It is as follows #1-Source(PC or iPod) #2-Equipment(IEM's or Headphones) and then last is the format and bitrate.
The same song of the same bitrate coming from my PC sounds better than my iPod. My Triple Fi. 10's sound better than my Monster Turbines, But I would rather listen to my Turbines on my PC than my TF-10's on my iPod.
In my reduced experience, the key factor is equipment (headphones). When the equipment is good enough as to reveal limitations on the source, improve the source. The least important factor is, usually, bitrate. Of course, 64kbps will probably sound like crap in every source and with every equipment, but once you go above 128kbps, and unless you are very familiar with the lossless version of the song, is very difficult to tell the bitrate. I've found that, for me, total transparency in MP3 is about 256kbps and in Ogg is about 200kbps, but most of the time I have a hard time telling if a 192kpbs MP3 is lossy or not (160 in Ogg).
Summing up: with a limited budget I would invest more money on the phones, next the player and last the capacity (more capacity meaning being able to use a better bitrate for the same amount of playing time).
This said, nothing can beat personal tests, as for some people I know, the source is more important than the phones (they prefer a good source with less good phones rather than good phones revealing limitations of the player). It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but most people I know regard bitrate as the last thing to invest on (for listening, not for archive purposes: I have my CD collection ripped in FLAC and I convert it to different formats as needed, depending on the player I'm going to use).
I think pretty much every variation of the chain hierarchy has been presented above, so I guess this is filed under inconclusive.
My two pence...
You can have the best headphones in the world, best source, best amp etc... 128kbps cbr mp3s are still going to sound like crap. In fact they'll sound even worse for the good equipment showing them up.
This suggests to me that bitrate is actually the most important component, followed by the end of the chain - the headphones or speakers that put the sound out. I think it's a pretty close toss up between bitrate and headphones/speakers for most important.
But I think bitrate wins by a nose because even though bad headphones will ruin even the best recordings, I do believe 320kbps on rubbish headphones will sound better than 128kbps on the best. In fact in my own subjective judgement I am certain of it.
This isn't to say that you won't get note worthy improvements with a better source, better dac, better amp and so on, but I do think those differences are "audiophile territory" while the beginning and the end of the chain will make the biggest difference.
I think therefore that file and headphones can be considered very important, and source components just below them, but still important.
Equipment>Source>Bitrate - I'm basing my rating on what makes the biggest difference when I alter it. My W3 sound way better than my Sony IEMs, however I can barely tell a difference b/w 192 kbps, 256 kbps, 320 kbps, and lossless files.
Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm, but source is more than just ipod vs. zune.
So in that case you have essentially removed that category as an option.
So that leaves us with what's more important, equipment or bitrate? Even there I would probably say equipment over bitrate, but I guess you could make a good argument for bitrate if we include 96, 128, etc.
Probably almost no one here uses those kinds of files, however, so that then leaves equipment. Unless you want to limit that category too, for example to stock buds vs. some other stock buds.
You, sir, just blew my mind. And yea, then you would need decent equipment just to hear the difference in bitrates, so your argument is pretty valid.
Equipment, then bitrate, then source. I'm relaxed about source because I grew up on live music and recordings of live music. Coughing, chatter and dinner plates are part of the charm. I feel differently about studio recordings; you pay an engineer, you pay for the space, get it right.
The bitrate I demand depends on the source. Large orchestras in resonant halls won't be detailed anyway, so lower bitrates work fine. (Bernstein with the NY Philharmonic are analog recordings that sound analog, but they're irresistable). Also, some live recordings tend to be looser performances, full of background noise, so lower bitrates do little to mar the performance.
Equipment is critical, ESPECIALLY the phones. Some crap sources are fun, and some crap bitrates are fun--I have a great bootleg punk album at 96!--but crap phones always suck. Cheap mp3 players can be short-lived, featureless junk with dodgy interfaces, but at least good music sounds good. Crap phones will sound bad every time you hear them, forever.
Bitrate is the most important thing.when I used even my zune stock buds,there was a significant difference between 128kb and 320kb and the enjoyment was greater using high quality music with zune buds.
One problem is that you don't realize that you don't hear the difference if you have no experience listening with out it. Ignorance is bliss, and a lot cheaper.
Sometimes I wish that i hadn't heard some of the upper end systems in that I was happy with my original system at one point. Then I went to that silly meet and look what happened!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
