The smaller the mp3 file, the worse the sound quality. MP3s at 320kbps are bigger than 192kbps MP3s. They're bigger because they conserve more of the original sound data. However MP3 is always a "lossy" compression format, compared to FLAC for example which contains the same sound data as the CD - if you feed the FLAC compressor the original .wav files from the ripped CD. (You cannot get a lossless file again
if you convert an mp3 to FLAC - that's because you cannot regain an oil painting from simply having a photocopy of that painting! What's gone is gone.)
If you listen to music snippets on the Net, at Amazon for example, that's music encoded at a low bit rate - probably as low as 64 or 32 kbps. You immediately notice the difference to the original music there, because those previews sound as being played through a medium wave radio, or a tin can.
192 kbps is already pretty good, certainly good enough for a mobile mp3 player, but if you listen closely, there can be differences sometimes. For example hi-hat lines can sound a bit "coloured" compared to the original, if you listen with good headphones.
It's really simple to test one's own tolerance level for mp3 compression. Get a freeware mp3 encoder on the Net and encode the same track at different compression rates. Start with 32 kbps, then try 96 kbps, 128 kbps, ... if you then listen to the resulting files, it's immediately obvious how compression rate and sound quality are related!
320 kbps is the best that is possible with MP3, it's 99,9 % (or something like that) to the CD, so we all can live with that until FLAC (lossless compression) gets more popular. Most of the mobile mp3 players can't play FLAC files so far, so if TD offered FLAC I suppose they'd be overrun with complaints like "Hey I downloaded the album but it doesn't play!". Which would be no fun for the TD office I suppose...
So thanks for 320 kbps mp3, good compromise!
Patience is not easy when your champing at the bit to hear AIH.
Really looking forward to this!
320