Do MP3s degrade in quality over time?

[123456789A]

Th s pos was cr a d 50 y rs a o wit MP te hn logy.

It l st in o beca se it w s on a ID h r dr ve.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Thank the tech gods for error checking. ('specially for scratch-prone CDs).

[Veedems Veteran]

The velocidensity has nothing to do with it. It's about the quality of the fabrication of the alomar plates within the drives themselves. Lower quality plates will have inconsistent spin ups which can, through centrifugal force, scatter the files across the surface of the drive. Error checking, by most media software, will place priority on continuous playback instead of fragment seeking, so the missing fragments are simply ignored. The interface of the drive has nothing to do with it, either. It's all about the quality of the alomar plates and how well the drive is built, overall. If the drive is poorly built, you can try changing it's mounting position every few months so that the forces are reversed and keep everything centered.

lol

[Draconian Guppy]

^^ what he said :|

[raid0]

I will lose my files soon since I encode my music to eAAC+ @ 24kbps (sounds the same as 128 kbps mp3) lol

[Raa]

Lol troll topic is troll.

MP3's, let alone anything on a hard drive doesn't "degrade over time".

Some conditions apply.

[Vice]

The velocidensity has nothing to do with it. It's about the quality of the fabrication of the alomar plates within the drives themselves. Lower quality plates will have inconsistent spin ups which can, through centrifugal force, scatter the files across the surface of the drive. Error checking, by most media software, will place priority on continuous playback instead of fragment seeking, so the missing fragments are simply ignored. The interface of the drive has nothing to do with it, either. It's all about the quality of the alomar plates and how well the drive is built, overall. If the drive is poorly built, you can try changing it's mounting position every few months so that the forces are reversed and keep everything centered.

Trolling score 10/10 :laugh:

[shockz]

The velocidensity has nothing to do with it. It's about the quality of the fabrication of the alomar plates within the drives themselves. Lower quality plates will have inconsistent spin ups which can, through centrifugal force, scatter the files across the surface of the drive. Error checking, by most media software, will place priority on continuous playback instead of fragment seeking, so the missing fragments are simply ignored. The interface of the drive has nothing to do with it, either. It's all about the quality of the alomar plates and how well the drive is built, overall. If the drive is poorly built, you can try changing it's mounting position every few months so that the forces are reversed and keep everything centered.

If you remodulate the secondary theta inhibitor to counter the effects of gravitational distortions, lower quality alomar plates shouldn't be affected.

[ceminess]

[/color]

If you remodulate the secondary theta inhibitor to counter the effects of gravitational distortions, lower quality alomar plates shouldn't be affected.

However, that technique is not to be trusted. The secondary theta inhibitor will degrade and eventually fail over time thus causing the alomar plates to shift out of position and become misaligned.

[123456789A]

However, that technique is not to be trusted. The secondary theta inhibitor will degrade and eventually fail over time thus causing the alomar plates to shift out of position and become misaligned.

Not if you use a gravitronic pulse inverter module.

[Draconian Guppy]

[/color]

If you remodulate the secondary theta inhibitor to counter the effects of gravitational distortions, lower quality alomar plates shouldn't be affected.

However, that technique is not to be trusted. The secondary theta inhibitor will degrade and eventually fail over time thus causing the alomar plates to shift out of position and become misaligned.

Not if you use a gravitronic pulse inverter module.

what?? :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

[xtrabit racing]

ahahhahha i want to met your friend and hear these direcly from him :))))

[+LightEco Subscriber²]

Could you imagine? Constantly having to make sure your files are staying "fresh". Oops, my Word doc just passed its expiration date! haha.

[TruckWEB]

This should be moved in the JOKE section.....

[Draconian Guppy]

or locked... Stupid thread is just stupid... But then again... There are NO stupid questions... :sigh: :unsure:

[Gaffney]

I put a Linkin Park album onto my 10 year old hard drive, I just listened to it and it degraded into Justin Bieber?

[Knife Party]

Not if you use a gravitronic pulse inverter module.

or better yet, 'as an expert' I would recommend you keep your hdd's in a refrigerator to slow down digital degradation, no seriously bro' ! :rofl:

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

I was having a discussion with a good friend of mine on the difference between FLAC and mp3(320). He made a very startling claim that I didn't think was possible, he told me "Well yes. 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."

Is there any merit to what he just said?

OMG Hahahahahahaha Now that's funny.

Lossless refers to the compression used in converting the audio file, a lossless format is one which does not lose any fidelity when converted, that's why the filesizes are always much higher than, for example, mp3s. The trade-off in quality is the size of the finished file.

[Draconian Guppy]

or better yet, 'as an expert' I would recommend you keep your hdd's in a refrigerator to slow down digital degradation, no seriously bro' ! :rofl:

Bro tip, use magnets inside the refrigerator!

[Hum]

Dude that's really grabbing for an explanation. It's bits and bytes. The ONLY way that file is going to lose anything is in a botched copy or format conversion. Period.

But I forget, you start UFO threads. :rolleyes:

No idea what UFOs have to do with MP3s.

Any magnetic recording surface can degrade over time.

I was not saying that MP3 files automatically become less quality.

I was pointing out that you should back up ANY files, to more than one source.

[Buttus]

I bought a mystery novel online and waited too long to finish it, and now the end has degraded and i can't find out who commited the crime! AARRGGHHH

[Shadrack]

Back when I was in college I was in a communications course and there was this guy giving a speech on how people should buy audio CDs because MP3s are copied over-and-over-and-over and that will degrade them. I about fell out of my seat laughing.

[mattm591]

I was having a discussion with a good friend of mine on the difference between FLAC and mp3(320). He made a very startling claim that I didn't think was possible, he told me "Well yes. 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."

Is there any merit to what he just said?

Haha.

[Ryanjmchale]

Haha... and with that logic, 12kbps MP3's completely vanish in 1 year.

Ask him about PCI-X SSD's I need another laugh. :)

[inactive]

people still have not really mentioned that a quality made MP3 (i.e. LAME (LAME v3.99.3) @ v2 setting (average of around 190kbps) it's very unlikely the vast majority of people would be able to detect it from the original when you do a ABX test (which you can do using Foobar2000 with the ABX plugin) as that's pretty much only way to prove if you can as ill bet there are many people out there who 'believe' they can hear a difference but when you actually do a ABX Test ill bet most will do a lot worse than they think they will.

hell, i would be willing to bet most people won't even be able to detect a LAME v5 (average of 130kbps) encoded MP3 from the original FLAC file on most music. but yet still people claim MP3 sucks and FLAC is great but in the real world ABX tests say differently and it's just not worth using FLAC on most portable devices due to storage space reasons either ;)

just doing a ABX test on myself on some random music files i have... once i hit 100kbps (i.e. q0.35) on Nero's AAC Encoder i can't tell the differenece between the original FLAC file as to me that's the sweet spot for getting smallest possible file size with basically same sound quality as the original. although if your hearing is above average you can probably detect a difference but i would be willing to bet most people won't be able to notice much if any difference between the original FLAC vs a 100kbps AAC (.m4a) file (Nero AAC Encoder v1.5.4.0 @ q0.35) and if they can it won't be super easy to detect especially on most music.

p.s. i still prefer keeping the original FLAC files on my PC (or other backup copies) as then if you ever need to re-rip to whatever lossy format you want you can do it quickly using Foobar2000 and convert to basically any format/bit rate you want be it MP3/MPC/AAC/OGG etc.