Originally Posted by Summa
I haven't actually compared the same track in both formats, so maybe that will be the difference. All I know is that for tracks I relegate to mp3 duty, they are very listenable. But I'm not going to stop ripping CDs in lossless because of it. It's just nice to know I have another option, if for no reason other than enjoying some "one hit wonder" bands for 89 cents lol
Do the comparison of a CD (using a good player) and the same song(s) in MP3 file format (encoded at 128 or 256) both played over a decent stereo system and you will hear the difference.
For my ears, because of the compression and significantly lower bitrate, the MP3 music sounds flatter, the sound stage not as accurate and "air" between instruments is just not there. I can certainly hear the difference.
As an aside, when playing a CD, my DVD player has awful sound compared to my CD player and there is no conversion/compression of audio data to MP3 format.
I read the link earlier of the audio engineer's experience. I will challenge him to a blind test of CD vs MP3 and he will change his tune, I am sure.
This discussion is similar to the cable argument: digital is digital, so why would a $1000 cable sound or look (in the video context) better than a $100 cable? I mean bits are bits? Yeah whatever! Until you try these different cables out in a system that helps you hear/see the difference. You then enter the realm of do you care to pay the big $$ for the marginal improvement in sound/video? That's another discussion altogether.
My ultimate point being: in my opinion there is a difference between CD/MP3, it's simply a case of do you care? MP3 works fine for me in a car environment, but when I want to "listen" to music, why would I use a compromised format (for the reasons given above) and denigrate my listening experience when I have paid mucho $$ to improve my sound quality.