Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Is there really even a difference between 192 and 320kbs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there really even a difference between 192 and 320kbs? - Page 2

post #16 of 20
Believe it or not, the Frauenhofer codec is almost 20 years old. AAC and LAME are more recent.
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratocasterMan View Post

There is no longer any reason to store anything at less than lossless.

I would say there's no reason not to rip to lossless (FLAC for me) for my main/permanent collection. However, I also create a -V3 mp3 at the same time for my portable. Fitting a good deal of music on a 32 Gb SD card for my Clip+ is great, and lossless isn't going to do **** for my van's factory speakers or my KSC-75's while throwing some iron around. For posters that have 1000's of CDs I can see where the space would add up, but I figure I'm at the high end with 650+ and fitting all the FLACs on a recent vintage HDD (with off-site backup) is no problem.
Edited by bungle - 6/29/13 at 7:22am
post #18 of 20

I just recently signed up for Google's Subscription music service. And the quality of all the music sounds pretty exceptional to my ears. I think it's all 256kbps. 

 

I'm used to Apple Lossless rips in my iTunes library... and the difference is marginal at best. 

And having a massive music library to pick and grab music from Google's entire music catalog for $8/month.... I can live with 256kbps... LOL

post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by asgiov View Post

I just recently signed up for Google's Subscription music service. And the quality of all the music sounds pretty exceptional to my ears. I think it's all 256kbps. 

 

I'm used to Apple Lossless rips in my iTunes library... and the difference is marginal at best. 

And having a massive music library to pick and grab music from Google's entire music catalog for $8/month.... I can live with 256kbps... LOL

I agree.  Getting 90% or 95% of the way to the real experience is enough for many users (me included).  Worrying about lossless rips would be find if I was 100% sure that it was the weak link in my audio listening experience, but for now I'm not sure that's the case so 256/320 kbps is suffice.

post #20 of 20
Quote:

Originally Posted by asgiov View Post

 

and the difference is marginal at best

 

This, this, this. Would make up for an excellent signature.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Is there really even a difference between 192 and 320kbs?