I can't hear a difference between mp3 and Wav.
Mar 20, 2007 at 7:10 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 18

tom10167

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Posts
177
Likes
10
frown.gif


Using E500s, either straight from Audigy 2 on my PC or straight from my 2g Nano, but with no EQ, using Shure black rubber sleeves.

Should I even bother with an amp and expensive IC? Will I notice anything?

Feel like my E500s were a waste now.
frown.gif
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 8:06 AM Post #2 of 18

EnOYiN

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Posts
2,269
Likes
18
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10167 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
frown.gif


Using E500s, either straight from Audigy 2 on my PC or straight from my 2g Nano, but with no EQ, using Shure black rubber sleeves.

Should I even bother with an amp and expensive IC? Will I notice anything?

Feel like my E500s were a waste now.
frown.gif



They are not a waste at all. There are a lot of people who can't hear the difference between lossy and lossless files. You are not an exception.

You can learn how to discern between lossy and lossless files though. I can't recommend it since it will not make a listening experience any better and more likely worse.

Here is a link to a website which has some simple training to get to know artifacts: http://ff123.net/training/training.html
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 9:03 AM Post #3 of 18

Sordel

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Posts
1,057
Likes
67
Location
UK
I settled this for myself by ripping the same track at six different bit rates: WAV, Apple Lossless, 190, 160, 128 and 40 kbps. I found on blind listening with good equipment (i.e. random from iTunes) that the 40 kbps was easiest to spot, and that I could fairly reliably distinguish the two lossless formats from the three other lossy ones. (I couldn't tell the lossless formats apart, or reliably tell one lossy from another.)

Just because you can (or in OP's case, can't) hear the difference, however, is not a clear argument for ripping everything at WAV. I listen to a CD source for analytic listening, but 128 kbps is fine for almost any real-world application.

OP should bear in mind that while the E500s may not be quite as revealing as he hoped, it may just be that they're also making all his music sound better.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 12:44 PM Post #4 of 18

ericlikeseatin

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Posts
197
Likes
20
i find that the discernability between lossless and lossy encoding depends a large part on the music being played. for a lot of rock/pop music with a compressed frequency range, i find that 192kbs mp3's are just fine; my ears have a hard time telling the difference between those files and the original cd. however, for a lot of classical, big band, orchestral music that i listen to, i can easily tell the greater separation and better clarity of a lossless file when compared to a 192kbs mp3 file. hope that helps :]

what kind of music are you listening to?
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM Post #5 of 18

tom10167

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Posts
177
Likes
10
I was using jazz and it was a SACD too.
frown.gif


If I have an SACD and throw it in my computer am I getting the music in the best possible format?
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM Post #6 of 18

Febs

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
2,853
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10167 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Feel like my E500s were a waste now.
frown.gif



Don't be ridiculous. Do the E500s sound good to you? Do they sound better than whatever they replaced? Then they were not a waste.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 2:14 PM Post #7 of 18

laxx

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Posts
2,439
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10167 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I was using jazz and it was a SACD too.
frown.gif


If I have an SACD and throw it in my computer am I getting the music in the best possible format?



You're not listening to the SACD layer. =T SACD won't play on a PC, you're listening to the Redbook layer.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 3:07 PM Post #9 of 18

jmmtn4aj

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Posts
2,056
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sordel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
(I couldn't tell the lossless formats apart..)


Well, that's good, considering the whole point of lossless is so that the audio data being fed to the DAC stays exactly same without any changes whatsoever
tongue.gif
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 3:07 PM Post #10 of 18

blinx

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
558
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthos /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm in the same boat at times. However, if an MP3 is poorly compressed, I can tell right away.


this is how i usually am.. but i listen to mostly newer rock and as you might know has compressed and generally poor recording quality. When im listening to a good recording of lets say metallica's ...and justic for all i can definately tell my copy is 320kbps
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM Post #11 of 18

tom10167

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Posts
177
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You're not listening to the SACD layer. =T SACD won't play on a PC, you're listening to the Redbook layer.



I assume redbook is just standard cd stuff.

Are there any PC drives that read Sacd that you know of?

So should I go ahead and get a Tomahawk + ALO? I can always sell/return it and only take a small hit.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM Post #12 of 18

elrod-tom

Moderator - Prefers "stereo weirdo" to "audiophile"
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Posts
10,523
Likes
48
Location
I live in the midrange!
I find that if were talking about a source that's portable or a so-so computer audio setup, I find it much harder to tell the difference. In these instances, I find that a rip to 320K is just fine, and 192K is pretty close to that.

However, when I've used the same recording at different bit rates on my home rig, I can almost always tell which is the WAV file, which is the 320K and certainly which is the 192K.

It's all about tradeoffs in my opinion - portability vs higher fidelity.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 4:58 PM Post #13 of 18

Lord Chaos

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Posts
395
Likes
16
On not hearing differences... there are many factors to consider.
1. Quality of the original recording. There are many ways for this to fail, from poor-quality mics to using too much compression. Compressors have become much better in the last few years, with fewer obvious artifacts.
2. Quality of the playback chain, from transducer through amplification.
3. Quality of the MP3 conversion.
4. Sensitivity and training of your audio perception system, which includes ears, nervous system, what you've learned and what your biases are.

So, if you don't hear a difference, no problem. Don't let some golden-eared audiophile tell you what to do. Buy and use the equipment that makes you happy, not your friends or the reviewers. In truth, everything these days sounds pretty good, except speakers. Speakers are always the weakest link in the chain.

There are all kinds of different people, which is why there are all kinds of different machinery.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 5:16 PM Post #14 of 18

virometal

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Posts
6,932
Likes
22
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Chaos /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So, if you don't hear a difference, no problem. Don't let some golden-eared audiophile tell you what to do.


Good post. The equipment isn't very resolving, but what if it was? If so - big deal. I can't jump like Michael Jordan; doesn't mean I don't like to play basketball.

Enjoy the tunes and get the best sq for your ears. That's all that matters.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM Post #15 of 18

rb67

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Posts
1,678
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10167 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I assume redbook is just standard cd stuff.

Are there any PC drives that read Sacd that you know of?



Yes, redbook is standard CD. Many SACD's have two layers, one standard one SACD so that they can be played in normal players.

There are currently no PC drives that can read SACD. Hopefully one day there will be
frown.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top