Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Shure Se535 vs special edition shure se535 vs ue900 vs westone 4r
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shure Se535 vs special edition shure se535 vs ue900 vs westone 4r - Page 3

Poll Results: Shure se535, Shure se535 ltd-J, Westone 4r or Ultimate Ears UE900

 
  • 12% (6)
    Shure SE535
  • 28% (14)
    Shure SE535 LTD-J
  • 44% (22)
    Westone 4R
  • 14% (7)
    Ultimate Ears UE900
49 Total Votes  
post #31 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by techmonstr View Post

So when I go test them out, my music can be at 128?

You are not going to get a good comparsion with that.

post #32 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by techmonstr View Post

So when I go test them out, my music can be at 128?

It's always best to have high resolution music, but if 128 is all you have, it will be fine. Unless it's like 24/92 music you are comparing to, it's hard to differentiate 320k and 128k, especially with something like SE535. You will benefit more from an amp than 128 to 320k upgrade with the iems you've listed. 128 to lossless is a different story though.

post #33 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimvictor View Post

It's always best to have high resolution music, but if 128 is all you have, it will be fine. Unless it's like 24/92 music you are comparing to, it's hard to differentiate 320k and 128k, especially with something like SE535. You will benefit more from an amp than 128 to 320k upgrade with the iems you've listed. 128 to lossless is a different story though.

 

?

 

I read your earlier posts and wondered where you were going with this - and I'll have to disagree here.

 

I agree that well recorded/encoded 128kbps actually doesn't sound too bad - but if you were going to tell the difference (artifacting especially) between lossy formats - then you're more likely to differentiate 128 from 320 vs 320 from lossless.  In fact most of the time, most people will have a very difficult time to differentiate 320kbps from lossless - no matter what their gear (under properly controlled blind testing conditions).

 

Oh - and 24/192 won't make a blind bit of difference in the comparison either.  Try it sometime.  I suggest using Nero-aac 256kbps actually.  Take any 24/192 track, resample and re-encode it to aac256.  Conduct a double blind abx using Foobar.  Results could surprisewink.gif

 

As far as the 535 not being resolving enough ...... well I've never had issues with the detail from those IEMs.  Maybe my ears are shot biggrin.gif.

 

@Techmonstr

If 128kbps is all you have, and what you are used to - and you are comparing all the IEMs using the same tracks - then they'll be OK.  Always better to compare with your own music that you know well.

post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

?

 

I read your earlier posts and wondered where you were going with this - and I'll have to disagree here.

 

I agree that well recorded/encoded 128kbps actually doesn't sound too bad - but if you were going to tell the difference (artifacting especially) between lossy formats - then you're more likely to differentiate 128 from 320 vs 320 from lossless.  In fact most of the time, most people will have a very difficult time to differentiate 320kbps from lossless - no matter what their gear (under properly controlled blind testing conditions).

 

Oh - and 24/192 won't make a blind bit of difference in the comparison either.  Try it sometime.  I suggest using Nero-aac 256kbps actually.  Take any 24/192 track, resample and re-encode it to aac256.  Conduct a double blind abx using Foobar.  Results could surprisewink.gif

 

As far as the 535 not being resolving enough ...... well I've never had issues with the detail from those IEMs.  Maybe my ears are shot biggrin.gif.

 

@Techmonstr

If 128kbps is all you have, and what you are used to - and you are comparing all the IEMs using the same tracks - then they'll be OK.  Always better to compare with your own music that you know well.

I'm not saying 535 is not resolving. They are one of the most resolving iems. It's just that with most iems, imaging and staging of high res music won't shine too much. I've personally tried 320 and 24/92 comparison, and imo, there is a big difference in resolution.

 

About 128k and 320k: there is a website that allows users to test if they can distinguish 320 and 129 mp3. I've tried with SE535 and got 3 right and with SRH940, I got 5 right. But I'm not saying there is not difference. There is a difference. You just have to listen carefully. But for demo purposes, 128 will be fine. You are not likely to get a serious listening session in a demo any ways.

post #35 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimvictor View Post

I've personally tried 320 and 24/92 comparison, and imo, there is a big difference in resolution.

 

Did you start with the 24/192 (or 24/96 - not sure about the 24/92 you were quoting) - then transcode it to 320 (which encoder?), and compare the two?

