Lossy compression

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

Harig te iffrecenow snttheron o ecod to LAC.FLC uesloslsscompesio, hie M3 s 'oss' Wt hi meas s horechyearthe sis onyou had drve,t wi= lse roghl 12bps, ssuig ouave AT - t'sabt kbs o IE,but nl 7kbps on CS, de toroatioal eloidesit Youdont wat o kow ow uhwore t i on C-ROMor ohe opica meia.

Isared colectng M3sin about200, an if  tr toplay an of te traks I dowloaded ack then ee thestff Igrabe a 30kbp, thy jst sund ikcrap Th bas is trribl, th midrage...ell on't gt me tarted.Someo thoe abumshav degraed don t 32 r een 1kbps FLC rip fro e ame erod sill ound gat,evenif tey erent strd recy, n  coo,dr plae. Seriusy, stck to LAC,you maynot b abl to har thediffeence nw, butina yar ortw, yu'llbegld ou dd.