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 10

post #136 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
 

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


If science is applied the debate dissolves

We have two sub groups, the can hear a difference and the no difference, if both are taken at their word the thread topic question answers itself

For the can hear a difference group whether it is real or illusion they would not use 320kps files and so the question does not arise

For the no difference group the question is invisible and so of no consequence

Now the 666 moment has passed :evil: 

post #137 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by c64 View Post
 
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

 

 

As rough as sandpaper, eh? Any particular grade?

 

You know what? We've reached an impasse. I don't believe you. I went through all this years ago in various forums with Minidisc. Sorry to keep digging up this dead format but there's a direct corollation. In it's earliest incarnations it was rough; Atrac was easily detected. By Atrac 4 it was virtually undetectable. By Atrac 4.5 and finally R even seasoned reviewers were admitting they couldn't hear a difference. However, that wasn't enough for the Golden Ears. The idea that something was being removed from their music ate at them. We had to have uncompressed Minidisc, and finally we got it. Trouble was uncompressed Minidisc kind of ruined the whole idea of the format. It suited the Golden Ears but the ordinary punter just didn't want to pay the kind of prices HI-MD Minidiscs cost. And so a brilliant, recordable, versatile and oh-so-eaily-edited format died, not to be replaced by anything quite comparable.

 

(Oh Minidisc, how I loved thee. Let me count the ways...)

 

Now with MP3 we have the same situation, and I just wonder how refined it needs to become to please the Golden Ears. Would it ever, or would the idea that something--anything-- is being removed from the music eat at them forever? I suspect the latter. So I suggest that if MP3 seems to you so rough, you stick to FLAC or CD, as of course you will. But please, please don't try to kill off yet another compressed format. It's good enough for us peasants with our inferior equipment. Whatever we're missing, we're too cloth-eared to ever hear the difference, so leave us in our ignorant bliss.

post #138 of 257
I can tell the difference between 320 and 192 AAC in my car. Most of the loss I hear is bass quality. But some of the depth from the music is also lost. I only have pretty stock stereo too.
320 is not bad with my best set up, though I only go that low at this point. I buy CDs or records and burn in lossless for computer playback.
Lots of people think certain set ups are too revealing and therefore the original copy and recording may be as important as the fact that a song is condensed.
To be honest, I don't download music and don't recommend it. Used cd stores are stock full and I get whole albums for cheap.
I don't feel it's worth using 320kbps music for headphones that cost over $300.
I Just see ending in disappointment from my experience
post #139 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

I can tell the difference between 320 and 192 AAC in my car. Most of the loss I hear is bass quality. But some of the depth from the music is also lost. I only have pretty stock stereo too.
320 is not bad with my best set up, though I only go that low at this point. I buy CDs or records and burn in lossless for computer playback.
Lots of people think certain set ups are too revealing and therefore the original copy and recording may be as important as the fact that a song is condensed.
To be honest, I don't download music and don't recommend it. Used cd stores are stock full and I get whole albums for cheap.
I don't feel it's worth using 320kbps music for headphones that cost over $300.
I Just see ending in disappointment from my experience

 

Revealing of MASTERING, because the fact of the matter is that most "lossless" releases are mastered differently from the compressed dynamic range and peaky stuff they put out on mainstream distribution. 

 

Again, I have 128 kbps MP3 files that sound better than many of my "lossless" albums. 

 


 

All I'm seeing throughout these answers is a distinct lack of knowledge of what these terms and techniques are. I wish head-fi'ers would just take the time to research stuff, instead of buying into whatever is told to them.

post #140 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post

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. 

Likely, because you're not a member of AES
Quote:
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. 

