this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
255 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
74966 readers
2825 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
honestly, most of my CDs have been used once: Put in a PC and ripped (to 96kbps MP3s, of course!)
That bitrate seems low? I always thought 160-192kbps was the floor for a decent sounding rip, but it’s been over a decade since I’ve even had a CD so maybe things are different now
The Bitrate part was a joke, yes. 96k is low, although I just remembered a special mp3 codec from NERO that allowed for such low bitrate, at the same perceived sound quality as 128kbps.
But obviously, all my CDs have been ripped as either V2, V0 or 320kbps - I personally have not noticed any difference to FLAC files with either of those qualities, I guess my ears are not sensitive enough.
Almost no one can, or have equipment that can make the difference. That being said, the difference between an old mp3 and a new one is sometimes noticeable at the same bitrate. The encoding algorithm has improved a quite lot since the late 90s. I bet a lot of people who say they hear the difference think about those old encodes.
I keep flacs as a master format that I make new encodes from when I want it on my phone and such though.