[sneaglebob]

Quote:

actually rereading the op's original post, he does seem like he wants some sound quality but first priority seems to be the headphone has to match beats pro's bass quantity.

Thats what I'm looking for

 

[CashNotCredit]

Well, I would be led to believe that all of these can do that with some amount of equalization. 

If you want the Beats sound out of the box, but better sound quality, and want to use an amp/EQ to get even MORE bass, the XB500 seems like your pick. Otherwise, you really can't go wrong with anything recommended. 

 

[sneaglebob]

Quote:

If you want the Beats sound out of the box, but better sound quality, and want to use an amp/EQ to get even MORE bass, the XB500 seems like your pick. Otherwise, you really can't go wrong with anything recommended.

But what about the pro 900?

 

[Prakhar]

Im not sure you would like the pro 900 if you dont have high quality music. The pro900 is not very.forgiving of low resolution sources.

Just a quick question, What are you looking for in your upgrade other than bass? The beats pros are honestly not that bad, they are just very overpriced.

 

[sneaglebob]

Quote:

Im not sure you would like the pro 900 if you dont have high quality music. The pro900 is not very.forgiving of low resolution sources.
Just a quick question, What are you looking for in your upgrade other than bass? The beats pros are honestly not that bad, they are just very overpriced.

I want to listen to details in music, apparently the beats pro can't do that very well, I can convert all my songs that are not already 320 kbps to that if I get the pro 900.

 

[CashNotCredit]

Quote:

I want to listen to details in music, apparently the beats pro can't do that very well, I can convert all my songs that are not already 320 kbps to that if I get the pro 900.

...Except you can't, unless you have the CD or another high bit-rate source. Upconverting (from 128 to 320 or even 1000+ like myself {audiophile brag}) doesn't do anything but add unnecessary 1s and 0s to your audio files. 

 

[sneaglebob]

Quote:

...Except you can't, unless you have the CD or another high bit-rate source. Upconverting (from 128 to 320 or even 1000+ like myself {audiophile brag}) doesn't do anything but add unnecessary 1s and 0s to your audio files. 

So is this where a DAC comes in? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

[reload]

ATH-PRO 700 MKII and the ZO2 is best.

 

[Prakhar]

So is this where a DAC comes in? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

?
Uhhh no. You need to get cds and burn them or download music ina highy quality format. You would need to download your music again. What genres do you listen to and how much does style matter to you.

 

[sneaglebob]

Quote:

?
Uhhh no. You need to get cds and burn them or download music ina highy quality format. You would need to download your music again. What genres do you listen to and how much does style matter to you.

What do you mean download in a high quality format? I'm sorry for my ignorance but you said that increasing the kbps does not do much and i converted most of my music to 320 kpbs which from what I have heard many times makes the sound quality better. Do you mean download or buy music that is already on a high kbps rate?

 

[CashNotCredit]

Quote:

What do you mean download in a high quality format? I'm sorry for my ignorance but you said that increasing the kbps does not do much and i converted most of my music to 320 kpbs which from what I have heard many times makes the sound quality better. Do you mean download or buy music that is already on a high kbps rate?

Okay, let me try my hand at this one. (This stuff is complex as all get out, so don't feel bad if you don't quite understand it from the get-go. It took me a few weeks to get this down pat. I'm still not the most knowledgeable, but I try!)

Natural sound has no bit-rate, obviously. It's impossible to measure a face to face conversation in kilobytes per second (kbps). So why do we even have them? We have bit-rates because of the technical incapability of our technology to perfectly recreate sound. Computers work in a language called binary, which is essentially a very large amount of 1s and 0s. The real world doesn't. But, through magic itself, sound engineers have found a way to turn natural sounds into 1s and 0s. These 1s and 0s are called bits.

Now, let's take a look at CDs. CD's are no different than a flash drive, a hard drive, a memory stick, or any of that stuff. Music CD's store music files in digital formats that CD players and computers can understand. Because CDs are fairly large medium (700 MB, compared to the typical 40 MB of an album of low-bitrate MP3s), they can store very large files. A file on a CD typically has a bitrate of over 1400!

So how do MP3s do it? Well, they use a technique called compression. 

An MP3 encoder's job is to take these HUGE files (that I tolerate and put up with and think sound AWESOME) and turn them into smaller files. They do this by cutting the bit rate. But what is a bit rate? A bit rate is the number of bits that a computer processes into audio per second. Want to know a video game with a high amount of graphics "bits"? Skyrim. Want to know a game with a low amount of graphics  "bits"? Pong. 

While this comparison is probably very, very wrong, I think it serves a good point. The more bits get removed from a picture, video, or audio file, the less detailed it becomes. If a passage in a 1400kbps (14000 x 1000 bytes per second) file goes "11010001", an MP3 encoder might change it into "10". Why? Because in the pursuit of making things small, it sees that the first half of the passage has a lot of ones, and the second half has a lot of 0s. 

