[ahujasid]

I recently bought a Shure SRH440 and i'm relatively new to all this so i didnt know my mobile phone wouldnt be able to use them to their full potenital.
Will buying a Fiio e11 amp help?

 

[MalVeauX]

Quote:

I recently bought a Shure SRH440 and i'm relatively new to all this so i didnt know my mobile phone wouldnt be able to use them to their full potenital.
Will buying a Fiio e11 amp help?

 
Heya,
 
They really should be fine from your phone. They're efficient enough headphones. If you're having an issue with volume output, I would just use a simple Fiio E6 for $20 in that case. The Fiio E11 is three times as expensive and not needed. It's a nice amp, mind, I use one myself, but recommending it for something that doesn't need amplification is like suggesting you burn money. So unless you're having an issue with your SRH440's not getting loud enough with your phone, then consider the Fiio E6, as it's an inexpensive simple fix for that.
 
Very best,

 

[ahujasid]

Thanks. But it is a really bad phone so the sound quality isnt very good. I also have an ipod but since i dont carry it outside all the time i would like something to bring out the best in the sures from my mobile phone.

 

[MalVeauX]

Quote:

Thanks. But it is a really bad phone so the sound quality isnt very good. I also have an ipod but since i dont carry it outside all the time i would like something to bring out the best in the sures from my mobile phone.

 
Heya,
 
Make an effort to start carrying your ipod and save your money if your phone is that bad.
 
Very best,

 

[ahujasid]

Yes, but the thing is, I wont be having my ipod for another 10 months or so
So what do you suggest to improve the sound quality of my phone?
i dont mind spending a few bucks if it means better quality

 

[MalVeauX]

Quote:

Yes, but the thing is, I wont be having my ipod for another 10 months or so
So what do you suggest to improve the sound quality of my phone?
i dont mind spending a few bucks if it means better quality

 
Fiio E6, $20.
And make sure you're using higher bit rate digital music, not that low quality poorly encoded junk or youtube rips. This is likely you're culprit.
 
Or, just get an inexpensive Sansa Clip+ player for a few dollars. It will drive the SRH440 fine, and has a better onboard chipset, load it with higher quality digital music and enjoy.
 
Very best,

 

[ahujasid]

Fiio E6, $20.
And make sure you're using higher bit rate digital music, not that low quality poorly encoded junk or youtube rips. This is likely you're culprit.

Or, just get an inexpensive Sansa Clip+

player for a few dollars. It will drive the SRH440 fine, and has a better onboard chipset, load it with higher quality digital music and enjoy.

Very best,

Alright, so after a bit of research I found out what the problem is. All my music is 128 kbps bitrate.
Will Sansa clip+ or fiio e6 help in improving the quality?

 

[MalVeauX]

Quote:

Alright, so after a bit of research I found out what the problem is. All my music is 128 kbps bitrate.
Will Sansa clip+ or fiio e6 help in improving the quality?

 
No.
 
Garbage in, garbage out. You will never get higher quality sound from a low quality music source. You cannot magically add back information that was lost due to compression.
 
Instead of spending money on equipment, focus on getting higher quality music, and you'll realize that's the first step to any audio setup, the music itself.
 
Very best,

 

[ahujasid]

Quote:

 
No.
 
Garbage in, garbage out. You will never get higher quality sound from a low quality music source. You cannot magically add back information that was lost due to compression.
 
Instead of spending money on equipment, focus on getting higher quality music, and you'll realize that's the first step to any audio setup, the music itself.
 
Very best,

Alright. That;s what I'll do then. Thanks a lot mate!

 

[EventVista]

Quote:

 
No.
 
Garbage in, garbage out. You will never get higher quality sound from a low quality music source. You cannot magically add back information that was lost due to compression.
 
Originally Posted by ahujasid /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Alright. That;s what I'll do then. Thanks a lot mate!

 
I totally agree with MalVeauX on this, I just went through the same realization with my iTunes.  
 
Having recently taken my digital music more seriously, I realized what a huge mistake I had made over the past several years of importing countless CD's at 128kb.    
I am almost through re-importing my collection at 320kb and FLAC and have experienced a huge improvement in sound quality.   

 

[ahujasid]

Ok. So should I go for FLAC or 320kbps mp3 or AAC?
If the shures can play the flac files properly then I'll go for flac I guess.

 

[EventVista]

I can comment on my impressions of the FLAC and 320kbs MP3, but do not have experience with the AAC files.
 
