• mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      126
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      FLAC is a meme for 90% of use cases out there. The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent. The file size is drastically different, though. Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the “lossless” versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd.

      Not to say that I don’t prefer to download FLAC when possible, but I also don’t avoid non-lossless albums either.

      • apochryphal_triptych@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Um, .wav is a lossless format. It’s just raw PCM with no compression. An upscaled FLAC from a lossy source is not lossless, even though it’s stored in a lossless compatible format (FLAC). A properly encoded and compressed MP3 file will sound very close to the lossless source, but when procuring those lossy files from third parties, you rely on whoever compressed them doing it properly. I prefer to store my music repository in a lossless format, and stream/sync in lossy.

      • alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but that argument was compelling in 2005.

        With storage as cheap as it is nowadays, a 15 MB FLAC audio file vs. a 3 MB MP3 really doesn’t matter anymore. Those 12 MB cost nothing to store.

        And to be honest, in cases where storage does matter, a 320 kbps MP3 is just a waste of space. A VBR MP3 with average bitrate around 200 kbps makes way more sense and nobody can tell the difference between that and 320 kbps in a double blind test.

        So just maintain FLAC or other lossless for sharing music and transcode down when needed.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          file size absolutely matters when you have thousands of songs lol, my music is a significant chunk of my phone’s SD card capacity

          • alvvayson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s why you should transcode to 200 or even 160 kbps for your phone.

            But the master archive should be in flac if possible.

            A 2 TB disk is less than $100 nowadays.

            • Perfide@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              But like, why? I’m going to be listening to the lossy version on my phone 90% of the time anyways, and my headphones are not good enough to truly appreciate lossless either. It doesn’t matter that I have over 4tb of storage on my PC, I still don’t wanna waste an extra 50GB for no tangible benefit, when I could use the same extra 50GB to more than double my lossy music collection if I wanted.

              • alvvayson@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you store lossy on your PC you will lose quality if you transcode to a lower bitrate. If you don’t transcode, then you will be using more space on your phone.

                That’s why.

                If you don’t want to transcode and just want to download and play, then full lossy is easier. But you are going to be using more space on your phone.

                • Perfide@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But you are going to be using more space on your phone.

                  In which case we circle back around to “storage is cheap”. Music is the only substantial space hog on my phone.

          • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should upgrade from your Razor to a phone made in the last decade, they have a lot more space now.

        • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is my take as well. Storage is cheap. I have thousands of albums and about 40,000 tracks currently and it consumes about 400GB. It’s really not that much storage, considering.

          • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            40… 40,000…? My god I thought I had a lot of music downloaded, but I haven’t even broken into the thousands yet

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you don’t listen to music unless you’re at home? Or do you choose a subset of your library to put on your phone? That would be terribly annoying for me.

            • apochryphal_triptych@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In my case, a self hosted streaming server works wonders. Plex with Pleaxamp, Jellyfin, Navidrome, Airsonic, any of them will stream to your phone while out and about.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That will work great if you live your entire life in cities.

                I spend a lot of time in places with no cell service.

                • apochryphal_triptych@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I live in the rural midwest with spotty cell service. All of those services support manual offline syncing to store music on your phone. I set Plexamp to stream lossy over cellular, and it doesn’t take long to cache an entire playlist when I do have a signal.

            • clearleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s easy bro just maintain a server with redundant disks and a reverse proxy so you can stream music over your unlimited cellular data connection that I’m totally sure you have access to in your region.

            • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Plex or other local system streaming service, you know, using the tech that’s existed for over a decade now?

              No need to store jack shit on my device unless I know I’m going to a low reception area m

      • RandomPancake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my case I use FLAC because when Plex transcodes, FLAC > Opus sounds better than MP3 > Opus. Almost all my media was ripped by me direct from CD, with some coming from Bandcamp.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          See the problem there is that Plex is transcoding instead of just supporting popular audio formats directly.

          • Virual@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Plex does support FLAC. It’s transcoding to reduce data usage. You always have the option of playing the original, I’m doing it right now.

      • XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        FLAC Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the “lossless” versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd.

        Yeah, this isn’t how that works.

