>he unironically thinks that FLAC is better than 320kbps MP3...

it has better available sound fidelity but is much larger filesize so there is a tradeoff.

File: 7HzkCMv[1].png (2MB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x960px

>>57097486
>he's so old he can't even hear past 20k

>doesn't have enough storage for superior audio quality
please just fuck off and buy more HDD, it's not expensive

>320 when v0 exists

>>57097486
>edit
>save as mp3
>edit the previously saved copy again
>save again as mp3
repeat a few times
congrats you have noticeably decreased quality from reencoding several times now.

>>57097973
What's the difference?

>>57098009

v0 offers 95% of the audio quality at with a smaller file size

>>57097911
Modern versions of LAME don't apply a lowpass filter to V0 (or maybe they do but at 21.5kHz… I forget) -- the real difference is with the 16kHz shelf; so much of the high end detail is lost.

>>57097486
i bet you hav an 320p monitor you shitlord

>>57097486
mp3 sucks at any bitrate. Opus sounds better at 128kbit/s than filthy mp3@320.

But remember, archival is FLAC territory. Lossy2lossy is never OK, and better formats than Opus will eventually come.