[akiroz]

Quote:

partly the reason i feel that people find high end cans unappealing to them is the fact that most non audiophiles stock up with 128 kbps songs from itunes or some youtube rips (my friends do so) so when they take my headphones to test on their system they are unimpressed, when i hered my own pair through their system i was unimpressed too, beats just covers up the compression artifacts with their special magical feature of 'returning lost quality of mp3 compression'

im sorry that was just a joke, beats just covers and masks the artifacts by loading it with so much bass the people also think more bass impact means more energy means better sound quality,
on the other hand most high end cans are very picky about the music file quality being pumped through it, and will actually make beats sound better than $1000 flagships just because beats covers up the flaws while the flagship models just show you the flaws in the compression in utter most detail

128kbps is not as bad as one may think.....
and youtube could have quality audio too..... (though rarely found)
I'm sure there are some 128 vs 320 blind tests around the sound science thread you can try.
 
Though the point remains, they all sound the same with beats (not sure about pro, I haven't try them yet.)
 
Beats sounds better than 1k flagships because of bad audio file??
I'd have to disagree, my 1.3k CIEMs sounds better than beats even with 128kbps....
 
And since this thread is about marketing, Anyone heard of those "rocks" you put in your room to "improve" all your equipment's performance?
I thought the whole thing was just one major troll at first...

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

128kbps is not as bad as one may think.....
and youtube could have quality audio too..... (though rarely found)
I'm sure there are some 128 vs 320 blind tests around the sound science thread you can try.
 
Though the point remains, they all sound the same with beats (not sure about pro, I haven't try them yet.)
 
Beats sounds better than 1k flagships because of bad audio file??
I'd have to disagree, my 1.3k CIEMs sounds better than beats even with 128kbps....
 
And since this thread is about marketing, Anyone heard of those "rocks" you put in your room to "improve" all your equipment's performance?
I thought the whole thing was just one major troll at first...

 
This is rubbish really.... A few select 128kb clips which were selected because those short clips sound very similar to 320kb... Even those clips you can tell the difference just about if you know what to listen for....
 
In reality the difference between 128kb and 320kb on most MP3's is huge and there is a massive and blatantly obvious difference in sound quality... FLAC or CD quality are again an increase over 320kb although this is less noticable a lot of the time compared to 128kb vs 320kb.... 128kb is ***** really I mean come on... compressing a ~50mb CD audio track to ~2mb you dont think that ruins the quality?
 
Anyway I am not arguing any further on this because if you think 128 sounds like flac or even 320kb then it is pointless arguing... I will go and listen to my FLAC and you can go and enjoy ur 128kb MP3...
 
And yes high end revealing headphones will sound worse than less revealing headphones because of the poor quality of the source file.... The same way that when playing freeview TV through my speakers I have to turn down the treble due to poor quality source audio whereas playing blu ray it is fine...

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

128kbps is not as bad as one may think.....
and youtube could have quality audio too..... (though rarely found)
I'm sure there are some 128 vs 320 blind tests around the sound science thread you can try.
 
Though the point remains, they all sound the same with beats (not sure about pro, I haven't try them yet.)
 
Beats sounds better than 1k flagships because of bad audio file??
I'd have to disagree, my 1.3k CIEMs sounds better than beats even with 128kbps....
 
And since this thread is about marketing, Anyone heard of those "rocks" you put in your room to "improve" all your equipment's performance?
I thought the whole thing was just one major troll at first...

maybe, but he said beats are better than his HD800 + amp! OoO" so it has to be clear because beats tries so hard to cover it up with so much bass he thinks its better.(he partially rates headphone by bass QUANTITY) i have tried the 128 vs 320, it is a no brainer even my cheap HD202 could tell let alone my HD558 and his HD800 + amp (sorry i cannot name the amp, he doesnt even know what amp he has, all i know its a bout $1000-1500 from what he said
-_-" ) also he is used to the solo sound, he was about to get ANOTHER pair when his one showed amplitude imbalance, then suddenly a spark of wisdom caused him to ask me for advice, see his dad offered him a HD800 or a Solo. and i told him firmly to get the HD800, so thats why he has a HD800

also the thing is, HD800 is a super detailed headphone and will reveal any flaws in the track, making it actually sound worse than the beats, but thats just speculation since i haven't had a chance to listen to HD800 (HD700 i have tested at the shop though)

edit: Beats partly covers it with mud and bass, but also because it cannot even play the flaws in the track it may sound better for tracks which are 90% compression flaws (number plucked from thin air)

