[dspillett]

> Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts

Also understand that while there is an upper limit, we are all different within that. I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC, at least for some content, but not 256Kbps, maybe not 192. For some content (spoken word etc.), 64Kbps, sometimes less, is perfectly acceptable (to me). There was a time I could hear the difference between some encoders, but that was decades ago and anything in active use is pretty damn good (and my ears are not what they used to be) unless you really crank the bitrate down or tweak other options daftly.

[sgarland]

I’ve not tried encoding my own MP3s in at least a decade, but when I was doing so, 128 kbps was instantly distinguishable to me on anything with cymbals, especially hi-hat: it loses that shimmery sound. At 192 kbps I could tell if I really, really tried, but it was so minute I didn’t really care. I was never able to reliably tell the difference between 256 and 320 kbps rips.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC

You've established this with double bind testing, correct?

[dspillett]

Some time ago, yes. For 128 and there-about & below, not 192+ hence I'm less certain about that (but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference).

Not recently, so it is possible that improvements in encoding methods, and changes in my ears, could mean that I'd get a different result now.