Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › You know you're an audiophile when...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

You know you're an audiophile when... - Page 303  

post #4531 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

Says the guy with an HD800 >___>

I can tell the differences between 256kbps and 320kbps with Q701s or HD600s XD 

I think it's much more dependent on the genre, if the treble is lacking or drowned out by tons of bass then bit rate isn't nearly as important.

post #4532 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjeena View Post

When you start noticing the small problems with the sound system on a night out. A little too much bass/too little bass. I really used to enjoy these parties more before I started using decent headphones.
From now I'm gonna try to only go to clubs where the sound system is excellent i.e Ministry of Sound in London.


Got to say, I've done this. Clubs are about the music too, and if a place has a really bad audio system, its like.... "erm..."

 

I've passed my PX-100's to people before, and they've gone "Didn't expect the bass to be that good from such a small headphone".

 

I've even been to gigs, and asked the sound guy to up certain band members/lower bass, etc.

post #4533 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by haquocdung View Post

You know you are an audiophile when ...

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

1000

 

Haha!

post #4534 of 6356

When you want nothing more than to go to sleep while wearing headphones but the music does the exact opposite of lulling you to sleep. 

post #4535 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by linglingjr View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

Says the guy with an HD800 >___>

I can tell the differences between 256kbps and 320kbps with Q701s or HD600s XD 

I think it's much more dependent on the genre, if the treble is lacking or drowned out by tons of bass then bit rate isn't nearly as important.

Obviously, but the HD800 is widely considered one of the most revealing headphones ever, so...

post #4536 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

When you want nothing more than to go to sleep while wearing headphones but the music does the exact opposite of lulling you to sleep. 

 

I can't sleep in headphones, unfortunately. I'll get to sleep just fine, and it really doesn't matter what's playing. The trouble is I can't stay asleep. I'll eventually wake up and feel claustrophobic, like I'm in a casket, since I can't move my head. At this point I can't get back to sleep and have to take the headphones off.

 

Hopefully a nice pair of IEMs will help out here.

post #4537 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

 

I can't sleep in headphones, unfortunately. I'll get to sleep just fine, and it really doesn't matter what's playing. The trouble is I can't stay asleep. I'll eventually wake up and feel claustrophobic, like I'm in a casket, since I can't move my head. At this point I can't get back to sleep and have to take the headphones off.

 

Hopefully a nice pair of IEMs will help out here.

i can sleep more easily (though being unable to sleep sideways has bothered me), its just that when i wake up i realize either im sleeping on them or they are 2 feet from the bed on the floorfrown.gif

post #4538 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by GL1TCH3D View Post


Not necessarily. I mean the differences between 128 and 256 is much more noticeable than 256 vs 320 but even then I feel it's noticeable.

What about flac and 320kps? Which music genes should I keep flac, which is fine with mp3?

I am interested in your opinions, because I plan to downsize my music library so that it can fit in my phone.

post #4539 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by GL1TCH3D View Post

Not necessarily. I mean the differences between 128 and 256 is much more noticeable than 256 vs 320 but even then I feel it's noticeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by linglingjr View Post

I can tell the differences between 256kbps and 320kbps with Q701s or HD600s XD 
I think it's much more dependent on the genre, if the treble is lacking or drowned out by tons of bass then bit rate isn't nearly as important.

You guys ever tried an abx (blind test) using Foobar 2000 abx plugin (volume matched) .... or is it just a feeling ...... ?

Most people who say they can tell the difference between aac256 vs 320mp3, or even aac256/320mp3 and flac, have never actually tested themselves under proper conditions. The results are usually ..... enlightening.
post #4540 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by haquocdung View Post

What about flac and 320kps? Which music genes should I keep flac, which is fine with mp3?
I am interested in your opinions, because I plan to downsize my music library so that it can fit in my phone.

