|
If you are so concerned about quality, just go lossless. Seriously. If you're such an audiophile, then why settle for anything less?
|
This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time.
Why does FLAC even exist in the first place? And I mean, aside from getting 1:1 copies of CDs?
If you wanted -real- 1:1 copies, you could just go out and buy the CD yourself. Of course, price becomes an issue, and I can see why people might download a FLAC rip if it means you save money compared to buying a CD. But since VBR exists, there's another problem.
I'm an audiophile myself; and I can't tell the difference between a properly-encoded VBR mp3 and a FLAC file. Not unless I had super-ultra-mega-extra-volcanic-krakatoa-hurricane-katrina-headphones, which I'm sure don't exist. But - if anyone
could tell any difference - it would be so small anyhow. And frankly, I'd rather take a 100MB VBR rip instead of a 600MB FLAC rip, if the difference is that small. Hard drive space becomes a concern at some point and I know most people wouldn't want to waste it.
If you have been keeping up with the CD rips I've done, what I'm saying may seem contradictory since I've ripped so many albums in FLAC. But I'll admit something now - the only reason I may rip stuff in FLAC is because other people want them. Hell, I don't know why... but if you prefer having the Final Fantasy XII soundtrack in FLAC at 1.20GB, instead of having the same album in VBR at 400MB with very little to no audible quality difference, be my guest.
I'm not asking anyone to get rid of lossless formats entirely. I'm just wondering why some people go after and rip their stuff in lossless instead of in VBR.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
85242
35212
Basil