>many music streaming services stream 128kbps audio files at a MAXIMUM and oftentimes lower than that
Why is this allowed?
>>53711660
because most people have shit for audio output devices
>>53711862
even with the right equipment most people aren't able do distinguish 128 mp3 to the source. They think they do but never did an abx test, so there is no real reason to stream higher.
http://mp3ornot.com/
https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
>>53711660
Who are these many?
Spotify, google both do 320, pandora is the worst at 192.
If you care about high quality get tidal.
Also, because most people can't tell the difference, or even care.
>>53711914
I can easily tell the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps -- in fact 128kbps has a lot of audible noise or dullness, or the absence of music compared to 320kbps, in most cases.
I can often hear the difference between 320kbps and CD-sourced WAV on speakers, but rarely so on headphones, unless the recording quality is substantially better than usual.
I usually use radiotunes at 320kbps. I tried Tidal but their servers tend to drop out and cut songs in half or thirds with annoying pauses.
>>53712009
Like said, you may think you can. Just try to abx your claim with a reasonable p-value.
Its perfectly fine for cheap earbuds
>>53712045
>p-value
no
on a good sound system 128k mp3s sound like garbage
theres not even a question of it
its like watching a scratchy vhs tape on 4K UHD
totally disgusting
>>53711914
Saying people arent able to tell a difference between 128 and 320 is a bit an exaggeration but I'm fairly sure comparing 192 to 320 gets a little difficult.
>>53712161
>>53712194
Yea totally believable. Solid argument.
