What bit rate do I need to download this in? there's seeds

>>70642645
Do 320.

solid shitpost op

>>70642670
Thanks

You're living in it.

>>70642645
kbps isn't bitrate. It describes average standard deviation from mean the normal number of kb that should be in each second

the higher it is the worse sounding the file, because then the seconds can suddenly include x+320[kb] of data, which is a lot more than a human mind can process in one second, and hence the file may seem several seconds longer

dig deeper for low kbps

>>70642706
damn............................................................

>>70642710
wait is this one true? or this one>>70642670
i've already started to download the 320 one

im dying

>>70642746
Of course it's true, only idiots waste their HD space with 320 and higher. Why do you think YouTube uses 200 kbps?

Higher bitrate = better, because more kbp/s means more information in a second of audio.

>>70642983
Thanks, at least you're being helpful

ROTATIONAL VELODENCITY

>>70642983
yes, but OP didn't ask about kbp/s (bitrate), only kbps (standard bitrate error), which was described here
>>70642710

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

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.

daily reminder that when trolls troll trolls nobody gets trolled guys

>>70643925
>trolls troll trolls

Is this a FLAC-encoded post? I can literally see the layers of quality

>>70642710
that's only if you listen in mono. with stereo the bitrate is doubled by the speakers, and quintupled with a surround sound system.

>>70644916
lmfao

File: 7f8a76844e1b45e5af9c33a5e8ab7dfa.jpg (90KB, 524x1024px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 524x1024px

>>70644916
>plebs waste money on playing a 320kbp/s song no expensive speakers when they could get the same effect by playing a FLAC out of an iPod