MP3s, CDs, Hi-res master tapes - can you tell the difference?

Bob-Dubery

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

Ultimately the difference is there but it’s subtle and I really think it depends on how you listen to music.

My favourite method of listening to music is with headphones while walking – it’s while doing this that I fully lose myself in the music, but it’s never the precise sound I’m interested in, more the way it transports me emotionally to another daydream universe.

It takes me away, rather than draws me in. And the truth is, I find the impressionistic sound of an MP3 just as effective at providing this emotional hit as the photographic realism of a studio master recording.

Interesting to note that differences were more marked on some recordings than others - though this could be down to how the music was mastered for CD.

AlanRatcliffe

I think the important thing is that there is a difference. That's going to be enough for many...

ChrisDanger

I recently bought a NAD amp and some fairly decent speakers. I've since been upgrading my mp3 collection to flac. (I own no CDs/vinyl etc.) The differences between 320 kb/s mp3s and flac (lossles, CD quality) are hardly noticeable, but are definitely there. Lossless just sounds almost indiscernibly "fuller". The same is true for 256 kb/s, but lower than that the difference is obvious. When I was comparing mp3 and flac I found a song with some ultra-low bass playing on it's own - it was either Tool or Korn - and the (256 kb/s) mp3 really didn't capture that very well at all. I mean it was like the bass went very muffled. So the clipping/compression is more obvious at extreme frequencies.

So I'd say it makes a difference if you have a good amp and speakers/headphones. The better your equipment, the greater the difference.