The hard part is getting everyone to agree on a standard.

I don't know about you, but my car can hold more people than just the driver. If this was vigilantism, it certainly was shortsighted.

Maybe I'm odd, but when people ask to have a technical discussion about something I do for a living, I'm usually pretty happy to oblige.

Taking it to your metaphor, all I'm seeing here are people engaging in a mutually self-gratifying conversation about how there's heaps of data and evidence that shows Sasquatch isn't real, but once I ask to see that data, suddenly I'm the asshole.

I agree with you, but if someone says "I can see the moons of Saturn during the day with my naked eye," I can't really do much about it. If that same person said they had mathematical evidence that proved he could see Saturn with his naked eye, I don't think I'm out of line for asking to see that data. That's my beef here: people are ragging on audiophiles and the like for believing in black magic without any data to back it up, but many of the people here who complain about those audiophiles clearly don't know what they're talking about, either. I just find it odd that someone who says, "you can use math to prove that there's no perceivable difference in a 128kb MP3 and a 320kb MP3" is considered insightful, but when a guy who has a genuine interest in home audio asks to see that math, he's a troll.

Weight of the world got you down and you wanna end your life
Bills to pay, a dead-end job, and problems with the wive
Well don't throw in the towel, 'cause there's a place right down the block
Where you can drink all your miseries away
At "Flaming Moe's"
Let's all go to "Flaming Moe's"
Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away
Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away

See, that's why I was asking to see it.

The sample size makes the results meaningless. Again, you're doing *exactly* what you're complaining about: taking meaningless data and spinning it to prove a point that you don't seem to know much about.

You dropped off that "bps" after your "320k". Those letters are pretty important. 320kbps doesn't mean that the audio file can smoothly play frequencies up to 320kHz. Most MP3s run at a 44.1kHz sampling rate, meaning it can play frequencies up to 22.05kHz, but at that point it'd just be a square wave.

Yeah, I know all that. Still itching to learn more.

Whichever. I like math. I'd like to see either.

Fine. Show me the math that says people cannot here the difference.

But there's not much substance to the study, either. You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.

Can you show me the math that proves that there's no difference between an uncompressed audio source and a 320kbps mp3?

Too late. The summary already gave our resident armchair-experts enough fodder laugh over how everyone is stupid except them.

I don't know that this guy does, though.