H
Hp25VwX9FaX1Fp
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
for erryone that copped the physical, you should be able to DL the 320 version for free on your email 

itll last a dayJLeVRT said:This section feels.... "clean" lol
yea...Jayvin said:the clean feeling that is
No it's not.Vinyl said:256 aac is better than 320 mp3
Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.urbex said:No it's not.
Not that you can hear the difference anyways.
well, at least you didn't bring up rotational valodensity.Vinyl said:Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.
urbex said:well, atleast you didn't bring up rotational valodensity.
Vinyl said:Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.
No... 256 AAC < 320 MP3... but 256 AAC > 256 MP3...Vinyl said:256 aac is better than 320 mp3
D Wo said:No... 256 AAC < 320 MP3... but 256 AAC > 256 MP3...
tbh... AAC only sounds significantly better than MP3 at lower bit rates...
Either way, it's hard to truly tell a differenceVinyl said:Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has. For most Pop and simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original. With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. Overall, if you're looking for the best coded and "flowing" sound AAC is better.