Robo: " . . . . . .The idea behind using FLAC even for old recordings is that you don't lose any more audio data than is already muffled out by age . . . . "
Also, how does a CD of an old recording "age?" Just trying to follow your line of thinking
CDs of old recordings are copies made of old master tapes, or if necessary, surviving vinyl records. The tapes can be damaged, the vinyls usually sound pretty rough, and so, while you won't lose anything when transferring it to CD, it's still pretty mangled by the time it gets to CD.
Robo4900 " . . . . . .The idea behind using FLAC even for old recordings is that you don't lose any more audio data than is already muffled out by age . . . . "
I'm not sure what you mean. I could take a CD of - for example - Tears on my pillow by Little Anthony and the Imperials from 1958. The recording quality, even in its most pristine condition is crap. It doesn't contain very low or very high frequencies - at least from what my somewhat trained ears can hear. Why would I need to store that in FLAC? Why would I even need to store it at 320kbsd? That would cut off frequencies that probably were not even on the original recording.
That's just my opinion anyway.
Putting that through MP3 compression is like transferring something from VHS to a 65MB MPEG file at 320x240. Sure, VHS technically can only store about 300 lines of resolution, its colour information is rather fragile, and it tends to take on a rather fuzzy look if it's more than a couple of years old, but put that tape on your TV and it'll most likely still look okay. However, put the data on that tape through heavy digital compression, and the remnants of the degraded data is completely compressed or crushed out, and additional digital artifacting is added that make it look awful when played on anything bigger than a phone screen from 8 years ago. Meanwhile, transfer a VHS at full DVD resolution(480i in America, 576i in Europe) with a fairly high bitrate, and it'll actually look pretty good. And with some work, you can filter out some of the noise, and enhance the colours, making it look better than the source.
Of course, this is all a metaphor. Here's how this applies to music: Get an old recording that you can't hear certain frequencies on, make a lossless copy, and run an EQ over it. With the right settings, you can make the bass clearer, give the mids more of an open/airy sound, and even reduce background hiss. However, if it's been run through an MP3, adding some of that airiness to the sound will also introduce an annoying jangling chains-like sound. You can try to make the bass clearer, but it will have lost a lot of definition in the MP3 compression process, making the already degraded audio sound even worse(e.g. You can't make out the bassline turns into it sounding like there's actually no bass playing at all).
The worst part of all of this is that these side-effects of EQing an MP3(Jangling chains, lost bass definition) are already audible on the non-EQ'd MP3 files themselves if you have good sound equipment(Good headphones(i.e. not Beats or ear buds) and a good/decent sound card), or even if you only have decent equipment, but you have a good ear.
On top of all this, as I've mentioned before, OGG is literally just a strictly better form of MP3 in the first place, and what you've got is the equivalent of people saving music to casette tape when DAT tapes are a better option for taped music, but CDs have already come out, rendering both obsolite. Except in this case, money isn't a factor.