3 ms·
Remember: FLAC files don't lose API endpoints.
by snvzz 2y ago
Remember: FLAC files don't lose API endpoints.
- wavemode 2y ago"Physical books don't run out of battery" type energy.
- acidburnNSA 2y agoFlac files have most of the benefits of streaming, whereas physical books are a lot less like digital books. You can instantly purchase and download flac files, sync them across devices, play them over networks, duplicate them, hold thousands of them on your phone, etc.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoAlso I can shrink my FLACs into 256kbps OPUS and store ~9 hours of audio in 1GB. I cannot (easily) shrink my physical books into microfilm and read them. The better comparison is PDF + OCR’d text VS Kindle.
- GrantMoyer 2y agoAn aside: for stereo audio, even 128kbps OPUS is probably overkill[1]. [1]: https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings
- snvzz 2y agoOPUS is great for low-bandwidth situation. The best. But it is lossy, and thus not a good archival format. At some point, there'll be better lossy formats than OPUS, and then we'll need the lossless source again.
- toxican 2y agoThey also don't only cost $12/mo for access to pretty much everything I'd ever want to listen to.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoIs that $12/mo truly worth it? I mean, do you find 13+ new songs you genuinely enjoy every month? And would the alternative media be so expensive that you couldn’t build your library using that $12/mo, over a reasonable period of time? I know for me that it’s not worth it, I can buy 3-4 CDs for that $12, even less if I find some good deals, and I’ve had better luck finding new music at the Goodwill than I have with Spotify.
- fragmede 2y ago> buy 3-4 CDs I'd wager that there's a good number of people that don't even own a CD player anymore. $12/month to have music to listen to, even if I don't have new tracks pushed on to me, seems like a reasonable deal to me to not have to deal with the hassle of hosting it on my own server and, what, ripping my CDs to mp3s? If a friend comes in and wants to hear something, Spotify is more likely to have it than my local mp3 collection.
- badmintonbaseba 2y agoOwning your music files doesn't necessarily imply that you have to by them physically on CDs. Of course the music you are interested in might not be available in your preferred format or on your preferred streaming platform.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoYes, and it’s a shame people have abandoned physical media. Who said you had to host it though? You can also simply keep them on your phone. 1GB of storage comes out to around 20 hours of 128kbps OPUS, which will sound identical to Spotify’s offerings, and takes all of a few minutes to rip the disk, have a program automatically tag the metadata, and convert every song to OPUS. It’s also more likely that your friend will find their music on YouTube, but that doesn’t mean you should get YouTube Premium.
- flaminHotSpeedo 2y agoFLAC also doesn't give you the information these google'd API's did. My bicycle won't run out of gas but that doesn't mean it's more useful/reliable than my car for a cross country road trip
- snvzz 2y agoWhat if I told you, FLAC supports metadata? That way, you can have the information you need w/o being tracked.
- flaminHotSpeedo 2y agoI think my comment laid out the problem very clearly. You need a _source_ for the information, not a place to persist it. Do you have a solution for how to cheaply extract features from songs? If yes, I'd love to hear about it, but if not, your evangelism and impotent attempts to defend it are not productive to this conversation.