107

Am I the only one preferring low quality media over high quality one? (feddit.nl)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by VitabytesDev@feddit.nl to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have a very slow Internet connection (5 Mbps down, and even less for upload). Given that, I always download movies at 720p, since they have low file size, which means I can download them more quickly. Also, I don't notice much of a difference between 1080p and 720p. As for 4K, because I don't have a screen that can display 4K, I consider it to be one of the biggest disk space wasters.

Am I the only one who has this opinion?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Cano@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

I do this with music. All of my library is stored as mp3s, which doesn't really make a difference quality wise considering I mostly just use a cheap pair of earphones. I'm not an audiophile anyways. In addition I also store a copy of my music library in my phone for offline usage, and that's where the compression comes in handy.

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

High bit rate mp3s are still good. I only really go beyond that for editing work.

[-] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I can’t hear the difference between 192 and 320, but my ears are shot – the whole library is in 320 kbps because to hell with the drive space.

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

That's fair. I'll still happily take 192 if it's all that's available.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago

I’m an audiophile and I can only hear the difference between 192 and FLAC if I have certain headphones on. I have a full-aaa system and sub in my car with a million speakers and a 192 sounds the same as a FLAC.