        “Lossless” refers to a mathematical property of the type of compression. If the data can be decompressed to exactly the same bits that went into the compressor then it’s lossless.

        You can’t “synthetically upscale” to lossless. You can make a fake lossless file (lossy data converted into a lossless file format) but that serves zero purpose and is more of an issue with shady pirate uploaders.

        Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist. That’s really all. And you want lossless for any situation where you’ll be converting again before playback. Like, for example, Bluetooth transmission.

        • 9point6@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lossless means it sounds exactly like the CD copy, should it exist

          You’re bang on with everything but this, if you’re getting FLACs from the source, you may be getting higher quality than CD which is 16-bit 44.1khz. I’ve got many 24-bit 96khz FLACs in my collection

          Your last point about Bluetooth is such a great one though. Recompression of already compressed audio is a much worse end result than compressing uncompressed audio one time (and before anyone says it, basically no one is listening to lossless Bluetooth audio)

          • XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair point with the higher bit depths and sampling rates, I just figured there was no point in overcomplicating it when it seemed there was already some form of misunderstanding.

      • Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention the fact that almost all music is recorded in .wav files nowadays, and the “lossless” versions are usually just synthetically upscaled for the audiophile crowd

        WAV and FLAC are both lossless, the reason people use FLAC is because WAV doesn’t (or didn’t) have good support for tags and FLAC has lossless file compression while WAV usually is uncompressed. There isn’t any sort of “upscaling” that is done.

        Personally, I think a quality v0 or 320kb/s MP3 is perfectly fine for listening but I’m always going to prefer storing lossless audio so I can convert the files to whatever format I want/need. I’ve moved around between MP3, AAC, and Opus for different devices and if I didn’t have the FLAC files I would either have to redownload files or do lossy to lossy transcodes

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference in sound quality between a .flac and 320 .mp3 is imperceptible to the majority of people and needs thousands of dollars of listening equipment to become apparent.

        I would disagree with this. It isn’t really a matter of equipment cost. It may be a matter of not having ever heard a direct comparison between versions of the same track, though.

        What I’ve noticed is that you really need e.g. wired headphones to be able to hear this difference. The compression artifacts of MP3 are quite distinct, but since Bluetooth tends to compress audio as well, this eliminates a lot of the difference between lossy and lossless sources.

        I can hear the difference clearly with cheap (≈$50) wired headphones on my android phone (which is nothing special and a few years old). It is particularly noticeable with high frequency sounds, like hi-hats, which tend to sound muddy with a kind of digital sizzle.

      • ferret@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The .wav part of your comment makes no sense, that is a lossless format, and it is used everywhere because it is dead simple to impliment

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sometimes it’s more about knowing you have the highest quality format than being able to hear the difference. An mp3 of a great sounding album with good dynamic range will always sound better than a FLAC of a shitty recording.

        I think most people can train themselves to hear mp3 compression even on low quality gear by listening to comparisons of cymbal sounds. An experiment to prove this is to import a lossless track in to a DAW, export it to mp3, import the mp3 and invert the waveform, so playing back you will only hear the differences between the two tracks, ie only the sounds that the compression failed to accurately replicate, the compression artifacts. What you will be hearing with an mp3-320 is a sort of muddy static sound whenever the cymbals hit, blended with whatever other vocals or instruments overlapped with that frequency. This doesn’t mean that when you only hear the mp3 it will automatically sound bad or noticeably worse, but it proves there is an audible difference in the character of certain sounds that can be heard even on bad gear.

      • Floey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just about all music is rendered to uncompressed .wav

        Anything else is just some inferior transcoding /s

        But also not /s because it’s accurate, just dumb.

      • rab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah this is bullshit. Even on my $100 edifer speakers you can easily tell the difference.

        Type of music matters though. For metal flac is totally worth it. With ambient music you aren’t going to hear a difference obviously.

        • Neve8028@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s 100% placebo. I’m a professional recording and mixing engineer and have done ABX tests in rooms with speakers that cost as much as a new car and struggled. Not to mention the tens of thousands of dollars in acoustic treatment in those rooms. 320kbps is guaranteed to be indistinguishable from lossless on $100 speakers in what’s likely a horrible sounding room.

          • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thx, this was an easy way to test this out! Pretty much confirmed what I already thought I knew. The nice booming base in Dark Horse threw me off :-) but I managed to get 5/6 correct. Listened with UMC404HD powering my ATH-M50x, which makes its literally HUNDREDS of dollars of equipment. When I power those headphones off my phone via apple DAC, I don’t think it would be audible. How did you do on this test?

          • rab@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe. I’ll give it a shot later…

            All’s I know is I’ve been slowly replacing my 320 mp3 catalog with flac and certain albums are night and day difference. Usually ones with a lot going on. Try comparing wintersun - time in mp3 vs flac. The instrument separation is way better

            • Willer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There could be a metric fuckton of reasons why the file on your computer and the file you downloaded from a store sound different, but the codec most definitely is not one of them, assuming they are good first gen lossy encodes.

            • scarilog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe. I’ll give it a shot later…

              This dude is scared that he’ll find that he can’t tell the different between high and low bitrate and completely invalidate his reason for storing FLACs.

      • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you know a reliable tracker? I have lidarr set up to find lossless versions, but it’s pretty terrible at it.

        • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Orpheus for torrents, Usenet gets like 90% of the stuff out there though. And don’t forget to sort your favorites bands but buying their albums when they provide them as FLAC.

          • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Nah, I won’t pay for music, unless it’s a signed record, because the bands get pretty much no money from the sale, so it’s more of a fuck you to the labels. But I will travel to go to concerts and buy merch to support them.

            I guess I should get around to figuring out how to use usenet, though.

            • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              This was more true when the labels were running everything. Now you can get a lot of the material more-or-less directly from the artists on various platforms. Instead of artists getting 5% of the $$$, they can get 70%+.

              Just saying that not everything you listen to is necessarily by a band signed to a label. A lot of newer talents have gotten wise to the scam the labels have been running (for the same reasons you articulated - who would knowingly sign up for that?) and are putting things out themselves instead.

              • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah, that makes sense, but I only listen to the same artists I have been for 20 years (or artists that I’ve discovered that have been active for that long), so not much has changed with the labels for me specifically.

            • ditty@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Usenet is way better than torrenting. I had heard about it for years and finally checked it out a month ago. I bought a few lifetime memberships to trackers (but just nzbgeek might be enough) and subscribed to news hosting. The reliability and speeds are so much better. Plus the traffic is encrypted and it’s much less common than torrenting so also safer

              • uglyfurniture@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Can you recomend me some trackers? I’ve been considering usenet for a few months now but never pulled the trigger

        • pudcollar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I made a XSPF format list of lossy versions, imported into qobuz and deezer using soundiiz, and downloaded from there using qobuz-dl and deemix, fwiw. Got about 1.2 TB this way

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I use FLAC for albums I love and mp3s for everything else (including copies of the flacs in mp3). It’s a nice balance.

      Fucking love my collection of music. I use Spotify as well, but nothing can compete with literally owning a music collection of my own I can listen to without the Internet

        • systemglitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I literally got goosebumps reading that. Take my Iron Maiden collection for example:

          I have mp3 versions of all albums. Different release versions of FLACs and then a vinyl FLAC collection as well.

          It’s nice exploring the difference in sound, but somehow, vinyl always makes me feel the best.

          Man I miss what.cd.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gotta use that lossless format so you can pick up all the sound artefacts caused by an imperfect physical format.

          • XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Despite vinyl’s technical inferiority, it was those same limitations that meant vinyl actually sounded better than CD throughout a specific period. Vinyl cannot be too loud or the needle will jump off the track, making the vinyl unplayable. This prevented vinyl from dealing with the loudness wars, and brick wall dynamic range compression. So especially for the early 2000s, the masters used for the vinyl mix were often significantly better.

            And, a clean record played on clean and properly set up equipment can sound really pristine, especially if copied to a digital format early in its life. You wouldn’t even be able to tell it’s vinyl.

