[Twombly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikarus And by the way: The Redbook CD format is far from being audiophile too. If anything than it is the analogue vinyl (or tape) that does sound audiophile. Even the SACD only comes close to a vinyl but doesn´t beat it - soundwise.

Now you've done it.

 

[taymat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oga That's not what scares me. What scares me is that most people on the street think that a 128 kbps MP sounds "like CD"! As for the thing about Audiophile earphones, it reallt doesn't override the basic principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Playing 192 kbps or even 320 kbps MP3 via expensive headphones is really not "audiophile sound". Portables have lossless, but I don't think we can start to call any portable deveice "audiophile" until they commit to really supporting FLAC etc ina big way: gapless, high quality amp, etc.

I don't think the mp3 format itself limits sound unless the bitrate is low, I agree that 128kbp/s isn't cd quality on audiophile equipment but it's near as dammit on consumer speakers and earbuds. They just don't have the detail, because of there poor frequency response, to show the limitations.
However I believe that using the same source to compare, and bitrates of alt preset xtreme/256kb/s or higher, you cannot tell the difference between the cd and mp3 even with audiophile equipment. I'm not saying a difference doesn't exist in theory, but in practice I'm simply saying that there are far more important factors to consider.
There are many tests that have proven that even audiophiles cannot tell the difference between 256kbp/s and cd. Heck mp3 was developed from blind testing against cd players, that's why on a few of the old encoders (I don't think it's the same now) they had:
64kbp/s=AM quality
96kbp/s=FM quality
128kbp/s=Near CD quality
256kbp/s=CD quality
Anyway some of these tests were conducted with top quality B&W nautilus speakers, etc and included hearing aid engineers, classically trained musicians you get the idea. So therefore the idea that mp3 cannot be as good as cd isn't true IMO. If you want an audiophile format buy an expensive turntable and vinyl.
From my own experience I hear a small difference between cd players, a small difference between amplifiers (unless they don't have enough power for the speakers) and a huge difference between speakers. I know this is all my opinion but mp3 shouldn't be labled garbage. It's a valid, cheap, flexible format.

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taymat I don't think the mp3 format itself limits sound unless the bitrate is low, I agree that 128kbp/s isn't cd quality on audiophile equipment but it's near as dammit on consumer speakers and earbuds. They just don't have the detail, because of there poor frequency response, to show the limitations. However I believe that using the same source to compare, and bitrates of alt preset xtreme/256kb/s or higher, you cannot tell the difference between the cd and mp3 even with audiophile equipment. I'm not saying a difference doesn't exist in theory, but in practice I'm simply saying that there are far more important factors to consider. There are many tests that have proven that even audiophiles cannot tell the difference between 256kbp/s and cd. Heck mp3 was developed from blind testing against cd players, that's why on a few of the old encoders (I don't think it's the same now) they had: 64kbp/s=AM quality 96kbp/s=FM quality 128kbp/s=Near CD quality 256kbp/s=CD quality Anyway some of these tests were conducted with top quality B&W nautilus speakers, etc and included hearing aid engineers, classically trained musicians you get the idea. So therefore the idea that mp3 cannot be as good as cd isn't true IMO. If you want an audiophile format buy an expensive turntable and vinyl. From my own experience I hear a small difference between cd players, a small difference between amplifiers (unless they don't have enough power for the speakers) and a huge difference between speakers. I know this is all my opinion but mp3 shouldn't be labled garbage. It's a valid, cheap, flexible format.

Donno about everyone else, but I'm able to hear *distorsion* and *artifacts* on 128kbps (granted not on every track), so its not about lack of detail, its about being just plain bad, very, very bad sound.

256kbps compared to CD just sounds like detail loss, so I'm unable to tell CD vs 256kbps if I dont have the CD (good enough), but it is clearly lacking in detail if A/Bing to CD.

320kbps is good enough for me, I cant tell the difference, but it cuts off extreme frequencies which can:
a) cause distorsion on cheaper equipment that is percieved as detail
b) cause a *feeling* for the music on really good equipment

So lossless is good and bad, but I prefer to get my music in lossless format and then encode to whatever's most convenient at the time, therefore I only get CDs and Flac downloads

 

[t10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron Donno about everyone else, but I'm able to hear *distorsion* and *artifacts* on 128kbps (granted not on every track), so its not about lack of detail, its about being just plain bad, very, very bad sound.

ditto. distortion at 128kbps is VERY apperant, and even more so during fast parts of the song.

At 160kbps obvious differences start to dissapear and 192kbps+ is where the lines between CD ad mp3 start to blur.

Myself, I just encode 160-320kbps lame VBR. seems to be the sweet spot.

I think the whole "portable-audiophile" phrase is somewhat an oxy-moron. Audiophile implies best there is, period, both on paper and actual sound heard. Which is really impossible in a portable environment. Unless you wanna carry a car battery with you, and 2awg cryo frozen cables that can feed enough current to light up a small country, and a family sedan in weight worth of components.

