[AviP]

I ran an ABX test between flac and 32kbps, no problem.
Between flac and 64kbps basically no problem.
Between flac and 96 kbps, any choice I make would be an absolute guess.
 
I'm using Shure SE215's with my thinkpad which has an on-board Conexant 20671 (presumably garbage).
 
Would I see an improvement with an external DAC/AMP? Even a cheap ($40-$75) one?

 

[tomb]

  I ran an ABX test between flac and 32kbps, no problem.
Between flac and 64kbps basically no problem.
Between flac and 96 kbps, any choice I make would be an absolute guess.
 
I'm using Shure SE215's with my thinkpad which has an on-board Conexant 20671 (presumably garbage).
 
Would I see an improvement with an external DAC/AMP? Even a cheap ($40-$75) one?

Probably, but there are so many variables in what you present that it's hard to tell where the weak link may be.  It could simply be in your particular type of music selection.
 
I can tell you that long-term, I can tell the difference in FLAC and almost any compression with the right music/recording.  I'm not so believing in the effectiveness of ABX testing, even in the best of situations.  Ultimately, I guess I would rather know that my source media is as good as I can make it.  Then I only have to concentrate on the other aspects of my system - sort of removing the variables that I can easily control, if you will.

 

[milosingh]

Try with an iPhone first. If you can't tell with an iPhone you won't be able to tell.

 

[AviP]

Probably, but there are so many variables in what you present that it's hard to tell where the weak link may be.  It could simply be in your particular type of music selection.

I can tell you that long-term, I can tell the difference in FLAC and almost any compression with the right music/recording.  I'm not so believing in the effectiveness of ABX testing, even in the best of situations.  Ultimately, I guess I would rather know that my source media is as good as I can make it.  Then I only have to concentrate on the other aspects of my system - sort of removing the variables that I can easily control, if you will.

What music would you recommend for comparing purposes?

 

[tomb]

 

Probably, but there are so many variables in what you present that it's hard to tell where the weak link may be.  It could simply be in your particular type of music selection.

I can tell you that long-term, I can tell the difference in FLAC and almost any compression with the right music/recording.  I'm not so believing in the effectiveness of ABX testing, even in the best of situations.  Ultimately, I guess I would rather know that my source media is as good as I can make it.  Then I only have to concentrate on the other aspects of my system - sort of removing the variables that I can easily control, if you will.

What music would you recommend for comparing purposes?

 
I'm not in the business of recommending specific music selections.  What I meant by that is that a lot of popular music is compressed in the studio.  It can make little difference listening to a compressed mp3 version of it after that.  You need to find something that was recorded in an excellent way that has a wide dynamic range.  Then if you can't tell the difference between FLAC and compressed, you could start looking at your equipment.  Try to remove a single variable at a time to arrive at the proper conclusion.

 

[12many]

AviP, can you provide an example of the FLAC music you are listening too.
 
Do you have access to other sources besides your thinkpad? 
 
I would think you could tell a difference between FLAC and 96 kbps but there are four variables - your hearing, the Shire SE215, your source (thinkpad) and your music.  If your FLAC is rubbish, that can make it  hard to distinguish between it and the 96 kbps. 
 
I listened to some Harmon Kardon SOHO II and did not think they sound very good and may not have been able to tell the difference between a FLAC and a 96 kbps song. 
 
Right now we (you) don't know if it is your song quality or your thinkpad - (or the shures or you) that cause you to not hear the difference. 

 

[Me x3]

  I ran an ABX test between flac and 32kbps, no problem.
Between flac and 64kbps basically no problem.
Between flac and 96 kbps, any choice I make would be an absolute guess.
 
I'm using Shure SE215's with my thinkpad which has an on-board Conexant 20671 (presumably garbage).
 
Would I see an improvement with an external DAC/AMP? Even a cheap ($40-$75) one?

Take the Philips Golden Ears training/challenge.
At certain point of the challenge you'll have to compare different compressions.
https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html
 
A properly encoded 320kbps .mp3 file or higher will be extremely difficult to differentiate from the original uncompressed file (no matter if it's 24bit/192kHz, no matter how good your setup is)

 

[AviP]

I've come to the conclusion that it's the headphones and possibly also my hearing.
Using my friend's V-Moda Crossfade M-80's I was able to tell the difference between flac and 96Kbps easily, but even with his I couldn't do 128Kbps (I only tried with one song, maybe with a different song I'd have more luck).
May be if I had a better DAC (Now I have a Fiio E07k) and better headphones I'd be able to do better.