Build my own NAS

>build my own NAS
>put all of my FLAC on the NAS
>now I'm streaming FLAC to my devices from my NAS which is the same as having lossless songs

I've been tricked by Sup Forumseddit again

you've been tricked by more than reddit. Stop using flac files, it's a waste of space and a total placebo.

You have biological limitations as a human, so stop pretending it matters. Lossy has gotten a lot better than what it was in 1998, when music ACTUALLY sounded like shit, but the fact that the flac meme has lived on for so long despite the fact that there's no way to differentiate between the two, and even if you could, it wouldn't necessarily mean it was better.

I had my dad take a test, he's one of those assholes that insists he can tell flac and the various bitrates of mp3s apart, because he listened to a lot of music when CDs were just beginning to get ripped and put up online for download. He completely failed the test, couldn't identify a single fucking one.

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.

this

It doesn't help that as you age you slowly become deaf, hell I can't hear above 14 Khz frequencies anymore.

>being this fucking retarded
jesus fucking christ, kid.

nice pasta, retard

I agree with you 100%, but in an age when you can get 8tb hdd's for like $300, I dont think it really matters. I think lossless flac-fags are wasting their storage/bandwidth too, but at the end of the day, it doesnt really affect me and if you have the storage capacity to do it, live and let live.

Even though its probably placebo, there is validity to placebo. If you think something will sound better, it will to you

>Being so new they don't immediately recognize rotational velocidensity

...

this pasta is literally ten years old, lurk moar

i keep alac so that i can downconvert to newer lossy codecs

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.

I use flac because its FLOSS. Could care less about audio autism.

Use Opus, audionigger.

>earlets can't hear the difference
I agree, I should keep my 192kbps rips from youtube. 64kbps sounds just as good, too.

HAHAH guis I DO teh ytob rips is mp3 good fuck nigegeniggegnigger hahha
so pleb audiop-PPPPFF
audoPFFFFFF
AUDIO..PHOOL
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I NOT heer flac is FREETARDERDIAHREA PLEB SHIT!!!
NIGGER!
AHAHHA ISAID NIGGER\
>>>>LELELE OPUS

...

I can hear the difference between 192 and 320 kbs @ 48000hz, and I'd reckon most people can too who haven't destroyed their hearing, but I'll tell ya what, it doesnt fucking matter, a little bit of quality loss and distortion never hurt anyone, the bulk of the interpretable music is still there, the mood is still there, the timbre suffers most but still by an amount that doesn't matter.

I encode all my music on my phone at 96kbs @44100 cause I'm a poorfag with better things to spend money on then storage and still enjoy it just as much as lossless.

Sleep well knowing degenerates like me exist, dat bitrate low asf.

Also storage tip, for the highest quality at lower bitrates; lower the sample rate, you loose virtually no highs and significantly reduce the artifacting from compression.

>streaming FLAC to my devices from my NAS which is the same as having lossless songs
What?

>you lose virtually no highs
do you even fucking know what sample rate is?

It's getting so's you can't tell the difference between the retards and the trolls trolling trolls or the trolls they're trolling anymore.

*virtually, and in comparison to the noise you get when compressing higher sample rates, its better.

Sample rate doesnt completely correlate with high pitches, especially in music.

Thats a good tongue twister, describes a lot of boards actually.

No matter how great lossy codecs have become, having an archive is great, i just do a lot of audio productions, if i try to edit a MP3 and save again it will get worse till the sound is absolutely muffled.
FLAC solved a problem, storage space, while I had 17GiB of 44100@32 wav files, the flac ones have 7.1GiB at 44100@24
with no change at all.
There's also people that like to listen music at the highest fidelity possible. Personally I use MP3@320kbps in the Car Stereo, OGG Vorbis@112kbps in Phone and flac in the Computer, I enjoy each one despite the codec.

I'm assuming this means OP is streaming with no compression, but that might be giving him too much credit.

I dont think you understand memes

>rotational velocidensity
>rotational velocidensity
>rotational velocidensity

>rotational velocidensity
>rotational velocidensity
>rotational velocidensity

pasta but kek

Have you really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.

So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocidensity issue. I'm an audiophile myself and posses a vast collection of uncompressed audio files, but I do want to assure the casual low-bitrate users that their music library is quite safe.

Being an audio engineer for over 21 years, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. While rotational velocidensity is indeed responsible for some deterioration of an unanchored file, there's a simple way of preventing this. Better still, there have been some reported cases of damaged files repairing themselves, although marginally so (about 1.7 percent for the .ogg format).

>rotational velocidensity
>responding to rotational velocidensity

>Download 160kbps mp3 album
>Convert it to flac
>Tag it all properly and give it a nice quality album cover to make it look good
>Upload it to trackers
>Get tons of comments on how good the quality is from (((audiophiles)))

The procedure is, although effective, rather unorthodox. Rotational velocidensity, as known only affects compressed files, i.e. files who's anchoring has been damaged during compression procedures. Simply mounting your hard disk upside down enables centripetal forces to cancel out the rotational ruptures in the disk. As I said, unorthodox, and mainstream manufactures will not approve as it hurts sales (less rotational velocidensity damage means a slighter chance of disk failure.)

I'd still go with uncompressed .wav myself, but there's nothing wrong with compressed formats like flac or mp3 when you treat your hardware right

>Not recognizing the digital dust pasta
Come on now.

Sorry, I've been away for a few years.

newfaggotry imploded

Your ears have lowpass filters so you can't hear above 20 kHz anyway. Stop stressing so much.

I just download videos from Nicovideo and convert them to 128kbit opus in Audacity.