 

[akiroz]

Quote:

maybe, but he said beats are better than his HD800 + amp! OoO" so it has to be clear because beats tries so hard to cover it up with so much bass he thinks its better.(he partially rates headphone by bass QUANTITY) i have tried the 128 vs 320, it is a no brainer even my cheap HD202 could tell let alone my HD558 and his HD800 + amp (sorry i cannot name the amp, he doesnt even know what amp he has, all i know its a bout $1000-1500 from what he said
-_-" ) also he is used to the solo sound, he was about to get ANOTHER pair when his one showed amplitude imbalance, then suddenly a spark of wisdom caused him to ask me for advice, see his dad offered him a HD800 or a Solo. and i told him firmly to get the HD800, so thats why he has a HD800

also the thing is, HD800 is a super detailed headphone and will reveal any flaws in the track, making it actually sound worse than the beats, but thats just speculation since i haven't had a chance to listen to HD800 (HD700 i have tested at the shop though)

edit: Beats partly covers it with mud and bass, but also because it cannot even play the flaws in the track it may sound better for tracks which are 90% compression flaws (number plucked from thin air)

 
Quote:

 
This is rubbish really.... A few select 128kb clips which were selected because those short clips sound very similar to 320kb... Even those clips you can tell the difference just about if you know what to listen for....
 
In reality the difference between 128kb and 320kb on most MP3's is huge and there is a massive and blatantly obvious difference in sound quality... FLAC or CD quality are again an increase over 320kb although this is less noticable a lot of the time compared to 128kb vs 320kb.... 128kb is ***** really I mean come on... compressing a ~50mb CD audio track to ~2mb you dont think that ruins the quality?
 
Anyway I am not arguing any further on this because if you think 128 sounds like flac or even 320kb then it is pointless arguing... I will go and listen to my FLAC and you can go and enjoy ur 128kb MP3...
 
And yes high end revealing headphones will sound worse than less revealing headphones because of the poor quality of the source file.... The same way that when playing freeview TV through my speakers I have to turn down the treble due to poor quality source audio whereas playing blu ray it is fine...

 
=_= I'm not saying compressing the audio file won't degrade SQ, all I'm saying is that 128kbps gets bashed way more then it deserved in the audiophile world... that's all.
 
For your information, out of the ~20k songs in my library only 1/3 is in lossless or uncompressed because some songs are very hard to find in lossless format, but I can enjoy all my music because I listen to the music itself and not the encoding.... (unlike some)
 
I'm not sure what you guys meant by "recording flaws" because I rarely hear anything horribly wrong with my music. 
I have heard clipping in my music before, but using beats won't hide that.
And I don't consider venue ambience in live recordings a "flaw".
So I really don't understand what you guys are hearing that's so bad you need to cover it up...

 

[streetdragon]

well 128 affects some songs more than others, to be honest i do have 128 kbps files because i simply cannot find any better variants, but i will say their sound quality is quite flat, crowded and confused sounding. i tried my other friend's youtube rips of orchestral music, it was really bad -_-" instruments bundled up together in bublegum don't make ideal listening experiences, but thats ok, the one who has the HD800 answered my question of what kind of mp3 file he has as this: 'mp3! what do you mean by different mp3 file types??' so i feel sad cause that's a wasted perfectly crafted german made flaghip headphone.... TnT (ok sorry got dramatic at the end but seriously) 

bottom line: 128 kbps is listenable, but not any good

 

[Parall3l]

YOU PEOPLE ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE TAINTED WITH LOSSY AUDIO? ACK! DON'T EVEN GO NEAR ME YOU FILTHY CONSUMERS 

 

 

[madbull]

I only listen to at least 320kbps... 128 kbps? I can't be bothered.
 

 

[akiroz]

Quote:

YOU PEOPLE ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE TAINTED WITH LOSSY AUDIO? ACK! DON'T EVEN GO NEAR ME YOU FILTHY CONSUMERS 

 

Not sure if serious. (=_=)"
 
and I've been a sound engineer for over a year now, not exactly a mere consumer.  
I've heard crap at infinite kbps, the signal coming out of my CIEMs when I plug it in that console could just rape my ears sometimes...
And you know what? that was a full analog console that process signals at infinite bits / infinite kHz.
So I'd much rather listen a very well mastered song in lossy then a crap song lossless.