            • Repple (she/her)@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              +1 to all you said. I collect vinyl for a number of reasons and none of them are because it is technically superior (it isn’t) however, many (most?) people have never heard just how good vinyl can actually sound when it’s in good condition and played on a good setup. I personally cannot tell the difference between even a 33 and CD, let alone a 45, and I have a decently high end setup.

              My ears like to trick me and tell me I can hear a difference between a 33 and 45 but I’m pretty sure this is a lie.

              • XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not to mention, psychoacoustics don’t really give a damn about fidelity, so if your goal is “I want it to sound good to me” moreso than “I want it to reproduce sounds accurately” then there’s arguments for vinyl, tube amplifiers, vintage speakers, etc.

                Hell I have a friend who specifically uses one of the earliest CD players because it had a 14 bit DAC and no oversampling vs 16 bit DAC, and for those few albums he really likes the digital distortion that comes with it because that’s how he first heard it.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Compared to CD? If you have to compare it to a lossy compressed format to make it look good in comparison, then maybe it’s not that good overall. You may have noticed it’s no longer the early 2000s and CDs are not ubiquitous, nor even very common at all anymore.

              • XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lossy compressed format? Where? Are you talking about CD? The format famous for using uncompressed PCM audio perfectly specified to cover 100% of a human’s hearing range?

                Because if that’s what you mean, you’ve got some studying to go do.

        • clif@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you using an off the shelf NAS or a DIY? I’m looking for around that much space but the consumer/prosumer grade stuff I’ve seen doesn’t really do what I want (full disk encryption, Linux, ability to customize and host a few applications).

          I originally figured I’d just cram 5x12TB drives in a case, RAID5, with my Linux flavor of choice… Then I learned how bad RAID5 is with big disks.

          I don’t need mirroring or high throughput (home NAS - other device backups and local streaming) but would preferably like a little redundancy… As a treat.

          Got any pointers?

    • dezmd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Listen up, all you young whippersnappers and your FLAC collections, we downloaded our lossy but ‘high enough quality’ 128kbps mp3s from those IRC DCC Fserves back in the 90s using our dialup internet and we didnt complain!

      Unless of course someone picked up the house phone and caused our internet to disconnect.

      • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A 1TB SD card costs the same as a single vinyl LP right now.

        It’s not even a concern.

        However, I have a box of CDs that I ripped to 96kbps Vorbis in the early 2000s, and I think this time I’ll go straight to FLAC. Plex will transcode to the flavour-of-the-month codec on the fly when listening with limited bandwidth.

        • jtablerd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I have my flacs on a 2tb nvme drive in a little usb-c enclosure, kinda like a big USB stick. It’s about half full… Also have a couple hundred records so I’m pretty agnostic on format I guess. Still use foobar2000 too to manage and play lol

        • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I actually tried doing that when I first decided to start archiving my own CDs. I ripped with abcde to flac but kept both copies. The idea was to keep .wav as a sort of “master” original and then copy the flacs to my phone and laptop for listening. That way if something happened I could always go back to my “masters” without having to rip the CD again.

          Honestly the wav files aren’t that much bigger than flac and I feel like storage wouldn’t be much of an issue today, but I started this project several years ago when an 8TB hard drive was still $600+ and I quickly ran out of space.

            • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess the idea was that if something happened to flac like new devices stopped supporting it for whatever reason, or if a better lossless format came along, it would be much easier to go back to the wavs and convert them to a different format.

                • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Converting back and forth, even from lossless to lossless, is a good way to lose or corrupt data. I abandoned the idea years ago anyway, but thanks.

  • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You mean there’s more of me out there?!

    ✅ No buffering, music starts instantly

    ✅ No connection issues

    ✅ No monthly money drain

    ✅ No arbitrary access or availability revocation

    ❌ No immediate access to any song I want to hear, but

    ✅ I’m patient

      • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know, I considered “fixing” that before hitting reply, but I figured the overall sentiment of my comment would make its way through.

        I used a check and an x, to represent positive and negative. I could have gone with ➕ / ➖, so that’s on me.

        It’s only a friendly comment, why you have to be mad?

    • DancingIsForbidden@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes friend, we are one in the same. I still have the last gen iPod I use in my car. It has Bluetooth and I still even use the 3.5mm audio jack instead. I’m old and hate most new music coming out anyway. And if I do want to check something out I still preview it on Apple Music. If nothing else it’s an entirely private and secure way to consume music.

      • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I salute your commitment to the audio jack. I no longer have that luxury, but it is what it is, and I love my phone despite that glaring flaw. Wish it had an FM receiver too, but oh well.

        If nothing else it’s an entirely private and secure way to consume music.

        Amen to that. I’ve got my weird guilty pleasures that I go to occasionally and there’s no reason anyone else needs to know why I listen to a couple of specific dubstep songs as often as I do. If that theoretical information ever got leaked, would it even matter? Probably not, but I’m able to enjoy the music more if I can listen in my own world with no strings attached.

        • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is one of the biggest things I’ve enjoyed since I ditched spotify and started building up my own library again. It feels way more personal somehow.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Had a first Gen ipod permanently in my car from 2011 to just last year. Only took it out because head unit died and I put the factory one back in. iPod still works

      • The head unit in my car is so old it still has a dedicated 30 pin iPod cable that you’re meant to run out to your glovebox. I don’t do that, though. It has an SD card slot (full size) and also a USB port. And it still has a physical volume knob, too. I just chunk a flash drive into it.

      • ryry1985@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean… That’s not immediate, but it’s close depending on the music and it’s availability

    • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It takes me no longer to gain immediate access then it does for a stream user to search and play the stream, even with rare or weird songs.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No immediate access to any song I want to hear, but

      WDYM? If you want to listen before full download, there are some FUSE download managers on linux.

    • Shea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No algorithmic suggestions and therefore, no curated daily taste playlists, no sorting your library by genre (at least not as granular and specific as Spotify unless you put in as much work as they do at tagging your music), finding new music manually takes at least 10x more effort and you’re limited to the taste you already know you have. If you switch phones you’re SOL unless you want to deal with the insanely slow transfer speeds of androids MTP or whatever apples slow ass transfer protocol is. Not to mention your library is limited by how much space you have. My 10,000+ song playlists on Spotify aren’t gonna easily fit on anyone’s device, and definitely not at the highest quality that Spotify can stream at. Your only hope of getting even a comparable experience is to be tech savvy and patient enough to set up a home streaming server, manually tag all your music, and find an audio app with an interface/features that you like that also supports streaming. Oh and then your home computer needs to be on all the time, and your Internet has to be great, and you must not care about your energy bill that much, and … I’m just gonna stop. Locally stored music is just not anywhere near as good. It’s lame and tedious and nearly pointless. At most, I’d say keep a couple albums you like with high quality FLACs but that’s it. You’re waisting your time not getting Spotify premium or Apple Plus or whatever the heck

      Oh and this is coming from 20+ years of pirating media. Limewire used to be the best, but now it’s firmly Spotify etc.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Your only hope of getting even a comparable experience is to be tech savvy and patient enough to set up a home streaming server, manually tag all your music, and find an audio app with an interface/features that you like that also supports streaming. Oh and then your home computer needs to be on all the time, and your Internet has to be great, and you must not care about your energy bill that much, and … I’m just gonna stop.

        It’s a bit spam-like, but I’m going to write something about this separately despite having replied about a different item previously.

        I’m technical so it has to be taken with a grain of salt but umm:

        1. Home streaming software is not really that difficult to setup and run.

        2. Search beats tagging for me, which is embedded as part of point #1.

        3. There are an abundance of options for streaming music, it’s (almost of course) easier and with more available choice than running your own Plex server which millions of people do. Hell, if you like plex you can just use its music app.

        4. Of course you have to have a computer on in order to stream to yourself. I have a NUC (to counterpoint your “large energy bill” point) I use for the purpose of Plex and music streaming. But at least the music you like will stay there even as artists fight with various streaming services or try to start their own to get market share via exclusivity. It’s all still there, because in a very real way you actually have the music.

        5. Your Internet does not have to be great to stream music. Some of us older fucks remember RealAudio. We literally streamed audio via dial-up modem. Aside from that, many streaming software packages including the one I use have an ability to locally cache what you’re listening to. I can listen to anything I’ve recently listened to on an airplane without preparing because it has an offline mode.

