Re: Study Shows "Non-Audiophiles" Can't Hear Difference Between 64 and 256 kbps MP3 F
I voice my opinion in that I think the article was well written, and that this was not intended to be a white paper, simply a blurb of an interesting topic. I enjoyed it, as well as many other articles on this site... I'm glad it exists, as well as most others here, if you're not happy, don't let the door hit you in the *** on your way out.
I agree that the sound quality is sub-par on most < 256 kbps files, as do several people whom I have spoke with about this very same topic. Most of which are not-audiophiles. I refuse to purchase any downloads for this reason... hardware included. If I were a hard core jogger, spent less time outside the house, or if portability was a dire necessity, this might be a different story.
I think it's safe to say that most of the general population listening to their iPod’s, etc. are more passive listeners, than say someone sitting down in their dedicated listening room queuing up their Meridian... hence Jerry’s comparison of the Toyota vs. Ferrari.
The blinders are on the general public's eyes, yet they don't seem to mind. Whatever happened to the selling points and marketing slogans that got this technology got off the ground? I recall verbiage of “digital coding that reproduces the exact sound”.
The studios certainly have the ability to provide customers with a quality product (format), yet they don’t. In fact when you think about how much savings is achieved when all they are doing is pushing a file to an e-distributor??? Figure what is costs to stamp out a million+ cd’s, print the inserts, ship to the warehouses, etc. You would think that they would offer us something more not something less.