or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TDK BA200 Thread - Page 30

post #436 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

Well all I know is I can tell a difference with WAV that I can with Flac, most Fac files that I have are in the 400MB to 500MB range and the same album or mix in WAV is around 700MB to 750MB so your telling me the extra 200 to 250MB dosen't make a difference.  All I know is I've taken CD's that I have and made one Flac and the other WAV and WAV sounds better, Flac sound just a touch better than a 320 MP3 but WAV sound much cleaner and clearer to me.  I don't know all the technical jargon that goes into it but I can hear a difference and its not the players or the EQ as I don't EQ, well maybe the bass but that wouldn't change anything.


That is exactly what I'm telling you. :-p lol  I really don't mean to sound disrespectful, I'm only trying to help.  Let me explain why.  Please be patient and read this all if you would.  It all comes down to how the files work.

 

Let's assume you make a word document on the computer and type a resume.  You use winzip to compress the resume file and email it to a job contact.  They use winzip and "unzip" the resume.  Do you think they will see the exact same resume that you made on your computer?  The answer is yes.  The zip file will make the original resume smaller for email using lossless compression (the same idea as flac), and then the other person decompresses it back to its original size.  Don't let the file size fool you.  Simply put, it is a mathematical algorithm that reorganizes the bits of information into a file that contains the same information in a more compact form.  It relies on the compression software (or music player) to interpret the compressed information based on the original algorithm.  Let me explain it this way:

 

Take our "file", the line of binary here:  110011001100110011001100110011

 

You can see that it is basically 11 and 00 repeated.  Now lets say that each character counts as 1MB of data, just to put a theoretical size to it.  this line would equal 30MB (30 characters).  This is your original WAV file.

 

Now, what if I told you I would make an algorithm or a "key" that would make the file smaller?  Let's say my key is this:

If I read a 11, I will record it as a single 1.  If I read a 00, I will record it as a single 0.

 

I will give you this key as well (the compression software/music player).  So, when you get my file, you can read the file and use my "key" to translate it into its original state.

Therefore, I will send you a compressed version of the file based off of my "key" algorithm.  This would be:

 

101010101010101

 

You can see now that the file is only 15MB (15 characters) now.  That is half the size!!!

 

But here's the catch... I send you the 15MB file, but before you view it your compression software (music player) looks at the file I sent you and says "ok, let's take this file and apply the "key" I have to it."  The software takes the 101010101010101 and says "i see a one... that means I should read it as 11, because the key says so, and I read a 0... so I should read it as 00, because the key says so".

 

It does this for the entire file, and when it is done you end up with: 110011001100110011001100110011

 

If you compare the original file number I listed at the beginning and the last file number I listed, you'll see they are identical.  Both have the exact same bits: 110011001100110011001100110011.

 

Now when you make a flac file or any lossless audio file this is how it takes place.  You use some flac based audio software and 'convert' the original wav file using the software.  That software is using the flac key, as we'll call it.  Flac is open source, so any software can use the flac key to allow you to make flac files.  Apple lossless is not open source, so you'll notice that only apple has the "key" to make apple lossless files.  But it all comes down to the key.

 

When you convert the file with your flac program, it uses the flac key as in the example I made up, to compress or shrink or compact the audio into a smaller file.  Once you open that file in a flac "player" the music player is actually using the key to decompress, unshrink or uncompact the file back to its original bits, and only at that point does it play the audio file back to your ears.  So you can see that technically the sound you hear is identical to the original.

 

The difference with mp3 is that it is a "lossy" format.  Instead of making an algorithm to temporarily compress the file, it says "i want to make this smaller, but I can't compress the file any more, so let's just cut out some data completely".  So using a different type of algorithm, it literally removes data forever, not allowing it to be brought back later.  But by doing this it can substantially decrease the file size.

 

Anyway, the only way you would hear a difference is if the player that plays back the audio file was somehow different or doing something else to the audio.  If you are playing the flac and wav files on the same computer, in the same audio software, with the same speakers, etc. It will sound identical.  The only way it might sound slightly different, is if you changed the quality properties of the audio when you compressed the file to flac.  In other words,if you have a 24-bit file and you convert it to a 16-bit file when you make it flac.  That type of change has nothing to do with flac though, that is something different.  You could check your conversion settings for that.  But you should be converting a 16-bit wav to a 16-bit flac theoretically if it is from a CD.

 

The last example I can think of to express it even more simply would be packing your car for camping.  You can pack all of the same exact gear into an SUV, or pack it all into a sedan, but when you take all of your camping gear out at the campground, it should all be there.  The SUV will have more space and be bigger, the sedan will cram everything into the back and trunk to make it more compact, but ultimately when you are camping, the gear is all there.  Same idea with lossless formats...