 

[nicholars]

I find that a lot of the time I cannot stand listening to 128kbps and will just switch song to one which is at least 256kb or 192kb at worst because it just sounds rubbish really compared to a 320kb mp3 or FLAC audio.
 
Same is true with broadcast quality... TV is 96-192kb MP3 and the quality is rubbish compared to a DTS blu ray.
 
I usually change before actually looking at the bitrate of the file... I think "eugh this sounds poor" then look at the file properties and 9/10 it is a 192kb or below MP3.
 
320kb sounds pretty good to me and FLAC better again... I have a couple of albums at 192/24bit FLAC and the quality on those is awesome...
 
For what it is 128kb MP3 is pretty good considering it is squashed to 1/20th of the original size but I would rather not listen to it is possible!

 

[streetdragon]

only recently i upgraded, so my song collection is still far behind in quality, i do try my best to get as high as possible though. most of the time when a 128 song comes up i skip it
also on side note quality of song is not directly linked to bits per second, it is generally affected, but well recorded songs in lower bitrate may sound better than high kbps with crap mastering

 

[ssrock64]

In reality, with a lot of songs it IS hard to tell a difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. The demonstrations from online and tests you can do are proof of that. I only knew the difference because I was listening with great equipment and knew what to look for (erm, listen for).
 
However, it's also somewhat true that a flagship can sound worse than a low-end model with extremely lossy files. The more revealing the flagship, the more harsh the 128kbps file will sound, something that many warmer headphones smooth over. However, this isn't about the equipment's TOTL nature, it's what goes along with it. Most flagships are much more revealing and harsh-sounding than the more consumerist, warm-sounding lower-end cans, which means that in general flagships will reveal the crappiness of low-quality music. However, that's not just because it's higher technology. An LCD-2, D7000, or other warmer-sounding flagship would do just fine with those files, and a KNS8400 or SR60i, which are definitely lower-end but sound much more harsh, would rip them to shreds.

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

In reality, with a lot of songs it IS hard to tell a difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. The demonstrations from online and tests you can do are proof of that. I only knew the difference because I was listening with great equipment and knew what to look for (erm, listen for).
 
However, it's also somewhat true that a flagship can sound worse than a low-end model with extremely lossy files. The more revealing the flagship, the more harsh the 128kbps file will sound, something that many warmer headphones smooth over. However, this isn't about the equipment's TOTL nature, it's what goes along with it. Most flagships are much more revealing and harsh-sounding than the more consumerist, warm-sounding lower-end cans, which means that in general flagships will reveal the crappiness of low-quality music. However, that's not just because it's higher technology. An LCD-2, D7000, or other warmer-sounding flagship would do just fine with those files, and a KNS8400 or SR60i, which are definitely lower-end but sound much more harsh, would rip them to shreds.

exactly the reason why my friend thought his solo sounded better than the HD800

 

[CashNotCredit]

Quote:

Not sure if serious. (=_=)"
 
and I've been a sound engineer for over a year now, not exactly a mere consumer.  
I've heard crap at infinite kbps, the signal coming out of my CIEMs when I plug it in that console could just rape my ears sometimes...
And you know what? that was a full analog console that process signals at infinite bits / infinite kHz.
So I'd much rather listen a very well mastered song in lossy then a crap song lossless.

This times a million. If a song has 2822 kbps and is in 24-bit wav, yet only has 4dB of dynamic range and is hard clipping on the master, it's going to sound like garbage. Plain and simple.

 

[SONIC BOOM]

Quote:

YOU PEOPLE ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE TAINTED WITH LOSSY AUDIO? ACK! DON'T EVEN GO NEAR ME YOU FILTHY CONSUMERS 

 

+1

 

[iluvmusic]

Quote:

Sorry I have to off topic once more to ask a question.
 
I have heard that the Beats have this sort of 'filter' which makes them sound 'different' so people think it's better. Anybody what this is ?

most speakers and headphones color sound either on purpose or accidentally...   its fair to say that a recording will probably never sound exactly as it does in the studio or mixing suits in any other environment..  but we can still try tok find the highest quality sounds reproduction and then tune it to our personal tastes of frequency balance..
 
the human bra9in can become accustomed to certain sound signatures and find them to be pleasing  thats why its important to try and listen to as many sound sources as possible in you life to keep your frame of reference as objective as possible..