*Almost nobody is gonna say they can tell the difference between mp3 320 and flacīut your better off 'collecting' music on your hard drive at the best possible bit rates etc. My point is you may not notice much on most music, depends on the track your playingĪnd most importantly a persons ears. I decided right there it was time to save music at higher bit rates.
#Mp3 v0 vs 320 kbps archive#
I used to archive music long ago 128 mp3 and it seemed fine andĮventualy i found some tracks i had that after testing it was obvious which one was better. Took me a loooong time to finally notice a difference in bit rates. So Lossless pretty much ends up a storage format for the really good music, and the music where having it actually serves a purpose(like Pink Floyd) while the other rap stays in the regular 250+vbr mp3's only. And I'm not going to encode the music to lossy formats from my non lossy archive every time I put them on the mp3 player. HOWEVER, as a counterpoint, I don't see any reason to store my music twice, once as as lossless and again as lossy for listening and portability.
That's just over the top, then you either have terrible hearing or a terrible sound setup, even by cheap laptop standards.īut yeah as has been said, lossless is great for archiving, but serves little purpose if you only want to listen to the music. yes, even those magic Apple store 128 AAC's which in the RDF has the same quality as a 320 mp3. It's one thing to say that there's no apparent/audible difference between FLAC and 256-320/VBR mp3 files.īut claiming that 128 files are good and don't have a significant reduction in audio quality.
0 kommentar(er)