 

I hope that was helpful.  I'm certain if you are actually hearing a difference there is some other factor, we have just yet to find it. :-)

 

Here's some more info as well on the technical stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless


Edited by luisdent - 12/14/12 at 12:27am
post #437 of 1498

Aw... aw man... don't do this to me... I bought the BA200 because of your taste, and I love it... don't tell me... I have to be suspect of everything now... don't... oh no... for the love of science, please.....

 

Oh man... maybe I can explain it to you better... you know how when you take a 50kb Word document and zip it up, and the zip file is 30kb, then you unzip it again and have the bit-for-bit same 50kb Word document... yeah, that's all FLAC ever does...

 

Oh no...... frown.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

Well all I know is I can tell a difference with WAV that I can with Flac, most Fac files that I have are in the 400MB to 500MB range and the same album or mix in WAV is around 700MB to 750MB so your telling me the extra 200 to 250MB dosen't make a difference.

post #438 of 1498
Call me crazy.

I had a CD that my brother wanted to get. (He is in Canada). So before I sent it to him, I copied it into FLAC. And using Toast Titanium, I burned it into another CD. Now, A/B- ing them, there is a notable difference between the two. Now I know there may have been some conversion loss when I burned it to a new CD.

Now, I understand the science when compressing FLAC. It's like your favorite shirt. You wear them, and its nice. You put it in your suitcase, but you fold it so its cramped in with the rest of your clothes. But it is easier to carry since it is "compressed"

When it's time to wear it, you take it out...and it's the exact same shirt. smily_headphones1.gif but isn't it a little wrinkled? smily_headphones1.gif

I'm just messing with you all. smily_headphones1.gif I myself can't tell the difference between FLAC and WAV. But my Cd story is real, i believe it has something to do with the red book or someother stuff that I don't really understand.
post #439 of 1498

What kind of blasphemy is this????  Letting mathematical reality interfere with what we "really" hear?????????????
 

(sorry, can't find tongue-in-cheek smiley)

post #440 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJS View Post

What kind of blasphemy is this????  Letting mathematical reality interfere with what we "really" hear?????????????
 

(sorry, can't find tongue-in-cheek smiley)

 

That was good, I was never a good math student anyways :)

post #441 of 1498

Finally! I've only had the BA200 in my ears for about 5 minutes. Initial initial impression (and subject to change) is that it's a very good dual BA IEM. I have to say, however, that its sibling, the IE800 seems to pretty much match it in clarity, and think the instrument separation is better in the dual dynamic. Now, I believe in burn-in (to a lesser extent) for BAs too, so I'm going to need to listen to the BA200 a lot more, but right now the IE800 has the edge. I also hear more weight on the notes coming out of the IE800 (and more bass, but I have the Complys on the dynamic and just the large double-flangs on the BA200). I'll let you guys (and girls) know more a little later. I'm also about to put the JVC FXZ100 in my ears now, so I'll let you know in a few how the TDKs stack up against a the first triple dynamic IEM.

post #442 of 1498

I can understand the IE800 having more weight to the notes over a BA setup but the separation on the BA200 is very good and the imaging is even better.  I think with BA's its more of a brain burn-in than a mechanical one so just give them time, they don't wow you a first because they're so smooth but after a few days I think your going to like them quite a bit.

 

When I first started listening to the SM3 I was really a bit disappointed and thought I might end up selling them but after a day or to and I started to understand what the SM3 was all about now they sound amazing and are my favorite IEM I've had.  So you just have to give the BA200 time not unlike the GR07 which doesn't wow you at first but once you've listen to the awhile they start to sound great.


Edited by Techno Kid - 12/14/12 at 11:33am
post #443 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundstige View Post

Aw... aw man... don't do this to me... I bought the BA200 because of your taste, and I love it... don't tell me... I have to be suspect of everything now... don't... oh no... for the love of science, please.....

Oh man... maybe I can explain it to you better... you know how when you take a 50kb Word document and zip it up, and the zip file is 30kb, then you unzip it again and have the bit-for-bit same 50kb Word document... yeah, that's all FLAC ever does...

Oh no...... frown.gif
The ba200 is great... Enjoy them thoroughly
post #444 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annafrancesca View Post

Call me crazy.
I had a CD that my brother wanted to get. (He is in Canada). So before I sent it to him, I copied it into FLAC. And using Toast Titanium, I burned it into another CD. Now, A/B- ing them, there is a notable difference between the two. Now I know there may have been some conversion loss when I burned it to a new CD.
Now, I understand the science when compressing FLAC. It's like your favorite shirt. You wear them, and its nice. You put it in your suitcase, but you fold it so its cramped in with the rest of your clothes. But it is easier to carry since it is "compressed"
When it's time to wear it, you take it out...and it's the exact same shirt. smily_headphones1.gif but isn't it a little wrinkled? smily_headphones1.gif
I'm just messing with you all. smily_headphones1.gif I myself can't tell the difference between FLAC and WAV. But my Cd story is real, i believe it has something to do with the red book or someother stuff that I don't really understand.

