High-quality MP3s not comparable to CD WAVs ??

Anybody who claims that mp3s sound the same as wav files has never used anything better than $20 speakers that came with their computer that butcher the sound no matter the source. Proper wav files sound better than mp3s s they contain all the musical information not just what the computer thinks is important. High quality mp3s (256 or better bitrate) will approach the quality of a decent tuner but thats all you can expect. Recognizing this limitation, mp3 is very useful for backround music when sound quality doesnt matter, and portable players are far and away the best solution for music when working out.

hear, hear, sailor720! i couldn't have said it better . . . .

There has been a lot of discussion around this exact topic.

Here are some facts:
A song on a CD is encoded at 1411mbps whereas the average MP3 is encoded at 128kpbs. Some people do encode them at higher rates like 320kbps, but that is the highest I've seen.

Here is my opinion:
I have done quite a bit of research and listening (friends have too) and this is the conclusion:

1411kbps = CD = GREAT!!!
128kbps = MP3 = CRAP
192kbps = MP3 = Sound better that 128, but still crap
320kbps = MP3 = Sounds worst than 192

My recomendation: If you must use MP3s, use them at 192kbps. They sound "ok" But stick with a CD if you can.

That's my opinion anyway.

I believe you are all leaving out the most important link in the chain. The MP3 files must go through a sound card.
I have had excellent results using the digital out on the M-Audio soundcard to a GW Labs Upsampler then to a modded
ART Di/O DAC.
If you play music straight from the soundcard you will probably not get CDP sound.