Agreed. With that being said, I meant that it was a stupid move from an archival POV.

pdntspa 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is it though? Voice consumes so much less sonic bandwidth than music. I imagine the codec places extra emphasis on faithfully reproducing voices, since our brains are so wired to perceive them. A 256kbps spoken word recording is going to be a lot higher quality, comparatively, than a musical recording.

	▲	acuozzo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I meant "archival" in an absolute/save-all-the-exact-bits sense. For whatever reason, if someone were interested in knowing exactly which bits were on the CDs, my copy wouldn't suffice. Trust me, I know I wouldn't be able to hear the difference in an ABX test.

▲

sneak 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nah. Even at 128kbps for voice mp3 is completely transparent. Try an ABX sometime.

	▲	acuozzo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I meant "archival" in an absolute/save-all-the-exact-bits sense. Trust me, I know very well that I would not be able to hear the difference in an ABX test, even with incredible equipment.