LaBreaHead
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Posts
- 1,847
- Likes
- 11
It's nice that you're enjoying them. How's your winter going?
Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear you. But WMAs seem to be a higher quality at 96kpbs than comparable MP3s. I encoded the same cuts in both 192 and 96 WMA, listened to them both, and I really could not tell the difference. On the other hand, with cuts I got from others at 128 MP3, cymbals do sounds lousy. So I understand. If a cut sounds bad, I re-rip it at a higher bitrate, but I only do it selectively. But for whatever reason, WMAs sound better at 92, 128 and 192k. I've tried over and over, thinking it couldn't be, but I'd rather have more files on my ZVM, so I use 96 as my standard. |
Originally Posted by Caribou679 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree with you concerning MP3. Have you done the same exercice = sound quality vs bit rate comparing WMA and Ogg at level 2? Ogg level 2 corresponds to 96k , the same bitrate as WMA 96k. let me know, I am curious. regards, |
Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll jump in, until Tstarn06 returns... M5: good sound across the whole spectrum, "dark" sounding, laid back, good soundstage, very good isolation (especially with Shure foamies for me) X3: lack of bass, "bright" sounding, precise, not bad soundstage, good isolation M5 remind me of the HD650 (to a certain extent) sound signature wise, X3 remind me of Ety ER-6. |
Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My Creative ZVM doesn't support Ogg, so I am stuck with MP3 or WMA. I just keep monkeying with bitrates to see if I can differentiate, and after tons of testing, I decided 96k was the sweet spot for my portable needs. Some are ripped at 128 WMA, some at 192, I tend to rip older recordings at higher bitrates, since they often need it. Guess I got off topic a little. Did I mention the M5s are in my view the best value in IEMs, by a landslide. Think I did. |
Originally Posted by deep_splash /img/forum/go_quote.gif what genre sounds the best with the m5? or do they sound excellent across-the-board (for all types of music)? Personally, bass is nice but its not my main concern. I don't want too much bass, and for treble...prefer natural over sound that's way-enhanced (doesn't sound realistic). There's lots of mention that these are the closest IEM's that have a can sound to them..So does this mean there's a tonne of bass or does the bass sound wider (larger soundstage..unlike most IEM's with their in-the-head/in-the-ear sound)? |
Originally Posted by Caribou679 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can give you a hint of what happens with them. I listen to some classic on Decca and on Living Stereo. These are considered good to very good recordings. With the music encoded Ogg level 8, using Cowon D2 with the Eq set at Classic and MP on at sound level 25 of 50. Using the M8 with the FS foamies. From the left to the riight I discerned clearly the different instruments being played and their relative position. Also from the front to the back I can (sometimes) discerned the positions of the instruments on the differents rows the orchestra is set up. I think this is the description of soundstage. It is sometimes very impressive to discerne this! Before with others IEMs, (X3, EP630,Bose) the sound was more like one big unity and sometimes some distinction was present and attracting attention. regards, |
They got bass, mids, and treble - everything is there, but the frequency spectrum seems to be tilted towards the lower frequencies (just like the Senn HD650). |