Sure, but was primarily referring to about ripping lossless vs ripping lossless at 24/96. But in principle this point also applies to lossy vs lossless. If humans can't tell the difference in controlled testing, why bother wasting the space?
Originally Posted by four
I find it good common sense.
Considering the (low) price of external storage, I believe lossless ripping is a good idea.
Sure, a 2TB HDD is cheap, and has been for a while. But there are other considerations. The storage in your phone isn't cheap. If you went from a 16GB iPhone to a 32GB iPhone you paid $100 for that, and that space could quickly be eaten up by the unnecessarily large files you're taking with you.
Now, one could make a argument that "hey, it's worth it because 24/96 sounds better", and I'm aware that people have made that claim before. The funny thing is, people seem to be able tell a difference until you start doing scientific testing. Then, somehow, their ability to tell the difference seems to vanish that day. I guess it's like being psychic, people think it works until you try to claim a prize
Anyway, the OP could only be wasting cheap disk space for his excessively large audio files. But he could also be wasting disk space and wasting flash memory on mobile devices and wasting mobile bandwidth if he stores his audio on cloud services (where your player is playing your cloud collection). And we know it's limiting his selection of audio players since the best ones like Sonos don't support 24/96 FLAC
If he were to drop the 24/96 FLAC thing, not only would he have a lot more choice in the music player department, but he would get a lot other benefits, especially if he likes to listen to his music when he leaves the house. Or if he wants to upgrade from the defunct Squeezebox products.