Comparing Digital compression/encoding to cassettes duplication is wrong,
in digital compression, once the "information" is lost, it will be the last loss in any generation (asuming the Kbps stays the same al along, and no "recompression" is done),
while in cassettes duplication, on each generation we have loss in quality.
have you heard any of the bootlegs circulation around here, in either mp3 or ogg or flac format ?
the sound quality is poor in either formats.
let's think of this that way:
studio quality is 100%, and flac compression is somewhat closest to 100%, and mp3 with 192Kbps is about (and i have'nt done any research, so it's not acurate) 70-80% (having some quality loss, that mostly be notable by musicians, or others with very good ears)
so in studio material, it's better to use flac format.
bootleg quality, varies between 10% to 70% of "best" quality, and let's agree that 70% and above is rarely seen (heared), so we'll take the common bootleg quality, which might be 40%.
since the sound is already bad, and we don't have the high tunes, and the bass is blurred, both mp3 and flac format will keep the same "40%" quality of the sound (if you insist flac is better, we'll settle on 40% for flac and 38% for mp3), but not, in anyway, the flac format will improve the sound more than 40%.
so, after all that percentage stuff, which i know is not accurate, i belive that in bootlegs situations, flac and mp3 produce the about the same quality, only mp3 files are 1/5 the weight of flac files.
I would like to see any comments here...
If you don't have anything smart to say, post it anyway on this board