Leslie Dorner
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Posts
- 149
- Likes
- 16
This may not make a lot of sense to some people here, but I recently decided to delete my entire flac music library and I decided to switch to 320 Kbps MP3s in order to save disk space. I have about 14,500 songs and it took up about 386 gigabytes in flac format. I thought that was too much disk space so I converted all of it to 320 Kbps MP3s using the Fraunhofer and a few of them use LAME 3.9.8 --preset-insane.
I don't notice any differences in sound quality.
My audio system is well over $10,000.00 USD.
Seriously.
Now, my MP3 collection is 148.2 gigabytes. It's a lot smaller. I could fit everything on a 160 gigabyte portable DAP if I had one.
I get the idea of loss less audio formats, but I think that people should give 320 Kbps AAC or MP3 a try. You'll save a ton of disk space.
I have over 10 terabytes of storage capacity.
I understand why some people shake their heads and ask why?!
But, I still enjoy my music library and the sound quality is not reduced to my ears.
I can't tell you how many times I failed ABX tests. I tried 30 ABX tests using well recorded and mastered songs and I got less than 0.10 percent correct while comparing flac to 320 Kbps MP3s.
I don't understand why I should eat up disk space for flac files when I can't reliably tell the differences between flac and 320 Kbps MP3s. It doesn't make logical sense to me.
I don't plan to transcode my music again. It took a very long period of time to convert them from flac to mp3 formats.
I highly recommend the AAC format over MP3, but I use Ubuntu 12.10 64 bit and Banshee and Rhythmbox have a hard time reading AACs. MP3 is a near universal audio codec and format so I was concerned about compatibility with different devices and players.
I did notice a difference between 256 Kbps -v0 MP3s and 320 Kbps --preset-insane MP3s in my initial tests when converting one album from flac. I decided that I wanted the higher bitrate MP3s.
Does anyone else share similar opinions or experiences?
I don't notice any differences in sound quality.
My audio system is well over $10,000.00 USD.
Seriously.
Now, my MP3 collection is 148.2 gigabytes. It's a lot smaller. I could fit everything on a 160 gigabyte portable DAP if I had one.
I get the idea of loss less audio formats, but I think that people should give 320 Kbps AAC or MP3 a try. You'll save a ton of disk space.
I have over 10 terabytes of storage capacity.
I understand why some people shake their heads and ask why?!
But, I still enjoy my music library and the sound quality is not reduced to my ears.
I can't tell you how many times I failed ABX tests. I tried 30 ABX tests using well recorded and mastered songs and I got less than 0.10 percent correct while comparing flac to 320 Kbps MP3s.
I don't understand why I should eat up disk space for flac files when I can't reliably tell the differences between flac and 320 Kbps MP3s. It doesn't make logical sense to me.
I don't plan to transcode my music again. It took a very long period of time to convert them from flac to mp3 formats.
I highly recommend the AAC format over MP3, but I use Ubuntu 12.10 64 bit and Banshee and Rhythmbox have a hard time reading AACs. MP3 is a near universal audio codec and format so I was concerned about compatibility with different devices and players.
I did notice a difference between 256 Kbps -v0 MP3s and 320 Kbps --preset-insane MP3s in my initial tests when converting one album from flac. I decided that I wanted the higher bitrate MP3s.
Does anyone else share similar opinions or experiences?