Does "state of the art" matter?

[Ajani]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners.

Considering that you were the same person who found that in a blind test 80 +% of audiophiles preferred MP3 to high res, then you should realize that preference is not proof of accuracy...

I was at a recent blind listening test of MP3 vs high rez digital, and even I was shocked that over 80% of those attending (most very confident owners of very expensive equipment) thought the hi rez was MP3! Yes, both my wife (who helps in my own blind testing) and I correctly identified the MP3. I hate most digital, but the high rez actually sounded pretty good to me, while the MP3 was flat, and lacked detail. Not close IMO, but only a handful preferred the high rez!

[Feanor]

Considering that you were the same person who found that in a blind test 80 +% of audiophiles preferred MP3 to high res, then you should realize that preference is not proof of accuracy...
Quote:

I was at a recent blind listening test of MP3 vs high rez digital, and even I was shocked that over 80% of those attending (most very confident owners of very expensive equipment) thought the hi rez was MP3! Yes, both my wife (who helps in my own blind testing) and I correctly identified the MP3. I hate most digital, but the high rez actually sounded pretty good to me, while the MP3 was flat, and lacked detail. Not close IMO, but only a handful preferred the high rez!

MP3 shares one characteristic of vinyl: it is a filter. To my hearing, MP3 has a distinctly smoothing effect, (though it does indeed loose air and detail). It isn't surprising to me that many people prefer the smoothed version of the music -- whether smoothed by MP3 or vinyl.

MP3 does have various degrees of loss. 128 kbps delivers obvious degradation vs. CD (or LP), but 320 kbps or VBR Extreme can sound extremely close to source depending on the recording.