Higher End Headphones and MP3
Jan 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 34

bassboysam

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Posts
1,334
Likes
175
Is there any benefit to using higher-end headphones in the $300-$600 range with non-WAV or non-FLAC files? I would like a nice set of headphones for my system at home and my record player but was wondering if those benefits would be lost if I use them with my ipod at work. Would I be better off having 2 sets of headphones? Say SR80's for work and RS-2 for the home system?

BTW the system at work would also include either a Pro-Ject Headphone amp or a LDMK1+.
 
Jan 30, 2010 at 10:14 PM Post #2 of 34
Can you focus 100 % on the music at work? That is the big question. But generally just use the same you use at home. If you are busy at work you won´t have time to listen to the ev extra distortion etc picked up in the recording. You may not be able to appreciate what they do fully. It goes both ways
wink.gif


Getting several headphones is nice because it refreshing with different signatures though and there is hardly any headphone that does it all anyway.
 
Jan 30, 2010 at 10:23 PM Post #3 of 34
It depends on the level of compression. At 256Kbps or higher, then definitely there is a lot of benefit to using nice headphones with mp3's!

A high bitrate mp3 version of a great recording is far better than a flac version of a poor recording.
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 12:17 AM Post #7 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by bassboysam /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Is there any benefit to using higher-end headphones in the $300-$600 range with non-WAV or non-FLAC files? I would like a nice set of headphones for my system at home and my record player but was wondering if those benefits would be lost if I use them with my ipod at work. Would I be better off having 2 sets of headphones? Say SR80's for work and RS-2 for the home system?

BTW the system at work would also include either a Pro-Ject Headphone amp or a LDMK1+.



Just listened to a cd converted from MP3 on my MS2i's. Just checked and it was ripped in 128kbps. Didn't notice the difference quite frankly.
If you want to sit around and listen for flaws, then you'll find them. If you want to just listen to a good album, you won't care!
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM Post #8 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A high bitrate mp3 version of a great recording is far better than a flac version of a poor recording.


I've noticed this more and more. The more I upgrade my gear, the more apparent shoddy recordings are.
Example: Just picked up Tom Petty's Wild Flowers at a second hand store, after having had a not so kosher version on my MP3 player for quite a while, and listening to it in my home rig isn't as satisfying because some of the tracks feel flat. Not bad, just lacks a certain spacial quality I enjoy.
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 2:32 AM Post #9 of 34
Yep. Most things, if not everything here on head-fi is exaggerated. Like going from 192kbps mp3 to 320kbps. People rave about the HUGE improvement it provides. It's a fairly big improvement but not enough to knock your socks off
biggrin.gif
It will provide tht extra bass definition, those sparkly high's that you have been missing out on etc. The difference is slight, but to some, it's exactly what they were looking for and have got it, so they just cannot stop speaking about how mch they love their music now. Just my opinion, another good fact on head-fi. Everyone has different ears, so what they say, don't take it as a fact. Just because it is the best headphone, amplifier etc that they have heard, doesn't mean it is the best and doesn't men it is the best for you, you might have different tastes.
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 4:12 AM Post #11 of 34
spending until $500 for a MP3 sourced HP is still practical as I can still hear the big difference
wink.gif


but its not practical
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 5:27 AM Post #13 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The compression of the Mp3 cut in to the sound and destroy the original, you like it or not.


What if I like that? What if I hate the original and want it destroyed??
angry_face.gif
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 6:20 AM Post #14 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by atothex /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What if I like that? What if I hate the original and want it destroyed??
angry_face.gif



If you like it, you are welcome to enjoy the destroyed music and the piracy behind that.
Just keep in mind the mp3s punching the artist in the face, and it's not audiophile format.
deadhorse.gif
 
Jan 31, 2010 at 7:02 AM Post #15 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you like it, you are welcome to enjoy the destroyed music and the piracy behind that.
Just keep in mind the mp3s punching the artist in the face, and it's not audiophile format.
deadhorse.gif



Wow, way to hop on your pulpit with a brush stroke statement.
Are you equating MP3's with piracy, or the bastardization of audio purity? One could argue that anything short of a live performance is the coloration of truth. And seriously, "audiophile" is just a name we give ourselves to justify countless wasted hours (and dollars) on this hobby.
Either way it's a slippery slope argument my friend.
While I alluded to piracy in a previous post, I followed it with the statement that I purchased that particular album, albeit from a second hand shop, but by legal means none the less.
I'm not trying to call you out Acix, but that was quite the bold statement. I have the utmost respect for artists, and do a music podcast out of pocket to share my appreciation with anyone who cares to listen. Needless to say, I purchase my fair share of music, and if it wasn't for a digital format, there is no possible way I'd be able to share what I love (music) with hundred of people every week, talking about great new bands that keep my passion alive!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top