Does it make sense to get good quality headphones when using 128kb/s MP3's?
Nov 19, 2008 at 5:15 PM Post #31 of 35
I have old 128s that I grabbed from P2P networks years ago, on data CDs, and they still sound good. I agree. Source recordings are critical. Lousy recordings in 320/lossless still sound like crap. I guess to "sophisticated" ears, 192 or lower is crap, no matter what. To we huddled masses, it's not really an issue. As much as I have tried A/B listening tests, a well-recorded track at 192 WMA/MP3/AAC is plenty good for my ears. And having a few 128k tracks of good recordings sitting around, those pass muster too. I just don't get people dismissing a bit rate on face value, without hearing the track. I believe it's a lot of nonsense, in fact. Advising people to rip at 320k and higher (FLAC, Apple Lossless, etc.) is just plain silly. Try some of your music at several rates and see which one rate is discernibly different (worse), then pick the next level up. Pretty simple to me. If you want to hog up all that HD space with lossless music, good for you too. But to say it's the only way to go is nonsense.

As to the OP, get the X10s at $175. You won't regret it SQ and comfort-wise. Then, listen to your music. If it sounds good, you are good to go. If not, re-rip at 192 or 256 max. You will be fine.

For more on it, check this thread

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/1...erence-359999/
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 9:11 PM Post #32 of 35
Ok, since quality isn't an issue anymore (i'll get the songs at 320), I am leaning towards the X10's as well at this point. It's not that the Shure SE310's are over-rated, I just like how light and portable the X10's seem.

Both of them are single-driver right? I've heard about good bass response from both sets; so which one has a higher response?
Also, would I be right saying the Shure's block out more noise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top