TLR Using a low-bitrate MP3 is like playing Skyrim on an old tube TV. Using a high-bitrate FLAC/WAV/CD is like playing it on a movie theater IMAX screen. Both have their purposes, but you know which one looks/sounds better.

So, as to your question about why taking a low-bitrate MP3 and turning into a 320 kbps MP3 doesn't work well. Consider the following.
The file was already converted into 128kbps (I assume.). It's already gone from 11010001 to 10. If you up the bitrate, and make the 10 bigger, it's just going to turn into 11110000. Problem is, it started as 11010001. If the computer is starting at 10, how is it going to know that there was 0 in between the ones and a 1 at the end of the zeroes? The solution to this is to get your music from sources that are at least as high-bitrate as you would like. You can turn a 1400kbps CD into a 320 kbps MP3 pretty easily. The opposite just doesn't work.

TLR A 1400kbps file sounds better than a 320kbps file. A 1400kbps file that started as a 320kbps file isn't going to sound any different (unless your encoder's bad, in which case it will sound worse). You can't polish a turd. 

With either a high-bitrate or low-bitrate file, a computer or CD player or iPod has to turn these ones and zeros into audio. A CD that said, "1010101010101010" probably wouldn't sell well (but would still be better than anything Lil' Wayne has ever made, ever.) This is where a DAC comes in. DACs, which stand for Digital to Analog Converters, take the digital 1s and 0s and turn them into analog audio. These DACs are electrical components. The DACs of most soundcards in computers are next to...well...computer stuff. Electric stuff plus electric stuff on top of electric stuff causes interference, which often results in static and hissing noises and other nasty stuff. A separate DAC stays away from all of the stuff that causes interference and often has higher quality electronics and circuitry.

TLR DACs turn computer files into audio. Every electronic piece of equipment that plays MP3s and WAVs and all that other stuff has a DAC. The quality of these varies. DACs and computer internals often cause interference, which in turn causes static. Having a DAC that is separate from the inside of your computer gets rid of this. 

Disclaimer: William (CashNotCredit) takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the above content, and it is probably very, very wrong. Don't listen to him. Just smile and turn away.
 

 

[TK277]

CashNotCredit has it right. Taking a low quality MP3 and changing the bitrate to a higher one is the same as taking a low-res JPEG and making it larger in Photoshop. It's bigger, but not better... arguably worse.
 
I've noticed a large difference in SQ from 192kbps to 320kbps. Now I just rip FLAC files as I anticipate the upgrade bug has its eyes on my wallet, waiting for a few paychecks. 320kbps is a pretty good quality rate and the latest few digital copies of various artist's music has been released in 320kbps (my experience recently has been with Thousand Foot Krutch and Linkin Park).

 

[sneaglebob]

Quote:

Okay, let me try my hand at this one. (This stuff is complex as all get out, so don't feel bad if you don't quite understand it from the get-go. It took me a few weeks to get this down pat. I'm still not the most knowledgeable, but I try!)

Natural sound has no bit-rate, obviously. It's impossible to measure a face to face conversation in kilobytes per second (kbps). So why do we even have them? We have bit-rates because of the technical incapability of our technology to perfectly recreate sound. Computers work in a language called binary, which is essentially a very large amount of 1s and 0s. The real world doesn't. But, through magic itself, sound engineers have found a way to turn natural sounds into 1s and 0s. These 1s and 0s are called bits.

Now, let's take a look at CDs. CD's are no different than a flash drive, a hard drive, a memory stick, or any of that stuff. Music CD's store music files in digital formats that CD players and computers can understand. Because CDs are fairly large medium (700 MB, compared to the typical 40 MB of an album of low-bitrate MP3s), they can store very large files. A file on a CD typically has a bitrate of over 1400!

So how do MP3s do it? Well, they use a technique called compression. 

An MP3 encoder's job is to take these HUGE files (that I tolerate and put up with and think sound AWESOME) and turn them into smaller files. They do this by cutting the bit rate. But what is a bit rate? A bit rate is the number of bits that a computer processes into audio per second. Want to know a video game with a high amount of graphics "bits"? Skyrim. Want to know a game with a low amount of graphics  "bits"? Pong. 

While this comparison is probably very, very wrong, I think it serves a good point. The more bits get removed from a picture, video, or audio file, the less detailed it becomes. If a passage in a 1400kbps (14000 x 1000 bytes per second) file goes "11010001", an MP3 encoder might change it into "10". Why? Because in the pursuit of making things small, it sees that the first half of the passage has a lot of ones, and the second half has a lot of 0s. 

TLR Using a low-bitrate MP3 is like playing Skyrim on an old tube TV. Using a high-bitrate FLAC/WAV/CD is like playing it on a movie theater IMAX screen. Both have their purposes, but you know which one looks/sounds better.

