or Connect
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 7

post #91 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattAnthony1990 View Post
 

true that, I have all my music in lossless and will be the first to admit I cannot hear any discernible difference between those and 320 kbps (I definitely can with 192 kbps). That being said, yes, I know it is a superior sound. Being an audiophile is often about making a higher quality rig or SQ just for the sake of it. I use ALO cables with my rig (which aren't cheap) even if the difference I can hear is nil. Money well spent? That is debatable. 

 

Haha, now this I agree with. If you have the space and the resources? Why not? There's no need to make yourself compress files if you don't want to. But if someone else is... well they're not losing anything. Suggesting otherwise is like claiming you can tell the hex code of a color on sight. 

post #92 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View PostBut if someone else is... well they're not losing anything.

Well, as per the definition of "lossy", they technically are...

post #93 of 322
I used to watch movies/youtube with my old Denon D2k, then now I watch with HD800.

Huge differences, I know I know, I am wasting HD800 but to tell you the truth, high-end headphones sound better on everything.
post #94 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3X0 View Post
 

Well, as per the definition of "lossy", they technically are...

 

They're "losing something" in the same sense that if I pull a row of pixels out of your computer monitor you're losing something.

 

This all reminds me of the FPS arguments you see on gaming forums. Guys crying that they need 90-120fps or the game is bad even though the human eye starts reaching its threshold around 60 and if you add some blurring 30 is plenty (remember movies are in 24 and animation is in 12). People crying about numbers and graphs and data output instead of what the actual sensory organs recognize. It's ridiculous.

post #95 of 322

Is it worth getting really high-end headphones if your source is 320kbps audi...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericasTeam View Post


Honestly, why would you think I'd go through all the trouble. I can definitely tell the difference and that's all that matters. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have taken all the time to do it and eat up valuable drive space.

Everyone has their own opinions. Mine is no more correct than yours or anyone else's in this thread. Encode your music however you most enjoy it. wink.gif

 

Sure you would. It's psychologically satisfying to know that all of your music is lossless, even if you can't actually tell the difference. You know that even if you can't actually hear the difference, it's THERE. Your ears are experiencing the full recording with nothing compressed or cut out. If ours was a world of unlimited storage and infinite bandwidth, I'd be doing the same just because I could (and if any streaming services offered it). 

 

The point, though, is that there is no audible difference. A person is not losing anything by saving hard drive space, and it's pretty well recognized that 320 vs lossless is inaudible, with ABX tests showing that it's hard to reliably even tell 192 from lossless. So you may think you can tell the difference, but if you were blind testing? Sorry, wouldn't be getting it right with any reliability. 


We'll agree to disagree, but don't tell me what I can and cannot hear. It is beyond ridiculous to tell someone else what they can either see or hear. wink.gif
post #96 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogmatrix View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
 

 

Why is it ridiculous? There are many differences in audio that cannot be heard. Indeed the whole basis of compression relies on what we don't hear even though it exists (same with Atrac and Minidisc). The human ear is not a scientific instrument; it can be fooled quite easily. And when combined with the human brain, it gets fooled more often than we care to admit, as this thread ably proves.


It is ridiculous because it is a blanket statement steeped in ignorance

I worked in the audio industry and met many techs and engineers who could reliably pick much more subtle differences than loss less vs compressed

In my own system the difference between loss less and compressed is not subtle at all, compared to loss less compressed files have a muddy smear over them

Furthermore it is illogical to claim that something which is manifestly different ie compressed is in fact the same

Apologies to any this stance may offend

 

 

(sniff) He called me ignorant!! Mum, he called me ignorant!! (stamps foot, bursts into tears)

 

More seriously, what's clear from all this is that if you train yourself to hear certain things in sound and then in fact listen for them, you'll probably hear them. Most of us just listen to the music and quickly get engrossed in it. This probably happens to some degree even when we're taking a test to see if we can pick a difference. Plus we're not trained in what to listen for. All of this is taken into account in the design of compression algorithms. From the begining of Minidisc in '92 (and no doubt long before), it was claimed that what was being removed was what we don't normally hear: that part of the music being masked by louder parts. Of course it took a while with Minidisc to reach that actual goal (about 8 years actually) and even then the golden ears still claimed to hear clear differences. But off course they would, because the whole thing is a psychoacoustic trick and relies to some degree on being untrained in what to listen for and otherwise being more interested in the music. That's the normal condition of most listeners, and it's perfectly legitimate. The techs and engineers who spend their days listening for subtle faults, or even veteran listeners with tip-top equipment who can't bear the idea that the sound has been tampered with in some way, they're not who MP3 was designed for, and it will never please them.

