Is there truly a noticeable difference between MP3s and 192/24 files? Absolutely, but everyone owes it to themselves to listen and compare. In most cases the differences between CD-quality and 192/24 are at least noticeable, and frequently, they are stark. Skillfully mixed and mastered music with a wide dynamic range benefits dramatically from a hi-res workflow. For recordings such as symphonic film scores, classical music, or other recordings that feature acoustic instruments, hi-res audio is a perfect fit—the increased audio quality can be appreciated by virtually anyone who hears it. In the experience of this committee and the audio professionals we interviewed (including numerous rock, pop, and urban producers and engineers whose work is aggressive and powerful), recording, mixing, and mastering at resolutions 96/24 or better results in a final product that is both sonically superior and faithful to the sound of the final mastered mix.
I remember doing the high bitrate MP3 to CD quality comparison in 2001, using the best gear I had at the time. I couldn’t tell the difference.
Annoyingly, had I had better gear (and perhaps ears that were more keenly tuned in…though I was listening pretty intently given the obvious ramifications of my choice) I would have saved myself much, much re-ripping a couple of years later. DOHHH
Similar comparisons now are rather “…noticeable…” and “frequently [snip] stark”
I have some albums on my hard drive ripped in MP3 format nearly 20 years ago when hard drive space was very expensive. Listening to those files now, the MP3s sound obviously terrible when compared to CD resolution. IMO the difference between MP3 and 16/44 can be far greater than the difference between 16/44 and hires formats.
