[Hp25VwX9FaX1Fp]

for erryone that copped the physical, you should be able to DL the 320 version for free on your email

 

[jonYe]

This section feels.... "clean" lol

 

[Gulpin]

I already did

 

[CheckMate2]

itunes ftw

 

[Jayvin]

This section feels.... "clean" lol

itll last a day

 

[Jayvin]

the clean feeling that is

 

[jonYe]

the clean feeling that is

yea...

 

[Vinyl]

256 aac is better than 320 mp3

 

[urbex]

256 aac is better than 320 mp3

No it's not.
Not that you can hear the difference anyways.

 

[S.Z.]

Why didn't I get an e-mail

 

[Vinyl]

No it's not.
Not that you can hear the difference anyways.

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]

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.

well, at least you didn't bring up rotational valodensity.

 

[Vinyl]

well, atleast you didn't bring up rotational valodensity.

 

[CheckMate2]

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.

 

[Mamba]

still havent listened..waiting for the album

 

[D Wo]

256 aac is better than 320 mp3

No... 256 AAC < 320 MP3... but 256 AAC > 256 MP3...

tbh... AAC only sounds significantly better than MP3 at lower bit rates...

 

[Vinyl]

No... 256 AAC < 320 MP3... but 256 AAC > 256 MP3...

tbh... AAC only sounds significantly better than MP3 at lower bit rates...

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.

Either way, it's hard to truly tell a difference

 

[Oozer]

Oddly, the version made available to people who preordered is the original version. It's missing the extra 808 line that the iTunes version has and is apparently in the album version.

 

[D Wo]

Vinyl... you got caught... loob

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/271330/256-vbr-aac-vs-320-mp3-vs-256-vbr-mp3

 

[CheckMate2]

PLEASE BE SURE to request Otis and 4 other song (preferably ones featuring kanye) on your radio station!