Are you an audiophile?

I have tin ears, so being an audiophile is out of the question.

While I can sometimes detect some muddiness in the high or low ranges of a 128 kbps MP3, more often than not I don't. Only by comparing a 128 and, say, a 192 side by side can I detect any difference.

This is actually a benefit, as 192 VBR MP3's are widely available--almost the "standard" these days--and very portable.

Frankly, people who insist on lossless-only rips or spend thousands of dollars on expensive stereo systems frighten me. Kind of like people who consider themselves gourmands or artistes, actually--there can be a level of snobbishness about audiophilery.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

There are practical uses for lossless audio. If you want an archival copy of your CDs, lossless is the best way to go if you want a "perfect" copy in case you damage the original disc (but so are disc images.)

I know that WAVs are technically lossless, so that's true. But I assumed that most of the "lossless" people were talking about was like FLAC or APE, in that it is lossless without being quite as large as WAVs.

My audio setup =
1 Mactontosh PowerBook with iTunes
1 iPod
1 Phillips 5-disc CD player
1 pair Sony purple earbuds

Tremble, ye mighty princes of speakery and headphonery! Thy master has arrived.

There's nowhere I can't reach.