4

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?

|improve this question
  • 1
    I challenge you to try a blind A-B test and see if you can hear the difference in quality. – 200_success Nov 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. – xerotolerant Nov 25 '17 at 16:25
  • @xerotolerant: thanks. I'm also curious. If I can make the question better I'm happy to. – Michael Stachowsky Nov 25 '17 at 17:31
  • 1
    mp3 is outdated, you should really be using something like ogg which gives you higher definition in the same bitrate and plays on nearly anything. – Ye Dawg Nov 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. – Ye Dawg Nov 26 '17 at 9:32
6

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.

|improve this answer
  • Quite an old question, but no one has really put down the answer yet. Thanks! – Michael Stachowsky Jul 12 at 17:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.