Oh good. I can dial back the paranoia.
No, a one word argument only suffices when the poster has so overblown his own importance, that he sees fit to put himself as paramount, while accusing others of the same, and offers no cogent argument to support his conjecture. I needed provide no argument, since I was simply stating my opinion. An opinion, I might add, for which you are either unwilling, or unable to contemplate or comprehend, since you think you “know” me, while proving at every single turn that you know nothing about me.
Your hypocrisy and arrogance are overwhelming.
Indeed, maintenance ate the fries! 
Good luck with that, Bill. It is funny how you Talk about a poster’s over importance… broken mirrors and aliases abound.
Sure it is. The client used to walk out with a cassette tape! I can’t reliably distinguish a 256 bit MP3 from the original wave. I guess there are certain clues you can listen for…
and we would frown on cassette tapes as we spun the reel onto it.
Ahh! To the point.
We (recording folk) are the ‘specialists’. The ‘experts’. The ‘officials’ on this subject/topic.
If a statement like this is true from people like us, that actually
record/produce music; what can be said about the ‘ears’ of the
(typical) consumer?
Have we gone too far?
{‘-’}
My opinion? Absolutely not! I tend to think that many people have just not been exposed to the differences. Given the options, I would bet many more would choose higher end audio. Once educated, the comparison between crap and great audio, is like the difference between the 5" dash mounted am radio speaker in a 1950 car versus the Bose 12 speaker stereos in the 1980’s.
I’m really not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying MP3 is an inadequate algorithm for compressing a digital file at 256 bit compression? Because for me, I can’t distinguish the difference in the sound coming out of my monitors (HS-80M). Which just means for me, it’s a perfectly adequate means of reducing file sizes for portable players and such, and far better than the old way of making cassette copies, which I think the typical consumer could certainly hear a big difference in. At least I can. That’s all I’m trying to say. A 256-bit MP3 is a giant leap over a cassette copy, or an FM broadcast. Again, for me at least. I can’t walk into a room where music is playing on a high end stereo and say “oh, too bad that’s a 256 bit MP3, it really ruins it”. Maybe others can.
Back in the early 1970s, a friend was an audiophile. The crown amps ran to monster Cerwin-vega 36" earthquake sub woofers and drivers and the output level across the scale exceeded 132db on his spl meter. Doobie Brothers playing ?“Jesus is just alright” where it drops in tempo and starts " Jesus, he’s my friend" " He took me by the hand " that runs to the chorus again when the tempo pick ups and the song restarts. It was as if you could walk into the field of each instrument and feel the movement of the player and the instrument
That was the finest spectrum of clarity I can still remember after over 40 years…wasn’t a thumb drive or mp3. Today I have not gotten that from any mp3 or digital copy commercially
Nice. Great playback system makes all the difference. If you had such a system today, and used an ipod as the source playing that song encoded at 256 bits I think you could replicate the experience.
Here’s a good article talking about the source side of things. It’s comparing 24-bit wave files to 256-bit MP3 files. You were probably listening to an LP, which is a different subject altogether, but you still might find this interesting.
Okay, I have to point out there are certain dependencies here… how old you are is a big factor, both historically and physically. Those who are younger and have grown up with compressed audio are going to be less likely to be able to distinguish compressed vs. not… also, as you age, your hearing diminishes, for some folks more, some folks less, but it does change with time.
Are you drinking alcohol when listening casually to music? That will close your ears for sure. One beer will do it. No matter your age.
Time of day - if you are tired, so are your ears.
As for what to listen for, to me, its depth of field that changes. Try something with lots of single instruments, and with reverb in it, clean sounds, avoid distorted guitars for your listening test. I can hear subtle differences between 44/16 waves and 320k MP3, depending on the content and how awake I am. Morning ears are the best. I’ve embraced FLAC lately, as it is better than MP3, just not as compatible on all players. FLAC is much harder to distinguish from WAV. I am 55 years old.
1 beer aye? I’m screwed! 
That was something I overlooked…Younger people have grown up with compressed audio…
Excellent point as I would think that is how I would refer to it. My preference says there is entirely too much compression in music since the late 80’s. That must be the reason my taste in music is SO narrow. Relevant is one thing way off about my music style and selections. It is like the comparison when the Hurricane Sandy 12 12 12 concert played and suddenly amongst Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger is …geez can’t even think of his name. But you get the picture…“compression”
Just to point out, MP3 is not compressed audio. MP3 is an algorithm for compressing digital files to fit in less space. Has nothing to do with compressing audio. Different type of compression altogether. It is a method for reducing the number of bits needed to reproduce a signal, which in the end is analog, of course.
Also wish to point out that FLAC is another method for compressing digital files, but in the case of FLAC, it is lossless - the conversion back produces a 16-bit WAV file that is identical to the original, bit for bit. If you’re hearing any difference there, well, it’s really not there.
As a musician and not an engineer, I have only my ears to go by and a long career working with otologists. I think my first foray into portable music after cassettes was an SACD of the Allman Brothers Band live at The Fillmore. Before that, it was vinyl albums . My friend was the guiding light as to the tone arm and cartridge to use. He was always changing his stuff so I bought the previous stuff from him. I just notice of all the CDs we’ve accumulated in 30 years, 80% of it was stuff recorded or rerecorded up to the 1980s and none of it has the dynamic range I remember from the old days… Psycho acoustics or just psycho … almost anything I listen to today is playing thru the computer… Sounds ok but that’s maybe why my Cubase recordings sound a bit better.
That was what I meant by compression in my post… not audio compression, data compression.
Try this…
At the end of a long marthon session, have a beer or two, then take a mixdown of whatever you’ve got, then park it, don’t listen back yet.
As soon as possible afterwards, assuming you’ve had a decent amount of sleep, first thing in the day with no drinks in you, do another mix of the same project, then park it. After one or two more days of good sleep, early in your day, sit down and listen to both mixes. Its important you do this well rested and sober. User your best monitors and also headphones.
You’ll find a difference, I guarantee it. Rested and sober will sound better.
p.s. this will not work if you’re a non-dry alcoholic!
Sorry, Robin, but the test you suggested has nothing to do with your original claim of having one beer “closing your ears”. Your test is being tired AND having been drinking vs. being rested AND sober. I think everyone knows (even without making the test) which one would yield better results.
In matter of fact a small amount of alcohol (a very very small) makes your senses work better. How much this “small amount” is depends on person: For an average guy it might be less than what’s in one beer. For a “professional drinker” it may be up to what’s in several beers.
Of course I’m not suggesting to mix while drinking: when you “feel” the effect of alcohol you are already way above the amount which makes your mixes worse.
I get what you are saying, however its not really my claim (see link), however, I’ve heard this stated by several engineers I hold in high esteem. Take out the fatigue and there is still a case.