Can you really hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps in a blind test?
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
>>54447075
Absolutely. 128 sounds like flat ass.
>>54447075
Yes without a doubt
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
Yes you most definitely can hear the difference, but going up from 320kbps is when it starts to get difficult
This has nothing to do with being an audophile, it's like comparing an SD video to 720p
>>54447075
Of course.
>>54447216
I doubt the difference is comparable to SD->720p jump.
Maybe you guys only listen to modern, well recorded music?
I go as far as 1960's jazz and i can hardly notice anything different
>>54447086
back to /mu/ and take your pasta with you
>>54447075
>red text at the bottom to drive home the point because maybe the mocking caricatures were too subtle
>>54447075
It's doable, but hard. The difference is absolutely not something you notice unless you're listening for it instead of just enjoying the music.
And for 320 vs lossless there's NO perceivable difference. I think there's even a 10,000$ price for anybody who can tell MP3@320 from lossless. Most """"""audiophiles"""""" are placebocucks without any understanding of how sound and signals actually work. I say this with a 500$ pair of monitors
Before you cucks get triggered by this post, see for yourselves.
http://mp3ornot.com/ (Do at least 30 for any sort of statistical significance)
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
>tfw too ethical to exploit audiophiles
yes, the 128 sounds 'nicer' because of round-off and lack of excess waveform reverberation
>>54447529
128 sounds like when you're watching a static signal on a tv
>>54447554
imagine if you had to listen to static on audiophile equipment
>>54447075
Yes.
And I can definitely tell the difference between 320kbps and 1500kbps
>>54447075
Barely, but its still a bit audible. 128kbps is a barrier for me because everything lower really sounds like crap. Also depends on codec -- 128kbps AAC actually sounds like ~200 MP3.
>>54447075
Yes.
Also, is that non audiophile supposed to be some sort of normie? BEcause normies are incapable of listening to music like that. They only care about how "catchy" or how much bass it has.
>>54447261
Usually hi-hats sound shitty in 128.
>>54447086
LUSTY
>>54447075
128 kb/s tends to kill cymbals and distorted guitars.
>>54447473
>And for 320 vs lossless there's NO perceivable difference.
I can hear the cymbals start to get a little screwy with 328 if I listen really carefully. I don't notice it unless I listen for it though.
Someone on the LinusTechTips forums made a blind a/b test for it.
>>54447075
Depends on the source. For example, hard distorted guitar WILL sound different at 128.
