or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TDK BA200 Thread - Page 31

post #451 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

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.

 

 

X2

post #452 of 1498

Whoa! I'm listening to jazz with a lot drum solos. The BA200 just impressed the hell out of me! I tell you. I'm blessed and maybe cursed that I like different sound signatures. I put the Complys on the BA200, and the bass is lot more tolerable to my ears right now. the mids and treble are outstanding, and again, with that wonderful instrument separation that is in the IE800 (I still think the dual dynamic does it a little better, but the BA200 is not far behind at all right now). I see that the Shure Olives should work fine on the BA200 (my favorite tips on a nozzle this small). Yes, top tier sound indeed. I'm loving it! The BA200, IE800 and FXZ100 should make my ear quite happy throughout 2013.

post #453 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post

Whoa! I'm listening to jazz with a lot drum solos. The BA200 just impressed the hell out of me! I tell you. I'm blessed and maybe cursed that I like different sound signatures. I put the Complys on the BA200, and the bass is lot more tolerable to my ears right now. the mids and treble are outstanding, and again, with that wonderful instrument separation that is in the IE800 (I still think the dual dynamic does it a little better, but the BA200 is not far behind at all right now). I see that the Shure Olives should work fine on the BA200 (my favorite tips on a nozzle this small). Yes, top tier sound indeed. I'm loving it! The BA200, IE800 and FXZ100 should make my ear quite happy throughout 2013.

 

Glad your liking them and now you have me wanting to get the IE800.

post #454 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).

 

You should! Think people come from dynamic IEM (like me) background, the ears already seasoned with that the diaphragm sound. Given the status quo, you or one will surely and easily attracted by another same mechanic designed IEM. So no only BA200 need burn-in, your ears need to burn-in with BA200 sound too.

 

By then you'll reliased the way BA200 sounded starting pulling ahead more and more each day from IE800, and you'll start appreciate BA200 more and more each day.

post #455 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

 

You should! Think people come from dynamic IEM (like me) background, the ears already seasoned with that the diaphragm sound. Given the status quo, you or one will surely and easily attracted by another same mechanic designed IEM. So no only BA200 need burn-in, your ears need to burn-in with BA200 sound too.

 

By then you'll reliased the way BA200 sounded starting pulling ahead more and more each day from IE800, and you'll start appreciate BA200 more and more each day.

 

But I listen to just about as many BAs as dynamic drivers, so that is not it. It's either good or it isn't. The technology of dynamic drivers have slowly caught up to the speed and clarity of BAs, and BAs are being tuned to have the natural timbre of dynamics. The lines are really getting blurred. Now, I do prefer dynamics (the newer ones) over BAs, but then again my best sounding IEM is the BA six-driver 1964 EARS V6. So go figure?


Edited by ericp10 - 12/15/12 at 6:14am
post #456 of 1498

I listen to both dynamic and BA's but I find I like the sound of BA's more because of the speed and accuracy.  I do agree that dynamic driver have caught up a lot in over all sound quality compared to BA's I just find my favorite IEM's tend to be BA's as you can see you my signature below.

post #457 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post

Whoa! I'm listening to jazz with a lot drum solos. The BA200 just impressed the hell out of me! I tell you. I'm blessed and maybe cursed that I like different sound signatures. I put the Complys on the BA200, and the bass is lot more tolerable to my ears right now. the mids and treble are outstanding, and again, with that wonderful instrument separation that is in the IE800 (I still think the dual dynamic does it a little better, but the BA200 is not far behind at all right now). I see that the Shure Olives should work fine on the BA200 (my favorite tips on a nozzle this small). Yes, top tier sound indeed. I'm loving it! The BA200, IE800 and FXZ100 should make my ear quite happy throughout 2013.

Try Lee Ritenour's album "Stolen Moments"
track 1. Uptown

The timbre on the ride cymbal is spot on. Also, the tom-toms have amazing crunch. One of the best sounding drums I've heard in a recording.
post #458 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annafrancesca View Post


Try Lee Ritenour's album "Stolen Moments"
track 1. Uptown
The timbre on the ride cymbal is spot on. Also, the tom-toms have amazing crunch. One of the best sounding drums I've heard in a recording.


