Originally Posted by marvin-martian
lol audiophile .flac. So that's like two albums right?
I'm an archiver. It's not that I can't listen to 320kb/s because it's not good enough for me or my speakers. It's that I don't believe in mp3 format. I honestly can't tell the difference for 99% of songs at 320kb/s on my headphones (Logitech g930) and 85% of songs on a Klipsch 5.1 system over fiber optic. That doesn't mean that I have any desire to "save space" or store lesser quality files. My desire is to have 1 copy of that song, and never need to have a new copy of it. My copies are CD's -- there's no need in the future for me to find a new version. If a friend comes to me and wants 192kb/s, that's his choice -- I can generate the best 192kb/s file possible from the non-lossy version, not the 320kb/s version. I'm not an audiophile, and I only listen to music on occassion. I have it because I'm the data master, and it's desire to have information and have it be correct.
Also, you can mock flac all you want, but I'll just mock you for being too cheap to get more storage. Flac files are (on average) 3x as much information (excluding the value of having that information be lossless) as a 320kb/s rip and fit in only 2x the space of a 320kb/s mp3 rip. 300GB of flac is roughly 12,000 songs. @$30/500GB in hard drives (aside from the Thailand flooding inflation right now) I'd say that my space investment was worth it.
Having lossless information is, to me, much more valuable than having a few more GB of space I wasn't using anyway. WIth lossless audio, I can rip from multiples of the same cd and reduce rip errors, you couldn't even do that with an OGG level 9 file and be sure you weren't messing with compressed bytes.