[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by russdog You've asked a reasonable question. Sadly, some posters have decided to confuse matters by stating their personal biases as if they were fact. If you have high quality mp3's, you have a good sound source. Don't let purists disuade you by their extremist positions. The idea that you shouldn't bother to improve things unless you conform to their religion about loss-less formats is absurd. The idea that you should re-rip everything you have that is in high-quality mp3 into FLAC is absurd. One thing you need to learn around here is that you need to keep your eye on the ball. I am not familiar with your headphones or your amp. Other people know around here know more about affordable DAC's than I do, so I have no useful recommendation to make, except that you should not let bad advice discourage you. Keep your eye on the ball.

uhhhhhhhhh........what? LOSSLESS is now a "religion"? that's news to me. if one is using lossy codec, it also matters very much how you do the encoding. ogg, aac, can be good. mp3 can be good, but you should probably be using the LAME codec. and it matters at what bitrate they are of course.

the best thing about lossless is that it's a great archive. you have all your music in its unaltered form. if a new codec comes along, you translate it into that, but if you take an mp3, make it into an AAC, then ogg, then something else, you'll continually have loss.

i haven't done a lot of tests on lossless VS lossy, but i simply don't like the IDEA that i'm lossing audio quality when i don't have to. if you have a massive collection than maybe you need to use a lossy codec, but hdd's can be cheap if you shop around, and lossless is just very nice to have cuz someday something will replace mp3 and you won't want to re-rip all your cd's.

course i use EAC, accuraterip to WAV. then i take those wavs and encode a copy to AAC for my ipod. then i use flac frontend to encode those wavs to FLAC, and kill the wav's, so i have a copy in flac and in AAC. but yeah, it does take space. if i had a massive collection things might be different.

ps: dbpoweramp music converter is free and works well to translate one audio file to another

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah uhhhhhhhhh........what? LOSSLESS is now a "religion"? that's news to me.

Ai, to me too.

Having your music-library in ALAC/FLAC comes virtually for free. Drives cost money, but you will need a big drive anyway. The re-encoding can be done along whatever else you do on your computer. It is the best price/perfomance out there other than switching from pack-in earbuds to KSC-75s. Now of course switching to better phones, a better amp, a more capable DAC will enhance the WOW-factor of your low bitrate encodings. Much likely even more so than the initial impression of "going lossless", especially if you listened to lossy for extended periods. Yet Snake is right, in the end you are likely to go lossless anyay. At the given budget, I think a big HDD + lossless makes for a better longterm investment over an entry-level DAC that will not satisfy for too long. Then there is option c), and that is: Spend nothing now, save up, buy a $750-1K class DAC used for less later on.

 

[rincewind]

lol... I think most of what I said was just repeated sans the "this is fact" feel which I accidentally used

I just think you'd get much more for your money buying a good headphone and amp rather than spending any money on a DAC. My 128kbps MP3s still sound amazing just using the amp/cans and the much cheaper DAC in my iRiver, which isn't a patch on a full on external DAC. You could spend the same money on headphones and an amp (or trading up to something better) to get a bigger SQ improvement, without an outboard DAC. In that case, just try to use as high a bitrate Lame MP3 as possible (I use 32-320kbps VBR Lame for the iRiver).

Once you've maxed out the amp and cans, a DAC is *best* used with lossless. Otherwise there really isn't a point cos the MP3 will sound great through your current DAC. Very high bitrate lossy formats through a DAC WILL sound better, of course. But then you're getting a recycled version: lossless/CD > lossy/mp3 > whatever dithering (/upsampling/whatever) your digital source decides to use to get your signal back to 44.1kHz or whatever range your DAC accepts as input, and then analog again. Your DAC will be at the mercy of that middle stage (your digital source). And then you are stuck with a 100 buck soundcard (or whatever your s/c costs) having a rather large impact on your SQ again. Cos as I expect you know from reading, the re-sampling/dithering/etc have an impact to the sound signature (one I thought, until recently would be indiscernable). Personally, it sounds like wanting a DAC for the sake of it, and I'd say just upgrade cans/amp. If MP3 is good enough for you, then it's good enough and it'll sound best with as little decoding/extrapolation/dithering as possible before turning into analog.

I'm not one of those "purists" mentioned cos I use ReplayGain on my audio (cos regardless which DAC I use, it always stops new cruddy CDs from peaking during the the digital output stage. Many would say that's sacrilege (sp?) cos I'm altering the digital signal. Granted, but it's only with respect to volume, and I've done a lot of listening, and like I said.. better with RG to my ears. And I only use my ears to judge even after all the reading and talk. But after that, I'd still prefer as high a bitrate going into a DAC as possible.

