I totally agree that that was part of the argument that mp2 & mp3 (particularly in the early days when less than 128 kbps was available to encode), were efficient at transfering music at small sizes & at high speeds across the net. But nowadays with the ability to encode mp3's at up to 320 or aac/m4a/mp4 at same but smaller sizes AND with much larger HDD sizes available AND much faster net transfer speeds that people (the ones who do care & notice the difference) are very definitely looking at higher bit rates to downld. Personally I encode 80% at 192 kbps & the other at 320. I went thru the experiences of encoding using lame & Og Vorbis & others using various apps & encoders, at suggested low bit-rates. But when I listened to particular (& I specify particular) pieces of music which had an extremely wide dynamic frequency range & stereo separation, I thought there's something missing here, & then listened back to the originals on CD & realised exactly what type of compromising was being made. It does very much depend on the particular music/song you listen to be able to pick up exactly how much of a difference it makes.

The Trade Off

Decisions regarding encoding and compression involve balancing 3 factors:

1. Audio fidelity/quality
2. File size [affects hard drive space and Internet transfer time]
3. Time [to encode/compress]

Format tests: (take these tests with ... very informal tests ... anyway top-down in quality of performance.
1. # MPC: 4.31 (143kbps) (mp3pro which has best results at lower bit-rates.)
2. # AAC: 4.12 (132kbps)
3. # Ogg: 3.48 (133kbps)
4. # Lame: 3.36 (128kbps)
5. # WMA: 3.23 (132kbps) - some complain of squishy
artifacts below 160kbps
6. # Xing: 2.41 (128kbps)

Related post: Music Quality (popular demand) Your turn: