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 4

post #46 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post
 

 

256 is iTunes+, iTunes radio streams at that rate if you pay for iTunes Match (25/year).  320 streaming is offered by Spotify and Google. 

 

Oh yeah, forgot about iTunes. I use Spotify/Google and kinda wish they offered 256 because then I could use it mobile without absolutely decimating my data plan, LOL. 

post #47 of 257

They do you just have to throttle them. They give you best quality depending upon your network strength.

post #48 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post
 

 

Oh yeah, forgot about iTunes. I use Spotify/Google and kinda wish they offered 256 because then I could use it mobile without absolutely decimating my data plan, LOL. 

 

Quick note about Spotify, they'll send 160 unless you pay XD  And Google you have to pay for anyways (if you're not using your own music).  If you're trying to stream your own music, then you can use Google's Music service to stream your own tunes, convert over yourself XD

 

Google may let you change it though.  https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1391343?hl=en

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirininc View Post
 

They do you just have to throttle them. They give you best quality depending upon your network strength.

 

Spotify still doesn't offer 256 though, they'll do 96, 160, or 320, no in betweens.  https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/What-bitrate-does-Spotify-use-for-streaming

post #49 of 257

TBH I think anyone who uses Spotify should pay for it unless they're somehow so poor that they can't afford it. Streaming services can't survive on ad revenue on the free tier and unless we all want to go back to the days where your options were buying stuff individually or piracy, start supporting the next wave.

post #50 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post
 

 

Quick note about Spotify, they'll send 160 unless you pay XD  And Google you have to pay for anyways (if you're not using your own music).  If you're trying to stream your own music, then you can use Google's Music service to stream your own tunes, convert over yourself XD

 

Google may let you change it though.  https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1391343?hl=en

 

 

Spotify still doesn't offer 256 though, they'll do 96, 160, or 320, no in betweens.  https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/What-bitrate-does-Spotify-use-for-streaming

That's why you go with google's service as they do offer 320. I should have said what "They" was in regards to what I was talking about.

post #51 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirininc View Post
 

That's why you go with google's service as they do offer 320. I should have said what "They" was in regards to what I was talking about.

 

Spotify offers 320, but not 256...  Spotify offers 96, 160 (free), and 320 (premium). 

post #52 of 257

Most all of my albums are either 256kbps or 320kbps and I say its well worth getting higher end headphones because even compared to my UE600 which is a nice HP the don't compare to my HD600 or HE-400 when listening to 320kbps music. To tell you the truth I don't hear much difference between my 320 files and my flac files. I've compared the same album in both formats and the difference is negligible imo.

post #53 of 257

The other thing I do is Youtube stream music.  Not sure exactly what the compression rate is, but who cares really.... its enjoyable enough for my philosophy of use.  I search for my fave band and play it.  Some folks post up entire CD/album collections... Van Halen comes to mind immediately.

 

I don't EVER stream www radio, Pandora or YT with the intent to use it for critical listening.  Web streams are just for me to sample tunes and bands.   I'm old fashioned, I buy my CDs (after stream-sampling it).  I have no problems paying $15-20 for good music on CD.  So thats what I use for critical listening.   I control the data physically in person, Its ALL MINE... this is a concept that the music industry is successfully brain-washing out of the post-CD generation.  I rip it at whatever bit-rate I want.  Storage hardware is so cheap, why not rip lossless audio?  Get second or third drive and rip at whatever compression rate is needed for smaller capacity players and non-critical listening.

 

Boils down to philosophy of use, and understanding the pros and cons of each.  But paying for lossy streaming music... NO WAY, not if I can still buy CD and chose the bit-rare I WANT.


Edited by kramer5150 - 3/17/14 at 9:26pm
post #54 of 257

You can't just compare numbers… Google Play is MP3, while Spotify is Vorbis… That makes 320 not the same as 320, and so on, and so forth…

post #55 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by brhfl View Post
 

You can't just compare numbers… Google Play is MP3, while Spotify is Vorbis… That makes 320 not the same as 320, and so on, and so forth…

 

I honestly can't tell the difference except in some instances where (I believe) the issue is source material, not encoding. 

post #56 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer5150 View Post
 

The other thing I do is Youtube stream music.  Not sure exactly what the compression rate is, but who cares really.... its enjoyable enough for my philosophy of use.  I search for my fave band and play it.  Some folks post up entire CD/album collections... Van Halen comes to mind immediately.

