←back to thread

292 points nexo-v1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.306s | source
Show context
wvh ◴[] No.44070862[source]
I've been building a music collection in FLAC format for 25 years, and last year I bought an (Android) phone and a MicroSD card of 1TB that fits all of my music. It's been a long project for technology to catch up, but now that it's possible to have all of it in my pocket, I'm pretty happy with it.

I'm sure I can't be the only one that doesn't want to be a renter, give up control and stream anything the industry wants to push or deal with ads. It's cool to see some even go to great lengths to write their own application.

replies(4): >>44070919 #>>44071116 #>>44071546 #>>44073130 #
eviks ◴[] No.44071116[source]
Technology has caught up many years ago, it's just that you insist on an format not fit for purpose. With good reencoding you get transparent audio quality (impossible to hear a difference) to fit all of your music on a much smaller card. (and as a backup you can always have those FLACs on the desktop)
replies(4): >>44074862 #>>44074908 #>>44077870 #>>44087519 #
hulitu ◴[] No.44074908[source]
> Technology has caught up many years ago

citation needed. Youtube still gives you crappy, unlistenable 153kbps crap.

replies(2): >>44077807 #>>44078780 #
1. duped ◴[] No.44077807[source]
There are a number of studies on this but this one has a good summary (1). The TL;DR is that over 256 kbps for MP3 there's no significant data that listeners could perceive a difference to CD quality audio. Lower than that you can perceive artifacts.

I'm too lazy for finding this but I recall this study or similar repeated for trained listeners (musicians and mastering engineers) with the same results.

Note that MP3 is 30 years old and newer perceptual audio codecs can beat it.

YouTube picking lower bitrates is a problem but the qualifier here is "at sufficient bandwidths."

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068576_Subjectiv...