[TwistedLefty]

Can you tell the difference?
please post your age if you vote
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/003993.html

[TwistedLefty]

49 in july and i think my trained ears can actually hear a difference.
not so much in a car or with a portable but with a nice system or headphones i think 192 is the minimum i would want.

[si16]

Not really. I might try it later with headphones. I'm 33.

[karcey]

I'm 59
All the tracks sounded OK
Looks like I don't have to spend money on a high priced guitar ... I'd never hear the quality.

[mike123]

47 - all the same to me. i guess i had too much fun in my youth!

[juslikeplayin]

41-
I think I could hear a tiny difference,but not very much.128 does the job.

[Stratrat]

44.

I've never considered myself an audiophile, and don't have a high-end sound system or high-$$$ headphones/studio monitors. Heck, I think I spent more on my most recent guitar amp than I've EVER spent on a home stereo system! Most of my listening is done via my car radio, PC speakers or iPod player, and I strongly doubt I'd notice any difference through that equipment. I thought I - MAYBE - noticed a slight difference between the two REM clips, but it may have just been because I was really listening for it (and expecting it). In a blind test, I'm not sure I'd be able to pick it out.

With that said, I usually encode at 192 kbps when I rip my CD's.....just because, I guess.

[doug russell]

54. I dont think there was any differance.

[Rockerbob]

I can tell the difference, but it is subtle on most material, and 128 has become the default standard used today. I really prefer non-compressed audio. I am 50, but my ears are still pretty good. I had complete ear and hearing tests a couple years ago when I had some dizzy spells. My hearing overall was pretty good.

[jon_stggt]

Listening with my low cost headphones and suffering a perforated ear drum at the moment I couldn't tell the diference at all.

[frewgosh]

I could hear a difference but I had to concentrate to make the distinction. I am 52

[chuckswood2001]

im 60, i can hear a small diff, but then im listening thru a suround sound system hooked to my comp, i record everything at 320, my main reason for this is because i record all my album to my comp and then run them thru a program to take out the hissing and clicks, and anytime you work with an mp3 u lose some of the quality

Chuck

[JessThrasher]

16, but hard of hearing since a very young age.

I can't really tell the difference.

[noodley]

Sounds the same, 15

[TwistedLefty]

hmmm, was hoping that more would respond.
it seems that across age groups from the few responces that 128 is good enough for most. i'm not sure if it was the samples given in the article or not but in the past i have noticed that 128 seemed muddier and on many recordings things like cymbals and 12 strings were partially lost or sounded totally different to me at a higher bitrate.
i think maybe heavier distorted guitar type sounds suffer much less than classical or jazz where listeners expect to hear minute changes in tone and such.