Posted by NRen2k5 on 11/15/12 11:31

Don Wiss wrote:
> If you do rip to mp3, you want LAME, and it is up to 3.97. VBR can't be
> better than 320, so I use 320.

While that's technically true, can you *hear* the difference between
320kbps, and, say, VBR around 192?

The idea behind VBR is that you don't need as much as 320kbps for
"transparent" sound (something 99.9% of people can't tell apart from the
original recording), so you use lower bitrates, but the encoder varies
the bitrate according to the recordings needs, *to ensure consistent
quality*.

> But I think a lossless format, like FLAC, is the future.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I don't think so.

While lossless codecs *are* improving, they'll never get anything close
to the compression ratios of current lossy codecs - and lossy codecs are
also improving, which is only making them more favourable.

Lossless and lossy each have their own uses, I think. Lossless for
archival, lossy for playing (and maybe a little sharing ;) ).

I think the future will see people sharing music at about the same
bitrates as these days (128kbps for average Joe), but using better
formats like AAC and Ogg Vorbis as become more widely adopted and
supplant MP3.

- NRen2k5

[Back to original message]