well if you need both recordings and an audio spectrometer to even notice the difference, it might as well not exist. good lossy compression is indistinguishable from lossless
<0.1% non-perceptible audio quality “difference” is not worth 500% the storage space usage, unless you’re archiving/preserving the audio and absolutely need the original bit-for-bit representation
if you’re just listening to it use opus, or in the worst case ogg vorbis
I’ve done the blind test before and 128k sounds the same as 320k, but flac and wav sounds clear and clean to me. IDK how people can tell the difference between 128k 320k (unless it was back in the day when encoding took longer and they used bad quality to save time)
well if you need both recordings and an audio spectrometer to even notice the difference, it might as well not exist. good lossy compression is indistinguishable from lossless
Ah yes thank you for verifying that it’s not just as good
<0.1% non-perceptible audio quality “difference” is not worth 500% the storage space usage, unless you’re archiving/preserving the audio and absolutely need the original bit-for-bit representation
if you’re just listening to it use opus, or in the worst case ogg vorbis
Ah yes because it’s 0.1% it doesn’t exist.
try taking the ABX test lol
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html
this compares uncompressed audio and a 320kbps LAME-encoded mp3
(opus, on paper, should sound better than mp3 at half the bitrate but whatever)
(the website also has an opus 160kk test, but it’s resampled so take it with a grain of salt: https://abx.digitalfeed.net/opus.html)
I’ve done the blind test before and 128k sounds the same as 320k, but flac and wav sounds clear and clean to me. IDK how people can tell the difference between 128k 320k (unless it was back in the day when encoding took longer and they used bad quality to save time)