2 ms·
I see If your point is that most users of FLAC would be happier with AAC/Opus etc I agree (and with a more significant savings) And yeah if you're looking at
by raverbashing 5y ago
I see
If your point is that most users of FLAC would be happier with AAC/Opus etc I agree (and with a more significant savings)
And yeah if you're looking at longer archival times, PCM probably makes more sense. But I think FLAC suffers way less rot than, for example WMA
- astrange 5y agoFLAC bitrots less than WAV, because WAV doesn't have checksums.
- rakoo 5y agoIf you're concerned about bitrot (and I feel everyone should be), you're going to checksum at the filesystem level, so it doesn't make a difference
- astrange 5y agoThe more the better. Sometimes there's a bit flip on the way to the streaming server… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335936
- corysama 5y agoAs someone pointed out above, WAV bitrots results in unreported micro-blips. FLAC bitrot results in reported large-scale failure.
- kzrdude 5y agoIt bitrots at the same rate, but you detect that it happened with FLAC
- astrange 5y agoAnd then you restore it from backup/rip the CD again/download it from the original source again. And test your RAM.