My friends use mp3 320, 192 and 128 (I become an audiophile at about 128 and rarely allow them to take anything lower) for their mp3 players and periodically pull music from me. I've used my music collection for sampling in projects which have involved slowing and distorting that might have issues with mp3 artefacts. Flac has been very good to me, and as I said, to my untrained ear, about 15% of the songs that I have sound clearer and more correct in flac than mp3, 320. Usually the artefacts are negligible, but I can see how somebody with a background in music and a good set of speakers might notice problems, especially at louder volumes.

[UKwithPride]