[Detectit]

The letter grading makes it bad looking but 50/100 is average, so here is the cross chart:

My recommendation is MT1, it's better made EDX.

From my taste, KS1's gain spot is just off focus on mine, maybe may fit yours.


EDX on the same scale:

Where can I find the spec sheets and charts.

 

[dharmasteve]

The letter grading makes it bad looking but 50/100 is average, so here is the cross chart:

My recommendation is MT1, it's better made EDX.

From my taste, KS1's gain spot is just off focus on mine, maybe may fit yours.


EDX on the same scale:

Very professionally done. Intricate and well thought out. Respect. One thing I would always like to see, maybe you do have one, is a disclaimer, that this is your subjective opinion, because we are all so different in how we hear, our hearing physiology, our brain physiology, our emotions, tips we use etc. Credit to you though, very authentically set out. I would love the full link when you have it.

 

[profusion]

Quick question….maybe not for here but will be any difference on my DQ6 if i switched from Spotify to Tidal hifi While waiting spotify to set their tire?

 

[Arjey]

Quick question….maybe not for here but will be any difference on my DQ6 if i switched from Spotify to Tidal hifi While waiting spotify to set their tire?

I don't have the DQ6, nor do I use Spotify or Tidal, but I think it's safe to say yes. You can easily (pretty easily) spot the difference between mp3 320 (or whatever it is that Spotify uses) and a good flac. However it also depends on the quality of the music itself and the source you use. Idk where Tidal gets it's "hi-fi" music, but if it's from a reliable source, then there should be a slight (don't expect it to be super big) difference.

 

[PhonoPhi]

...

You can easily (pretty easily) spot the difference between mp3 320 (or whatever it is that Spotify uses) and a good flac.

If you do a proper blind test - you will be surprised, really surprised. The common boundary for simple humans is around 192 with good codecs.

I do feel though that my best 24/96 recordings are superb, especially with my best blue cables. Sometimes I even think are IEM really necessary in such bliss?

 

[Barusu Lamperouge]

I don't have the DQ6, nor do I use Spotify or Tidal, but I think it's safe to say yes. You can easily (pretty easily) spot the difference between mp3 320 (or whatever it is that Spotify uses) and a good flac. However it also depends on the quality of the music itself and the source you use. Idk where Tidal gets it's "hi-fi" music, but if it's from a reliable source, then there should be a slight (don't expect it to be super big) difference.

Most humans can barely differentiate between flac and 320 Kbps. And most streaming platforms use 128/256/320 Kbps as low good high quality streams. No doubt flac/wav/mqa is genuinely high-res and will have everything better than lossy codecs. But, can humans actually perceive the incremental difference? That's another story altogether.

Personally, I prefer 320 Kbps audio as it is efficient on storage and provides great quality as well. Also, most of the modern music is recorded+produced to be heard on lossy files, so the lines are blurred further. If you are listening to some vintage collection, the difference might be a bit more apparent as those lossy files will be super crap and music was recorded to be heard from larger devices like gramophone or speakers as opposed to IEMs.

 

[Barusu Lamperouge]

For all the EDX users, please try below PEQ and be ready to be mind blown. It turns into a mighty champion. Sub-bass rumble, strong mids and most importantly the treble is silky as opposed to coarse+shouty. I'm using EDX with W01 wide bore tips so please factor that in -

Band	Filter Type	Frequency (Hz)	Gain (dB)	Q
1	Peak	69	-5.4	0.7
2	Low Shelf	110	10.5	0.71
3	Peak	290	-1.3	0.52
4	Peak	1100	-0.5	2
5	Peak	2240	4	2
6	Peak	2900	-1	5
7	Peak	3980	1.8	2.5
8	Peak	5050	-2.4	5
9	Peak	8000	1.5	3
10	High Shelf	10000	-1	1

If you are changing tips or generally prefer slightly different sound then please feel free to tweak bands 2,5, and 10 as per your requirement.

