[chengbin]

OK, I can probably reveal it and say wav1 is lossless and wav2 is 128Kbps mp3. 
 
The 128Kbps had its high frequencies chopped off at around 17KHz to improve overall quality (because not many people can actually hear >17Khz content in music).
 
rawrster, I think you're right. I think I'm still at the stage where I'm listening for the amount of bass, midrange, and treble. I can't tell soundstage in a earphone. I can tell some detail. 
 
Maybe ignorant is bliss. If I stay like that I won't have to spend big money on earphones because I miss those detail, soundstage, speed, etc. 

 

[Crazyguy106]

Would just like to join in with my opinions...
 
I like the people here on this thread. I hear a lot of clipping in the first recording right away. There's a lot of distortion for Kelly Clarkson's voice during the first track. The effects are there but more obvious in the first track. But it's also the one with more highs extension.
 
Bass for both tracks are similar. Mids are quite different, though more to do with the interaction with the highs extensions. First track has flatter mids in my opinion, whereas the second track has more towards forward mids. There's a huge obvious cap in the highs in the second track that really muffles the tone.
 
Soundstage wise I can say safely that track 1 is by far cleaner and more well separated. The staging of the sound is much smaller and more forward mids for the second track, and there's less instrument separation. So my go would be track 1.
 
My guess is that the distortion I heard at the front of the song could be the digital distortion from the autotuning and other effects on her voice that could've been removed by the coding of the mp3. However I doubt this is anywhere near 128kps, because the fidelity is still there. Still a guess though.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Would just like to join in with my opinions...
 
I like the people here on this thread. I hear a lot of clipping in the first recording right away. There's a lot of distortion for Kelly Clarkson's voice during the first track. The effects are there but more obvious in the first track. But it's also the one with more highs extension.
 
My guess is that the distortion I heard at the front of the song could be the digital distortion from the autotuning and other effects on her voice that could've been removed by the coding of the mp3. However I doubt this is anywhere near 128kps, because the fidelity is still there. Still a guess though.

I felt the same way which is why I thought track 2 was the lossless initially.  The mids sounded cleaner to me.  It also isn't a true 128kps file either.  I noticed the bit rate changing during playback inidicating VBR.  It used to be you would hear resolution loss through the entire body of a song, now it's mostly the highs and lows.  mp3's have come a long way.  Will never be good enough for a source though since data will always be missing. 

 

[Hentai11]

The only time 128 and lossless sounds the same to me is on a degraded source--happens all the time with old jazz and blues recording, when it was just a guy with a tape recorder taping a set. With any modern studio, however, I can A/B 196 instantly and 256 usually. At 320, it starts to get hard.

I would suspect the source and equipment. The differences are subtle, things like naturalness of timbre and imaging, but on good phones you should be able to pick these out, especially at 128.

P.S.: They make RE0-sized silicone triples. eBay for the Monster triple knockoffs. They're the same size.
 
 
Quote:

audiophiles think when bass doesn't exist it makes it "tight" and "fast" and when treble has 30 decibel peaks that will slice through your cochlea like a chainsaw through butter that it is "detailed".  oh well.

 

I'm glad someone else saw that.

 

[Crazyguy106]

Quote:

I'm glad someone else saw that.

It's my favourite post out of the whole of the Head-Fi...

 
Quote:

 
I felt the same way which is why I thought track 2 was the lossless initially.  The mids sounded cleaner to me.  It also isn't a true 128kps file either.  I noticed the bit rate changing during playback inidicating VBR.  It used to be you would hear resolution loss through the entire body of a song, now it's mostly the highs and lows.  mp3's have come a long way.  Will never be good enough for a source though since data will always be missing. 

Yeah and ironic that the original music would have so much clipping. Not a nice sound in my opinion. Haha

 

[Pianist]

lol 128 kbps is really not that bad. I have some 96 kbps recordings here and they are still perfectly enjoyable to my ears. And even with these low bitrate files I can still easily tell the difference between a low-fi, mid-fi and hi-fi headphones.

 

[mark2410]

Quote:

lol 128 kbps is really not that bad. I have some 96 kbps recordings here and they are still perfectly enjoyable to my ears. And even with these low bitrate files I can still easily tell the difference between a low-fi, mid-fi and hi-fi headphones.

are you being serious?

 

[noinimod]

Quote:

 
The Shure SE530's are reference iem's, and follow the vein of monitor loudspeakers (such as Tannoy or Dynaudio). It's not an exciting sound, it's a flat sound. Resolving, dynamic, sensitive. A trained ear and as StrongMind wrote,good source material, helps separate the good from the not so good headphones.
 

The se530s do not sound anything like a dynaudio, or rather they're not even in the same league. I listen to both everyday and their tonal differences are very apparent. The se530 hardly has a sound that i'd consider flat, they're quite colored and sound quite warm.
 

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

are you being serious?

Yes.
 
I mostly listen to bass and mids though. I am not really into picking out and analyzing cymbal crashes in my music. As long as the treble is not harsh/muddy and has good presence, I am perfectly satisfied.