What this thread does show, is that for portable use, different people value different features, and no 2 ears are the same. Sound wise some want super detail, while people like myself, find it fatigueing, others want EQ, and so forth...

 

[paradio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron Donno about everyone else, but I'm able to hear *distorsion* and *artifacts* on 128kbps (granted not on every track),

Yes.
One test I did before can also strongly support this:
Condition: earphone A and B, B is better than A in spec.
I convert one track from CD to MP3 (128K), and I use PC and same software to play CD or MP3.

When I compared earphone A and B with MP3, I found B is better than A but not so much as what I imaged according to the specifications;
Then compared two earphone with CD track, and found B is much better than A. The finding was:
With CD + earphone B, I can get much much improvement, what are: dynamic range, frequency response +details, transparent and clear sound.

I don't think it is necessary to talke about the reason behind.

 

[jamato8]

Interesting thread and I would have agreed with some, in the past, that audiophile sound on the move would seem to be at odds with what is available to produce music to such a high degree but with experimentation I no longer hold this viewpoint.

The Monica II dac I use will compete with many fine home dacs. The headphone amp I have does well against home units and the transport I use, with optical out and the ability of the Monica II to reduce jitter making the transport less important, transforms a portable sound system to that of audiophile enjoyment. And on the right system I do not agree that CD's cannot reproduce music to a very high standard able to replicate a live performance.

IMO

John

 

[ripfrankwhite]

Whats so hard about using an amped iPod with lossless files? Wouldn't that solve everything? Then get some UE-10 Pros or Sensas 2x-S. That would be considered a great audiophile setup. Audiophile and portable can be done.

 

[Edvard_Grieg]

^^You still have the issue of the DACs being used in the iPod (and any DAP for that matter), and frankly I'll take my Karma over the iPod for Audiophile sound any day of the weak (FLAC is lossless, and it is also Gapless), has Apple finally fixed the 'skipping' with ALAC?

 

[ripfrankwhite]

^^^Then use a PCDP, amp, Sensas. Audiophile-on-the-go!! What's so hard about that?

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edvard_Grieg ^^You still have the issue of the DACs being used in the iPod (and any DAP for that matter), and frankly I'll take my Karma over the iPod for Audiophile sound any day of the weak (FLAC is lossless, and it is also Gapless), has Apple finally fixed the 'skipping' with ALAC?

And why doesnt anyone mention the Ipod craps out playing anything bellow 40hz? - I was shocked how much better the Shure E5 sound on the Karma. The lows are much lower so the monotonal, bloated bass is completely gone and replaced by an atmospheric "feel it" kind of bass so the higher frequencies can shine, joy!

Next I want to get a shuffle. Strangely, they have the most consistent signal: http://home.comcast.net/~machrone/pl...playertest.htm

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripfrankwhite ^^^Then use a PCDP, amp, Sensas. Audiophile-on-the-go!! What's so hard about that?

Crap in, Crap out maybe?

 

[allenf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron And why doesnt anyone mention the Ipod craps out playing anything bellow 40hz?

<yawn>
With my iPod photo 60 @ 320K MP3 LAME, HP out with E3Cs or standard buds I can hear a 30.5Hz bassline (Groove Armada - Suntoucher) clearly enough to work out what key it is in (B).
A couple of months ago an iPod-no-bass-hater posted something about an Aphex Twin track "which had a low whoosh" on their iRiver. Because I happened to have that track on my iPod I was able to identify by ear, with stock buds and E3Cs - again direct HP out, that the "low whoosh" was around 27.5Hz.
So the iPod has a lean presentation - so what??
hackeron, you wouldn't want to come across as a one-trick pony, would you?

 

[ripfrankwhite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenf <yawn> With my iPod photo 60 @ 320K MP3 LAME, HP out with E3Cs or standard buds I can hear a 30.5Hz bassline (Groove Armada - Suntoucher) clearly enough to work out what key it is in (B). A couple of months ago an iPod-no-bass-hater posted something about an Aphex Twin track "which had a low whoosh" on their iRiver. Because I happened to have that track on my iPod I was able to identify by ear, with stock buds and E3Cs - again direct HP out, that the "low whoosh" was around 27.5Hz. So the iPod has a lean presentation - so what?? hackeron, you wouldn't want to come across as a one-trick pony, would you?

Impressive...

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigDub i have to agree that MD sounds the best of the players i've tried so far (creative, iriver, sony and ipod). the rh910 i got 2 weeks ago still amazes me with its sound. i can hear instruments i've never noticed before on my er6i. everything is 'there'.

MD sound (ATRAC3) has been proved to be far less transparent than other codecs on Hydrogenaudio. ATRAC3 is definitely euphonic, which is not the same as transparent.

 

[taoster]

all these comparisons on high bitrate compression formats are rather moot.

No dap yet takes full advantage. its all avg sounding due to the dap's DAC and lossless, high compression formats isn't going to change that.