128kbps mp3 is still pretty bad, though not as atrocious as in the BladeEnc days. Internet radio streams can be even more compressed, too - as low as 48kbps AAC - which is a good deal worse than the radio.
My suspicion is that many of the people here complaining about the quality of lossy compression are referring to those kinds of trash examples. IMHO it is unfair to equate such to a VBR 0 or 320kbps file. If you tried it again, you might be pleasantly surprised. Or not. I used to be much more skeptical of these formats before subjecting myself to blind tests of at high bitrates, and suspect that's what it would take. (Back in the day, I also used to perceive a sort of bass and mid boost when listening to mp3s at any bitrate, but if this was ever actually true, I'd be surprised if it still is.)
In any case. Regardless of the perceived lack of merit of lossy codecs in this thread, well, they're everywhere and they're not going anywhere. Bandwidth and storage space are, unfortunately, still unlimited resources, particularly on legacy container formats (DVD, say) and mobile devices. For example, I would not be able to fit my music library on my phone even if I only compressed using FLAC, let alone uncompressed WAV files. (This is where opus comes in handy.) And my music library at home might be twice as large without the benefit of lossless compression. I'd need to use bigger hard drives across the board, and hope I wouldn't run out. Can't imagine what it would be like for, say, a streaming service. And if nothing else, television broadcasters'll be sticking to 64-96kbps/ch AC3 for quite a while, right? (This, btw, I find can be pretty marginal, but I suspect having to watch video simultaneously is enough of a distraction that people simply don't notice. Oh, and 96kbps is probably fine for just, voice and such.)
-------- Original Message --------
From: "Gary A. Galo" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 02:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mp3 is officially dead
> It's not just you, John. MP3 is dreadful. It's like taking a giant step back to the early days of the CD, when the players and discs sounded harsh, dry and 2-dimensional. Now that huge amounts of storage are dirt-cheap, and download times are incredibly fast (aided by excellent services like WeTransfer and DropBox), there's no need to use MP3 garbage. Digital audio has evolved to the point where there's absolutely no cause for complaint. Indeed, it's been there for a long time now. Why take us back to a time when there was?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mp3 is officially dead
> I have no doubt that many listeners cannot hear a difference, but I have never any trouble doing so. I only use lossy formats when easy emailing is the goal. Otherwise I have no use for them. Even FLAC format is a lot less useful in these days of cheap hard drive space and online storage.
> But that's just me.
> John Haley
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Eli Bildirici < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Meh. It sounds fine using modern encoders at the higher bitrates it is
> > typically used at by most music stores today - indistinguishable for
> > most from the source. Even expert listeners have trouble:
> > http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pd
> > f
> > At lower bitrates, the distortion mp3 introduces becomes much more
> > pronounced, regardless of encoder. But, even if you have a distaste
> > for lossy compression schemes, singling out mp3 doesn't really hold
> > water unless you explicitly make a distinction with respect to
> > bitrates. And there are plenty of use cases where exacting quality simply won't matter.
> > That's not to say I don't prefer FLAC and avoid MP3 when I can, but
> > that's because I value having a pristine source that can be
> > manipulated as I choose without negative consequence.
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > From: Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 01:41 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mp3 is officially dead
> > >
> > > Except of course for the fact that it sounds horrible...
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16/05/2017 18:19, Eli Bildirici wrote:
> > > > Ha! As usual, follow the money. Fraunhofer's relevant patents on
> > MPEG-1 Layer 3 audio are expiring - one of them already did back in
> > April and the last two are out by the end of the year. They're winding
> > it down now because soon enough a 'license' would be meaningless
> > anyway and they want to move legacy customers on to the new hotness
> > (preserving their revenue stream). That most news outlets, even
> > specialized ones, are dutifully parroting the company line about
> > 'obsolescence' is disheartening (even if the format has in fact been
> > eclipsed in terms of efficiency by AAC and Opus). Expiring software
> > patents = good news for everyone, and makes it more, not less, likely,
> > by the way, that commercial services that use MP3 downloads will stick to it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > From: Rosie Rowe <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:26 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: [ARSCLIST] Mp3 is officially dead
> > > >
> > > >> FYI:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.sciencealert.com/the-mp3-is-officially-dead-
> > after-its-creators-abandoned-it
> > > >>
> > > >> iPhone's fault.
> > > >> Rosie Rowe
> > > >> AV Specialist
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >