Jamesqdot wrote:In my opinion (please note this disclaimer here) this is as massively untrue a generalisation as all those "audiophiles" who spend the whole time claiming the opposite. I have spent years comparing the difference between the two and been in a number of (admittedly amateur) blind tests and have always been able to tell the difference between a 320K mp3 and a lossless version. Maybe I was just lucky... who knows?
Statistics can not be without generalizations, and they translate a lot more accurately to a large group of people than picking a person at random. Neither of our personal experiences mean anything to the larger picture. I certainly believe it if you could tell the difference in a blind test, it just means that you have very good ears and/or you are a trained listener and/or you just got lucky, but with a well prepared test that last property can be minimized for the most part. But the fact you can discern the difference at 320k and I can't at 192k it doesn't change the larger picture that is formed by thousands of listeners, both amateurs and experienced.
And for the record from the few articles and discussions among audiophiles I could stomach I did not see a lot of scientific method being used to support the effect of their snake oil. I would be ready to believe that some one out there has claimed that leaving the toilet seat up will make the stereo downstairs sound warmer and more crisp.
But, why would you even accept paying the same amount (or just ever-so-slightly less) for something that is quantifiably inferior, something obviously compressed, that requires no packaging or expensive distribution, attention to cover art or physical ownership whatsoever?
Economies and services can vary, but from the few stores I have looked at sell lossy content a lot cheaper than CDs, and that is without taking the shipping into the CD price if applicable. I personally wouldn't pay for mp3s except in very rare situations, I will always prefer lossless for a guaranteed complete experience and archival.
Furthermore, there is no portable device in existence that could hold my entire record collection in a lossless format, or for that matter, a significant or desirable portion in a lossless format. Okay, that's arguably me just being a spoiled brat, but again, it's all very well people saying we should move to this sparkly new "digital age", but until someone creates the affordable technology to store a like-for-like, totally lossless equivalent and then sell it at an equivalent (as in minus product design, packaging, distribution etc) price, they can all just f** right off into the "cloud" or whatever they mistakenly call it in their crack-addled stupors.
Why would you need your entire collection in a portable gizmo? If you will be away for longer periods of time you would probably take a laptop with you and possibly an external hard disk, which makes it possible to swap artists/albums around for the portable. If I go to the gym, work, etc. I don't need weeks worth of music, you can hardly listen to it all in 24 hours, let alone 8.
Oh, and I thought I was the only one who absolutely HATES the "cloud" buzz word.
I grind my teeth whenever I see it or hear it used in the context of computing.