[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 87 KB, 640x480, 1304784967294.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3011939 No.3011939 [Reply] [Original]

Explain:

>Rotational Velocidensity

>> No.3011971

That's just...wait...shit

>> No.3011968

>>3011939
>Explain

>I sell you the box for $30

where do you think that $30 coming from? that person lost $10

>> No.3011978

>>3011968
And that children is how investment works.

>> No.3011988

He puts in 20 and then 30 buying it. Total of 50 he gave and gained 40. He lost 10

>> No.3011994

angular velocity multiplied by density?

>> No.3011995

A is -$20, B is -$20, A gives B $30 now A is -$50 and B is +$10 then A opens box and is -10$ and B is +$10

>> No.3012000

This isnt even a complicated trollscience.

Rotational Velocidensity is a measure of the accuracy and stability of your hard drive platters. A lower velocidensity means faster read speeds, but generally less stability.

>> No.3012003

>>3011988
I get it.

>> No.3012004

so he pays $30 fo $20

what?

>> No.3012007

It's the theory (a guess) of the degredation of digital audio.

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.

>> No.3012014

I'm pretty sure this rotational velocidensity is part of some troll copypasta winding up audiophiles

Or did everyone already realise this

>> No.3012016

>>3012007

This is so much of trollfest than OP pic.

>> No.3012032

>>3012007
>>3012014

Ok, it's a troll then.

Thank you sci.

>> No.3012038

>>3012032

Lol, enjoy your shitty entry-level audio.

>> No.3012061

>>3012038

You came from /mu/?

>> No.3012083

>>3012007

amazing post

>> No.3012093

Left: -$20
Right: -$20

L: -$20+$30 = $10
R: -$20-$30+$40 = -$10

L: $10
R: -$10

How is this even troll science?

>> No.3012096
File: 48 KB, 533x594, lolwut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3012096

>>3012007
What the fuck am I reading?

>> No.3012100

>>3012093
Read this >>3012007

>> No.3012111
File: 38 KB, 640x2400, mp3rotationalvelocidensity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3012111

Rotational velocidensity is actually real, although academically it's not exactly what 4chan trolls claim it is, it has the same effect.

Pic related, it's from a study at MIT.

>> No.3012118

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.


Ok, I want to give a brofist to the individual who made that shit up.

>> No.3012116

>>3012096
copypasta.

>> No.3012129

>>3012111 although academically it's not exactly what 4chan trolls claim it is, it has the same effect.

explain

>> No.3012136

>>3012111
>no axis labels

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.3012138

>>3012111

>MIT

HA!

>> No.3012156

>Rotational velocidensity is actually real, although academically it's not exactly what 4chan trolls claim it is, it has the same effect.

EXPLAIN

>> No.3012158

>>3012156
>>3012138
>>3012136

I was just joking, relax.

>> No.3012170

>>3012158

Commendable troll, brother.

>> No.3012195

>>3012136
It's an MP3, so it's clearly Milliseconds per Amplitude vs Sieverts.

Duh

>> No.3012464

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/451369/why-flac-is-better

I only started frequenting this board recently, so don't know it copypasta. But troll, yes. Indeed.

>> No.3012474

>>3012464
My mistake: if*, not it.

>> No.3012493

There's a digital dust copypasta that goes with the rotational velocidensity one. I don't have it saved though.

>> No.3012507
File: 84 KB, 486x660, audiophile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3012507

>> No.3012523
File: 338 KB, 640x2898, DRRDRR87516791.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3012523

>>3012111
and this is a study by me

>> No.3013510

A puts 20 in and gets 30 back, benefit: 10
B puts 20+30 in and gets 40 back, benefit: -10

>> No.3013526
File: 57 KB, 623x488, 1295477824861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013526

>>3012523

I fucking almost peed from laughing.

>> No.3013534

>>3013526
Needs some RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD

>> No.3013550
File: 62 KB, 500x500, 129275010245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3013550

>>3013534

I believe you mean DRR... DRR... DRR...

>> No.3013560

>>3013550
You... didn't see what he did there.