• datendefekt@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    That writeup from Xiph is excellent. The comparison with adding ultraviolet and infrared to video makes so much sense. But you’re dealing with audiophiles who seriously consider getting hi-end power and ethernet cables. I read somewhere that there was a listening test with speakers connected with hanger wire - and audiophiles couldn’t tell.

    In the end, it’s all physics. I could never hear a quality improvement beyond normal 16bit, 320kbps, no matter how demanding the music.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      As a recovering audiophile, I can safely say the hobby is heavily based around FOMO (the nagging doubt that something, somewhere, in your audio chain is causing a loss of audio quality), and digital audio is no exception. Not only is 320kbps more than enough, even with $1000s worth of equipment, but with codecs more efficient than MP3 (especially Opus), even 128kbps can be good enough to sound identical to lossless.

      If you have plenty of local storage then 16-bit FLAC is ideal, but if you are just streaming then you really don’t need a lossless service except to keep the FOMO at bay.