So, as to your question about why taking a low-bitrate MP3 and turning into a 320 kbps MP3 doesn't work well. Consider the following.
The file was already converted into 128kbps (I assume.). It's already gone from 11010001 to 10. If you up the bitrate, and make the 10 bigger, it's just going to turn into 11110000. Problem is, it started as 11010001. If the computer is starting at 10, how is it going to know that there was 0 in between the ones and a 1 at the end of the zeroes? The solution to this is to get your music from sources that are at least as high-bitrate as you would like. You can turn a 1400kbps CD into a 320 kbps MP3 pretty easily. The opposite just doesn't work.

TLR A 1400kbps file sounds better than a 320kbps file. A 1400kbps file that started as a 320kbps file isn't going to sound any different (unless your encoder's bad, in which case it will sound worse). You can't polish a turd. 

With either a high-bitrate or low-bitrate file, a computer or CD player or iPod has to turn these ones and zeros into audio. A CD that said, "1010101010101010" probably wouldn't sell well (but would still be better than anything Lil' Wayne has ever made, ever.) This is where a DAC comes in. DACs, which stand for Digital to Analog Converters, take the digital 1s and 0s and turn them into analog audio. These DACs are electrical components. The DACs of most soundcards in computers are next to...well...computer stuff. Electric stuff plus electric stuff on top of electric stuff causes interference, which often results in static and hissing noises and other nasty stuff. A separate DAC stays away from all of the stuff that causes interference and often has higher quality electronics and circuitry.

TLR DACs turn computer files into audio. Every electronic piece of equipment that plays MP3s and WAVs and all that other stuff has a DAC. The quality of these varies. DACs and computer internals often cause interference, which in turn causes static. Having a DAC that is separate from the inside of your computer gets rid of this. 

Disclaimer: William (CashNotCredit) takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the above content, and it is probably very, very wrong. Don't listen to him. Just smile and turn away.
 

 
Ok I see what you mean. Do you know where I can get music in FLAC/WAV format or is there some process that converts mp3 to flac? If so would it sound great or not? Once again pardon my ignorance

 

[TK277]

Quote:

 
Ok I see what you mean. Do you know where I can get music in FLAC/WAV format or is there some process that converts mp3 to flac? If so would it sound great or not? Once again pardon my ignorance

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I'll try my hand at it.
 
FLAC files (or ALAC if using iTunes) are lossless formats. Due to their large size they are not offered for download. Changing an MP3 to FLAC will not improve the sound quality because missing data cannot be added to the file.
 
Music produced at the source is the highest quality. That high-quality source material is copied to CDs, which are capable of holding a lot of data, and sold. Other times the source material is compressed into MP3 files to keep file sizes down and sold digitally. Data is lost during compression. So, converting from MP3 to a different format won't improve the quality because the data cannot be added back in if the file doesn't contain that data. Once it's thrown out and saved, it's gone. The source material would have to be revisited to create the lossless file.
 
To get FLAC files you need to buy the CD and burn the music onto your computer, making sure your settings are adjusted accordingly so that it rips the lossless files. Default settings usually rip lower quality files than lossless, so they need to be changed.

 

[CashNotCredit]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I'll try my hand at it.
 
FLAC files (or ALAC if using iTunes) are lossless formats. Due to their large size they are not offered for download. Changing an MP3 to FLAC will not improve the sound quality because missing data cannot be added to the file.
 
Music produced at the source is the highest quality. That high-quality source material is copied to CDs, which are capable of holding a lot of data, and sold. Other times the source material is compressed into MP3 files to keep file sizes down and sold digitally. Data is lost during compression. So, converting from MP3 to a different format won't improve the quality because the data cannot be added back in if the file doesn't contain that data. Once it's thrown out and saved, it's gone. The source material would have to be revisited to create the lossless file.
 
To get FLAC files you need to buy the CD and burn the music onto your computer, making sure your settings are adjusted accordingly so that it rips the lossless files. Default settings usually rip lower quality files than lossless, so they need to be changed.

Bingo! However, iTunes/Google Play do music at 320kbps (pretty good), and Amazon does it at 256kbps (decent). HDTracks has a mediocre selection, but everything is lossless. Having said that, and espsecially in your circumstances (playing off of a phone), a high-bitrate MP3 may be better because higher-bitrates kill battery. Here's why.

• The higher the bit-rates, the more bits the phone has to process in a second
• The more the phone has to process, the more the processor has to work.
• The more the processor has to work, the more power the processor consumes
• The more power the processor consumes...you see where I'm going with this.

 
To continue with the Skyrim/Pong analogy, you can get rid of the bits of graphics (sound) in Skyrim (WAV) to make it look like Pong (MP3), but you can't add bits to Pong (MP3) to make it look like Skyrim (WAV). 

Edit: Having said that, the difference between 320kbps MP3/WMA/OGG/M4A and FLAC/WAV/ALAC/CDs is fairly negligible. I have both in my collection, and there's no "WOW! I CAN'T BELIEVE THE DIFFERENCE!" when I go between the two.