[paddo]

Thanks for the replies guys, all helpful.

You might have presumed this but this will be my first REAL step in "audiophile" headphones. My best full sized have been Skullcandy's but thanks to a fellow Head-Fi'er i now have a pair of IM716's for earbuds which sound awesome, compared to my friends ibuds and the like.

There is NO places I could try these headphones as JVC NZ apparently does not sell and AD700's are also non-existent in any store. I have to take it from your opinions.

As I am new to this area, my music is not all FLAC, infact none of it is yet, so which will be the most forgiving?? Also could i please get a link explaining all the music file types, i am currently confused about MP3, WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc etc.

Also i don't think we have had any help in regards to getting a batch over here, so if you can, you will be liked by all of us here: GP Forums - Group Buy - JVC HARX700 - $30US headphones, poor mans AD700s?

 

[Adreneline]

Pretty much, either phone is not a bad choice at all. Looks like you've decided on the RX700.

I can quickly give you some info about some of the types:

MP3 - Lossy - meaning that there are things lost when converted to MP3, nuances and the like. Sound quality and clarity as well, this ALL depends on the bit-rate as to which is worse - 320 is known as the best 'common' one, and anything lower than 128 is awful. 192 is the most used. I have a hard time distinguishing 320 kbps and FLAC. Higher bit-rate = higher file size = better quality.

FLAC - Lossless - To my understanding, nothing is lost when files are in FLAC, it's ripped directly from the CD containing everything or almost everything the original CD had. Everything is intact from when it was put on a CD, basically. Since it's lossless, it's files are big. A 192 bit rate MP3 = ~3mb for 4 mins. A 4 min FLAC would be around 25mb+.

WAV I think is lossy but some people argue there is no difference between that and FLAC. Also has a big file size. There is also WAV-Lossless which is self explanatory.

Of course everything is subjective as to which is the best (between FLAC & WAV lossless) and what's fine for people may not be for others quality-wise.

Don't know about the rest. Hope I helped.

 

[nullstring]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adreneline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pretty much, either phone is not a bad choice at all. Looks like you've decided on the RX700. I can quickly give you some info about some of the types: MP3 - Lossy - meaning that there are things lost when converted to MP3, nuances and the like. Sound quality and clarity as well, this ALL depends on the bit-rate as to which is worse - 320 is known as the best 'common' one, and anything lower than 128 is awful. 192 is the most used. I have a hard time distinguishing 320 kbps and FLAC. Higher bit-rate = higher file size = better quality. FLAC - Lossless - To my understanding, nothing is lost when files are in FLAC, it's ripped directly from the CD containing everything or almost everything the original CD had. Everything is intact from when it was put on a CD, basically. Since it's lossless, it's files are big. A 192 bit rate MP3 = ~3mb for 4 mins. A 4 min FLAC would be around 25mb+. WAV I think is lossy but some people argue there is no difference between that and FLAC. Also has a big file size. There is also WAV-Lossless which is self explanatory. Of course everything is subjective as to which is the best (between FLAC & WAV lossless) and what's fine for people may not be for others quality-wise. Don't know about the rest. Hope I helped.

WAV is not lossy. It's -exact- same information that was on the CD. a WAV literally takes the information and just wraps it in a file format. No re-encoding is done.
FLAC is the exact same information that was on the CD, cept it is run through an algorithm that allows it to be compressed to ~70% it's size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation

There are four categories of audio formats as far as I see it
Lossy compressed: typically mpeg based: MP3, AAC, etc.
"bad" quality

Lossless compressed: FLAC, ALAC, wavpack, etc.
good quality

uncompressed:WAV, CD, DVD-Audio
same as lossless (quality)

analog: Vinyl, etc.
varying quality

 

[Adreneline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nullstring /img/forum/go_quote.gif WAV is not lossy. It's -exact- same information that was on the CD. a WAV literally takes the information and just wraps it in a file format. No re-encoding is done. FLAC is the exact same information that was on the CD, cept it is run through an algorithm that allows it to be compressed to ~70% it's size. Pulse-code modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are four categories of audio formats as far as I see it Lossy compressed: typically mpeg based: MP3, AAC, etc. "bad" quality Lossless compressed: FLAC, ALAC, wavpack, etc. good quality uncompressed:WAV, CD, DVD-Audio same as lossless (quality) analog: Vinyl, etc. varying quality

Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up. What is WAV-Lossless then? I thought that and WAV were different formats.

 

[nullstring]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adreneline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up. What is WAV-Lossless then? I thought that and WAV were different formats.

