then go ahead and listen to your 128 Kb/s MP3s. Even with my cheap (really cheap) headphones I can tell between a 320 Kb/s MP3 and a FLAC. The artifacts you hear are similar to those you get in albums with heavy dynamic range compression, such as those by Oasis. Does that mean I would get a perfect score at a blind test? No, of course not, but I would be willing to bet I would surpass the 50%.
That being said, the difference is heard mostly while comparing MP3s and FLACs, trying to find faults. I don't really find MP3s repugnant. I find bitrates as low as 160 Kb/s very listenable, but being I have got the storage capacity and the bandwidth, why not get the highest possible quality? After all, even a subliminal gain is a gain.
Slashdot Mirror
then go ahead and listen to your 128 Kb/s MP3s. Even with my cheap (really cheap) headphones I can tell between a 320 Kb/s MP3 and a FLAC. The artifacts you hear are similar to those you get in albums with heavy dynamic range compression, such as those by Oasis. Does that mean I would get a perfect score at a blind test? No, of course not, but I would be willing to bet I would surpass the 50%.
That being said, the difference is heard mostly while comparing MP3s and FLACs, trying to find faults. I don't really find MP3s repugnant. I find bitrates as low as 160 Kb/s very listenable, but being I have got the storage capacity and the bandwidth, why not get the highest possible quality? After all, even a subliminal gain is a gain.