[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 2:11 PM, geoff wrote:
On 28/02/2017 2:43 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 28/02/2017 6:06 AM, geoff wrote:
On 27/02/2017 10:34 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.


Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me.


Because that is what most of the people listen to most of the time (?)

Question mark indeed! There is simply NO proof that this is still the
case. Almost all download sites are now 256kbs or better. And the
encoders are better than they once were as well.


No proof indeed. But I do have a snoop at every opportunity, and rarely
find anything over 128K of offspring, and their friends players.

Not long ago helping somebody who was just starting out doing FOH and
foldback for his ethnic band. He had a phone jammed full of MP3s, all
128kbps, with which he was trying to tweak EQ etc. Now this guy isn't
totally stupid, but when I suggested maybe start with something a little
better, all I got back was a baffled stare.

These youths and young adults seem totally disconnected from the idea of
sound quality, and seem happy to listen to whatever squawks out of their
iPhones' inch-or-so speaker, or $10 earphones.


Now I don't disagree with that statement at all! However IME almost all
download sites are now 256kbs or better, so that's what people now get
whether they want it or not. Those who don't care about quality would
still have some older downloads at 128kbs as you say. Those who do their
own encoding know better and would not dream of using 128kbs these days.
However my original point remains, the debate is over, anybody who does
care is NOT using 128kbs or less any more! Simple as that.

Trevor.