If I have a lossy copy, I'm stuck with that lossy copyĬ) If another music format becomes popular in the future, I can transcode flac to that format with no quality loss if it's another Lossless format, or the highest possible result if it's ldossy. I use FLAC and other lossless music formats precisely because:Ī) It's the highest possible quality (as long as it hasn't been trascoded before)ī ) if I chose to transcode it to an MP3 for a PMP or another device I have control over the quality of that lossy copy. If you got your MP3s from and it was poorly ripped from a CD in 1998 and transferred through Napster 20 times, you'll definitely notice the difference. The difference between MP3 320 and MP3 128 to me, is non-existent. My 64GB MP3 128 collection in FLAC would probably use something along the lines of 1-1.5TB of useful storage! For me, there is no discernible difference between the quality of the two and the space savings are immense. Very rarely I could notice a very tiny difference in quality, which if I wasn't listening to straight after each other, I would never notice.Ĭan someone explain to my WHY so many people HAVE to get all their music in FLAC format and won't use MP3 320 or 128? I seriously cannot understand why. I then converted it to MP3 128 and listened to both versions. One day, however, I was curious on just what the difference in quality was, so I downloaded a song in FLAC that was highly regarded in comments as true FLAC quality, blah blah blah.
To save space, I always convert it down to MP3 128 so that I can store my music on my phone. I have downloaded music in FLAC and in MP3. I have an A/V receiver through HDMI for my sound and I have decent speakers connected to it. I don't want to start a war between audiophiles and non-audiophiles or a war on which