That song is so awesome.

post #459 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

I've never been that big on flac, personally I think a good 320kbps recording sound about the same as flac.  Now WAV that you can tell a difference only thing is they take up a lot of space, one of my EDM mixes takes up about 700MB's

 

When soemone said they couldn't tell the different betwwen FLAC and 320kbps MP3, I'm assuming they did not have the right music, good device/hardwares or hearing experience. Worst you may have fake FLAC file that converted from MP3, instead of directly from CD/WAV file.

 

Given the nice recorded environment/room, right song/music preferable Jazz, Blues or any others solo or insturments play music that does not sound busy/very busy, You will hear the different. The reason was, my mentioned type of right song/music recording will have better dynamic range for better voice/instruments separation and soundstaging. Whereas a busy music will have extremely limited to all of that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuff Jones View Post

 

Wait, I thought FLAC was lossless and so sonically exactly the same as WAV? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno Kid View Post

They are lossless but WAV is the best lossless I've heard and I can tell the difference between WAV and Flac but with Flac and 320 MP3 its really not to big of a difference imo.

 

Pardon me if I'm only newbie to this forum. I would like to point out the differents of the 2 formats that been discussed here + APE.

 

1. WAV = Loseless PCM, no decoding require during playback

2. APE, FLAC or any other claimed loseless = Compressed Lossless, decompress/decoding process needed during playback

 

Please note that, "Lossless" does not equal to "No Loss at all". All claimed lossless format will still have some degree of loss from original CD. Especially true for format like APE/FLAC, since there's additional decompress/decoding process involve, their sound quality WILL take a hit with the given hardwares that processing the data. When factor in the digital 'time shift/jitter" effects, the sound quality will continue to degrade. It's just like CD sound different from live. Not to mention hardware used also suffered from this minitation. So given the above nature I put it in much simple words,

 

1. WAV = Wth no decompress/decoding process require, it is by far the closer to CD original sound format for playback on almost any digital devices like, mobile phone, computer, MP3 players.

 

2a. APE = Next best converted format to mimic original CD quality since there's no virtually data or sonically notes replacement during decoding like FLAC.

 

2b. FLAC = 3rd placing format that mimic original CD sound. Although it is also a compressed lossless file like an APE, but due to some quiet souind data being replace as no sound, thus I rate it slightly lower than APE. But probably most might not hear or feel the different, if they do not have this side of experience or couldn't tell at all.


Edited by NewForce - 12/14/12 at 8:42pm
post #460 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annafrancesca View Post


Try Lee Ritenour's album "Stolen Moments"
track 1. Uptown
The timbre on the ride cymbal is spot on. Also, the tom-toms have amazing crunch. One of the best sounding drums I've heard in a recording.

Will try it!

post #461 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

 

When soemone said they couldn't tell the different betwwen FLAC and 320kbps MP3, I'm assuming they did not have the right music, good device/hardwares or hearing experience. Worst you may have fake FLAC file that converted from MP3, instead of directly from CD/WAV file.

 

Given the nice recorded environment/room, right song/music preferable Jazz, Blues or any others solo or insturments play music that does not sound busy/very busy, You will hear the different. The reason was, my mentioned type of right song/music recording will have better dynamic range for better voice/instruments separation and soundstaging. Whereas a busy music will have extremely limited to all of that.

 

 

 

   

 

Pardon me if I'm only newbie to this forum. I would like to point out the differents of the 2 formats that been discussed here + APE.

 

1. WAV = Loseless PCM, no decoding require during playback

2. APE, FLAC or any other claimed loseless = Compressed Lossless, decompress/decoding process needed during playback

 

Please note that, "Lossless" does not equal to "No Loss at all". All claimed lossless format will still have some degree of loss from original CD. Especially true for format like APE/FLAC, since there's additional decompress/decoding process involve, their sound quality WILL take a hit with the given hardwares that processing the data. When factor in the digital 'time shift/jitter" effects, the sound quality will continue to degrade. It's just like CD sound different from live. Not to mention hardware used also suffered from this minitation. So given the above nature I put it in much simple words,

 

1. WAV = Wth no decompress/decoding process require, it is by far the closer to CD original sound format for playback on almost any digital devices like, mobile phone, computer, MP3 players.

