[peel] Re: FLAC it is then!

[rockerq@...]

> <<radio FM was/is broadcast at a frequency range
> equivalent to about 128kbps (or was it 192); obviously therefore,
> encoding at rates higher than this is simply a waste of space ....>>
> 
Not so! The data lost during FM transmission / reception has already gone 
when it was recorded to whatever medium - When you then encode it to digital, if 
you use a lossy compression method like mp3 you are losing a "bit" more of 
that valuable data.

OK you may argue that you cannot hear the difference - but look at the ever 
falling cost of discspace - to me it makes sense to use wav or flac or aiff - 
at least for your archive copy - it does make sense to shrink the files if they 
take too long to download - but someone has made the point that in a few 
years we'll have much faster transmission protocols via the internet or "Net2" or 
whatever.

Cheers!

Rocker