Are you too POOR to devote an entire gigabyte per music album? Do you think .flac is gay and retarded?I agree, so I made a bash script that recursively ACKS FLACS in a given folder using ffmpeg.
>>106516487You want some fag sex?
>>106516500you mean buttsex?
>>106516523no, I meant anal fisting
>>106516487Hearing 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.
>>106516487Flac encoding is so fast it makes no real difference compared to just dumping the disc raw. No value in not using flac, unless you're even poorer and your cpu can't handle shit.
>>106516542>>106516552yeah but i DONT CARE
>>106516542Best audiophile tip ever
i have to at least commend the insane amount of mental illness it took to write a script to fuck with flac this hard, when the simplest solution is to take your meds.>>106516542advice wasted on what's either a nutcase or a bot. the truth is likely somewhere in the middle!
>flac thread>extremely homosexualEverything seems in order here
>>106516602spoken like an indian, you must be a java jeet if you think everything has to be bloated and take ages to engineer saaar. It's only 26 lines and took 10 mins
>>106516487>using ffmpeg.i'd bet money that you effortlessly maxed the retardation score, and your "script" lossingly(TM) converts 24bit flacs to 16bit wavs.enjoy your basement, because your going to stay there until you die.
>>106516542guaranteed replies
>>106516542>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 this actually real? What about videos like webm? It fucking degrades? What if you have the data saved on bluray?
>>106516552Unless you have a very fast SSD FLAC is probably faster than uncompressed.Definitely if you store your music on a NAS.
>>106516695Yes Anon, it's real, it's all real (in your head).
>>106516542>>106516582to be completely fair i do agree and i know about lossless vs lossy but seriously 15-35 megs per song is simply TOO fat. There also isn't a lighter alternative, as far as I know flac is the smallest lossless format that isn't proprietary.
Use webm. Stop using proprietary codecs.
>>106516542This is true. This is also why old YouTube videos look shitty. They just degraded over time.
>>106516487>bash 5.1Where is your PS1?
man! audiophools make the best circlejerkers. you can never tell if you're reading genuine retardations, or if it's just someone taking the piss.
>>106516487Why are you so obsessed with trannys?
>>106516695In the abstract, yes, bitrot is real, over time all storage mediums will experience errors and corruption of data. In the practical, no, and certainly not to the extent of that pasta. Drive manufacturers know about their error rates and they know how to compensate.
>>106517112OP here. Because I love black trans wxmen and want to get #BLACKED!
>>106517136BVSED and HRTpilled
>>106516487wait does it ack the file or something else
