Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sennheiser HD 598 Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sennheiser HD 598 Appreciation Thread - Page 147

post #2191 of 3600

Bitrate has nothing to do with compression. It doesn't change the frequency response either. Its very subtle - if audible at all.

post #2192 of 3600
First to perish with the low bitrates is the soundstage and seperation, but even then it is still pretty wide, but just not as convincing and accurate as a well bitrate well mastered file.
post #2193 of 3600
Sorry double post
post #2194 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

Bitrate has nothing to do with compression. It doesn't change the frequency response either. Its very subtle - if audible at all.

There has to be some form of compression, you are removing the amount of space you have for volume levels for each frequency, the question is whether its noticeable.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

First to perish with the low bitrates is the soundstage and seperation, but even then it is still pretty wide, but just not as convincing and accurate as a well bitrate well mastered file.

 

Thanks. What do people mean when they say "artifacts" then?

post #2195 of 3600

Sonic artifacting is when the sound is distorted through compression, sometimes it warbles, maybe sounds like your are underwater, or gets metallic, ect.  It's kind of like when you take a small image on the computer, blow it up and you see all the weird stuff around the lines, only in this case it's music and the weird stuff is all this extra distortion around the existing sounds.

post #2196 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

Bitrate has nothing to do with compression. It doesn't change the frequency response either. Its very subtle - if audible at all.

You sure you're not confusing bitrate with bit depth?

post #2197 of 3600

Im talking about dynamic range compression. Converting a RBCD to MP3 involves data compression, not dynamic range compression. The difference being that, to a certain point, data compression is inaudible while dynamic range compression is audible. Reducing the bit rate removes "pieces of data" from the file for the purpose of making it smaller, but the "pieces" are not audible (in theory).

 

Bit depth can (and does) affect dynamic range, but since humans can only hear between 20Hz and 20kHz, 16/44 (RBCD) is more than enough to cover the entire audible range.


Edited by palmfish - 3/30/13 at 6:57am
post #2198 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks159 View Post

Is 256kbps-320kbps low or are you talking 192kbps?

I know this is heresy around here, but to me, 192 is very listenable. Yes, lossless is delightfully and noticeably better, but 192 is... "Adequate." I still listen to a lot of music that I ripped at 128. Do I wish I had better versions? Sure. But it is what it is. I try to visualize myself listening to my grandad's old 78rpms. It's music that takes me back to a certain time that I'd otherwise not have in my life. That being said, I try to have lossless files now as much as anything.
post #2199 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCabDaddy View Post


I know this is heresy around here, but to me, 192 is very listenable. Yes, lossless is delightfully and noticeably better, but 192 is... "Adequate." I still listen to a lot of music that I ripped at 128. Do I wish I had better versions? Sure. But it is what it is. I try to visualize myself listening to my grandad's old 78rpms. It's music that takes me back to a certain time that I'd otherwise not have in my life. That being said, I try to have lossless files now as much as anything.


That's pretty much how I feel about them with my current set up. I would like to have higher bitrates, they would sound way better, but I can deal with lower bitrates.

post #2200 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by daleb View Post


That's pretty much how I feel about them with my current set up. I would like to have higher bitrates, they would sound way better, but I can deal with lower bitrates.

People here act like it's like nails on a chalkboard, but I grew up listening to those 78s, AM car radio, transistor portables, etc. It's all good. Just some is better. wink.gif
post #2201 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

Im talking about dynamic range compression. Converting a RBCD to MP3 involves data compression, not dynamic range compression. The difference being that, to a certain point, data compression is inaudible while dynamic range compression is audible. Reducing the bit rate removes "pieces of data" from the file for the purpose of making it smaller, but the "pieces" are not audible (in theory).

 

Bit depth can (and does) affect dynamic range, but since humans can only hear between 20Hz and 20kHz, 16/44 (RBCD) is more than enough to cover the entire audible range.

 

The frequency argument is only partially correct here, everyone's ears are different and some people can hear more than average and some people less than average.  Also, the fact that you can't actually hear some of the much higher and lower frequencies doesn't mean that you won't feel them (you will) and that can change the sonic signature that your ear perceives.

post #2202 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltaechoe View Post

 

The frequency argument is only partially correct here, everyone's ears are different and some people can hear more than average and some people less than average.  Also, the fact that you can't actually hear some of the much higher and lower frequencies doesn't mean that you won't feel them (you will) and that can change the sonic signature that your ear perceives.

So if you were enjoying a nice mellow jazz piece with your HD598's and someone came up right behind you and forcefully blew into a dog whistle, do you think it would disturb you?


Edited by palmfish - 3/30/13 at 1:40pm
post #2203 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCabDaddy View Post


People here act like it's like nails on a chalkboard, but I grew up listening to those 78s, AM car radio, transistor portables, etc. It's all good. Just some is better. wink.gif

I understand but when you solely listen to Flac and 320 and then a 128 comes on, you're like holy crap that sounds terrible! Its like going from driving a BMW to a KIAKIA


Edited by tannerbnd - 3/30/13 at 1:48pm
post #2204 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerbnd View Post

I understand but when you solely listen to Flac and 320 and then a 128 comes on, you're like holy crap that sounds terrible! Its like going from driving a BMW to a KIAKIA

 

I think you're exaggerating a bit. If it's two rips of the same master, the difference will not be night and day.

 

I listen to Pandora sometimes - all streamed at 128 kbps, and it sounds perfectly fine. Not discerning audiophile fine, but not "terrible."

post #2205 of 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerbnd View Post

I understand but when you solely listen to Flac and 320 and then a 128 comes on, you're like holy crap that sounds terrible! Its like going from driving a BMW to a KIAKIA


Well good thing I only have like 3 flac files. I think the 598s or Q701s should work great for me.

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 598 Appreciation Thread