I now understand you guys
Mar 19, 2006 at 12:19 PM Post #16 of 30

iancraig10

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
4,199
Likes
759
Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilDwarf
I never understand all this talk about low bitrates sounding bad.


I treat mp3 as a convenience and don't let the 'lack' of quality bother me. I don't think that it was ever envisaged as particularly high quality but is simply a bit easier than carrying loads of cd's and a portable player.

On certain types of music (or sounds) you can become aware that it is an mp3 even at higher rates but that really depends on how sensitive you are and how responsive your headphones are.

I stick to vinyl or cd for quality and mp3 just for convenience.

Ian
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 1:58 PM Post #18 of 30

darkninja67

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Posts
3,252
Likes
15
I hear more smearing on the high end with lower bit rates than with FLAC. I use ER4Ps with can be very revealing with MP3s and such/
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 2:20 PM Post #19 of 30

silvalis

Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Posts
51
Likes
0
Does anyone else notice that it's easier to hear the deficiencies of a poorer system after listening to a better system than the other way around?
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 2:26 PM Post #20 of 30

JJ15k

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Posts
557
Likes
11
Absolutely, I do
biggrin.gif

Because on a poorer system you don t know what you could be lacking. So when you hear the highend system and it shows you those things, your brain will then look for them in the songs when you are on the poorer system and you will hear the difference.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 2:29 PM Post #21 of 30

EvilDwarf

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
406
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch
Try a different approach... rip a song and encode it in 128KBPS, and keep the original .wav. Now instead of concentrating, just relax and listen to the MP3 for awhile, get completely used to the sonic signature of the song. Then switch to the .wav. Or reverse the procedure, using the .wav as reference. IMO it's easier to hear differences if you're not trying, because often this causes a person to not see the forest for the trees. That's a major failure of the whole ABX thing IMO, it narrows one's attention down and results in hearing only the more obvious differences.


Maybe you have a point there. As far as I know, A/B listening tests have been critisized for barring out the "emotional" center of the brain and using only the "analytical" parts. Relaxed listening might reveal more differences, than trying desparately to spot flaws in the mp3 recording. Also the type of music chosen for comparison, will certainly have an impact.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 2:29 PM Post #22 of 30

JaGWiRE

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Posts
3,386
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ15k
Absolutely, I do
biggrin.gif

Because on a poorer system you don t know what you could be lacking. So when you hear the highend system and it shows you those things, your brain will then look for them in the songs when you are on the poorer system and you will hear the difference.



Yes, I agree, and our mind remembers what we hear, and psychologic things kick in. That's why I REFUSED to listen to any speakers in the shops I was in looking for 595's. I would had tried on 650's, but those probably would sound worse then my 595's unamped.

I am certain this has been debated more then once on this forum, so maybe we should continue it in that thread and close this one as it is off topic and becoming a debate?
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 6:51 PM Post #23 of 30

Patrick82

Banned
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Posts
3,745
Likes
16
With K501 I almost couldn't hear a difference between 128 kbps mp3 and WAV even after doing A/B-ing for half an hour.
eek.gif
But when I tried it with K1000 I noticed the difference immediately.
A/B-ing doesn't work because your state of mind is different, but if you do hear a subtle difference then the improvement will become night and day in long-term listening.
When I upgraded my reference album (LOTR) from 320 kbps mp3 to WAV I immediately could hear that it sounded more transparent but too cold and scary. I didn't like it at first because I had been used to the rolled-off highs for many months.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 7:40 PM Post #24 of 30

A.Thorsen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Posts
690
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by silvalis
Does anyone else notice that it's easier to hear the deficiencies of a poorer system after listening to a better system than the other way around?



Absolutely yes!
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 7:50 PM Post #25 of 30

sxr71

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Posts
1,238
Likes
56
Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch
Try a different approach... rip a song and encode it in 128KBPS, and keep the original .wav. Now instead of concentrating, just relax and listen to the MP3 for awhile, get completely used to the sonic signature of the song. Then switch to the .wav. Or reverse the procedure, using the .wav as reference. IMO it's easier to hear differences if you're not trying, because often this causes a person to not see the forest for the trees. That's a major failure of the whole ABX thing IMO, it narrows one's attention down and results in hearing only the more obvious differences.


Bingo. The differences are easily discernable when you don't try to concentrate. Just try to enjoy the music and the differences become very clear. The lossy files just sound lifeless and more like sound than music. You will easily notice the difference if you just listen for enjoyment.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 8:02 PM Post #26 of 30

fewtch

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Posts
9,559
Likes
32
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82
With K501 I almost couldn't hear a difference between 128 kbps mp3 and WAV even after doing A/B-ing for half an hour.
eek.gif
But when I tried it with K1000 I noticed the difference immediately.



Interesting... the K501 is definitely a non-analytical headphone, which may be partially why. Granted the K1000 is a better headphone, but it could be that it's more analytical in the highs as well that makes it easier to hear the flaws.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 8:05 PM Post #27 of 30

JaGWiRE

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Posts
3,386
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by sxr71
Bingo. The differences are easily discernable when you don't try to concentrate. Just try to enjoy the music and the differences become very clear. The lossy files just sound lifeless and more like sound than music. You will easily notice the difference if you just listen for enjoyment.


I bet hiphop lovers would have a very hard trouble switching from 128 kbps to 320 kbps. I listen to some rap, but I really prefer smooth jazz, among a variety of other things. The big bass boom has become acustomed to probably so many people to be distorteted and sort of boomish, so the natural sound from the song in flacc would probably sound so weird to them.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 8:11 PM Post #28 of 30

Seijang

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Posts
268
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilDwarf
I never understand all this talk about low bitrates sounding bad. There has been an A/B-Test between 128kbit and lossless floating around and I've only been able to tell ever so *slight* differences by concentrating VERY hard using my DT 880. I don't hear any difference from 256kbit VBR and above to lossless. So either everybody else has golden ears or there must be some hype about lossless involved.


I've been able to hear the difference between 128 and 320 for a while now. As my rig gets better, its just easier to hear.

I know I can hear the difference because I have difficulty remembering to replace my old 128 songs to 320 consistently. So sometimes I'll be listening to music and then be like..wtfcakes, this sounds like crap. And lo and behold, its 128 :p.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 8:25 PM Post #29 of 30

JaGWiRE

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Posts
3,386
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seijang
I've been able to hear the difference between 128 and 320 for a while now. As my rig gets better, its just easier to hear.

I know I can hear the difference because I have difficulty remembering to replace my old 128 songs to 320 consistently. So sometimes I'll be listening to music and then be like..wtfcakes, this sounds like crap. And lo and behold, its 128 :p.



I think the best way to figure it out is using a method like yours. Rip a total of 100 songs from cd's, make 2 copies of each (one 128 kbps) one flacc or 320 kbps. Then, add them into your library (make sure they are good songs, and your favourite), and play shuffle. See if you can hear the difference like this guy, make sure there is no tag set in foobar or your app that says the bitrate. Hell, even minimize your program and relax and listen while browsing, and just see if you hear anything.
 
Mar 19, 2006 at 8:47 PM Post #30 of 30

familyman

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Posts
939
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by XxATOLxX
You notice a difference between 320kbps and FLAC?
confused.gif





x2.. My speakers trample my headphone rig soundstagewise.



those Odyssey's are the nicest looking wood grain monitors I've seen.
did you post a review or impressions on them? I've got monitors already, still interested in how they sound though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top