Hacker News Reader

As StavrosK says, this is patently false. If you really can't tell the difference you owe it to yourself to upgrade your speakers/headphones/soundcard, or perhaps get your hearing looked at.

As someone who eagerly pays extra for FLACs when given the chance, I'd rather a poke in the eye than a 128 kbit/s mp3.

EDIT: Just to preempt the righteous nerd-anger crew, I'm aware that higher bitrate MP3s are transparant; I value the bit-for-bit archival of the original record that flacs provide.

In no case is that true for MP3. The difference between 128 and 160 kbits is painfully obvious.

Agreed. It may be that my previous experience as a session drummer has influenced me here, but anyone that has challenged me in the past to point out the difference between 128 and above received the same statement each time: "listen to the cymbals, man".

Cymbal wash is enough for me to never pay a dime for 128 kbits tracks.

That's exactly how I tell the difference too, and I'm no drummer. It just sounds horrible.

Some people have bad ears. Others have bad speakers/headphones.

You are probably both if you really believe that.