 

Frankly, it's all a matter of perception. There are distortions all through the chain of reproduction that constantly get in the way of audio bliss, distortions we're not aware of and, at this stage of the game, can't do anything about anyway. In my and others' view, the current state of MP3 is among the least of them. Obviously to techs, engineers and Golden Ears, it's an offence to the ears, and MP3 is a fop tossed to the Great Unwashed. Well, if the Great Unwashed can't hear it even under DBT, I say it's been very successful, and long life to it.        

post #97 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuyDude View Post
 

 

This all reminds me of the FPS arguments you see on gaming forums. Guys crying that they need 90-120fps or the game is bad even though the human eye starts reaching its threshold around 60 and if you add some blurring 30 is plenty (remember movies are in 24 and animation is in 12). People crying about numbers and graphs and data output instead of what the actual sensory organs recognize. It's ridiculous.

What?  The human eye doesn't see in FPS, let alone 60 FPS.  Not to mention the difference in motion blur, screen tearing, and responsiveness between 60 and 120 FPS.  Even on the desktop, there is an obvious difference in the smoothness of cursor movement.  This is a horrible analogy, and it is clear that you have no significant experience with high refresh rates.

 

Quote:
The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.
post #98 of 322
First post! Long time lurker. This has been a great discussion to read so thanks to all. My question is, what headphone recommendations would you make ? I do listen to a lot of streaming music, currently own IE8 's and ATH-M50's . I'm now thinking of stepping up to much better full size cans. I also will be looking for a good DAC & Amp.
post #99 of 322

What kinda sound are you looking for? Makes a big difference!

post #100 of 322
Forgive any ignorance as I try to answer this . I tend to enjoy more vocals & guitars but want to hear separation as much as possible. While I want bass I don't want it to dominate the sound at all, in fact I'd rather it be more subdued. I want to feel emersed in the music. Hope this makes sense
post #101 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkane101 View Post

Forgive any ignorance as I try to answer this . I tend to enjoy more vocals & guitars but want to hear separation as much as possible. While I want bass I don't want it to dominate the sound at all, in fact I'd rather it be more subdued. I want to feel emersed in the music. Hope this makes sense

 

Well I don't know your budget but right off the top of my head I think you'd love the HiFiMan HE-400's. Start a thread over in the Introductions area and you'll get a good set of suggestions!

post #102 of 322
I have double blind tested my self with 320 mp3 and FLAC (both ripped myself using EAC which corrects errors) and I know I can't tell the difference.

Funny thing is, before I did the DB test - I really thought I did hear a difference. That's the human mind for you.

That said, my collection is still 99% FLAC because, why not? Storage is cheap and I like it being conceptually perfect even if I know I can't tell.
post #103 of 322

hang on a sec - just read the thread title.

 

is it worth buying a ferrari if your speed limit is 40? 60? 80? autobahn?

 

absolutely!

post #104 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

I have double blind tested my self with 320 mp3 and FLAC (both ripped myself using EAC which corrects errors) and I know I can't tell the difference.



Funny thing is, before I did the DB test - I really thought I did hear a difference. That's the human mind for you.



That said, my collection is still 99% FLAC because, why not? Storage is cheap and I like it being conceptually perfect even if I know I can't tell.

 



This is little Off the Topic but, with respect to your comment it really depends on the headphone.
You have to use high end gears to tell the differences. smily_headphones1.gif

Now, try DSD64/128. smily_headphones1.gif
post #105 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by joker97 View Post

hang on a sec - just read the thread title.



 



is it worth buying a ferrari if your speed limit is 40? 60? 80? autobahn?



 



absolutely!


 



Agree, I know I will smily_headphones1.gif
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?