The title says it all. I know they're just having a bit of fun with the name, but it seems to imply that such quality is basically not needed. Why is that?
asked Nov 24 '17 at 20:35
-
1I challenge you to try a blind A-B test and see if you can hear the difference in quality.– 200_successNov 25 '17 at 8:07
-
To the people who are down voting. Please leave a comment I don’t know why this is a low quality question. It sure would be nice to know.– xerotolerantNov 25 '17 at 16:25
-
@xerotolerant: thanks. I'm also curious. If I can make the question better I'm happy to.– Michael StachowskyNov 25 '17 at 17:31
-
1mp3 is outdated, you should really be using something like ogg which gives you higher definition in the same bitrate and plays on nearly anything.– user43681Nov 25 '17 at 21:53
-
2@MichaelStachowsky Also while lossy formats are fine for listening, if you plan to record your own music, store the files in a lossless format (wav, flac) at least all the way from recording to the final mixdown.– user43681Nov 26 '17 at 9:32
|
Show 3 more comments
Because there's hardly any audible improvement past 196 kbps, so 320 is an unjustifiable ("insane") waste of disk space. Many listeners have measured this for themselves with an ABX test.
answered Jul 12 '19 at 17:17
-
Quite an old question, but no one has really put down the answer yet. Thanks! Jul 12 '19 at 17:28