The music player's key would include ironing the shirt before you wear it wink.gif

When you say you a/b the flac to the cd, that can be a difficult thing to test, because although they will sound identical if everything is equal, you need to make sure everything is equal. When you play the cd it reads the disc, converts the digital signal to analog among other things... It is possible therefore that the cd might sound slightly different if all if the converters etc aren't identical, however, if they are identical it won't matter. Then you have things like volume matching, etc. that are critical when comparing...
Edited by luisdent - 12/14/12 at 12:14pm
post #445 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

I can understand the IE800 having more weight to the notes over a BA setup but the separation on the BA200 is very good and the imaging is even better.  I think with BA's its more of a brain burn-in than a mechanical one so just give them time, they don't wow you a first because they're so smooth but after a few days I think your going to like them quite a bit.

 

When I first started listening to the SM3 I was really a bit disappointed and thought I might end up selling them but after a day or to and I started to understand what the SM3 was all about now they sound amazing and are my favorite IEM I've had.  So you just have to give the BA200 time not unlike the GR07 which doesn't wow you at first but once you've listen to the awhile they start to sound great.

Oh, I will definitely give it more time, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't like the BA200. I do, but I realize I need more listening time. Just right now the IE800 stands out more to me (and not for this thread really, but the JVC FXZ100 leaves them both in the dust, but not enough for me to want to sell either of them).

post #446 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post

Oh, I will definitely give it more time, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't like the BA200. I do, but I realize I need more listening time. Just right now the IE800 stands out more to me (and not for this thread really, but the JVC FXZ100 leaves them both in the dust, but not enough for me to want to sell either of them).

 

Oh no I didn't think that at all I was just saying that there's IEM's like the BA200 that take some time before you really start to appreciate them.

 

So from the short time you've listen to the JVC you think they're better than both TDK's.  I just don't think I'd really like them that much because I'm more of a warm mid-centric kind of guy now and they don't seem to have that signature from what I've read about them.

post #447 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

 

Oh no I didn't think that at all I was just saying that there's IEM's like the BA200 that take some time before you really start to appreciate them.

 

So from the short time you've listen to the JVC you think they're better than both TDK's.  I just don't think I'd really like them that much because I'm more of a warm mid-centric kind of guy now and they don't seem to have that signature from what I've read about them.

 

Yes Techno Kid, the JVC might not be for you or everybody. It's definitely not as warm as the TDKs (although I wouldn't call it cool or analytical), and it has waaaaaay more bass than the TDKs (it sounds like a full-size headphone to my ears), but the mids are not recessed at all. The clarity is on par with theTDKs, but the JVC is somewhat more three-dimensional sounding. The IE800 was actually not to far behind  my W4 and ASG-1.2 in favorite universal. I think it's instrument separation rivals the W4. But the FXZ100 is not pushing quickly in becoming my favorite universal, but in all fairness I love the JVC house sound. The TDKs, however are truly worthy opponents. It all comes down to preferred sound signature (which I always type around here).

post #448 of 1498
I was speaking with Techno Kid through PM and we both agree that the BA200 performed really well against the SM3. I was expecting that the SM3 would destroy the BA200 but it did not. For me, the SM3 is just slightly ahead in bass impact and treble performance. It does have a substancial lead in terms of soundstage and presentation. If anything, I think the SM3 made me appreciate the BA200 a little more and are about $100 cheaper than the SM3.
post #449 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annafrancesca View Post

I was speaking with Techno Kid through PM and we both agree that the BA200 performed really well against the SM3. I was expecting that the SM3 would destroy the BA200 but it did not. For me, the SM3 is just slightly ahead in bass impact and treble performance. It does have a substancial lead in terms of soundstage and presentation. If anything, I think the SM3 made me appreciate the BA200 a little more and are about $100 cheaper than the SM3.

 

Yeah it just goes to show how good the BA200 is when it can keep up with a $400 truly top-tier IEM.  I did sale mine because the BA200 did compare so well with the SM3 and have the same kind of sound signature but I just like the SM3 more so I wasn't going to use the TDK much at all anymore.

post #450 of 1498

I know this isn't the place for this but I just want everyone to pray for the families affected by the tragedy that happened today in Connecticut, one of the saddest days in our countries history imo.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: