>>130You're just as bad as the Flac guy. What quality is ``MP3 quality''? You do realize that there are different qualities of encoding, right? Which is why you can't judge a container simply based on one isolated instance of an
mp3 file whose
bitrate is obviously below the transparency threshold. There are legitimate arguments about the practical and technical obstacles of problems like this, but the two of you are stupidly fixated on mp3's and a bunch of isolated, insular flaws like a bunch of morons, yet you insist on pretending like your argument is exists to be meaningful rather than to simply have a minor win in your one-sided tirade against the mp3 menace. And against whom, you might ask? Against no one. You're literally convincing no one, because there's no one here to be convinced of what is obvious but unrelated fact like mp3 generally sucks among sites that still distribute in that archaic medium.