I did this test : http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
yesterday and I couldn't tell the differences.
Can you?
Yeah, that was awful. Some random notes follow…
My hearing is generally more sensitive than average. I can hear voices, steps, engines, *lights* and all that jazz before other people or completely without them noticing. And no, I'm not insane, at least not like that. However, I've just been sick for a week, so there's that.
I listened to the test on my thinkpad, with fake IE80 IEMs w/ nasty stiff "foam" tips. Don't be fooled by the word "fake" though. They're literally a steal at $35; some reviews have found them almost on par with originals, better in certain ways (a more ergonomic cable), worse in some others (awful accessories, long burn in). My dad said they were the best hps he'd ever heard. Therefore, still better than what the average Joe uses.
Finally, the test. I get Coldplay first. Ugh, pop music. I clearly prefer the 320kb/s mp3. I've heard this happens a lot to people used to the sound of that codec. I wonder why they discuss 128kb/s AAC in a pop-up in a test dedicated to MP3. The rest: I'm sorry, I don't really listen to this kind of pop music (yes, Mozart is/was pop music). There's a clear bias, because I become more familiar with the record after each listen. I randomly select WAV thrice and 128kb/s mp3 twice. What does it mean? Not much. I have the habit of overanalyzing a few albums at a time, and at least bitrate matters to me a lot then; I've had to delete a ton of mp3 rips at 192 kb/s or less, even though I still keep some 32kb/s wma bootlegs (I'm not kidding).
