• @finitebanjo
    link
    12
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Technically, an issue with lossy formats is if they get saved, moved, and/or re-encoded then there is a risk of media degrading over time, over iterations. So you could potentially hear the difference.

    But FLAC is lossless.

    If the user likes the MP3 sound better then clearly they actually enjoy the lossy hum and buzz of compressed audio. I’m sure they would enjoy Vinyl.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Yes, transcoding. At least re-encoding, I’m not sure if simply moving the file degrades it…

      All of this talk is making me miss what.cd. You’d get the boot if you uploaded a transcode

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        152 minutes ago

        What.cd was the greatest collection of obscure music the planet has probably ever seen. I dont even particularly care about lossless codecs, I was fine with 320kb/s mp3 as it was more convenient but even their mp3 rips were way better than other places, and you knew everything would be tagged and sorted correctly. And they had EVERYTHING you could think of, it was wild.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 hours ago

      I like to witness this grey area in between misconceptions that comes up with a hybridation of absurd takes and obvious truth.

      It’s a file, if you get it fucked by copying it will just break, not “degrade” in sound quality.

      If you reencode a lossy encoded file you will turbofuck it, obviously.

    • @Valmond
      link
      28 hours ago

      That’s not really correct.

      If you re-encode (at the same level) you could not lose some of the signals, but maybe you will.

      If you lose data when “saving or moving” then both the formats are at risk.