Or indeed consumers who are perfectly happy with the sound of 210 kb/s VBR mp3s on an iPod through £80 Grado headphones.
I'm not trying to take any side myself here, but it does sound like you're implying that it's the "audiophiles" versus the "mindless masses", when I think you'll find there is also a significant population of people who value good quality sound but who can't necessarily discern any difference in quality between the top brands of mp3 player. I've owned models from three of them, and I certainly can't.
Not to want to sound snobbish, but £80 headphones are kind of wasted on mp3s in any case - if you compare listening to an mp3 and the same track on CD (or in a lossless codec such as flac), you'd definitely notice the difference, and appreciate the headphones more.
This being said, I have an iAudio and, using the same headphones, the sound is noticeably better than my girlfriend's (more expensive) iPod.
Eh, I listen to live versions of things, mostly—all the quality that's going to be lost was lost before the track was even mastered, so it doesn't matter if it's compressed, really.
Have you ever put yourself through a double-blind test on this issue?
Since the previous comment didn't just talk about mp3s in general but specifically mentioned 210Kbps VBR I think you'll find it an eye opening experience.
I'm not trying to take any side myself here, but it does sound like you're implying that it's the "audiophiles" versus the "mindless masses", when I think you'll find there is also a significant population of people who value good quality sound but who can't necessarily discern any difference in quality between the top brands of mp3 player. I've owned models from three of them, and I certainly can't.