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 classical recordings. 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 clipping. -- 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" > Frank, > > 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? > >