this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
597 points (98.2% liked)
Open Source
30263 readers
258 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Making a lower quality copy of a file to save a minimal amount of space is a waste of my time. Besides 2TB is enough space for over ~~7,000~~ hours of basic 44.1kHz 16-bit FLAC listening.
Edit: That's what I get for using a random online calculator. Based on the 39,354 FLAC files I have (of various encoding qualities), totalling 1.19516 terabytes and about 9686530 seconds of audio, I can expect a 2TB SD card to fit somewhere around 4,444 hours of FLAC audio. That still seems like enough.
Totally. Dropping a folder to fre:ac and clicking 2 buttons takes an enormous amount of time.
Also, 7000 hours of FLAC 16/44.1 is about 4.44 TB so your math is pretty off.
That's what I get for using an online calculator.
Still I've got almost 40,000 FLAC files of various quality levels with a duration of roughly 2,700 hours taking up only 1.2 terabytes. Still within the same order of magnitude and still plenty of space in 2TB for a collection I've been curating for 25 years. I don't think it's worth my time to suddenly manage a lesser quality copy of each of those just for a portable player.
I don't want this question to sound like it's in bad faith but how much of this do you listen to, and how much of it just sits there forgotten? My catalogue is about 361 GB (CD rips and purchased downloads) of flacs and I had to make separate folder that I named "!threat of irrelevancy", that is 36 GB in size, for what I believe is an obvious yet personal reason. These numbers are far exceeding any logical timeframe.
Yeah, this is a question in bad faith from a child to someone that's been curating a collection of music for more than a quarter of a century.
This isn't even my entire collection, I've got at least a couple orange crates packed with vinyl, CDs, mp3s, concert videos, and even some cassettes for nostalgia. Do I listen to everything I've gotten digitally? Not yet, but I don't plan on stopping my listening any time soon and drive space is cheap, so I figure that I've got time.
Your "logical timeframe" is both naive and deeply insulting. I'm going to enjoy my library hobby anyway, but you can just fuck off with your negative attitude.
Is it really "naïve" to claim there is simply not enough time itself to listen to music and do everything that we do in out lives? Or is it naïve rather to claim otherwise. And that actually was not in bad faith as I struggle to listen enough on my own. So you can fuck off with your weird ass superiority mister 'more equals better and smarter'.
People like what they like. I like to collect and listen to music. It's NOT cool to shit on someone else hobbies and interests just because you don't get it. If you can't understand that, then yes you are being a naive jerk.
I have no idea where in the hell I was shitting on the same hobby that I have. Probably as a straw man in your head.
Could've fooled me. Other people interpreting the things you say based on your words alone is not a strawman argument though. We should all just chill. Yeah, maybe I haven't listened to everything I've collected, but it's a lot easier to collect now and listen later than search in vain when I want to find something.