Is there any real sound quality difference between 256 kbps VBR

256kbps VBR is V0

it is the best because there is no noticable sound difference and you save space from not having silences in a bloated 320

>>51258022
Thanks mate

>>51257976
v0 sounds a bit louder during the silences

>>51257976
only when you know which file is playing

>>51257976
Same there is between a real drug and a placebo.

i recently bought a CD of an album I had as 256 previously and I decided to rip it in 320. it was only slightly different, but actually better. I've listened to the album countless times too

>>51257976
Just use FLAC. MP3 and other lossless qualities degrade by roughly 10kbps per year.

>>51258799
Don't bring that copypasta to the thread.

>>51258869
>>51258799
post it

im too lazy to look for and save it on my own time

>>51259048
Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

>>51259048

"Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did."

>>51259066
>>51259095
thanks buddies