Note: if this topic is better served in ~music than ~tech feel free to move it!

If I wanted to buy Linkin Park's A Thousand Suns, I have the following options:

From Amazon

• 256 kbps VBR MP3 ($11.49)

From 7digital

• 320 kbps MP3 + 256 kbps MP3 ($12.99) (I'm assuming it's 320 CBR/256 VBR)
• 16-bit/44.1kHz FLAC ($16.49)

From HDTracks

• 24-bit/48kHz FLAC ($19.98)

From Qobuz, which appears to be a different mastering of the album:

• "CD Quality" FLAC ($14.49)
• 24-bit/48kHz FLAC ($16.49)
• 24-bit/48kHz FLAC ($10.99 with subscription to their $250/year service)

Does paying more for the higher fidelity actually matter? I suspect that this is just a form of price discrimination preying on my want to have an "objectively" better product, because I'm assuming there's a ceiling for audio quality that I can actually notice and the lowest encoding available here probably hits that. I also don't have any special listening hardware.

I understand the value of FLAC as a lossless archival encoding (I used to rip all my CDs to FLAC for this purpose, and I've been downloading my Bandcamp purchases in FLAC all the same), but for albums I can't get through that service it appears that the format has a high premium put on it. Bandcamp lets me pay the same price no matter the format, but every other store seems to stratify out their offerings based on encoding alone. A Thousand Suns costs nearly double on HDTracks what it does on Amazon's MP3 store, for example, despite the fact that I'm getting the exact same music, just compressed in a different way.

As such, is paying more for FLAC unnecessary? Is high-fidelity FLAC in particular (the 24-bit/48kHz options) snake oil?

Furthermore, Qobuz seems to offer a different mastering of the album, which seems like it actually could be significant, but it's hard to know. Is this (and the various other "remasters" out there) a valid thing, or is it just a way to try to get me to pay more unnecessarily?

(Note: I'm using this specific album simply because it was a good example I could find with lots of different stratified options -- I'm not interested in the particulars of this album specifically but more in the general idea of audio compression across all music).

Pricing up my next Thinkpad (I'm a lifer for Thinkpads I think now) and I keep hovering over the 4K screen option. I'm looking at a 15.6" screen. The FHD 14" screen I currently have is lovely and sharp with a decent colour gamut, and I don't think I can see pixels, even now when the machine is literally on my lap. I'd guess the screen is maybe 35cm from my eyes at the moment.

I don't really game, I do edit photos, video (HD, not 4K) and do a little 3D work with Blender/FreeCAD/etc. I usually run Debian/Gnome, occasionally dropping into Windows because my 3D printer's preferred slicing software is Windows only (grrrr).

The other bonus to 4K is HDR400 and twice as many nits of brightness but again, I'm not sure that's worth an extra £250. I'd probably turn the brightness down anyway. The HDR is potentially interesting but as I don't watch TV/movies on this machine and my camera doesn't output HDR, that's likely not very useful despite sounding good. I could buy quite a lot more compute power and ram with that money instead..

I would go and look at one in person but I have no idea where the nearest 4K Thinkpad is, in person, and even if I did, I don't really want to go into shops right now.

Any thoughts, experiences, advice, etc would be much appreciated.