 

2a. APE = Next best converted format to mimic original CD quality since there's no virtually data or sonically notes replacement during decoding like FLAC.

 

2b. FLAC = 3rd placing format that mimic original CD sound. Although it is also a compressed lossless file like an APE, but due to some quiet souind data being replace as no sound, thus I rate it slightly lower than APE. But probably most might not hear or feel the different, if they have no this side of experience or couldn't tell at all.


I'm sorry, this is simply not true.  I would only ask that you research the lossless technology and playback methods further.  The second point you make is that APE is better than FLAC.  The APE website even proves this is not true.  This is a direct quote from their front page:

 

"absolutely no quality loss, meaning it sounds perfect and decompresses perfect (it's lossless!)"

 

Look at that.  They are saying "of course there is no loss in quality... it's lossless!"

 

Look at the name.  Loss....less....  or  No...Loss....

 

Look here as well:

http://lossless-music.org/faq#n10

A quote from their site:

"If you later find out the codec you chose isn't the best for your needs, you can just transcompress to another format, without risk of losing quality."

 

So not only is lossless perfect quality, going from one lossless format to another retains the perfect quality.  That is because of the decompression re-compression using the algorithms.  You are essentially decompressing it back to its original file and compressing it to another lossless format.

 

As for point 3 "but due to some quiet sound data being replace as no sound".  There is no sound replaced with ANY other sound.  All of the bits are uncompressed back to their ORIGINAL state. :-)  Unless you are referring to the options in applications such as EAC, which affect the silence data in lead-in/lead-out, but that doesn't affect audio that "is" ripped.  That is a setting based on the functionality of the cd-rom you have.  That is a different thing all together.

 

A quote from FLAC's site:

"The encoding of audio (PCM) data incurs no loss of information, and the decoded audio is bit-for-bit identical to what went into the encoder. Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data for detecting transmission errors. The integrity of the audio data is further insured by storing an MD5 signature of the original unencoded audio data in the file header, which can be compared against later during decoding or testing."

 

They even use MD5 signatures.  If you're not familiar with that it is basically a method of PROVING the file being played back IS the identical file that you started with.

 

I can only ask that you research the format and gain a better understanding of the technology.  You can't rely on listening tests, because it is obvious that you "think" it is better, so you won't be able to rule out psycho-psuedo/placebo type effects, no matter how hard you try it might make it worse.

 

If you want to prove it, do a lengthy double blind test and you will see it is truly loss-less in quality.

 

Here are some references:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1233

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

http://superuser.com/questions/447338/understanding-conversion-and-decompression-of-lossless-audio

http://notworthreadingthis.blogspot.com/2012/07/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-by-john.html

http://flac.sourceforge.net/index.html

http://flac.sourceforge.net/features.html


Edited by luisdent - 12/14/12 at 8:44pm
post #462 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post

Will try it!

 

If youn like Jazz and Blues try also,

Karen Knowles "Moonglow"

Rebecca Pidgeon "The New York Girl's Club"

Sara K. "Play On Words, Closer Than They Appear"

Eric Bibb & Needed Time "Spirit and the Blues"

Amina Claudine Myers "Salutes Bessie Smith"

Just mention a few CD. I wouldn't tell you which song to listen to, just play the entire CD. basshead.gifL3000.gif

post #463 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post


I'm sorry, this is simply not true.  I would only ask that you research the lossless technology and playback methods further.  The second point you make is that APE is better than FLAC.  The APE website even proves this is not true.  This is a direct quote from their front page:

 

"absolutely no quality loss, meaning it sounds perfect and decompresses perfect (it's lossless!)"

 

Look at that.  They are saying "of course there is no loss in quality... it's lossless!"

 

Look at the name.  Loss....less....  or  No...Loss....

 

Look here as well:

http://lossless-music.org/faq#n10

A quote from their site:

"If you later find out the codec you chose isn't the best for your needs, you can just transcompress to another format, without risk of losing quality."

