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 212

post #3166 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

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

 

...What?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaine1711 View Post

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.

 

I didn't overgeneralize. I was referring to the people who claimed to hear better headroom from the extra 40+ W of power. 

 

In that case, an amp that provides 10 W of quality power should be more than sufficient.

post #3167 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

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.

 

Ah, I see, flac files at home and 320 kbps rips on portables.  Why not archive everything in 320 kbps, save some disc space and they sound the same anyway?  Why not flac on your portable as well, that is what I do instead of messing with MP3 lossy conversions?  I would be interested to know what 24/192 HDCD's you have?  I understood the HDCD was a CD with 20 bits encoded to 16 bits, what is your definition of HDCD?  Maybe that is where I am confused!


Edited by cute - 5/12/13 at 10:52am
post #3168 of 17702

Cute, have you checked out dbpoweramp yet?

post #3169 of 17702
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?

 

Google Music's MP3 store sells 320kbps MP3.

post #3170 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

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.

 

You are the expert in MP3 files then.  I don't have any lossy files.  I won't ask to see your audio degree!  We hear differently!

post #3171 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame21x 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?

 

Google Music's MP3 store sells 320kbps MP3.

 

Waste of time and money for me....I don't need lossy files, all they do is save disk space!

post #3172 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

...What?

 

 

I didn't overgeneralize. I was referring to the people who claimed to hear better headroom from the extra 40+ W of power. 

 

In that case, an amp that provides 10 W of quality power should be more than sufficient.

Well, it isn't that simple really. Even when you have 10W of quality power, the quality between the first 1W and the second 1W may not be the same. The industry has moved to bigger = better since the 80s (and often sacrifice quality for quantity); I think at the moment only very few people do "low watt high quality" kind of amp (Nelson Pass and Don Garber comes to mind). But that's enough chit-chat about power.

 

About the Flac/Hires/Mp3 debate, the fact is Mp3 is not the same as Flac - whether you can hear it or not. And isn't it the goal of this hobby to get as much purity as possible from the chain? I don't claim to hear difference between 320kbps mp3 and Flac reliably. But using flac gives me the peace of mind that I'm using the best, no compromise source files.

 

That is not to mention with two or three purchases of Hires files, you could as well buy a new 2TB hard drive, so why convert to mp3 (except for portable purpose)

post #3173 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

You are the expert in MP3 files then.  I don't have any lossy files.  I won't ask to see your audio degree!  We hear differently!

 

All I'm asking you to do is walk through the experiment with me.

 

I've been in the lossless camp as well, until I heard it for myself. Convert a few of your lossless albums and A/B, then you'll have a leg to stand on to disagree with me.

post #3174 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

Waste of time and money for me....I don't need lossy files, all they do is save disk space!

 

I'd think buying 24 bit "HD" tracks is the bigger waste of money but to each his own. Lossless files have their uses, to be sure, but for the listener, they're just not worth the space.

 

And I say this with 2TB worth of storage on my PC and a 1TB external drive. It's not a matter of space, just practical use of said space.

post #3175 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Cute, have you checked out dbpoweramp yet?

 

No need, I use jRiver MC 18, used it for years.....it has audiophile settings that are quite usefull, and a good Parametric EQ.  You can try it for free, but people that had dppoweramp or foobar, and tried jRiver MC notice an improvement in sound.  Not worth it for me to change!

post #3176 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

You are the expert in MP3 files then.  I don't have any lossy files.  I won't ask to see your audio degree!  We hear differently!

 

All I'm asking you to do is walk through the experiment with me.

 

I've been in the lossless camp as well, until I heard it for myself. Convert a few of your lossless albums and A/B, then you'll have a leg to stand on to disagree with me.

 

So, would you say your files converted to 320 kbps, sound better or as good as superaudio 24/88.2 and Blu-Ray music at 24/192?  If so 2L would like to hear from you!  Are you guys with the HD600 using the stock cable?  Or, are you in the camp that doesn't believe cables can make a sound difference as well?


Edited by cute - 5/12/13 at 11:10am
post #3177 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

No need, I use jRiver MC 18, used it for years.....it has audiophile settings that are quite usefull, and a good Parametric EQ.  You can try it for free, but people that had dppoweramp or foobar, and tried jRiver MC notice an improvement in sound.  Not worth it for me to change!

 

...it's not an audio player. It's a converter. I'm asking you to use it to convert your lossless files to 320 kbps MP3, and then A/B to see if you can reliably hear a difference.

 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by khaine1711 View Post

Well, it isn't that simple really. Even when you have 10W of quality power, the quality between the first 1W and the second 1W may not be the same. The industry has moved to bigger = better since the 80s (and often sacrifice quality for quantity); I think at the moment only very few people do "low watt high quality" kind of amp (Nelson Pass and Don Garber comes to mind). But that's enough chit-chat about power.

 

Yes, but the issue isn't just about how muc power you put into a headphone. The amp has to be able to exert minute control over the diaphragm. I'd prefer an exquisitely controlled 10W into my 1W headphone, than 50W of less controlled, unnecessary power.

post #3178 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

So, would you say your files converted to 320 kbps, sound better or as good as superaudio 24/88.2 and Blu-Ray music at 24/192?  Are you guys with the HD600 using the stock cable?  Or, are you in the camp that doesn't believe cables can make a sound difference as well?

 

I quit.

 

Just because cute is so adamant about it, I re-ripped one of my lossless binaural tracks to 320, and A/B'ed them. The result: zero audible difference.

 

 


Edited by eke2k6 - 5/12/13 at 11:25am
post #3179 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame21x View Post

 

I'd think buying 24 bit "HD" tracks is the bigger waste of money but to each his own. Lossless files have their uses, to be sure, but for the listener, they're just not worth the space.

 

And I say this with 2TB worth of storage on my PC and a 1TB external drive. It's not a matter of space, just practical use of said space.

Some of the remasters on 24 bit Hdtracks are really good. Some of them are still brickwalled CD rebadged in 24/96 and 24/192. 

 

That said mastering matters much more than file format. And buying 24/96, 24/192 blindly is a waste of money.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Yes, but the issue isn't just about how muc power you put into a headphone. The amp has to be able to exert minute control over the diaphragm. I'd prefer an exquisitely controlled 10W into my 1W headphone, than 50W of less controlled, unnecessary power.

 

Hard to find a high quality 10W amplifier than to find a 50W high quality amplifier is all I'm saying. Partially explain why people (incidentally) hear improvement with higher output amp. I don't get the more headroom = better expansive soundstage either


Edited by khaine1711 - 5/12/13 at 11:14am
post #3180 of 17702
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cute View Post

 

So, would you say your files converted to 320 kbps, sound better or as good as superaudio 24/88.2 and Blu-Ray music at 24/192?  Are you guys with the HD600 using the stock cable?  Or, are you in the camp that doesn't believe cables can make a sound difference as well?

 

I quit.

 

Me quit too!  I'm set in my ways, happy with what I have.  It is what it is and I do like listening to my 2L 24/88.2 superaudio and 24/192 Blu-Ray discs, as well as my studio master 24/96 downloads, which are as cheap as a new purchase CD with shipping!  I have downloaded from HDTracks, and many are no better that regular CD's, Dr Chesky takes the path of least resisitance with his 24/96 files, they could/should be much better. IMO!

 

Hope you all enjoy your HD600's as much as I do!

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