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?
4
-
1I 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
-
1mp3 is outdated, you should really be using something like ogg which gives you higher definition in the same bitrate and plays on nearly anything. – 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.
-
Quite an old question, but no one has really put down the answer yet. Thanks! – Michael Stachowsky Jul 12 at 17:28