 

Or did you have a high-res copy of the song, and compare it to a lossy recording of the same song?

 

If you didn't down-sample and re-encode the same track, then it was likely to be a different recording/mastering.  Were they volume matched?  How did you test?

 

Just curious .....

post #36 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

Did you start with the 24/192 (or 24/96 - not sure about the 24/92 you were quoting) - then transcode it to 320 (which encoder?), and compare the two?

 

Or did you have a high-res copy of the song, and compare it to a lossy recording of the same song?

 

If you didn't down-sample and re-encode the same track, then it was likely to be a different recording/mastering.  Were they volume matched?  How did you test?

 

Just curious .....

I downloaded the same song from two different sites(both official). One in 24/96(It's 96. Sorry about the confusion) and one in 320. It could be different mastering, but I don't know. For volume match, I set their gain equal, and used best of my ability to set the volume to the equal level. The test was a simple A/B with my UERM and AK100+UHA-6S.MKII.

 

But now that you've mentioned it, it could be different mastering. I heard some studios have their high rez music mastered separately.

post #37 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimvictor View Post

I downloaded the same song from two different sites(both official). One in 24/96(It's 96. Sorry about the confusion) and one in 320. It could be different mastering, but I don't know. For volume match, I set their gain equal, and used best of my ability to set the volume to the equal level. The test was a simple A/B with my UERM and AK100+UHA-6S.MKII.

 

But now that you've mentioned it, it could be different mastering. I heard some studios have their high rez music mastered separately.

 

Makes sense.  If you're running PC rather than Mac - and don't mind setting up Foobar - here's a link to setting up an abx (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding).  I got asked a few times to explain - so I put a thread up permanently.  Take any high-res track, resample and transcode, then use Foobar's abx tool to compare. It's truly blind & was (to me anyway) a real eye-opener.

post #38 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

Makes sense.  If you're running PC rather than Mac - and don't mind setting up Foobar - here's a link to setting up an abx (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding).  I got asked a few times to explain - so I put a thread up permanently.  Take any high-res track, resample and transcode, then use Foobar's abx tool to compare. It's truly blind & was (to me anyway) a real eye-opener.

I do use foobar. I'll try that when I'm free.

post #39 of 70
Thread Starter 
whats 24/192? and thanks guys for ALL your hellp. it'll not just be useful forme, but for other n00bs like me who are faing a similar situation. it'll also help th pros who might be looking for iems. rock on my friends \m/ biggrin.gif:beerchug: even though i can't drink ksc75smile.gif
post #40 of 70
Thread Starter 
whats 24/192? and thanks guys for ALL your hellp. it'll not just be useful forme, but for other n00bs like me who are faing a similar situation. it'll also help th pros who might be looking for iems. rock on my friends \m/ biggrin.gif:beerchug: even though i can't drink ksc75smile.gif
post #41 of 70
Thread Starter 
whats 24/192? and thanks guys for ALL your hellp. it'll not just be useful forme, but for other n00bs like me who are faing a similar situation. it'll also help th pros who might be looking for iems. rock on my friends \m/ biggrin.gif:beerchug: even though i can't drink ksc75smile.gif
post #42 of 70
Thread Starter 
whats 24/192? and thanks guys for ALL your hellp. it'll not just be useful forme, but for other n00bs like me who are faing a similar situation. it'll also help th pros who might be looking for iems. rock on my friends \m/ biggrin.gif:beerchug: even though i can't drink ksc75smile.gif
post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by techmonstr View Post

whats 24/192? and thanks guys for ALL your hellp. it'll not just be useful forme, but for other n00bs like me who are faing a similar situation. it'll also help th pros who might be looking for iems. rock on my friends \m/ biggrin.gif:beerchug: even though i can't drink ksc75smile.gif

wow. 4 posts..

 

24/192 is a high resolution music. Most common recordings are 16/44.1.

post #44 of 70

24 bit (or word) depth in 192 kHz frequency.  As mentioned above the most common is 16/44 because this is the maximum you can get from a CD.

post #45 of 70
Thread Starter 
i do apologise for the 4posts. i accidentally clicked submit 4x on my laggy phoe. anyways, how do i get 24/192 then?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Shure Se535 vs special edition shure se535 vs ue900 vs westone 4r