Fascinating take on the idea that MP3 files are "bad" for listeners. What I can easily agree with is the idea of purchasing +$200 headphones. When I can steal the ones I

<a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html">Read about the experiment at Coding Horror</a>

<blockquote>
You'll get no argument from me that the old standby of 128kbps constant bit rate encoding is not adequate for most music, even today, and you should be able to hear that in this test. But I also maintain that virtually nobody can reliably tell the difference between a 160kbps variable bit rate MP3 and the raw CD audio, much less 192kbps. If you'd like to prove me wrong, this is your big chance. Like the announcer in Smash TV, I say good luck – you're gonna need it.

So which is it – are you a dog or a man? Give the samples a listen, then rate them. I'll post the results of this experiment in a few days.</blockquote>

<a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html">Then check out the results and listener comments</a>

<blockquote>Anyway, between the anomalous 160kbps result and the blink-and-you'll-miss-it statistical difference between the 192kbps result and the raw CD audio, I'm comfortable calling this one as I originally saw it. The data from this experiment confirms what I thought all along: for pure listening, the LAME defaults of 192kbps variable bit rate encoding do indeed provide a safe, optimal aural bang for the byte – even dogs won't be able to hear the difference between 192kbps VBR MP3 tracks and the original CD.</blockquote>

<a href="http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html">Make sure you read this</a> as well which is linked in the article if you have the <strike>ears</strike> stomach for it. 


