128-160kbps MP3s in your iTunes collection unappreciation...

[Michael's Black Son]

Brehs, I'm scrolling thru my pre-2010 songs in my iTunes library and a ton of them shyts are 128kbps or 160 quality . Remember when that shyt was the norm back in the days (6-7 years ago and definitely during the Napster era)

Now if the shyts aren't coming in at 320kbps, I can't even fukk with it. At least with copping CDs (when they were popular), you were guaranteed to get some quality digital shyt. I understand that back then cats weren't too knowledgable about bit rates and shyt and wanted to keep the files sizes respectable for DSL connections and shyt but how the fukk did 128-160 kbps rips last for so long?

was it just that people were fiending for "free" music and didn't care or is this bit rate thing something that so-called nerds and audiophiles (and them snobby FLAC audiophiles) really care about?

 

[mortuus est]

i dont even mind tbh, i have mp3 vinyl and cassette rips that have been pass around, they sound good to me with headphones and speakers

 

[god shamgod]

It's a mental thing.I have a bunch of 128-192 joints and they sound no different than 256-320

 

[Auger]

It's a mental thing.I have a bunch of 128-192 joints and they sound no different than 256-320

really?

 

[savoutch]

It's a mental thing.

 

[god shamgod]

really?

Yes.I'm listening to del la soul is dead in "320" and this muffled bullshyt sounds like a bootlegg tape.It's a mental thing

 

[DaveyDave]

Yes.I'm listening to del la soul is dead in "320" and this muffled bullshyt sounds like a bootlegg tape.It's a mental thing

You can have the best bit rate in te world but it's not going to make 36 Chambers or some of the older Hip Hop albums sound crystal clear I think a lot of people think it's gonna make it sound better no matter what. I only get 320, FLAC (then convert to 320) or iTunes versions these days unless it's necessary. But I don't think it makes THAT much difference to the average person with the average stereo set up

 

[god shamgod]

You can have the best bit rate in te world but it's not going to make 36 Chambers or some of the older Hip Hop albums sound crystal clear I think a lot of people think it's gonna make it sound better no matter what. I only get 320, FLAC (then convert to 320) or iTunes versions these days unless it's necessary. But I don't think it makes THAT much difference to the average person with the average stereo set up

Yea I notice that about a lot of older albums it's the same thing wit enta da stage.Bolded is what I'm saying

 

[dubsmith_nz]

Brehs, I'm scrolling thru my pre-2010 songs in my iTunes library and a ton of them shyts are 128kbps or 160 quality . Remember when that shyt was the norm back in the days (6-7 years ago and definitely during the Napster era)

Now if the shyts aren't coming in at 320kbps, I can't even fukk with it. At least with copping CDs (when they were popular), you were guaranteed to get some quality digital shyt. I understand that back then cats weren't too knowledgable about bit rates and shyt and wanted to keep the files sizes respectable for DSL connections and shyt but how the fukk did 128-160 kbps rips last for so long?

was it just that people were fiending for "free" music and didn't care or is this bit rate thing something that so-called nerds and audiophiles (and them snobby FLAC audiophiles) really care about?

Alot of people just don't give a fukk, they listen to music on shytty ipod headphones so there's not gonna be a major difference to them.

I remember making mixes for the homies back in the day and only used 192 kbps as a minimum, half of them couldn't understand why the shyt bumped so much better in the car than their own 96 and 128 kbps mixes.

shyt some songs sound completely different when you listen to them in high quality with good systems.

 

[JetLife]

a clean rip, with the proper settings & codec @ 192kbps > a bad rip, crappy codec or settings, but selected to 320kbps

 

[GollyImGully]

the average person has no idea what the difference is breh

 

[Michael's Black Son]

Crazy because I finally spent a couple of $$$ on some quality earphones and first, iPods & iPhones just don't play music that well (to me). It's clearly some shyt for the average person because even the EQ presets suck.

I had to download and EQ from the App Store and adjust that shyt manually. Now it's official but the lower quality tips do sound like trash tho.

A proper sound system/setup is so key but these digital versions of the songs leave much to be desired to a point where I miss CDs and records. I remember having wack headphones with my disc man when I was a lil shorty but the shyt still sounded so crispy

 

[Danny Up]

Waste space for no noticeable difference.

 

[Cole Cash]

majority of the music i listen to, like jazz and old soul classics, this really doesnt matter to me, i dont need clifford brown or tom scott to be digitally remastered when the vynil rips i made in 2000/01 capture the feeling i wanted of the warm analog sound i wanted in the first place. its not that big of a deal and i have been on mp3s since its inception, literally in 97/98

 

[jilla82]

Yes.I'm listening to del la soul is dead in "320" and this muffled bullshyt sounds like a bootlegg tape.It's a mental thing

thats just a bad rip.

I d/l mostly v0 or better now.
I can mos def tell a difference between my old mp3's and my newer ones.