you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

File format has nothing to do with proper sorting. I've got 350k songs properly organized by artist, album, etc, but mp3. I've no need for flac.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    File format has nothing to do with proper sorting.

    Correct, it doesn't.

    Main difference to mp3 is that flac is "lossless" so the audio quality is a bit better, but it requires more space (though still pretty insignificant compared to video).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I know the difference, but it's irrelevant to organization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Right, I never said that it was?

    I just found it much easier to just download and replace my library with files that are already sorted instead of sorting it myself. And when you're replacing them you might as well upgrade the quality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nah, it has very much been replaced with properly sorted .flac files. What ever is left is stuff I don't listen to anymore.

    Bold portion above insinuates they have to be flac format. But same is true for mp3, ogg, wav, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I don't think it insinuates that. I'm just describing what I did to my library.

    When I say that I replaced bag full of apples with a neatly stacked box of pears that doesn't insinuate that only pears can be stacked.

  • source
  • parent