About 75% of my listening is done from a desktop with a 1 TB drive.  With this said I have recently acquired a mix of FLAC and 320kbs MP3s and have plenty of free disk space to accommodate the substantially larger FLAC files so space is not an issue for me.   However, if you seek portability for an iPod, I believe you have to convert the FLAC to another format to run them in their true lossless format. (I have not tried this yet)  Thus far, the only way I have moved from FLAC to iPod is to burn a CD and then import them to iTunes using 320kbs which defeats the purpose.

As an FYI, there are utilities out there that convert FLAC to iTunes friendly formats keeping their original quality.   I recently read about Fluke but have not tried it yet.
 
As for sound quality, I admit I do not have the critical ear to tell the difference.  However, there are others with far better ears and higher quality gear that prefer the FLAC.  To make things even more confusing, there is even higher resolution audio formats such as SACD.  
 
I will let the experts chime in on this last paragraph as I do not feel qualified to speak to the difference in quality.

 

[adamlr]

Quote:

Ok. So should I go for FLAC or 320kbps mp3 or AAC?
If the shures can play the flac files properly then I'll go for flac I guess.

your getting dangerously close to a known source of controversy here. i dont know anything about aac files, IF i am correct theyr apples version of a lossless file.
 
now as far as the difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac goes. there definitely IS a difference, the question is whether or not you can hear it. once, mp3 were compressed badly and the differences were obvious. today, with new algorithms and what not, youd need good ears to tell the difference between an mp3 and a flac file, so long as the original recording was good to begin with.
theres even a thread somewhere with a blind test that plays you the same song in a different format and you have to guess which is which. the web is full of tests just like these.
 
now im not taking a stand in either direction. most people around here will tell you to use FLAC files because they are better quality. if you ask me? download an album you love and know very well in both formats and see for yourself if you can tell a difference. if you do, go for the one you liked most. keep in mind, im not sure a smartphone will play FLAC files, mine doesnt (galaxy ace). i dont know about apple or sansa products and what they can\cant play.
 
and a files format has nothing to do with your headphones. you play the file through your source (phone, ipod, mp3 player, computer, whatever), not through your headphones. theres no format that headphones cant play, only sources that cant play certain formats. it doesnt matter if your using sure, akg or anything else.

 

[ahujasid]

Thanks. I'll do that. And what i meant to say was whether 320 kbps mp3s and flac would sound different in the shures, but i guess it probably depends on the person.
 

 

[Jamesy1969]

Quote:

your getting dangerously close to a known source of controversy here. i dont know anything about aac files, IF i am correct theyr apples version of a lossless file.
 
now as far as the difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac goes. there definitely IS a difference, the question is whether or not you can hear it. once, mp3 were compressed badly and the differences were obvious. today, with new algorithms and what not, youd need good ears to tell the difference between an mp3 and a flac file, so long as the original recording was good to begin with.
theres even a thread somewhere with a blind test that plays you the same song in a different format and you have to guess which is which. the web is full of tests just like these.
 
now im not taking a stand in either direction. most people around here will tell you to use FLAC files because they are better quality. if you ask me? download an album you love and know very well in both formats and see for yourself if you can tell a difference. if you do, go for the one you liked most. keep in mind, im not sure a smartphone will play FLAC files, mine doesnt (galaxy ace). i dont know about apple or sansa products and what they can\cant play.
 
and a files format has nothing to do with your headphones. you play the file through your source (phone, ipod, mp3 player, computer, whatever), not through your headphones. theres no format that headphones cant play, only sources that cant play certain formats. it doesnt matter if your using sure, akg or anything else.

 
I really don't want to flame a controversial subject! With some music and on some equipment, I can hear the difference between mp3 (even well-encoded mp3) and lossless (FLAC, ALAC, CD, whatever) with some music, or on a lower quality set-up, I can't: but I honestly don't see the point in choosing between the two.
 
The fact is - lossless is higher "quality", whether you can hear it or not. Does it make sense to rip/buy in lower quality until one's system is high enough fidelity to hear the difference and then have an "Oh schiit (TM)" moment and re-buy/re-rip everything? Why not start with the best quality source files you can? Storage isn't expensive anymore.
 
Incidentally, Android now supports FLAC natively, so many "smart-phones" will play it without being "rooted".
 
I hope this helps! Basically, all I'm saying is that, all else being equal, why choose inferior software? 25 years ago, I had friends who bought records, recorded them onto cassette and then sold the records (often to me!). When they got around to buying decent hi-fi (the few that did), they regretted selling those records.