 

So not only is lossless perfect quality, going from one lossless format to another retains the perfect quality.  That is because of the decompression re-compression using the algorithms.  You are essentially decompressing it back to its original file and compressing it to another lossless format.

 

As for point 3 "but due to some quiet sound data being replace as no sound".  There is no sound replaced with ANY other sound.  All of the bits are uncompressed back to their ORIGINAL state. :-)  Unless you are referring to the options in applications such as EAC, which affect the silence data in lead-in/lead-out, but that doesn't affect audio that "is" ripped.  That is a setting based on the functionality of the cd-rom you have.  That is a different thing all together.

 

I can only ask that you research the format and gain a better understanding of the technology.  You can't rely on listening tests, because it is obvious that you "think" it is better, so you won't be able to rule out psycho-psuedo/placebo type effects, no matter how hard you try it might make it worse.

 

If you want to prove it, do a lengthy double blind test and you will see it is truly loss-less in quality.

 

Here are some references:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1233

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

 

I'm sorry too, no offence, think I've written my remarks to wrong audience, if you've think Lossless actually lossless.

Due to this I'll removed your remarks quoted on my reply. Again no offence.

 

Just before I quit, Don't be fool by Ads, gimmick, claimed.
All format supported people can tell or write those words to make oone believe they are simply the best.
It's just like someone can tell you, "I'm the best sound engineer in the world", "We have the best user experience software.

 

Btw, thanks for your "research" suggestion. :)

post #464 of 1498
Having spent more time with these, just can't take them off. Had some unexpected Jazz come on in the train and it was just fantastic, bit of Zappa too. A Tribe Called Quest were no slouches either, the bass on these things is just so well done. I assume I owe some of it to amping but yeah just killer stuff. With the separation, I've been hearing some songs in a very new way.

Feel bad as my Shure' have been on the bench, they seem so much colder now in comparison. Even though these might be more analytical, it doesn't mess things up like I thought it would.

Think these things do well to bridge the gap between an intro pair of IEM's and ones that actually compete with upper tier stuff very well, gotta give it to TDK.
Edited by Hank_Venture - 12/14/12 at 8:45pm
post #465 of 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewForce View Post

 

I'm sorry too, no offence, think I've written my remarks to wrong audience, if you've think Lossless actually lossless.

Due to this I'll removed your remarks quoted on my reply. Again no offence.

 

Just before I quit, Don't be fool by Ads, gimmick, claimed.
All format supported people can tell or write those words to make oone believe they are simply the best.
It's just like someone can tell you, "I'm the best sound engineer in the world", "We have the best user experience software.

 

Btw, thanks for your "research" suggestion. :)

 

I'm a computer technician with programming background, and I understand the logic.  I'm not basing anything off of what people say.  i'm basing it off of the technical facts and my own listening tests.  I don't want to sound too forward, but I've provided logical examples, references and technical explanations as to why it is identical.  I haven't seen anything explaining why it is not, other than the fact that someone listened to them.  That is a hard sell.  We have to rely on you, your equipment, your audio settings, your trust, placebo type effects, etc.

 

Regarding Jitter/Time Shift...  those are hardware problems, not lossless problems.  Those are corrected by slower speeds or higher quality drives and jitter-correction read passes in software.  That is a hardware control issue and doesn't relate to lossless directly.  In other words, you can take an mp3 and compress it into a flac file.  You aren't getting any better than the mp3 file was.  If you rip a cd with a less than perfect cd-rom drive that will be your flac file.  If you have a good cd-rom and use any decent will-known audio ripper, they will all use error/jitter correction and that should eliminate that issue.  But nonetheless, that goes back to the original statement, where I said that the issue wear someone could "hear" a difference could be hardware problems.  If someone is hearing a difference and it isn't a placebo type effect, they should make sure all their hardware is working properly.

 

Anyhow, barring bad hardware or other "external factors", I would only ask that you show technically "why" they aren't the same quality... :-)  And if you do want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should launch a thread so we don't interfere with the current thread any longer...


Edited by luisdent - 12/14/12 at 10:34pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: