or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sennheiser HD 600 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sennheiser HD 600 Impressions Thread - Page 211

post #3151 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Blow my eardrums out?  Don't understand that comment! The high definition studio master albums that I have downloaded are mostly from Linn Records and other sources, some from HDTracks, typically they require a 10db increase in volume, to volume match with my other flac files of the same material.  Mastering doesn't get much better than studio masters.  I use EAC to rip CD's to flac, so I don't think 320 lossy files can be better.  You must be using portable gears if yo don't hear a difference.  My gears are listed in my sig, and A/B using the studio master vs ripped flac, with the same albums, to my ears don't compare.  If I sample a good album from Linn Records, and like the sound, I prefer to download the studio master flac for the best quality.  You hear the hi res files way different than these ears!  If I had a choice and the means to get the studio masters in hi res, for the few dollars more, that would be all that I purchase, they are that good!  I won't argue with your 320 mp3's if they make you happy.  But, many artists absolutly hate MP3 copies of their work.....I am speaking of someone like Neil Young who rarely even put their best music on CD.  I have many of his albums that are 24/96 DVDAudio, great quality.  Many here don't have the gears to play back 24/96 files, with cheap drive space, no reason not to have hires!

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded. Enjoy wink.gif

 

When you finish reading that, do yourself a favor. Download this free trial of dbpoweramp, and convert a few flac files to 320 MP3 via LAME. Then let me know what you think.

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/

 

No one else can convince you unless you have the epiphany for yourself. Make sure you convert your own lossless files to MP3 320, and compare that exact MP3 to the EXACT lossless file you converted it from.

post #3152 of 17469

BTW, the HD600 is bloody great for rock!

 

This is a morning for System of a Down (Toxicity) and Alexisonfire (Crisis), and the HD600 is going quite a job!

post #3153 of 17469
I have a number of albums in my collection where I own multiple versions. For example, The Alan Parson Project "I Robot" I own on original 1980s vintage Redbook CD, 24/192 HDCD, and remastered Redbook CD.

There is a definite difference in sound between all of these discs - even though the 24/192 and 80s redbook are from the same master.

On the other hand, I took the 24/192 master disc and ripped it to FLAC and 320 kbps MP3. I have compared the two rips and cannot tell them apart. I have compared the MP3 directly against the HDCD disc and cant tell the difference.

Equipment is a Pioneer Elite DV-79 AVi DVD player, Logitech Squeezebox, Benchmark DAC1 and Sennheiser HD800.
post #3154 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

I have a number of albums in my collection where I own multiple versions. For example, The Alan Parson Project "I Robot" I own on original 1980s vintage Redbook CD, 24/192 HDCD, and remastered Redbook CD.

There is a definite difference in sound between all of these discs - even though the 24/192 and 80s redbook are from the same master.

On the other hand, I took the 24/192 master disc and ripped it to FLAC and 320 kbps MP3. I have compared the two rips and cannot tell them apart. I have compared the MP3 directly against the HDCD disc and cant tell the difference.

Equipment is a Pioneer Elite DV-79 AVi DVD player, Logitech Squeezebox, Benchmark DAC1 and Sennheiser HD800.

 

Exactly! A good MP3 converter simply removes what human ears cannot hear. The point of thos massive 300mb files is to allow the engineer to zoom in on very minute artifacts using a visual spectrum analyzer. 

 

In other news, the HD600 is actually really good with rock. I think it's due to the mids. The articulate mids really help with the crunch of the distortion guitars, and lively snare snap. Yellowcard's Ocean Avenue is banging right now.

post #3155 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded. Enjoy wink.gif

 

When you finish reading that, do yourself a favor. Download this free trial of dbpoweramp, and convert a few flac files to 320 MP3 via LAME. Then let me know what you think.

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/

 

No one else can convince you unless you have the epiphany for yourself. Make sure you convert your own lossless files to MP3 320, and compare that exact MP3 to the EXACT lossless file you converted it from.


Thanks for posting that, it was a very fascinating read. I am always happy when people post things grounded in actual science rather than the placebo-fi that we see so often.

post #3156 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Blow my eardrums out?  Don't understand that comment! The high definition studio master albums that I have downloaded are mostly from Linn Records and other sources, some from HDTracks, typically they require a 10db increase in volume, to volume match with my other flac files of the same material.  Mastering doesn't get much better than studio masters.  I use EAC to rip CD's to flac, so I don't think 320 lossy files can be better.  You must be using portable gears if yo don't hear a difference.  My gears are listed in my sig, and A/B using the studio master vs ripped flac, with the same albums, to my ears don't compare.  If I sample a good album from Linn Records, and like the sound, I prefer to download the studio master flac for the best quality.  You hear the hi res files way different than these ears!  If I had a choice and the means to get the studio masters in hi res, for the few dollars more, that would be all that I purchase, they are that good!  I won't argue with your 320 mp3's if they make you happy.  But, many artists absolutly hate MP3 copies of their work.....I am speaking of someone like Neil Young who rarely even put their best music on CD.  I have many of his albums that are 24/96 DVDAudio, great quality.  Many here don't have the gears to play back 24/96 files, with cheap drive space, no reason not to have hires!

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded. Enjoy wink.gif

 

When you finish reading that, do yourself a favor. Download this free trial of dbpoweramp, and convert a few flac files to 320 MP3 via LAME. Then let me know what you think.

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/

 

No one else can convince you unless you have the epiphany for yourself. Make sure you convert your own lossless files to MP3 320, and compare that exact MP3 to the EXACT lossless file you converted it from.

 

Why don't the recording studios record in 320 MP3 if it sounds so great?  Why would I want to convert my 24/96 flac studio masters to lossy 320kbps MP3?  Why have Blu-Ray music in 24/192 lossless, if 320kbps MP3 sounds better?

I just don't get that, sorry!

post #3157 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

I have a number of albums in my collection where I own multiple versions. For example, The Alan Parson Project "I Robot" I own on original 1980s vintage Redbook CD, 24/192 HDCD, and remastered Redbook CD.

There is a definite difference in sound between all of these discs - even though the 24/192 and 80s redbook are from the same master.

On the other hand, I took the 24/192 master disc and ripped it to FLAC and 320 kbps MP3. I have compared the two rips and cannot tell them apart. I have compared the MP3 directly against the HDCD disc and cant tell the difference.

Equipment is a Pioneer Elite DV-79 AVi DVD player, Logitech Squeezebox, Benchmark DAC1 and Sennheiser HD800.

 

Try to convert those 320kbps MP3's back to flac to see if they still sound the same!  I have yet to find any material to purchase that is 320 kbps MP3, why is that?  It would make more sense of it was that good, considering the download time of a wav or flac studio master.  Are there 320 kbps MP3's in existance, for purchase?  Where can I find a 24/192 HDCD?  Is there such a thing?


Edited by cute - 5/12/13 at 10:31am
post #3158 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Try to convert those 320kbps MP3's back to flac to see if they still sound the same!  I have yet to find any material to purchase that is 320 kbps MP3, why is that?  It would make more sense of it was that good, considering the download time of a wav or flac studio master.  Are there 320 kbps MP3's in existance, for purchase?  Where can I find a 24/192 HDCD?  Is there such a thing?

Err Amazon still sell Mp3 I think tongue_smile.gif

post #3159 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Why don't the recording studios record in 320 MP3 if it sounds so great?  Why would I want to convert my 24/96 flac studio masters to lossy 320kbps MP3?  Why have Blu-Ray music in 24/192 lossless, if 320kbps MP3 sounds better?

I just don't get that, sorry!

 

Exactly. You've constructed a straw man argument instead of looking at what I asked you to do.

 

320 kbps does not sound better than lossless, neither does lossless sound better than 320 kbps MP3. 

 

The bandwidth of 24 bit files has to do with dynamic range, aka soft to loud volumes. There is no recording that makes use of 24 bits of dynamic range, and there is no human that could withstand that kind of volume, or hear that high frequency.

 

Converting to MP3 removes all the blank space and inaudible frequencies that are in the 24 bit recordings, leaving the actual "music" behind.

 

The issue is headroom. The 24 bit file leaves space for the engineer to do what he wants with the recording.

 

The same principle applies to the people who are using 50W amplifiers on headphones with 1W spec, claiming to hear better resolution, articulation, and other audiophile words.

post #3160 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Try to convert those 320kbps MP3's back to flac to see if they still sound the same!  I have yet to find any material to purchase that is 320 kbps MP3, why is that?  It would make more sense of it was that good, considering the download time of a wav or flac studio master.  Are there 320 kbps MP3's in existance, for purchase?  Where can I find a 24/192 HDCD?  Is there such a thing?

 

That is nonsense! You've already removed the "fat" from the file. All you'd be doing is reintroducing it, opening up chances for introducing artifacts from the encoder.

post #3161 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaine1711 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Try to convert those 320kbps MP3's back to flac to see if they still sound the same!  I have yet to find any material to purchase that is 320 kbps MP3, why is that?  It would make more sense of it was that good, considering the download time of a wav or flac studio master.  Are there 320 kbps MP3's in existance, for purchase?  Where can I find a 24/192 HDCD?  Is there such a thing?

Err Amazon still sell Mp3 I think tongue_smile.gif

 

Err Amazon don't sell 320kbps MP3, I think, 256kbps MP3 st best somtimes lower bit rate MP3, I think!  The reason I don't buy them anymore!  biggrin.gif

post #3162 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

 

The same principle applies to the people who are using 50W amplifiers on headphones with 1W spec, claiming to hear better resolution, articulation, and other audiophile words.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the 50W Amplifier also happens to deliver better quality power comparing to the 1W one?

 

Overgeneralizing is not good.

post #3163 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Try to convert those 320kbps MP3's back to flac to see if they still sound the same!  I have yet to find any material to purchase that is 320 kbps MP3, why is that?  It would make more sense of it was that good, considering the download time of a wav or flac studio master.  Are there 320 kbps MP3's in existance, for purchase?  Where can I find a 24/192 HDCD?  Is there such a thing?

 

That is nonsense! You've already removed the "fat" from the file. All you'd be doing is reintroducing it, opening up chances for introducing artifacts from the encoder.

 

Exactly my point, thank you!  I like fat, so no lossy files for me!

post #3164 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

  Where can I find a 24/192 HDCD?  Is there such a thing?

Well, there must be such a thing because I own several rolleyes.gif

Amazon MP3 downloads are 256 kbps.

I use FLAC at home because I like having an uncompressed rip of my discs saved as an archive - and because storage is cheap. I listen to 320 kbps rips on my portable devices.
post #3165 of 17469
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProtegeManiac View Post

With the right amp and source it will be - took me a while before I got to listen to (then find, and buy) the Meier Cantate. CMOY and to a lesser extent the PB-1 Toucan, both with an iMod, were a bit too warm on the midrange down to the bass. I'm only appreciating the D-Zero I normally use with my active monitors because my Cantate blew its transformer (and international shipping from DigiKey). Other amps/sources I've liked with it are the Asgard, HRT iStreamer, and Burson Soloist (adds a bit of warmth but lots of grunt to it).
Oh I'm certain that, with the right amp, I'll be able to manipulate the signature somewhat, but to the point where it's airy and aggressive like something from Audio-Technica's AD series or a K701? Very likely not. I'm ok with that too. I was simply listing what my ears these days like and I bought the HD 600 knowing it reads like the opposite. My hope is I find a nice compliment to a signature I favor in the HD 600 and not something I just hate.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sennheiser HD 600 Impressions Thread