I have no idea.
A quick google search leads me to believe it's the same thing

 

[donunus]

you might be thinking about wavpack. WV files can be lossy or lossless

 

[jageur272]

If you have a lot of lossy files, you should go with the RX700. It's much more forgiving than the AD700 when it comes to low bitrate mp3's.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex81 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hopefully you've kept in mind that sound is subjective and anyone in this forum is stating their own preference and opinion, nothing more. It is my opinion that the AD700 doesn't have a chance against the RX700 and the fact that it is my opinion should be obvious. I'm also referring to a felt modded and stuffed RX700, which dramtically clears these up. If you need more info, just look at any of the RX700 or 900 threads. I feel very comfortable saying that an RX700 burned in, felt modded and stuffed is a much different animal than one out of the box. There are many head-fiers with similar opinions. I'm sorry if you "find it telling" that I didn't mention the AD700 soundstage. I was under the impression that everyone knows the AD700 has some of the widest soundstage in this price range. I didn't mean to mislead anyone. Just to be clear, AD700 wins the soundstage war. I don't have any problem with EQing and believe me, I tried everything to coax out some lows from the AD700. Wasn't cutting it for me. The problem I had was with the basic sound signature. The AD700 was too weak in the lows and too grainy and shrill in the highs. The RX700 flat is much more to my liking. The RX700 has presence without EQ, I just like to add a bit to the mids and highs for more clarity and presentation. This all comes down to personal opinon, as does EVERY comment on this forum. Please don't attack my opinion (or the way I reach my opinion) because it's different than yours. Just state your opinon afterwards and let the other readers decide. I'm trying to help some noobs save some money and find a great headphone so they can get to the bottom of this whole thing: The music.

I guess my tone may have came off harsher than I intended. My purpose was just to provide a counterpoint to your post, because I've had significant experience with all three 'phones. some newbies (which, AFAIK is what the OP is) will read posts like yours (or mine for that matter) and if there is no counterpoint, they'll take it as a consensus type opinion. "Hey, everybody thinks that the JVC is a better headphone, even throwing price out the window."

Also good point about your mod. I obviously couldn't felt mod a pair I was demoing out, so I will probably never hear a felt modded HAR-X700 unless I hear one at a swap meet and/or just decide to buy one as an impulse buy.

Anyway, I didn't mean to "attack your opinion" at all, just let the OP know that there are in fact people who've tried out a burned in pair, own the AD700 and D1001 and like the HARX700 the least of all three.

 

[soulrider4ever]

I've got a set of the RX700's and highly recommend getting a decent AMP and doing the felt mod at a minimum. Obviously, all headphones benefit from an AMP.

PROS - nice bass, good detail, exposes flaws in lossy somewhat well, has a fun sound, price/performance ratio, forward sounding

CONS - a little heavy after a few hours - my neck needs a break, highs can be weak, some grainy sounds during the first 100 hours, soundstage - sounds crappy without an AMP / good source

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soulrider4ever /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've got a set of the RX700's and highly recommend getting a decent AMP and doing the felt mod at a minimum. Obviously, all headphones benefit from an AMP. PROS - nice bass, good detail, exposes flaws in lossy somewhat well, has a fun sound, price/performance ratio, forward sounding CONS - a little heavy after a few hours - my neck needs a break, highs can be weak, some grainy sounds during the first 100 hours, soundstage - sounds crappy without an AMP / good source

I've never found the FiiO E5 really helps headphones that need an amp at all. In my experience, its good for phones that sound good without an amp, giving them just a touch more headroom than they had otherwise. But I've tried it out of my laptop and noticed 0 difference (other than the bass boost). It helps my iPod, but its even hard to tell there if its just because you're able to run full volume out of an LOD with it, and use the E5 as a volume attenuator or if its the actual power that's helping.

 

[soulrider4ever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've never found the FiiO E5 really helps headphones that need an amp at all. In my experience, its good for phones that sound good without an amp, giving them just a touch more headroom than they had otherwise. But I've tried it out of my laptop and noticed 0 difference (other than the bass boost). It helps my iPod, but its even hard to tell there if its just because you're able to run full volume out of an LOD with it, and use the E5 as a volume attenuator or if its the actual power that's helping.

Yea - I wasn't referring to the E5 (I know it's what's in my sig) When I'm home I plug into a Onkyo Receiver which sounds way better than the E5.

 

[paddo]

So a few of you guys are recommending do a "felt mod" , so can anyone explain or provide a link to one with steps how to do(preferably with photos)? I'm currently leaning towards the RX700.

Also, soulrider4ever you mention they would be good with an amp, but as i am using with a PC for gaming and music, would that still work or would i get a DAC/soundcard?

 

[voicemaster]

Paddo, I have RX700 that has been felt removed and burned for 100+ hours. I am using it with my creative sound card and it is not even an X-Fi card. I've tried using RX700 with my old sony hi-fi and the sound is actually better with it, but not saying with sound card the sound is bad also. So, with a good amp, RX700 will sound even better than without amp (dooh). I truly enjoy my RX700 then any other headphones that I have.
The felt mod is very easy and you can find a tutorial for it if you search RX900 modding thread.