Preamp gain: - 9.8dB

Band 2 for warmth, 5 for mids and 10 for airiness/treble

P.S. - It is heavily inspired by @oratory1990's EQ for T2. I don't intend to take any credit but felt should share this discovery with my fellow members.

 

[Arjey]

If you do a proper blind test - you will be surprised, really surprised. The common boundary for simple humans is around 192 with good codecs.

I do feel though that my best 24/96 recordings are superb, especially with my best blue cables. Sometimes I even think are IEM really necessary in such bliss?

I have done blind tests with good 16/44.1 flacs (I specifically said GOOD because there are bad ones) vs ≈320 mp3 (vbr) or ≈256 m4a (vbr), and yes, I can plainly tell the difference (note, I don't even have super good gear, just acceptable). I'm not claiming that absolutely everyone will be able to tell the difference. I can't tell the difference on plenty of songs. But there are certain music pieces, to which I've listened hundreds of times and know them by heart, and yes, I can tell the difference in a blind test.

P.s. 24 bit, as well as anything above 44.1 is basically pointless. If you can here a difference between 16 and 24 bit flacs that's not because 24 bit is better, it's simply because the mastering process for that file was done differently. Properly converted to 16 bit will sound exactly the same

 

[Arjey]

Most humans can barely differentiate between flac and 320 Kbps. And most streaming platforms use 128/256/320 Kbps as low good high quality streams. No doubt flac/wav/mqa is genuinely high-res and will have everything better than lossy codecs. But, can humans actually perceive the incremental difference? That's another story altogether.

Personally, I prefer 320 Kbps audio as it is efficient on storage and provides great quality as well. Also, most of the modern music is recorded+produced to be heard on lossy files, so the lines are blurred further. If you are listening to some vintage collection, the difference might be a bit more apparent as those lossy files will be super crap and music was recorded to be heard from larger devices like gramophone or speakers as opposed to IEMs.

I generally try to find all my music in flac, but if I can't for some reason I'll set for 320 without much of a fuss. I actually plan on eventually converting my whole flac library to 256 m4a vbr to use on my phone, and keep all flacs for my music player (because telling the difference on a mobile phone is much more difficult and basically impossible when walking around and not intentionally searching for differences). For a walk in the park, 320 mp3 is great on a phone. But when I want to sit back and listen to some high quality music on my music player in good iems in a quiet room at home, I definitely need the best I can find (flac)

 

[baskingshark]

If you do a proper blind test - you will be surprised, really surprised. The common boundary for simple humans is around 192 with good codecs.

I do feel though that my best 24/96 recordings are superb, especially with my best blue cables. Sometimes I even think are IEM really necessary in such bliss?

Good point.

Actually I think the more important part is the mastering and recording process.
It can be a FLAC file but recorded/remastered badly, versus a MP3 320 that is recorded well. I'll take the latter any day.

It's an endless debate on forums whether lossless is better than 320 MP3, but I feel if the differences are quite minimal (eg one has to do A/B testing multiple times with higher quality gear in a quiet environment), just to tell a small difference in microdetails or dynamics here and there, is it worth it for the bigger memory space these FLAC files take? When one is on the go outside (where it is noisier), can one really tell mega differences between lossless and 320 MP3?

But yeah, some will definitely pursue even that small difference at all costs for the best sonic fidelity, some can't tell the difference between the 2, so different strokes for different folks.

 

[dw1narso]

Good point.

Actually I think the more important part is the mastering and recording process.
It can be a FLAC file but recorded/remastered badly, versus a MP3 320 that is recorded well. I'll take the latter any day.

It's an endless debate on forums whether lossless is better than 320 MP3, but I feel if the differences are quite minimal (eg one has to do A/B testing multiple times with higher quality gear in a quiet environment), just to tell a small difference in microdetails or dynamics here and there, is it worth it for the bigger memory space these FLAC files take? When one is on the go outside (where it is noisier), can one really tell mega differences between lossless and 320 MP3?

