20 years ago i downloaded prodigy album to enjoy on my pentium II machine
>>109590858do you really play the old aoe II online?
>>109591295i haven't tried aoeII online, although i played unreal tournament internet multiplayer few years ago
>>109590858> mp3disgusting.2006 was well into the broadband era, should have been fully into wav/flac at that point.
>>109590858And today you can download prodigy album to enjoy on your Intel i3/5/7/9/whatever/AMD Ryzen 3/5/whateverthefuck.I'll take "it's all the same shit" for dinner, Kevin.
>>109591859we were using satellite during that timesea cable 2oO9 flatrate in dec 2O16
>>109591859
>>109591937I'd edit the audio so I could enjoy my equipment further. Being an audiophile without knowing how to edit audio files is the same as having mommy issues without getting a goth mommy to softly say sweet things in your ear,
>>109590858>downloaded prodigy album... and you got out of jail only today?
>>109591937wav/flac is not audiophile. Its the bare minimum. If you were to use food as an analogy, mp3 is Indian street vendor.
20 years ago I almost had sex.
>>109592202Jesus Christ bro. Not even mp3 deserves that.
>>109590858whats OP's pic is from?
>>109592435it's 2026 pal. we're in very luxurious times to not even need to pay anything lower than wav/flac any mind, that's not an audiofool thing.
>>109592634I think that's school days>>109591937too much text
>>109592435We have Vorbis audio. And now Opus. And... You get the idea.
>>109590858got lost on your way to /trash/?
>>109590858>I GOT THE POISON>I GOT THE MELODY
>>109591859Good luck getting cable, most people were on 0.5-2meg
Anyway, greatest electronic act of all time. I salute you.
>>1095918592006 was only about five years after the availability of broadband. in some areas the rollout was not complete. even then, it was still copper based and only a fraction of the 1g fiber which is common in most metro areas in the usa for example. so 2006 was considered early broadband era for residential customers.
>>109593451i switched from dialup to adsl in 2006. 4Mbps down for the first 4GB, then 64kbps for anything past that.naturally, it was 64kbps a lot of the time, but it was still much better than dialup because latency was lower and it was always available, i downloaded way more stuff because i could do it 24/7
>>109593474in 2002 we got coax broadband. never had adsl but some frens did. iirc, it was like 10/1 in the beginning and increased to 25/5 later on. i remember early 4chan days. anon would post a high-res image and say "56k no way." in those days high-res was like 1280x1024. lifetimes ago
>>109593554first time i even saw someone with broadband was in 2004, someone i knew had it it was 256k down and i believe 64k up. idk what his cap was but it can't have been bad since i got a lot of anime from him (he actually introduced me to anime, at least as a concept separate to the few dubbed ones that were on tv)
And you've been shitposting about it that entire time too.kys
>>109593451>>109593424I used to pirate dvd-rips (not re-encoded) on 0.5mb. Sure torrents might take weeks to complete, but you just had to be patient.
>>109595403i used to download dvd-rips on dial up. only ones i couldn't find at my local rental store, but still ended up with quite a few before i got broadband.it'd take about 4-5 nights of downloading each. nights because of tying up the phone line, at one point i had a compaq deskpro setup on the floor with blankets laid on top of it so my family wouldn't complain about noise, with cardboard tubes poking out to let air flow through it and that was my limewire box
>>109591859>>109592202What are you even babbling aboutThat just depends on the bitrateMP3 320kbps is completely transparent - meaning indistinguishable from FLAC to human ears.
>>109595465"320kbps" with relation to mp3 actually holds no special meaning in terms of quality, it's actually just the maximum the format supports. i doubt there's anybody on the planet who can tell between 256kbps and 320kbps mp3. 320 is just what you pick if you have something that only supports mp3 and space isn't limited
>>109590858is this your main PC?
>>109590858kys fag
>>109591937Not enough sneks
>>109595465>>109595477oh also, we're long past needing to worry about the storage requirement difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac. flac's vary in bitrate a lot naturally because they are simply the bitrate required for a certain track, you can't set it. but it's usually under 1000kbps, probably on average around 800kbps or so. a few times larger than mp3's.... so what? storage devices are 1000x bigger than they were when mp3 was the new hot shit. i know it's a bad time to say storage is cheap, but compared to 20 years ago it's still cheap.somehow people are fine with moving from 1500kbps dvd rip movies to 8000kbps bluray rips, but not 320kbps album rips to 800kbps album rips.
>>109595477mp3packer losslessly turns 320kbps mp3s to around 300.
>>109595465transparent is a self fulfilling prophesy. Constant exposure to lossy audio causes cumulative brain damage until you can no longer hear the details removed lossy compression. And the bit-rate you consider "transparent" creeps lower and lower, as your capability to hear is further destroyed.Lossy audio should be illegal. Software capable of encoding lossy audio should be highly illegal and policed similar to the possession of class-A drugs.
>>109595520never heard of that, pretty neat, but completely irrelevant to what i said
>>109595465you *can* train yourself to hear specific mp3 loss inherent to any bitrate but I don't recommend that, ruins your enjoyment for no good reason.
>>109593416>*REMEDY*>I GOT THE REMEDY>I GOT THE PULSATING RHYTHMICAL REMEDYhttps://youtu.be/-rrK1wISAfg?t=19yu stoopid fuck
>>109595477>>109595524>>109595514>B-But I can actually tell the difference and...>I'm using the gold cables!
>>109595605I don't even listen to music anymore. There is no point, this entire timeline is ruined beyond repair.
>>109595605i'm 2 of those posts and not only did i not suggest i could tell the difference, one of them i literally said nobody could tell the difference
>>109595626can't even imagine being this jaded, truly soulless
>>109590858going to see them live tomorrow night.
>>109595605The "difference" can be calculated by capturing the audio output and cross comparing it against the original fileAny "audiophile" who relies on feels and booming bass instead of signal analysis and accurate reproduction is a snake oil salesman that deserves to be mockedAudio is a science like accurate color reproduction on monitors
>>109592213Same, an old dude wanted to take photos of me. I never saw him again. Must've decided I was too ugly to traffic.
>>109595524Your hopeless bitching and moaning makes me happy.
>>109595605>crusty jpeg anime reaction image>fucktarded opinionyep checks
>>109597045>>109595626>>109595734>>109596428this is youhttps://youtu.be/ZfWwCfN8TO0?si=z52ng-3c7kPlWyNN
>>109592202Audiophiles are full of shit. Put two good quality files to play and they won't have a clue which is which
>>109600381flac/wav is not audiophile.