So, now there is an audible difference, if one knows what to listen for? You guys kill me. lol
post #141 of 257
And yes it's worth it to buy a amp with any high end hp that requires turning the current setup up more than 75% to enjoy. Lots of money is not required either for the amp as long as the amp is not a cheap toy, etc. Speaker taps are a cheap solution also. I love my Musical Fidelity amp. A DAC is also a good investment if it's not already in the amp. Most headphone ports in computers or portable music players are not up to the job of powering high end head gear. Not many amps can power the he-6 anyhow.
The best thing that came from my purchase of better head gear is a lovefor higher quality music. I generally try to stay away from gear that colors the music too much and go with clean power sources. I like tubes for guitar amps but don't need them to hear a cd.
I am a huge fan of orthodynamic/planar head phones. They are worth the money only if powered nicely.
post #142 of 257
I wouldn't want a album specially mastered for downloading. I want the original and that's why I don't download. CD is very good. Converting a CD into your chosen format is not as prone to defect as a download. If I convert a CD and There are defects you can just redo the burn. IMO there is no guarantee with a download or burn, but at least I have the original CD to burn later.
post #143 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

I wouldn't want a album specially mastered for downloading. I want the original and that's why I don't download. CD is very good. Converting a CD into your chosen format is not as prone to defect as a download. If I convert a CD and There are defects you can just redo the burn. IMO there is no guarantee with a download or burn, but at least I have the original CD to burn later.

I prefer the real thing, as well. Ironically, some MP3 downloads are more dynamic than the CDs, as in the last David Bowie album. This is due to itunes applying its own compression to the tracks, which makes highly compressed recordings sound even more anemic. OTOH, there's always the LP, but that's kinda outside this discussion.
post #144 of 257
iTunes is most likely not modifying a master, at least of anything I would listen to. They can't possibly have the time to remaster all the albums they sell. Most likely they're using the same 1 and 0 combinations as the cd makers.
post #145 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

iTunes is most likely not modifying a master, at least of anything I would listen to. They can't possibly have the time to remaster all the albums they sell. Most likely they're using the same 1 and 0 combinations as the cd makers.
...

It's about the compression, not remastering. wink.gif
post #146 of 257
To say a iTunes compressed copy sounds as good as a less compressed cd copy of any format is funny. Dynamic is ok, but more dynamic is like saying iTunes has magic that cd doesn't.
post #147 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

To say a iTunes compressed copy sounds as good as a less compressed cd copy of any format is funny. Dynamic is ok, but more dynamic is like saying iTunes has magic that cd doesn't.

I didn't say it sounds as good or better. I simply stated that some MP3 downloads are more dynamic than their CD counterparts and explained the driving force behind it. Do your own research; you don't have to believe me.

Edit: Stop over at SHF. They'll tell you all about it. smily_headphones1.gif
Edited by Shaffer - 3/22/14 at 6:39pm
post #148 of 257
I couldn't find SHF. I don't know what that stands for. As far as dynamic we can eq our CDs to our liking if that's the case. I love records too. I like analogue recording and everything big equipment can do. Digital recordings are always digital recordings no matter what you do to them and that's why I don't buy new records. I would rather not have my music come from anything other than the musician, but cd is not sent over long distances from servers and cables like downloads so I chose the least corruptible option at my price range for digital music, which is what people are using now.
post #149 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

I couldn't find SHF. I don't know what that stands for.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv
Quote:
As far as dynamic we can eq our CDs to our liking if that's the case.

An EQ can alter the tonal balance, but not dynamic contrast. Phsychoacoustically, careful tweaking can give the illusion of better dynamics, but once an individual gets used to the sound the phenomenon dissipates. Just as one can't remove distortion, once it's there.

If you have time, have a look at this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhA7Vy3OPbc

The linearity of the DAC can have more of an impact on the sound of compressed recordings than we typically consider.
Quote:
I love records too. I like analogue recording and everything big equipment can do. Digital recordings are always digital recordings no matter what you do to them and that's why I don't buy new records. I would rather not have my music come from anything other than the musician, but cd is not sent over long distances from servers and cables like downloads so I chose the least corruptible option at my price range for digital music, which is what people are using now.

Fair enough.

Edit: link
Edited by Shaffer - 3/22/14 at 7:35pm
post #150 of 257

i store my music files in ALAC then convert them into AAC 512kbps for portable use.

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?