Does it make sense to get good quality headphones when using 128kb/s MP3's?
Nov 19, 2008 at 1:43 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 35

toxic888

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
274
Likes
0
EDIT: Admin please close this thread. Will repost as another topic.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 1:53 AM Post #2 of 35

toxic888

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
274
Likes
0
also, anyone aware of a Klipsch Image X5 deal? someone on the forum said under some conditions you get 'em @ $125?
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 1:54 AM Post #3 of 35

myinitialsaredac

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Posts
1,337
Likes
12
Alrighty, first off, welcome to head-fi, sorry bout the wallet.

I would recommend you get higher end headphones than you have (whether or not that be the two you are mentioning) whilst going ahead and converting your 128s to 320s or ALACs. Sound quality is really dependent upon source, but headphone can have a big impact. The problem though, is that great headphones can make bad sources sound worse. My example is the 701s with 64kbps song a pal brought over to show me that you couldn't discern a difference (p.s. he had an eye opening experience).

The Shure line puts out some great IEMs, I own the 110s 210s and 530s and can say each seems to build on the last, so going off that theory I would expect the 310s to be a classy phone. I haven't heard the grados so I will not comment on them but they do seem to be held in high regard for rock around here.

You may want to just take hold of your wallet and empty it on a pair of the higher end Shures if you can re-rip your cds. Or get a pair of the higher end Shures (the 4s or 530s) and skip on the grados for now. My personal opinion is that the 530 is a great consumer phone because of the abundance of clean bass it can put out even from an Ipod. It also has a great midrange to boot, though at the cost of slightly rolled off highs (not IMO a bad expense as it makes for a non-fatiguing listening session).

Dave
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 1:57 AM Post #4 of 35

Shadowghost6

Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Posts
90
Likes
0
I personally wouldn't buy off ebay. You might get a fake, and even if you get a real one you might have problems with warranty (ebay not an authorized reseller). I wouldn't risk it for such an expensive purchase.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 2:09 AM Post #5 of 35

toxic888

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
274
Likes
0
Ok. So would it make more sense for me to:
-get SE310's off a powerseller on eBay (good feedback) for $144
-Klipsch X5 for $125 directly of their site
-Klipsch X10 for $175 directly off their site

The eBay price does sound very fishy... on the other hand there have been many purchases, a 2-year warranty is offered, + returns possible.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 2:19 AM Post #6 of 35

myinitialsaredac

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Posts
1,337
Likes
12
At the prices on the klipsch they seem like a good deal. Haven't heard them but If I were in your position I'd probably pick up the x10s. Ebay can be fishy, and the Shure line does offer room for improvement at each tier.

Dave
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 2:34 AM Post #7 of 35

toxic888

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
274
Likes
0
Ok so I just need your professional opinion:
-If I had to settle for 192 kb/s MP3, from your experience, what would you think of that, for use with SE310's of X10's? Would 128 be acceptable? 192?
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 2:41 AM Post #8 of 35

member1982

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Posts
1,380
Likes
21
128 i find is NOT acceptable (well depends on the music Electronic/Dance etc is oright Rock is just not). minimum 192KB.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 2:54 AM Post #10 of 35

myinitialsaredac

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Posts
1,337
Likes
12
128 is definately not acceptable with good cans. Semi-discerning listeners can a/b/x between 128 and lossless. If you are going to invest in high end IEMs, I'd say do your best to get your collection in 320 or lossless. No point in spending hundreds and not optimizing your audio chain with something as simple as bitrate.
192 can be okay, but definately try getting higher, once your ears become more capable you will be able to pick it apart.

Dave
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 3:57 AM Post #13 of 35

rockbottom

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Posts
455
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Alrighty, first off, welcome to head-fi, sorry bout the wallet.

I would recommend you get higher end headphones than you have (whether or not that be the two you are mentioning) whilst going ahead and converting your 128s to 320s or ALACs. Sound quality is really dependent upon source, but headphone can have a big impact. The problem though, is that great headphones can make bad sources sound worse. My example is the 701s with 64kbps song a pal brought over to show me that you couldn't discern a difference (p.s. he had an eye opening experience).

The Shure line puts out some great IEMs, I own the 110s 210s and 530s and can say each seems to build on the last, so going off that theory I would expect the 310s to be a classy phone. I haven't heard the grados so I will not comment on them but they do seem to be held in high regard for rock around here.

You may want to just take hold of your wallet and empty it on a pair of the higher end Shures if you can re-rip your cds. Or get a pair of the higher end Shures (the 4s or 530s) and skip on the grados for now. My personal opinion is that the 530 is a great consumer phone because of the abundance of clean bass it can put out even from an Ipod. It also has a great midrange to boot, though at the cost of slightly rolled off highs (not IMO a bad expense as it makes for a non-fatiguing listening session).

Dave



Just wanted to point out, simply converting 128 to 192 or 320 will not benefit you at all, you'd need to re-rip your CD collections. The thing is, MP3s are compressed, and once you've compressed the file, you've lost certain parts of the music, and once that's lost, you pretty much can't recover it any more.
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 3:59 AM Post #14 of 35

leveller1642

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Posts
638
Likes
14
No offense, but I shudder to think what MP3 128 sounds like.

AAC is a far superior codec to MP3. I'd suggest re ripping your music into AAC 192 or AAC 256 (default itunes high quality setting). I have my music ripped into both Apple Lossless and AAC 192. I cannot tell the difference between the 2 and now only rip into lossless for archival purposes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top