[WhDemon]

With DT990Pros, I can hear obvious differences in clarity between the 320 and 128
 
However, a very good 320Kpbs compared to a FLAC is harder to tell them apart.
 
Mp3 can be poorly converted even if its 320kpbs.

 

[Melvins]

download the same exact album, except one being 128 and the other being 320. I certainly can tell, and I am barely trying. Not to mention I don't have a 650

 

[subzer0]

Quote:

Yeah deadlylover can tell apart 128, 320 and Flac.

I generally can too when I listen to music...probably almost everyone on this forum could I would imagine.  

 

[kiteki]

 
I prefer keeping my music in 192kbps or lossless.
 
 
If you guys like listening to the differences in lossy and lossless, try upsampling too (if your sound-card is capable), I recommend SoX in foobar, it's pretty fun.
 

 

[deadlylover]

Quote:

I generally can too when I listen to music...probably almost everyone on this forum could I would imagine.  

 
Let's see some ABX results then, the more the merrier.

 

[saintyoo]

I've tried mp3ornot multiple times and I must admit I find it harder than just comparing a ripped 128kbps to a CD (especially the female vocals with guitar clip X/ ). That being said, after listening carefully a few times on the k701's hd598 and t50rp I can usually tell 90 percent of the time. It does take some careful listening imo. It's just ... different than normal casual or appreciative listening.

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Don't listen to this nonsense about your HD-650 being under-powered. Sure, they do benefit from better amps, but there is absolutely 100% no way an E9 can't drive an HD-650 well enough to sound good.
I can say for sure that the HD-650 is not muddy sounding out of the E9. It's even clearer sounding than even from the Asgard. Most people haven't compared them and won't agree, but that's OK.
Heck, even a $99 Total Airhead can drive an HD-650 decently. Seems most here think a headphone is underpowered just because they didn't like how it sounded.
 
BTW based on my experience, the HD-650 is quite good at making some lower quality tracks sound decent. I don't find them extremely revealing, but that's sometimes a good thing.
HD-650 certainly is no detail monster and I think most people would agree. Yes, this varies with cable swaps and better gear somewhat.
 

You've condescended yourself... first you say they don't need a good amp to sound good, then say they aren't revealing or high on detail. With a good amp they are revealing and detailed, what they are not is bright.

 

[Melvins]

what you just said makes no sense if you'd read what he'd said.

 

[kiteki]

I think I should point out that more expensive ≠ more revealing. (I wish there was a "does not necessarily equal" sign)
 
As an example, take the Audio Technica CK10, the CK10 sounded really good with 96kbps MP3, it is 'forgiving' to low quality music, it makes it sound better, at least that's how I felt.
 
I call it source-transparency, an IEM or HP that is source-transparent will sound different with different sources, whereas some headphones sound almost the same with all sources, is that good or bad? That's hard to say isn't it.
 

 

[AzraelDarkangel]

Recording quality makes a big difference too. I just recently rooted my Epic 4G and switched to a custom ROM with support for Voodoo Sound with driver support for the built in Wolfson WM8994 as well as add Neutron music player. Both together made a very noticeable jump in sound quality and I was listening to a few of my favorite sounding albums like Rasputina and Emilie Autumn with my Grado SR80i's. Rasputina just sounds gorgeous and I noticed that the Neutron player listed the bitrate and I was like "It sounds this good it it's only 128kbps?" Most of my stuff is not lossless because I have limited space but I figured it was at least 192 or maybe 320, but nope. I have some Deftones which is Lossless but it never really wowed me. I think I'll redownload Rasputina and Emilie Autumn in Lossless.

 

[Dpgriff]

Does higher bitrate audio distort less at higher volumes? 

 

[kiteki]

Quote:

[/] I was listening to a few of my favorite sounding albums like Rasputina and Emilie Autumn with my Grado SR80i's. Rasputina just sounds gorgeous and I noticed that the Neutron player listed the bitrate and I was like "It sounds this good it it's only 128kbps?"

 
bitrate is the lowest of concern in total sound quality x time to the power of nominal performance divided by the number of rarefactions + 1.
 
Take a really good recording quality like this www.avisonensemble.com, if you listen to that in 192kbps on a good system it's 10 times better than FLAC on a bad system, might be obvioius to some, just putting it out there. =p
 
 

 

[kn19h7]

Quote:

I'll let you in on a secret, the differences between the files on that website are tiiiiny!
 
With enough practice, you'll be able to get it, trust me. It doesn't have anything to do with your gear, or ears for that matter.

+1
 
That site is pretty hard to me too, 320k to lossless is even harder

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I tried a few times on this website. 
http://www.mp3ornot.com/index.php
 
No matter how hard I tried, I can't really tell them apart. 
A bit frustrated, because maybe I wasted a mount of money on the unnecessary gear.
But I still wonder, if there is possibility that the music player the website used is bad , which makes it hard to tell them apart? 
I'm using hd650 +e7+e9 combo.

I can't hear a difference on that site or on my computer. If there is a difference it's so tiny that it defeats the purpose of listening to music by searching for it. Be ignorant with your 128kbps mp3s. You will save hard drive space and enjoy your music more. Personally i go with 320kbps just because.

 

[nikp]

This is what I got:


 
Yes I screwed up. 

 
MBP, UE700