        To each their own, but Spotify isn’t for me for a large number of reasons.

      • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All valid points, and I’m glad Spotify works for you. For me though, the tedium isn’t nearly as bad as it seems to be for you. I’m fine with my methods since they’ve never truly failed me Even with my relatively disorganized collection, I can find what I’m looking for pretty quickly even without metadata (Lots of my oldest stuff is also from Limewire, and even Kazaa. Let’s just not mention the bitrate of some of it lol).

        I’m fine with gradually expanding my tastes too, so I don’t need Spotify for finding new things. To be fair though, I have found some truly great stuff through the site that I feel I would have never heard, so it’s not without its merits. Though if you’re ever bored and you want to do some manual discovery, Every Noise at Once is a bizarrely cool place and might lead to some interesting finds. But YMMV. And if I don’t feel like picking anything I’ll just throw on whatever internet radio station suits my fancy.

        I get you on the storage space as well. Luckily for me, a lot of what I listen to (don’t make fun please) is chiptunes, and I found a kickass app for my phone that reads the same files that the real consoles read so I can enjoy them in truly perfect quality, plus I have actual weeks of music in this format for less than 300 megs.

        I admit my tastes are highly eclectic - to say the least - but I’m perfectly content with that. It’s great that you, along with the majority of other people, have an option that best suits your needs. May we both be able to access our music solutions as long as possible.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No algorithmic suggestions and therefore, no curated daily taste playlists, no sorting your library by genre (at least not as granular and specific as Spotify unless you put in as much work as they do at tagging your music), finding new music manually takes at least 10x more effort and you’re limited to the taste you already know you have

        I haven’t used Spotify much, but I found Google Music and Pandora to be very shallow with regards to discovery. There’s not really much to them other than “people who liked X tend to like Y” or “here’s something that sounds similar to an artist you like”. It’s discovery sure, but it’s discovery on autopilot. It’ll keep you treading water in the same shallow area of the ocean forever unless you make a concerted effort outside of its algorithms to listen to something new.

        I usually don’t want something “similar to…X” when finding new music. I usually want things that are completely different. I subscribed to Google Music for around a year and found maybe two new artists I liked to listen to. I switched back to a manual discovery process around five years ago and this year alone I’ve found probably a dozen.

        • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think this is a really important point. Music streaming services are incentivised to concentrate attention and create filter bubbles in much the same way as other tech. I’ve been discovering some new music through internet radio stations and it’s reinvigorated my sense of adventure in music. There is so much good stuff out there which is ignored by streaming service algorithms. Nothing beats discovering a new song/artist/album out in the wild and falling in love with it.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing if you’re a premium user. Being able to pick songs on Free I think.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plenty of things have been removed from Spotify or just bastardized over the years.

        The app is so much less useful overall, so many controls are just gone. It’s exhibit A for the dumbing down of modern apps. It went from being mature software designed to give users tools to control their experiences to a ranch designed solely to corral users into singular usage patterns.

  • BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To all the friends I never met:

    I am running a homeserver with all my music, videos, books, articles, source, etc. here is how you do it↓

    • get a old desktop computer
    • install gnu/linux on it
    • connect it to your router through ethernet
    • install nextcloud
    • install samba, create a smb partition on your new server
    • mount the drive into your regular computer, phone, laptop, tv. smart-stereo.
    • enjoy all your music from anywhere without cluttering your devices with music, movies or books, or articles, or , or, or
    • I usually just use vlc to access any media on my smb share :D just works
    • get the nextcloud-client for phone and your other devices and access your smb share that way if you like and upload fotos, video or music there. :D

    Thank me later (also if you use ALL linux devices you can skip the smb part and just use netdriv

  • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yall may hate on em, but Spotify has not only made my life easier in that I don’t have to first pirate then sort all my music, but has also got me through some difficult times by recommending music that I would have never found otherwise. I’ve found groups that I love that have maybe 2000 monthly listens. Went to concerts in places I’ve never been for bands I never would have found. It’s more than just listening to your own music. The Monday and Friday discover playlists have been more beneficial to me than most anything else on this planet.