[Brandon Strader]

Studies have shown that people can be fooled simply by titles... Like they served Pizza Hut pasta in a fancy restaurant but made it up to sound fancy and such, and the people loved it... then they served the fancy pasta and said it was Pizza Hut and people were like "Well you can tell it's not the high quality stuff, but for Pizza Hut, it's ok." And they were FOOLED!

Or when they put an organic banana next to a regular banana, people claimed that the organic banana tasted better even though in the testing, they only used 2 regular bananas: there was no organic banana.

I can definitely hear the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps but beyond that, nope. But it still feels good knowing that the best possible quality of your song is uploaded to OCR (without being a wav of course) so that's why I recommend VBR1 instead of 192kbps.

[zircon]

Well, with these kind of listening studies they do it blind so you can't tell what you're listening to. ABX means they'll play 192, 256, and then X, where you don't know what X is.

[Modus]

Originally Posted by Liontamer

That's not "really low." Most can't tell 192 from lossless in ABX testing.

It's probably psychoacoustics, but my brain tells me there's a difference when I do the comparing. Regardless, storage is so massive and cheap nowadays that I'm surprised the "global standard" is still 192kbs. I guess it doesn't matter though because variable bitrate is an option.

And this where my argument ends because I don't want to make enemies out of OCR staffers. I really don't o_o

[KyleJCrb]

I can hear some slight fidelity loss between 128kbps and most anything higher. It's VERY slight, though. Otherwise, I can't tell the difference.