[tom10167]

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.

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

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

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

 

[Sordel]

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.

 

[ericlikeseatin]

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?

 

[tom10167]

I was using jazz and it was a SACD too.

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

 

[Febs]

Quote:

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

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.

 

[laxx]

Quote:

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

 

[Xanthos]

I'm in the same boat at times. However, if an MP3 is poorly compressed, I can tell right away.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

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

 

[blinx]

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

 

[tom10167]

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.

 

[elrod-tom]

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.

 

[Lord Chaos]

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.

 

[virometal]

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.

 

[rb67]

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