https://theunionofsinnersandsaints.band ... and-saints
![Image](https://f4.bcbits.com/img/0011507881_10.jpg)
![Image](https://f4.bcbits.com/img/0011507883_10.jpg)
Since it's autographed (and "limited"), it's mostly just a collector's item. Some people will play it just to say they did, some people will not play it just to say they didn't. I'd probably play it
Only 320kbps? Many people consider 320kbps to be overkill for MP3. The sweet spot for MP3 is a VBR encode in the 175 to 245kbps range with studies showing this to be "transparent" to the majority of listeners, meaning indistinguishable from the original recording. There are differences, of course, but only people with the very best ears listening on the very best equipment under the very best conditions can discern them, and even that's not a given.
In comparison to wav or flac, 320 kbps mp3 is only. Mind you, I usually listen to mp3 at 192 kbps, since I don't have the drive space to back up my entire music collection in flac or wav, and I'm not really an audiophile. If you use lowsy earplugs it doesn't help to have wav/flac quality files.Mountain Man wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:24 amOnly 320kbps? Many people consider 320kbps to be overkill for MP3.
In theory, yes. Based on what the average person is able to perceive, not so much, assuming all other things are equal.p-freak wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:41 amIn comparison to wav or flac, 320 kbps mp3 is only.Mountain Man wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:24 amOnly 320kbps? Many people consider 320kbps to be overkill for MP3.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests