John Smith wrote:
[...]
At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is
approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I
think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else.
[...]


Those comparisons are interesting, and there's some truth in them.

But it's a huge simplification to say that 96 kbps "is equal to FM
radio." FM radio has drawbacks and artifacts, and so does a 96 kbps
mp3 or AAC stream. Maybe they're roughly the same level of
degradation to most people's ears, but each has a very different
sort of degradation.

Some people object more to the odd added "details" and
phasing/intermodulation anomalies of compressed digital than to the
increased hiss and (pre-emphasis related) reduction in high-end
levels of FM. And some feel the opposite.

And Dave is right. A compressed-data signal that sounds quite
acceptable in the car, or on speakers in a noisy home, can sound
_much_ worse on headphones or in a pristine, silent listening
environment, where its subtle details can be heard.

At 260 or 320 kbps, I'm very happy with stereo mp3s, even on
headphones. At 128 kbps, headphones and my best speakers reveal some
occasionally annoying flaws.



With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/