If you're not sure - rip a track from a CD to flac using EAX, then transcode the rip to 256 (or whatever bit rate you want to use). Load both tracks into Foobar with the abx plugin. Use replay gain to volume match the tracks. Run the test 15-20 times. If you can't tell the difference the results will be very clear.

It's actually enlightening not to be an "audiophile". aac256 is transparent to me - so ideal for my portable. I do use flac at home - but that's just mainly for archiving - so makes more sense to also listen to flac when disk-space is no issue.
post #4541 of 6356

You pet your Burson while waiting for something to load on the internet. Along the grain of course.

post #4542 of 6356

when your looking for your headphones but forgot you already had them on.

post #4543 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post


You guys ever tried an abx (blind test) using Foobar 2000 abx plugin (volume matched) .... or is it just a feeling ...... ?
Most people who say they can tell the difference between aac256 vs 320mp3, or even aac256/320mp3 and flac, have never actually tested themselves under proper conditions. The results are usually ..... enlightening.

 

+1

 

I was quite surprised when I realized that aac192 was my transparency point. That was back in 2009. Since then the QT implementation of AAC seems to have improved. Granted, I'm using qtaacenc as my encoder backend (which allows VBR encoding, unlike the iTunes frontend), but my transparency point now is somewhere around ~172kbps on average. I've got a few problematic albums or songs (for some reason Quadrophenia seems to be giving the encoder trouble, and when I have the time I'll test with it to see if I'm actually hearing artifacts), but generally even trebly, overly bright recordings (like pretty much all of Yes) come through fine at my settings.

 

The last time I tested MP3 was the summer before last, and using LAME my transparency point is still V0 (~245kbps, I believe that comes out to), like it was the first time I tested. That's with my own personal killer sample, though, which is a really difficult part of one of my favorite songs. Usually I find V1 and even V2 to be perfectly listenable on most material. I use AAC to encode based solely on these results, since it's clearly a lot more efficient, at least to my hearing.

 

BTW, this is what that quote in my signature is about. I know what I can't hear, thanks to my testing. It honestly makes audiophile life a hell of a lot easier and more enjoyable when you're not constantly worrying that every little "off" thing you think you hear might be an artifact.

 

EDIT: For those interested in testing this for themselves, AFAIK the ABX component no longer comes by default with Foobar. You have to fetch it separately on the components page.

 

http://www.foobar2000.org/components


Edited by Argyris - 11/20/12 at 4:25am
post #4544 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post


If you're not sure - rip a track from a CD to flac using EAX, then transcode the rip to 256 (or whatever bit rate you want to use). Load both tracks into Foobar with the abx plugin. Use replay gain to volume match the tracks. Run the test 15-20 times. If you can't tell the difference the results will be very clear.
It's actually enlightening not to be an "audiophile". aac256 is transparent to me - so ideal for my portable. I do use flac at home - but that's just mainly for archiving - so makes more sense to also listen to flac when disk-space is no issue.

 

Wouldn't this also depend largely on the sound device & headphones?  I can't see how effective this test would be for someone like me, i.e. having a laptop with Beats Audio (soooo much better than the headphones) and Ultrasone DJ1.

post #4545 of 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

You guys ever tried an abx (blind test) using Foobar 2000 abx plugin (volume matched) .... or is it just a feeling ...... ?
Most people who say they can tell the difference between aac256 vs 320mp3, or even aac256/320mp3 and flac, have never actually tested themselves under proper conditions. The results are usually ..... enlightening.
This. I can hear a poorly encoded track, and sometimes codecs sound slightly different, but generally a good 128 is convincing for most of a CD. The whole reason I use V0 is because it nearly always deals with the difficult bits like snare and complex cymbals.

It's like wine tasting: a lot of people are vulnerable to believing the one with the nicest label and biggest price tag tastes better. It's seriously a real thing: I even knew a guy who worked at a vineyard who said it's common practice to sell a few products at many prices.
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) › You know you're an audiophile when...