Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Knowing anything about audio makes you look stupid.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Knowing anything about audio makes you look stupid. - Page 7

post #91 of 102

I usually suggest newbies to use Sony instead, much better price performance. And at least Sony has the decency to make headphones that don't turn the music into noise.

post #92 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syan25 View Post

True - I always go for lossless anyway mostly because I think the quality of silence surrounding the sound is extremely black to my ears. It sounds like the background is completely soundless and that the sounds therefore come out of this total void. 

 

I think that is one of the biggest benefits of using lossless over other conversions...

 

And why settle for anything less than the complete reproduction of the original sound recording?


x2

 

I just started using lossless tracks and they sound way better than mp3s, etc.smily_headphones1.gif

post #93 of 102

I settle with almost there.. some records actually sounds better in a lossy format. Death - Symbolic (remastered) encoded in Ogg Vorbis q8.5 has a harsh sound, anemic bass, but Chuck's vocal do sound nice. Going down to q6 (a little better than 320 CBR LAME, but taking up two thirds of the space) actually has it's rewards. The bass are more fat and the edge of the stinging top is reduced, but at the cost of some dynamic/ string attack.

 

It depends on how well recorded/ mastered the music is and portability/ surrounding noise, for the most part Ogg Vorbis q6 or q8.5 are in fact quite good in an environment that have some noise.

 

About looking stupid.. why point at someones choice of HP if oneself listen to LAME 256 VBR and have a really expensive High End IEM?

post #94 of 102

I can respect lossy for portable use. But for desktop listening and how much the storage space/price ratio has improved over the years I don't see why anyone would choose lossy over lossless. Especially if one is going to invest hundred and thousands of dollars on audio equipment.

 

My philosophy is: if you can afford headphones, you can afford a hard drive.

post #95 of 102

The funny thing is all this DBT about hearing anything above Ogg Vorbis q8.5, but what about really expensive IEMs or headphones, is it about better taste?

 

A Head-Fi conneseaur, oh.. those plebians sure look funny not knowing...

 

.. pointing usually reveal something about oneself as well, there's two sides to it really.

post #96 of 102

Sorry not sure if I follow...

 

I am only suggesting that HDD space is very affordable these days and that your rig is only as good as its weakest link. Lossy formats will only cripple your rig from the get-go; weather the difference is audible or not depends on the person, but if space is not an issue why not feed your system the best to get the best?

 

Garbage in, garbage out.

post #97 of 102


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riku540 View Post

Sorry not sure if I follow...

 

I am only suggesting that HDD space is very affordable these days and that your rig is only as good as its weakest link. Lossy formats will only cripple your rig from the get-go; weather the difference is audible or not depends on the person, but if space is not an issue why not feed your system the best to get the best?

 

Garbage in, garbage out.

Still 320 is not garbage at all, and it's not like I use critical listening headphones on my ipod or even my computer for that matter. The Differences only show if you've go the transparency to show it in the first place. Then your ears need to be up to par as well to hear it.

 

Do you remember in the wizard of OZ when they went in the emerald City? Well in the book before they could enter they needed to where special glasses cause the brilliance  of the city would hurt their eyes from the inside of the city walls. When they got in it was beautiful until they took off the glasses to find a dull lifeless world. Such is the reason I never get the cynical headphones that show each and every flaw music has to offer. I'd rather enjoy my music, my Emerald City, then be  shown the dull lifeless void that is reality.
 

post #98 of 102

I don't mean at all that 320kbps is garbage; just requoting a popular phrase. My only real argument is for desktop listening, whereas lossy was intended for uses where space would be an issue. If that isn't the case, then why further compress already compressed music at all?

post #99 of 102

lossless files are very irritating to organize... a lot don't have tags which make organizing and searching a pain in the brown eye. a lot of mp3 players also do not have lossless playback. id rather have just one copy of each song instead of both an mp3 and flac. i can barely hear the difference between 320 and flac. if i did hear the difference, i wonder if its just my head playing tricks with me

post #100 of 102

Riku540: My response was more to OP, but I totally agree with you. There's no reason having your entire CD collection in a lossy format, unless your prepared to rip your entire collection everytime there's an advancement in the lossy codecs.

 

.. but the Head-Fi conneseaur dissing someones first baby steps into the world of better SQ, they need to learn, to fall and pick them self up... it doesn't add up that someone wants to be their nanny.

 

That just looks stupid if you ask me..

 

SoSpecial: I rarely go beyond 320 on my portable DAP (32 GB), because Ogg Vorbis q6 let's me carry around 500 CDs instead of 175 (setting q10) and there's the traffic that also needs my attention.


Edited by Albedo - 11/13/10 at 5:20pm
post #101 of 102


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wind016 View Post

lossless files are very irritating to organize... a lot don't have tags which make organizing and searching a pain in the brown eye. a lot of mp3 players also do not have lossless playback. id rather have just one copy of each song instead of both an mp3 and flac. i can barely hear the difference between 320 and flac. if i did hear the difference, i wonder if its just my head playing tricks with me


 

 

I prefer FLAC's vorbis-based commenting system to ID3. It's vastly superior. You could, in theory, use vorbis comments with MP3, but virtually nobody does. 

 

I find more mp3s poorly tagged than FLACs. Most people who are bothering to create FLACs know what they're doing, and have a reason for choosing FLAC instead of MP3. A lot of people who create MP3s have no clue at all what they're doing because any audio program in the world anymore can create mp3s for you, and we just have to hope that it used good settings and a decent encoder.

 

I'm not sure where you're finding these badly commented FLACs.

 

For my home system, where I keep my digital music archive, I see no reason (and many benefits, such as being guaranteed no loss at all from the source material) not to use lossless.

 

For my portable, I use the lowest quality lossy encodes that generally provides transparancy to me on the portable rig, in order to save space. (it turns out to be -q3 Ogg Vorbis, or roughly 118kbps, comparable to ~140 to 160kbps mp3s depending on the encoder)

 

It's a bit of extra effort, sure, but you can macro the whole process so it's pretty damn simple (hell, foobar2000 lets you "select all" and batch encode, saving and translating tags as you go, and even naming resulting files and folders based on those tags). I don't see any reason anymore to try and find some "middle ground" of extremely high lossy bitrates that eat up 2x or even 3x as much space on my portable, yet still have the potential for lossy artifacts on my home rig. It just seems silly.

post #102 of 102

If you're ripping from CDs rather than downloading illegally, the tagging is a non-issue.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Knowing anything about audio makes you look stupid.