is flac worth it i got a mp3 player with a 2tb sd card that supports the format

is flac worth it i got a mp3 player with a 2tb sd card that supports the format

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    you'll never notice the difference between flac and a modern well-encoded mp3 or opus, but I guess it's a feels good to know you have all the bits

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      For your own media and/or archival/fie collection, yes, flac is the way. For a music player mp3 320 is overkill and 192vbr works for me most of the time. Modern music tends to be clipped anyway. Do NOT convert mp3 to flac; there is no point.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        94kbps opus for the win baby

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      then why do grown-up men cry when they listen to music with good headphones?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Because they're b***hBlack folk

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Mostly because those headphones are open back and have extremely good 3d spatial sound. That's the biggest diff imo.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    you will not notice the difference between a well encoded lossy file vs a lossless file in most situations.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Noticing the difference between a lossless audio file, such as FLAC, and a properly-encoded lossy file, such as MPEG Part 3, is highly unlikely

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    need hi-res headphones like Hifiman Sundara or whatever to even notice a difference; otherwise, it is inefficient use of your memory space, stick those flacs in a backup drive and put AAC encodes into your mp3 player, highest or second highest vbr rate is good enough

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    you will only notice the difference if you have very high end XLR headphones and most if not all mp3 players don't have XLR jacks

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, unless your entire FLAC library is close to 2TB and format support is not a concern, then there's not much reason not to use FLAC. Assuming you don't keep MP3 versions around, you'd have to encode it, which is an additional hassle and might take just as long as it takes to transfer a FLAC anyway.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    your mp3 player probably plays wave media too

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      so?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.rockbox.org

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          what are you trying to say, homosexual?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            worth it

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The bot is broken

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            it's just a boomer anon, he's probably delirious

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    FLAC is worth it for archiving, but not for playback.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      brb, converting all my flacs to mp3s because they playback better

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If you're using an mp3 player, I assume you'll be using a headphone and listening on the go in a noisy environment. Most people can't even hear the difference between FLAC and lossy under optimal listening conditions.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    FLAC will take more battery power (sotware decoding; more bits to go through) and you probably won't be in optimal listening conditions when you're using it (noisy environment, portable vs quality headphones), so there's not a strong reason to use them on a portable player.
    The battery difference for my old Sansa Clip+ is significant enough to where I convert to my FLACs to vbr0 mp3 when I can.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The software decoding doesn't take power it's just the amount of bits. Decoding audio file formats is insanely trivial for a computer.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The software decoding doesn't take power
        It certainly does. If you meant "doesn't take more power than an ASIC", then, again, it certainly does, but perhaps not enough to make a noticeable difference; I'm not sure if I've ever seen an accurate comparison attempted.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          A comparison is a .wav file with the same amount of bits as a .flac file. Flacs don't take more power to play than .wav, but both do take more than mp3 or opus.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            That sounds like that'd be a fairly reasonable comparison. The only nitpick I'd say is that the CPU would still need to do work to do PCM decoding, whereas an ASIC "could" make use of a lower power DMA path if engineered that way. Do you happen to have any good links for FLAC vs WAV power draw?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Actually, thinking about it further, there's going to be more output bits even if you start with a FLAC the same size as a comparison WAV file, so that might complicate things.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No links just personal experience from listening. Audio decoding at least is currently extremely trivial, so while there definitionally has to be more power draw it's negligible. In certain edge cases compressed formats can be faster actually. If you're reading from disk for a raw format without caching in ram it would be slower than a compressed format that usually decodes and caches in ram. Or if you're decoding on the fly it can also be faster because the computer has to access less bits from the drive to get the same amount to write to memory.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >is flac worth it
    no.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    why is not?
    yes it worth it

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    bumbo

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >is flac worth it
    Compared to what and in what context? Your question exists in a vacuum.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *