Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Non-audiophile reactions to high-end headphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Non-audiophile reactions to high-end headphones - Page 417  

post #6241 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by devhen View Post

 

Yep thats how FLAC/ALAC works. But not MP3, AAC, or any other lossy format. I don't need you to tell me how zip files work, I'm a computer programmer.

 

Maybe this will help you understand it-- zip file compression is a *lossless* compression (like FLAC and ALAC) meaning that when you decompress it you have the exact same data that you had prior to compression. MP3/AAC compression on the other hand is a *lossy* compression meaning once it has been compressed the original data can never be recovered.

 

Up-converting mp3s to FLAC is like using a digital camera to take a raw photo of a compressed jpeg image. Sure, the resulting digital photo is the same file size as any other raw photo taken with that camera but does that mean the jpeg image you took a photo of is now magically full quality and uncompressed?

Well said, and yes this is true

post #6242 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armaegis View Post

Most days, I can't tell the difference past 192. Depending on the song, even 128 may be enough. Assuming modern encodings. Older mp3's (we're talking over 10 years ago) sounded "less than ideal" and I can remember when even the different mp3 compressors sounded different.

 

I can tell the difference between 192 and 256, but I can't tell the difference between 256 and 320, so I don't feel the need to ever spend a large sum of money on high-end audiophile equipment if I can't (and probably don't) want to hear the difference in the first place.  Honestly I expect that there's more treble improvements and cleaner bass, but I can't stand treble and highs.  They hurt my ears XD......now if I ever try recording music, that'll be a different story.

post #6243 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkitZ0 View Post

 

I can tell the difference between 192 and 256, but I can't tell the difference between 256 and 320, so I don't feel the need to ever spend a large sum of money on high-end audiophile equipment if I can't (and probably don't) want to hear the difference in the first place.  Honestly I expect that there's more treble improvements and cleaner bass, but I can't stand treble and highs.  They hurt my ears XD......now if I ever try recording music, that'll be a different story.

I find there's a difference between piercing treble and highs(which people seem to associate with detail) and detailed treble and highs. Try a German Maestro GMP 400 or 450 and you get all the detail but not the sibilance typically found with it.

post #6244 of 6431

What is it with you people and not being able to hear the difference between 320kbps+! I can't listen to anything MP3 / AAC / enter lossy format here without wanting to break my headphones in half! (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but I really do notice 320kbps MP3 vs 2116kbps wav)

But on topic:

 

My friends once listened to my ATH-M50 and they were very impressed. I've also had one of my friends listen to my HD600 and he quite liked them aswell. No specifics, though.

post #6245 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandvichDISH View Post

What is it with you people and not being able to hear the difference between 320kbps+! I can't listen to anything MP3 / AAC / enter lossy format here without wanting to break my headphones in half! (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but I really do notice 320kbps MP3 vs 2116kbps wav)

But on topic:

 

Most people can't, and you're definitely exaggerating there. The differences are only subtle artifacts(and I think 320 has a LPF somewhere above my hearing range), and they're usually masked by the way we hear things.


Edited by chewy4 - 2/7/13 at 12:28pm
post #6246 of 6431

The literal statistical fact that 99% or more of people can't tell the difference between the same file uncompressed and compressed at LAME MP3 320kbps in a double-blind test tells me that you're probably either the affect of some bias you're creating, or have a huge ego. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandvichDISH View Post

What is it with you people and not being able to hear the difference between 320kbps+! I can't listen to anything MP3 / AAC / enter lossy format here without wanting to break my headphones in half! (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but I really do notice 320kbps MP3 vs 2116kbps wav)

But on topic:

 

My friends once listened to my ATH-M50 and they were very impressed. I've also had one of my friends listen to my HD600 and he quite liked them aswell. No specifics, though.

post #6247 of 6431

I find as bit rates go down, things become more sibilant.  Cymbals just don't sound as real.  Of course you need well recorded source material too.  There is no shortage of crappy recordings.  Garbage in garbage out no matter which codec you use.

post #6248 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandvichDISH View Post

What is it with you people and not being able to hear the difference between 320kbps+! I can't listen to anything MP3 / AAC / enter lossy format here without wanting to break my headphones in half! (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but I really do notice 3 2116kbps wav)topic:

My friends once listened to my ATH-M50 and they were very impressed. I've also had one of my friends listen to my HD600 and he quite liked them aswell. No specifics, though.

From what I've noticed, it depends greatly on the type of music. For example hard rock, pop, and EDM compression is a lot less noticeable than the same level of compression with music that uses clean, organic sound. The simple fact is that you've already lost a fair amount of detail and signal before it ever hits the platter. I recently had my mind blown by this whenncomparing bitrates on a lounge CD
post #6249 of 6431

A few years back a fellow coworker was just getting into headphone amps.  He had a Music Hall 25.1 amp/Dac and he was really confused why it sounded so poorly with he UE in ears.  Being well versed in electronics he did some digging, but in the mean time he borrowed my Ultra Desktop Amp.  He was simply blown away into a jaw-dropping surprise when he plugged those UE IEMs into the Ultra.  He later found a simple solution for the UE and Musical Hall problem, but to this day he rues the day not listening to the Ultra a bit more.

 

I agree that the Ultra and BUDA drive IEMs very well.

 

That was just about the response I had when Tyll let me listen to the STAX 009 through the Blue Hawaii SE.  The combo was far from perfectly neutral, but man did it sound good.  I could listen to it all day.


Edited by NA Blur - 2/7/13 at 2:00pm
post #6250 of 6431

Recording at 44.1 16 bit is hard. Perfect micing is needed or the recording looses definition, transient attack and air aka subtle information.

 

So a recording sampled down to CD quality for production already lost some information. One could quantify this as under 2 percent unless you are specifically listening to it doing a/b switching.

post #6251 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandvichDISH View Post

What is it with you people and not being able to hear the difference between 320kbps+! I can't listen to anything MP3 / AAC / enter lossy format here without wanting to break my headphones in half! (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but I really do notice 320kbps MP3 vs 2116kbps wav)

 

A good set of blind A/B/X tests will reveal that, for most recordings and most listeners, there is no audible difference between uncompressed audio, 320kbps CBR MP3 and 'V0' VBR MP3 ... myths to the contrary not withstanding.)

post #6252 of 6431

All this crap is why I'm transitioning to a mostly-vinyl rig, though that still can't fix bad production.

 

I would just start going to concerts, but a lot of those suck with echo and loudness. Perhaps I should bribe my way into a few studio sessions...

post #6253 of 6431
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca View Post

 

A good set of blind A/B/X tests will reveal that, for most recordings and most listeners, there is no audible difference between uncompressed audio, 320kbps CBR MP3 and 'V0' VBR MP3 ... myths to the contrary not withstanding.)

Hah that's one o my favorite things ... when people suggest that they need 320 over V0 because they can really hear when data is "lost," not understanding what V0 actually is.

post #6254 of 6431

A friend of mine started crying when I introduced her to audiophilia. She was pretty stoned though, but still.

post #6255 of 6431
I haven't had a vinyl set up for about 5 years :-( but modern vinyl does generally sound better than digital.

For a start, the loudness war is pretty much out the window. It's also a niche market now, catering for the discerning ear so 180+gm virgin vinyl (with similarily carefull mastering) becomes the norm.

If it had always been this way, digital would have been p1ssed on from the start.

"Audiophile" records aren't cheap, though, nor is a good turntable. Engineering is more expensive than electronics, which is why CDs took over :-(

I really didn't mean to ramble this much!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Non-audiophile reactions to high-end headphones