>This is either a
>technical question or a "golden ear" question and not meant to imply
>anything bad about Bernie and his fabulous recordings... is 192kbps
>as good a recording as a CD? This seems to have been a debate when
>iTunes came out and I haven't really heard much except for speculative
>comments. What does this group of true audiophiles think about this?
> Is this discrepancy in quality a myth or fact?
I've done double-blind listening tests. 192K MP3, with a good encoder
(there are some dogs out there), is -very difficult- to distinguish
from CD. That qualifies as good enough in my book, and I keep my
personal entertainment and bird ID libraries in that format.
To put it in perspective, the damage done to a recording by MP3
encoding is an order of magnitude less than dubbing it to analog tape.
-Dan Dugan
|