 

I don't EVER stream www radio, Pandora or YT with the intent to use it for critical listening.  Web streams are just for me to sample tunes and bands.   I'm old fashioned, I buy my CDs (after stream-sampling it).  I have no problems paying $15-20 for good music on CD.  So thats what I use for critical listening.   I control the data physically in person, Its ALL MINE... this is a concept that the music industry is successfully brain-washing out of the post-CD generation.  I rip it at whatever bit-rate I want.  Storage hardware is so cheap, why not rip lossless audio?  Get second or third drive and rip at whatever compression rate is needed for smaller capacity players and non-critical listening.

 

[...]

 

+1

 

FLAC files, for instance, at 300MB or so for a typical album...you can put 100 of them on a small,

cheap thumb drive or SD mini card - and it's getting cheaper by the day.

post #57 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by zazex View Post

 

+1

 

FLAC files, for instance, at 300MB or so for a typical album...you can put 100 of them on a small,

cheap thumb drive or SD mini card - and it's getting cheaper by the day.

 

"Storage may be cheap but it's still a pain to transfer large files to USBs etc. Large files are just a pain, period."

 

Hate to quote myself, but there you go. Also, if what most posters here are saying is true, that there simply isn't any discernable difference, what's the point? Or are you able to discern the difference sufficient to make it worthwhile?

 

(And if so, I have a DBT you may enjoy. :p )

post #58 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by zazex View Post
 

 

+1

 

FLAC files, for instance, at 300MB or so for a typical album...you can put 100 of them on a small,

cheap thumb drive or SD mini card - and it's getting cheaper by the day.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
 

 

"Storage may be cheap but it's still a pain to transfer large files to USBs etc. Large files are just a pain, period."

 

Hate to quote myself, but there you go. Also, if what most posters here are saying is true, that there simply isn't any discernable difference, what's the point? Or are you able to discern the difference sufficient to make it worthwhile?

 

(And if so, I have a DBT you may enjoy. :p )

 

Well, what's a "large" file?  Sure, I guess transferring 17 terabytes and carting that around is a PITA.

I don't consider 300MB's to be a "large" file. 

 

And if what "most posters are saying is true, that there isn't any discernible difference..."

...then it must be true, right? 

 

One issue is this flaccid acceptance - well, if I can't hear the difference, and a bunch of other

people can't hear the difference, than why bother with fidelity?  Let's just record everything

at 320.  ****** the fact that CD's are recorded at 4X that (more or less).  And when the 256'ers

can't hear the difference, let's just do everything at 128 and save some time and space.

You can't 'really' hear the difference anyway.

 

With storage so inexpensive, and transfer speeds so quick, why NOT record more

important files in lossless formats?  Why the rush to a reduction in quality, when

maintaining quality has become so simple?

 

 

Finally, I'll note that pretty much every comment (not every comment) favoring

320kbs or less in this thread uses some sort of qualifier - e.g.: "for those who can

hear the difference"; "there doesn't seem to be any discernible difference", and similar.

post #59 of 257

If you can hear the difference, by all means record in lossless. Certainly no one here is going to object. But for most people it's clearly a useless exercise. And my point about unwieldy files is still valid, as you'll know if you've ever tried to fill a 16gb thumb drive with music files. Plenty of time for a cup of coffee and a shower.

 

I'm not sure about that 'why bother with fidelity?' remark.Fidelity is a matter of perception. For myself, if I could hear the slightest difference I'd definitely record in lossless, so if you can hear the difference you should record in lossless, no question. For the rest of us, unless we expect a sudden improvement in our hearing in the near future, there's no point.

post #60 of 257

as others have said, 192 sounds fine and you'd have a hard time telling the difference.  If someone was listening to 128 mp3s i might say that they'd be limited since those often don't sound great.

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?