Comment A little late? (Score 0) 361
This article would have made sense to me ten years ago but today I feel like Spotify and Grooveshark (streaming audio) is the new radio.
Spotify only streams at 160kbps for non-subscribers using the Ogg Vorbis format:
q3 (~96 kbps) mobile
q5 (~160 kbps) desktop non-paid
q9 (~320 kbps) desktop pay service
And you never know what Grooveshark is going to give you.
I personally can't detect a huge difference above 160kbps and for the sake of my own collection, I used to rip at 190kbps and only 320kbps if it was an artist I absolutely loved to blow my speakers out too. Even then, my ears and sound system couldn't capture the difference.
I don't really see the problem, as bandwidth and memory costs continually drop it only seems natural that we'll migrate to higher bit-rates, especially with the prevalence of so many high-end headphones lately. I would be surprised if Spotify free fully utilizes Beats headphones and don't get me started about people using Beats to stream Pandora at 96kbps...
Spotify only streams at 160kbps for non-subscribers using the Ogg Vorbis format:
q3 (~96 kbps) mobile
q5 (~160 kbps) desktop non-paid
q9 (~320 kbps) desktop pay service
And you never know what Grooveshark is going to give you.
I personally can't detect a huge difference above 160kbps and for the sake of my own collection, I used to rip at 190kbps and only 320kbps if it was an artist I absolutely loved to blow my speakers out too. Even then, my ears and sound system couldn't capture the difference.
I don't really see the problem, as bandwidth and memory costs continually drop it only seems natural that we'll migrate to higher bit-rates, especially with the prevalence of so many high-end headphones lately. I would be surprised if Spotify free fully utilizes Beats headphones and don't get me started about people using Beats to stream Pandora at 96kbps...