But yeah, some will definitely pursue even that small difference at all costs for the best sonic fidelity, some can't tell the difference between the 2, so different strokes for different folks.

100% agree with Bas about the mastering..

I have 4 different MJ's Thriller CDs, all of them sounded different.. My favorit one is the original Japan 1st after deemphasis filter.

I have 4 or 5 Styx' Caught in the act live of many medias and CD.. They are all mastered differently, even some of the cut of the songs for transition to other songs are at different point (this is recorded live). And surprisingly the one I like most is my oldest MP3 files I found somewhere on the net. When I bought the CD I thought I'll get the same sound but better quality but I was wrong. Then I dig so many versions of it, and I could never find the uncompressed versions sound exactly the same as my favorit. So I gave up and live with these MP3 files instead.

Spotify files, as well as Apple music files, few times have different mastering with what you can get from CDs or other 'original' media . Spotify files were remastered to sound more fun and with dynamic range compressed (narrowed) to make it more hearable in noisy area (such if we use head/earphones in crowded area or on car).

The best way to compare diiferent codecs is by using the same mastering source. For example, rip one's own cd to flac and to mp3 (using EAC to rip and then use good encoders such as Xiph's FLAC and LAME. Or simply convert flac files to MP3) for 16 bits/44.1KHz. Comparing 24 bits to 16 bits, one can use 24 bit flac files and convert it to 16 bits (make sure to use proper process such as dithering.. I'm not expert in conversion.. I think a lot of information about this avalable on the net)

Note: please consider this post as study purpose.. I don't want, and not interested, to start codec and bit depth 'war'..

 

[r31ya]

Personally i definitely could hear the diff between 120 (my old anisong or fathers oldie mp3 rip) and 320 and at the time i definitely could hear difference between 320 and flac.
But after getting several different flac source for the same album, with each of them have minute difference in how it sounds.
I conclude that difference that i percieved between 320 and flac might from the ripping/mastering.
That being said, so far personally, its easier to find good sounding flac than good sounding 320 so yeah.

To note, i sometimes prefer youtube music video audio over spotify audio. Not sure on the why, but it seems youtube audio is "louder in details" and a bit more fun sounding that the flatter spotify.

 

[seanwee]

Personally i definitely could hear the diff between 120 (my old anisong or fathers oldie mp3 rip) and 320 and at the time i definitely could hear difference between 320 and flac.
But after getting several different flac source for the same album, with each of them have minute difference in how it sounds.
I conclude that difference that i percieved between 320 and flac might from the ripping/mastering.
That being said, so far personally, its easier to find good sounding flac than good sounding 320 so yeah.

To note, i sometimes prefer youtube music video audio over spotify audio. Not sure on the why, but it seems youtube audio is "louder in details" and a bit more fun sounding that the flatter spotify.

Maybe because Youtube uses AAC/Ogg

 

[chickenmoon]

Maybe because Youtube uses AAC/Ogg

Youtube uses AAC and Opus these days. I don't think you can find Vorbis (which you call ogg) streams anymore. Opus at 128kbps is tremendously good.

 

[whirlwind]

Personally i definitely could hear the diff between 120 (my old anisong or fathers oldie mp3 rip) and 320 and at the time i definitely could hear difference between 320 and flac.
But after getting several different flac source for the same album, with each of them have minute difference in how it sounds.
I conclude that difference that i percieved between 320 and flac might from the ripping/mastering.
That being said, so far personally, its easier to find good sounding flac than good sounding 320 so yeah.

To note, i sometimes prefer youtube music video audio over spotify audio. Not sure on the why, but it seems youtube audio is "louder in details" and a bit more fun sounding that the flatter spotify.

I agree. 320 can sound very good, but if your system is very revealing then it becomes more important to have a great quality 320.
Like you say a bad sounding flac is much better than a bad 320.