5

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?

8
  • 1
    I challenge you to try a blind A-B test and see if you can hear the difference in quality. Nov 25, 2017 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. Nov 25, 2017 at 16:25
  • @xerotolerant: thanks. I'm also curious. If I can make the question better I'm happy to. Nov 25, 2017 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    mp3 is outdated, you should really be using something like ogg which gives you higher definition in the same bitrate and plays on nearly anything.
    – user43681
    Nov 25, 2017 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.
    – user43681
    Nov 26, 2017 at 9:32

1 Answer 1

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.

2
  • Quite an old question, but no one has really put down the answer yet. Thanks! Jul 12, 2019 at 17:28
  • 1
    @MichaelStachowsky the name actually comes not from audacity, but from preset of lame, which is mp3 encoder used by audacity. May 8, 2023 at 23:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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