Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Ety fan auditions Shure E500 and E4C
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ety fan auditions Shure E500 and E4C - Page 2

post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by countach View Post



"Sour grapes is the false denial of desire for something sought but not acquired"

-i think she's hot, just doesn't look good with dark hair like that, and looks better in a bikini
post #17 of 52
I agree with PiccoloNamek. I think she's very plain-looking and her face is actually unattractive. I've also seen better racks at Home Depot.
post #18 of 52
yeah, same with Tom Cruise's nanny or jessica biel...they are all average looking girls.
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollsDownWindowsManually View Post
Tracks for testing, all ripped from CD with EAC and Converted to MP3 using lame 192 kbps variable bit rate
post #20 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post
No good?
post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollsDownWindowsManually View Post
No good?
that's lame
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollsDownWindowsManually View Post
No good?
nah, 192k is still pretty bad and add to it VBR, which makes it worse. Try 320k, CBR & 48kHz. You should really use lossless (CDs, vinyl) when doing any critical listening.
post #23 of 52
Thread Starter 
Most reasonable people who don't believe in 1,000 dollar platinum plated interconnect mumbo-jumbo will admit that even 128 kps MP3 is indistinguishable from WAV 99% of the time. I certainly cannot distinguish -V2 --vbr-new from WAV.....straight from the hydrogenaudio wiki:

High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening
-V3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps), -V2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps), -V1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or -V0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps) are recommended. These settings will produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are extremely rare.
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post
nah, 192k is still pretty bad and add to it VBR, which makes it worse. Try 320k, CBR & 48kHz. You should really use lossless (CDs, vinyl) when doing any critical listening.
Only if that's what he's going to use when he listens to them

I'd test them the way I intend to use them.
post #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollsDownWindowsManually View Post
Most reasonable people who don't believe in 1,000 dollar platinum plated interconnect mumbo-jumbo will admit that even 128 kps MP3 is indistinguishable from WAV 99% of the time. I certainly cannot distinguish -V2 --vbr-new from WAV.....straight from the hydrogenaudio wiki:

High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening
-V3 --vbr-new (~175 kbps), -V2 --vbr-new (~190 kbps), -V1 --vbr-new (~210 kbps) or -V0 --vbr-new (~230 kbps) are recommended. These settings will produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people cannot distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are extremely rare.
I can tell the between 129k and 192k and between 192k and 320k. Between 320k and WAV, it is challenging, but I can tell. MP3s don't quite sound right.
post #26 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post
I can tell the between 129k and 192k and between 192k and 320k. Between 320k and WAV, it is challenging, but I can tell. MP3s don't quite sound right.
You have better ears than I, my friend. And how exactly is VBR supposed to make it worse? Nah, -V2 --vbr-new sounds fine to my ears....indistinguishable from CD, and that's about all I can ask for.
post #27 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivel View Post
Only if that's what he's going to use when he listens to them

I'd test them the way I intend to use them.

All you guys making sarcastic faces and poopoo-ing me for using LAME -V2 --vbr-new, can you honestly say you've abx'ed it and been able to tell the difference consistenly using ABX, or are you just throwing out some subjective results? If you can honestly tell me you've ABX'ed it with success, then I tip my hat. I'm not trying to be hostile, just curious.

I did some more ABX'ing tonight and could never differentiated between MP3 and WAV on the tracks I tried.......so I guess for me -V2 --vbr-new is good enough.
post #28 of 52
Sad to see this thread degenerate into a beauty contest
post #29 of 52
Allow me to bring this thread back on track (BTW Jessica Alba is hot)

I'm not too sure you listened carefully enough if you thought the E4c and E500 sound similar. I urge you to listen again, this time for a longer period of time. The E4c and E500 sound different to me even though they both have the Shure sound signature. I won't tell you what to look out for in case it biases your listening/opinion. It doesn't take golden ears to notice the differences, which aren't that subtle.

Did you not also find the E4c more detailed and refined in general? Coming from Etymotics, I think the best introduction into the Shure line-up is indeed the E4c. The E500 may be too drastic a change.

Of course, YMMV
post #30 of 52
I thank you for your opinions on the Shure IEM and how they compare to the ER-6i that you have. I like reading about peoples perceptions of different headphones and comparisons between them are always good in my book.

As for bit-rates .. come on guys - we all know that we go for what we can hear. I mean lossless is great and knowing it's bit perfect and all is wonderful - however on my home system I find it hard to tell the difference between V2 VBR new and FLAC so in portable it's going to be nigh on impossible (for me) so why waste the space when I can take more music?

And although beauty is in the eye of the beholder I don't think Jessica Alba is anything special in that pic that was posted. I've seen her in other things where she is very hot though!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Ety fan auditions Shure E500 and E4C