I just hate to see a person spend money where it's not necessarily needed, or where it won't really get the desired results, or bang for buck. Just think of the cans/amp upgrade you could get instead, and please believe me when I say upgrading them will give a much bigger improvement (from where you currently stand) than a DAC will.

PS: Foobar is better at converting between formats, as it includes seek tables in FLAC files. On some players, you won't be able to seek through FLAC files you create with dBPoweramp!

 

[russdog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah uhhhhhhhhh........what? LOSSLESS is now a "religion"? that's news to me.

Then you didn't read all the previous posts in this thread, or some posts in other threads...

I've got nothing against lossless. I do not believe it is pointless or stupid. At the level of pure logic, it is a reasonable thing. I have decided that it is not worth it for me, but I'm not trying to tell you what's best for you. I am only objecting to the fanaticism in evidence from some posters who insist that their arbitrary biases are somehow the one-and-only Truth, and that any opinion other than their own is inferior. In this case, the OP said he had most of his mp3's at 192 to 320 VBR, and some people here were saying that, before improving his playback equipment to improve his sound, Step Number One should be converting to some other format. If the OP had top-tier equipment, it might be a debatable point. But given what he's got and what he's trying to do, that advice is just crazy.

 

[Kaluminati]

To give more of a perspective of where I'm at with my collection:

I have 163GB of music. I'd say (retracting my previous statement) that 75% of which are recorded live DJ mixes. Getting these in lossless format is virtually impossible if possible at all. Almost every single one of these sets are in 192VBR or above, and the ones with any less of quality I delete. The people who distribute these (which is 100% legal) make sure to get the best sound quality without going full on lossless. These sets really go well with the X-FI in non-bit-matched mode, because the crystalizer really brings them to life (I've always been sketchy using it, but it really does make them sound better).

The other 25% is lossy/lossless albums. Most of those that are FLAC'd I also have them in 192-320 form. I can't tell the difference, which I would assume is due to my current equipment. I am aware of the whole debate, and if I could get all my music in FLAC I would, in a heart beat, but it's just not possible for me to achieve that. I wouldn't be worried about the storagea s HDs are pretty cheap these days even though I would get matching storage to backup my entire collection.

As of right now I have no intention of getting new cans, and in fact I am hoping to darth my cans in the future. My music is the best it has sounded, but before this I had 280pros and the Sony's that you can buy in best buy for $100 (MDR-600 or something). The amp maybe I could upgrade, but what would be a good step up from the Pimeta with the amps above? I'm not looking to get anything above $300, and I never will honestly. I'm poor enough as it is =)

In the end it would seem that getting a DAC that is under $250 would not be worth the money, or it might

Side question: I notice with these cans highs can get really "screachy" which I'm aware is typical of these cans. Does replay gain help with that? I've never used replay gain because it seems to lower the volume of my mp3s greatly.

PS: I'm not sure if I said this before but I am running foobar 9.3 with ASIO (ACM mode, bit-matched and non-bit-matched with crystalizer, with a bit of eq for both to bring down the bass just a tad). I use the foobar EQ that comes with it, and I think I've got it set well, but is there anyone out there that does this with the DT770s that can give me a screenshot of the eq or send me the preset?

 

[rincewind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaluminati what would be a good step up from the Pimeta with the amps above? I'm not looking to get anything above $300, and I never will honestly. I'm poor enough as it is =)

Hahah yes, you will. And no, you're not. That is the nature of this forum! Curiosity and some birthday cash/whatever will get the better of you

A Headroom portable amp would be a lot cheaper than $300 and would show you just what you music is capable of, even at various levels of compression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaluminati Does replay gain help with .... really "screachy"

No, other than the fact that if you leave the volume the same before and after applying RG, the volume will usually be quieter (as you said) and therefore the treble quieter as well. RG simply lowers the volume output during the digital decode stage to avoid the clipping which results from a lot of modern 'hot' mastering. PS, make sure you're processing album gain so you don't lose any dynamics. Sorry I dunno about your cans.

Good luck!

 

[Kaluminati]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rincewind Hahah yes, you will. And no, you're not. That is the nature of this forum! Curiosity and some birthday cash/whatever will get the better of you A Headroom portable amp would be a lot cheaper than $300 and would show you just what you music is capable of, even at various levels of compression. No, other than the fact that if you leave the volume the same before and after applying RG, the volume will usually be quieter (as you said) and therefore the treble quieter as well. RG simply lowers the volume output during the digital decode stage to avoid the clipping which results from a lot of modern 'hot' mastering. PS, make sure you're processing album gain so you don't lose any dynamics. Sorry I dunno about your cans. Good luck!

After some more extensive searching I found the eq preset I was looking for. Thanks =)