I can hear high end artifacts in 320 kbps MP3. It's not nearly as bad as 256k, but it's there. A
program that pays the fee rips MP3 better than LAME, in my opinion. At 320kbps, the differences are
subtle. I do think what I like about the high-rez downloads are the better mastering and un-squashed
dynamics, not necessarily the higher sample rates. I do think 24-bit helps with subtle stuff on
Once you identify the lossy artifacts (some level of digi-swishies on things like background room
tone and tape hiss, gets less as the kbps goes up but never goes away; "metallic" tone to treble
percussives, lack of convincing reverb tails), you can pick them out all the time. Over-processing
during production or mastering can create these kinds of artifacts at any resolution. There is also
outright clipping distortion for lossy audio of super-loud toothpasted music, mainly rock and pop.
The problem is that the perceptual encoding changes the EQ and brings some frequencies into
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Greene" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on "High end record collectors"
> IMHO there are two interpretations of your question. (1) Across all sources, the number of bits
> per second has no reliable meaning, because if the original source is poorly recorded or overly
> compressed, no increase in bits per second will improve its sound. (2) This is of course also true
> for the same source if it's poorly recorded in the first place; but any source that has good
> dynamic range and was well recorded will sound better in WAV than 320 with good quality listening
> equipment and an ear attuned to hearing such differences.
> - David Greene
> On Jun 16, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Frank Strauss wrote:
>> I am curious, can you
>> always tell the difference between mp3 at 320 and WAV using high end
>> headphones and a good quality headphone amp?