Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Is it worth getting really high-end headphones if your source is 320kbps audio files?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it worth getting really high-end headphones if your source is 320kbps audio files? - Page 9

post #121 of 257
So if you buy a new car and the dealer gives you free sunroof leather seats push start button tinted windows climate control you'd just say nah there is no difference to my driving experience I don't want it
post #122 of 257
I'd take it. It's free. Makes no difference to how fast it goes or it's fuel economy or anything objective. That's lossless.
post #123 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by joker97 View Post

So if you buy a new car and the dealer gives you free sunroof leather seats push start button tinted windows climate control you'd just say nah there is no difference to my driving experience I don't want it

 

LOL this analogy makes no sense. It's more like claiming you can tell the octane rating of the fuel just from driving it. 

post #124 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogmatrix View Post
 

If you like to EQ up the bass and you cant pick a difference between loss less and compressed buying high end gear would be a waste of money IMO

Obviously there is a difference between loss less and compressed and to claim that it cannot be heard is frankly ridiculous

If you can reliably hear the difference and identify a lossless format from 320 kbps in a double blind test I'll eat my shoe.

 

Nobody is claiming that lossless and lossy formats are inherently the same, the argument is that the human ear cannot detect the differences between those two formats in any reliable and consistent way. 

post #125 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattAnthony1990 View Post

If you can reliably hear the difference and identify a lossless format from 320 kbps in a double blind test I'll eat my shoe.

Nobody is claiming that lossless and lossy formats are inherently the same, the argument is that the human ear cannot detect the differences between those two formats in any reliable and consistent way. 

If you're truly interested, look up the work of Jim Johnston at ATT labs. That's who developed the MP3. ATT constructed a true DBT facility, the tests were conducted after listener training, blah, blah, blah, and the results are there.

FWIW, Jim, himself, doesn't think the MP3 is suitable for music, but you guys obviously know better.
post #126 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post


If you're truly interested, look up the work of Jim Johnston at ATT labs. That's who developed the MP3. ATT constructed a true DBT facility, the tests were conducted after listener training, blah, blah, blah, and the results are there.

FWIW, Jim, himself, doesn't think the MP3 is suitable for music, but you guys obviously know better.

 

2009 study, even before the mp3 codec became MORE sophisticated: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

 

I couldn't find your study. 

 

We can do this all day, but no matter what you say, no. There's no audible difference unless you are a specially trained expert. 

post #127 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post

If you're truly interested, look up the work of Jim Johnston at ATT labs. That's who developed the MP3. ATT constructed a true DBT facility, the tests were conducted after listener training, blah, blah, blah, and the results are there.

FWIW, Jim, himself, doesn't think the MP3 is suitable for music, but you guys obviously know better.


He helped develop it. It's entirety is credited to the Fraunhofer Institute's Mr. Brandenburg who worked closely with James and other engineers to develop the codec in a joint team. As far as I know.
post #128 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolpep View Post

He helped develop it. It's entirety is credited to the Fraunhofer Institute's Mr. Brandenburg who worked closely with James and other engineers to develop the codec in a joint team. As far as I know.

The point is, DTB results already exist and have been available for years.

If you'd like to ask JJ about his direct participation in the development of the MP3, shoot me a PM and I'll refer you to a forum where you can talk to him. He's not shy.
post #129 of 257

This all also kinda ignores the fact that, regardless of the initial development of it, the compression codecs have advanced immensely in the years since. Even that 2009 study isn't entirely valid because the algorithms keep progressing. What we have at our disposal in 2014 is wildly different. Back in the day the mp3s you downloaded off Napster sounded like crap compared to the CD. Now there's no perceivable difference, and even the 128kbps sounds far clearer. 

post #130 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaffer View Post

The point is, DTB results already exist and have been available for years.

If you'd like to ask JJ about his direct participation in the development of the MP3, shoot me a PM and I'll refer you to a forum where you can talk to him. He's not shy.

That would be pretty awesome. Would love to learn more about this development and the history/behind the scenes story of it.

Cheers,
K
post #131 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattAnthony1990 View Post
 

If you can reliably hear the difference and identify a lossless format from 320 kbps in a double blind test I'll eat my shoe.

 

Nobody is claiming that lossless and lossy formats are inherently the same, the argument is that the human ear cannot detect the differences between those two formats in any reliable and consistent way. 


Would you like fries with that

This thread is about high end gear and with high end gear 320 vs lossless is clear no training required

I find the "I can't pick a difference therefore know one can" argument quite strange. I can't speak Chinese or fly a fighter jet but I would not claim these things were impossible 

Looking back in the thread the difference camp appear to be describing a similar grain effect with 320 each in their own words this alone would suggest something is detectable

I think the real debate is about performance potential, does the potential of the top tier headphones match 320kps

I don't think so, in my experience 320kps tops out at around HD650 level go higher and you hear the grain

Of course there is no restriction in supply of top line headphones so if you want to spend $1500 and run crap through them no harm done

I watched a video review yesterday of a guy running his HD800 out of a smart phone he was happy

post #132 of 257

Because after test after test, study after study, it's been proven. You claim to be able to tell, but that's like being able to tell the difference between HDMI cables. It's not true. You can't. Audiophiles have failed over and over and over again. Maybe one in a million can, but that's it. It's like being able to claim you can tell the difference between minute hex code colors or different resolutions on a smartphone above 400ppi. you can't. 

post #133 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogmatrix View Post
 


Would you like fries with that

This thread is about high end gear and with high end gear 320 vs lossless is clear no training required

I find the "I can't pick a difference therefore know one can" argument quite strange. I can't speak Chinese or fly a fighter jet but I would not claim these things were impossible 

Looking back in the thread the difference camp appear to be describing a similar grain effect with 320 each in their own words this alone would suggest something is detectable

I think the real debate is about performance potential, does the potential of the top tier headphones match 320kps

I don't think so, in my experience 320kps tops out at around HD650 level go higher and you hear the grain

Of course there is no restriction in supply of top line headphones so if you want to spend $1500 and run crap through them no harm done

I watched a video review yesterday of a guy running his HD800 out of a smart phone he was happy


Check out your post count :biggrin:

post #134 of 257

This thread really should go to Sound Science subforum at this point.

post #135 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
 

 

In normal listening? Or when you're specifically listening for it? And even if in normal listening, is "hearing it just about" going to affect your listening pleasure that much?  Just as with the difference between two good quality phones (only much less), once you've been listening for a few minutes you automatically adjust to the difference.

 

BTW, I don't hear 192 as grainy and harsh.

oh 192 is very grainy and harsh to my ears I could tell the difference immediately on my headphones 192 sound as rough as sandpaper

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Is it worth getting really high-end headphones if your source is 320kbps audio files?