Acoustic treatment is technology. You didn't spend thousands

4x free standing 80x100x20cm sonorock filled absorbers with a 6cm wall gap on the speaker side
4x hofa 60x60cm qrd diffusor panel on the back wall
2x 100x40x10cm basotect glued to the ceiling
2x gik scopus tuned panel traps
enough to be mostly ITU-R BS 1116

Who gives a shit about your speakers
Certainly not me fagman

So, FLAC or mp3?

File: 1273768593662.jpg (15KB, 157x175px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 157x175px

>>58459834
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.

>>58459932
Nice shitpost, fucktard. Kill yourself.

File: 1459174580141.gif (144KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 640x480px

>>58457868
>buying foam
>not building diy out of mineral wool