[joseph69]

I listen to either Cd's or imported Cd's (ALAC) from my MBP. Some of the Cd's are recorded/mastered excellent, and some are not, whether I'm listening to the Cd or imported ALAC. And I also have downloads from iTunes that are excellent, and some are not.

 

[rodweb]

1 on each song and its counterpart. 
Well now I know what my evening plans will be consisting of! 

hahaha!

 

[swspiers]

OMG.  NOT in the Grado thread!
 
I think I read somewhere, and I won't give even the credit of quoting, that ABX is the only way to tell sonic differences while eliminating 'psychological effects'
 
Balderdash, I say.  The very act of listening is in itself a psychological act.  The illusion of a stereo image is a neuro-psychological phenomenon, a construct of the auditory cortex, cerebellum,  hippocampus, amygdala and other regions of the brain before the information is filtered and discerned by the frontal lobe.
 
Any attempt to quantify or qualify the perception of music without taking the complex processes of the brain into consideration is pseudo-science.  The ears are not attached to the frontal lobes!
 
(end rant)

 

[elmoe]

   
 
 
After testing on 8 songs - 6 were ALAC vs 320MP3 and 2 were 24bit vs 16 - My average is 75% (was 1 for 2 on the hi-res ABX). I suppose 3 out of 4 ain't bad!
 
Still. When I'm listening for pleasure, I'm definitely not straining the way I was just now. The differences were minute. Would I know the difference if I was kicked back in a lazy boy or on the bus with a portable DAP? Certainly not. 

 
Thing is, were all your files from the same album? Because the difference between 24bit and 16bit is usually due to a difference in mastering, as hi-res audio usually comes from remasters. In which case it isn't that you can tell the difference between hi/low res but between masters.
 
I also was pretty convinced I could tell a difference until I checked the masters. Then I converted a 24/192 album that I thought was extremely high quality to 16/44.1 and I could not tell any difference in ABX (tried it last night), so I'm now of the opinion that hi-res is a load of crap.
 
There's a very interesting thread on the subject in the Sound Science forum.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

  1 on each song and its counterpart. 

 
That is theoretically not enough to warrant a valid measurement/study - I know that that wasn't your goal in the first place, just saying.
 
neither is this, but I find it quite fun to watch...made by our fellow head-fi'er a_recording:
 

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Can anyone recommend a more comfortable aftermarket headband for Grado phones(PS1000)? The stock headband hurts the top of my head after say an hour. I want something more luxurious and comfortable. Anyone have any good experiences with aftermarket bands?

 

[fleasbaby]

Can anyone recommend a more comfortable aftermarket headband for Grado phones(PS1000)? The stock headband hurts the top of my head after say an hour. I want something more luxurious and comfortable. Anyone have any good experiences with aftermarket bands?

Have a look at Turbulent Labs' stuff...nicely padded, very well-made...worth the wait for delivery (about 3 weeks).

 

[JW Santhem]

Can anyone recommend a more comfortable aftermarket headband for Grado phones(PS1000)? The stock headband hurts the top of my head after say an hour. I want something more luxurious and comfortable. Anyone have any good experiences with aftermarket bands?

Hahaha it must really suck to have such a problem man. I wouldn't want to switch places with you. Oh wait I would
Anyway, there's a thread the issue over here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/568913/comfortable-headband-for-grado-ps1000

 

[HPiper]

They would say there is an inaudible difference. Maybe it is mastering but that makes me wonder, if that is all it takes to make a cd that sounds like that, why don't more (or even some) company's do it? How much more money could it cost to spend a little more time in mastering. Seems like more people would buy it if it sounded better. I don't know. I guess I'll just buy a Loki and start listening to DSD. Not too many people argue about that format.

 

[bassboysam]

  They would say there is an inaudible difference. Maybe it is mastering but that makes me wonder, if that is all it takes to make a cd that sounds like that, why don't more (or even some) company's do it? How much more money could it cost to spend a little more time in mastering. Seems like more people would buy it if it sounded better. I don't know. I guess I'll just buy a Loki and start listening to DSD. Not too many people argue about that format.

 
 
because 99% of the music buying public simply doesn't care.  Most people listen to music in their cars, on the bus or other noisy environments.  Usually music is just something in the background too.  Not that many people sit down and really listen compared to the number that obsess over fidelity.
 
Also mastering is one of the most expensive phases of the recording process.  so spending and extra 10, 50, 100 hours on getting a perfect master gets really expensive for very little return.

 

[elmoe]

  They would say there is an inaudible difference. Maybe it is mastering but that makes me wonder, if that is all it takes to make a cd that sounds like that, why don't more (or even some) company's do it? How much more money could it cost to spend a little more time in mastering. Seems like more people would buy it if it sounded better. I don't know. I guess I'll just buy a Loki and start listening to DSD. Not too many people argue about that format.

 
Because to remaster you need access to the studio's master tapes, and those aren't easy to get. There was something said in that thread that's particularly interesting: try buying the latest Bob Dylan album in 24/192 off HDTracks and find a MFSL mastering CD of the same album - the MFSL will sound leagues better.
 
Plenty of people argue about DSD, it's the exact same debate in fact - between SACD vs CD of the same master, there are no audible differences whatsoever.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

  They would say there is an inaudible difference. Maybe it is mastering but that makes me wonder, if that is all it takes to make a cd that sounds like that, why don't more (or even some) company's do it? How much more money could it cost to spend a little more time in mastering. Seems like more people would buy it if it sounded better. I don't know. I guess I'll just buy a Loki and start listening to DSD. Not too many people argue about that format.

 
This question can simply be answered by asking yourself:
 
How many audiophiles do I know personally?
- ......you see?

 

[jaywillin]

this is the "grado" thread right ?? isn't the general consensus that "if it sounds good, it is good " and numbers, 16/44, 24/96, 192 , sacd, dsd
whatever, there is no right, or wrong answer on which is better, flac, mp3, m-o-u-s-e , i don't care, if it sounds good, and the music moves me,
i don't care what numbers and letter come after the name of the file, but hey, thats just me

 

[whirlwind]

When this topic came up....didn't you just know where this thread was headed  .'
 
This subject has been beat into the ground in many threads on head-fi   

 

[bbophead]

  this is the "grado" thread right ?? isn't the general consensus that "if it sounds good, it is good " and numbers, 16/44, 24/96, 192 , sacd, dsd
whatever, there is no right, or wrong answer on which is better, flac, mp3, m-o-u-s-e , i don't care, if it sounds good, and the music moves me,
i don't care what numbers and letter come after the name of the file, but hey, thats just me

+1 but vinyl also sounds pretty good.  Mostly, it's just different.