Originally posted by FMF320 is a respectable rate, you wouldn't hear a lot of dif between that and full CD, which is 44,100 samples per second at 16 bit depth, sorry if you already knew that, Not sure if that is both left and right channels but it that is total it amounts to 705.6 Kbits per second, or about 2X your 320. It seems that is for one channel only so the bit rate is in fact 1.4 megabits per second for both which means 4 times the bit rate of your 320.
For me it's more about access to the music really. For example, I just got up and made a cup of coffee. I checked my e-mails and then used my media player to line up a 'compilation' of about three hours' worth of music drawn from maybe 15 different albums. This has now started playing ~ and I'll listen to that as I work. In practical terms such a listening mode/ ...[text shortened]... en saved onto hard disks at a bit rate of 320 kbps and so I can listen to them much more easily.
CD's clock in at about 11 megabytes per minute of audio. So that is at least 4X the MP3 rate. Still, only a few people can tell the dif between those two.
18 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonhouseA lot of what is "lost" when going from lossless to "lossy" can't be heard by humans anyway. FLACs are half the size of WAVs (CD audio) and yet there is no difference in quality. So, WAVs are literally a waste of HD space and one can burn a perfectly genuine CD from FLACs if needs be. I've blind tested people several times over the years on 320 v CD and people often just end up guessing which is which because they can't tell the difference. Not all mp3s have been encoded well either, and there's a whole load of allegedly 320 kbps files out there that are actually 128 or 160 kbps (from web streams or whatever) that have been saved as 320 kbps (which doesn't change the poor sound at all, it just makes the files bigger). I often download FLACs, convert them to mp3 myself (so I can be sure of their integrity) and then delete the space-consuming FLACs.
320 is a respectable rate, you wouldn't hear a lot of dif between that and full CD, which is 44,100 samples per second at 16 bit depth, sorry if you already knew that, Not sure if that is both left and right channels but it that is total it amounts to 705.6 Kbits per second, or about 2X your 320. It seems that is for one channel only so the bit rate is in ...[text shortened]... o that is at least 4X the MP3 rate. Still, only a few people can tell the dif between those two.
20 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFWhat gets me are these talking book companies that puts out books on CD with full Wav files. Since you only need a max of 4 or 5 Khz response, you could easily put ten times as much audio on these books but yet they put out a book that takes 3, 4, 5 CD's. Back in 1990 or so, there were no MP3's it made sense but they haven't kept up with the times.
A lot of what is "lost" when going from lossless to "lossy" can't be heard by humans anyway. FLACs are half the size of WAVs (CD audio) and yet there is no difference in quality. So, WAVs are literally a waste of HD space and one can burn a perfectly genuine CD from FLACs if needs be. I've blind tested people several times over the years on 320 v CD and people o ...[text shortened]... m to mp3 myself (so I can be sure of their integrity) and then delete the space-consuming FLACs.
Also, on the Radio Classic channel of XM they do the same thing, put old radio shows on full CD which just wastes space. They also don't even do click and scratch removal which I would certainly do if the transcription was from an old 78 record, the record industry of the 30's and 40's used very large 78's to transcribe shows and of course by now they would have clicks and scratches but modern audio software can easily deal with that but the people on that show just record the shows directly to CD with no editing. There is software that can put in some higher frequency content for the really bad recordings but they don't use that either.