>>61311918
you can get two TB for like $50

>>61311941
where because i just looked for some and only 200-500 gb ones are ~50$

>>61311918
i was running out of storage for all my flac, so rented out a small warehouse on the edge of town and built a server farm there for all my music. do some website hosing on the side to cover the cost of the whole thing. up to 900TB currently.

>>61311918

real talk, can you hear the difference?

>>61312347
no not those Beatles, they haven't recorded an album yet

>>61312355
Yes, yes you can.

>>61312355

Yeah dude the bass is bassier and the midrange is more midrange-y and the treble's the trebliest.

>>61312466

do I need a headphone amp or can I just use my laptop jack?

I'm new to this and tryna learn.

I have some krk kns 6400s and I'm wondering if it's worth collecting some flacs

>>61312543

Oh yeah man you need a new everything. Also you need like these gold-covered, oxygen-proof cables that are propped up by aural elevators to protect it from dust and bent wires affecting the sound, too. That's gonna run you about $800, but don't worry, it'll be worth it.

>>61312650

man I'm just asking a question. don't be a dick

>>61312355
the purpose of .flac is for audio files to easily be converted to other formats with little to no artifacting/compression. so yes and no

there's no point in listening to flac if you can't hear up to 20 khz, flac is good for storing music but you're better off converting it to (good quality) mp3 or m4a

>>61312666
There is no purpose in FLAC unless your hearing range is literally superhuman.
Most of the time you can't even notice low quality until below 192.

>>61312355
I can sometimes on some songs on a nice setup if I listen closely (I've done blinds, don't cry "placebo" at me), but the real reason is >>61312723

>>61312821
>this is what casuals actually believe
the mids sound -almost- the same, but the highs are way brighter, and you can properly feel the bass and depth with FLAC

I have a 1TB HDD for only music. I'm not some audiophile that insists on flac but if I have access to flac and mp3 I tend to choose flac just so I have a lossless copy.

>>61311941
this

and this>>61312347
cuz lol faggots
>73gb

>>61313053
there's no noticeable difference at all between flac and 320 CBR, unless you convert it with an old as fuck encoder

>>61312666
Do you use google chrome? this is an important question. Because if so theres a search bar in the same place as where you normally type in the URL so you can read about this shit for yourself instead of complaining when people don't cater to you

>>61313196
Yes and no. If the music you're listening to has only a few instruments with good frequency separation the difference between 320 and flac is minimal, but multiple instruments the share similar frequency ranges are more discernible on flac than 320.

>>61313196
I actually agree with you on that, even tho FLAC sounds "deeper", you need a really good system to notice it, and it's really not that much of a difference.

>>61313248
I was thinking about putting down money for a headphone amp/DAC, would that be good enough to notice the difference?

>>61313103
This.
If I can get a .flac copy why not.

>>61313528
I've got a nice rig myself and have done side by side tests, there really is no point to flac. OCCASIONALLY the extreme highs of cymbals are a little louder but it's not noticeable unless you play then side by side multiple times.

File: bjork kek.gif (3 MB, 301x199) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 301x199

>>61312373

>>61313528
You'd probably need a subwoofer to properly hear it. Stick to 320s anon, they're nice. I used to go full V0 but they're really not that reliable.

There is a difference.

Audiophile here ask me anything...

I have flac and use a DAC and good headphones.

>the flac meme