[LugBug1]

My Rs1i's make any recording sound good even 192mp3, and they are high end phones. Some of my best recordings are Variable bit rate mp3 and 320cbr, If you become obsessed about it then I believe the old placebo takes over.. I used to insist on wav format till I mistakingly listened to an 320 bit that I had previously ripped of the same recording. Could I tell a difference? not at all.  

 

[EYEdROP]

Most headphones, even audiophile ones, are so colored that it dosent really matter. If your headphones make every single track sound great, they are probably colored and innacurate (but sound good nonetheless).

 

[pp312]

Quote:

95% of what I listen to are MP3s.  There's almost no difference between 320kps and lossless. Heck, I'll even listen to 160kps if I can't find anything better of a particular recording.   Changing headphones is the most cost effective way to get better sound quality, besides getting better recordings, and by "getting better recordings" I don't mean lossless.  I mean things that were recorded well.  There's no point in getting lossless files if the recording is bad, which it is in most cases.  The best value in terms of price/sound quality is getting Sennheiser HD600 used for $200-$230.  It's just like the HD650, but with slightly less bass and an unnoticeable bit more of harmonic distortion.  The DT880 600 Ohm is also good, almost equal to the HD600, but costs more and has a spike in the frequency response around 8kHz which some people hate (not me).
 

 
PointyFox, the first half of your post is dead on in my view and the second half just misses the mark. I totally agree that there's essentially no difference between 320 and lossless, and that original sound quality is far more important than MP3 v. Lossless. In fact I agree with everything up to where you say the 600 is "just like the HD650, but with slightly less bass and an unnoticeable bit more of harmonic distortion". They really are two different phones, with the 600 having a rise in the FR around the 3-4khz (where the ear is particularly sensitive) that gives it a more forward, more incisive sound. I know it's common to speak of the 600/650, but they're not really "slash" phones; someone may well like one and actively dislike the other. Also I'm not sure the DT880 is "almost equal" to the 600 (or even that it costs more! But it does have spike in the FR, for sure). Again, two different phones.  
 
 

 

[jasonb]

I listen to mostly 256kbps-320kbps mp3 on my HD650 and HeadRoom desktop amp/DAC, a $1200 setup, not including my source (laptop). I honestly cant tell the difference when comparing FLAC to high bit-rate MP3. I use Rdio.com (256-320kbps MP3) for I'd say about 75% of my listening, the other 25% is either FLAC, Soundcloud, or internet radio which is usually 192kbps MP3. 
 
High bit-rate MP3 is definitely acceptable. 

 

[blitzraider]

On this note, I was wondering how everyone normallized their music. Right now I use MP3gain, as this program is claimed to be the most sonically accurate. However, I still don't understand how to use it correctly, so I'm asking if anyone has expertise on MP3gain or other more intuitive alternatives.
 
Thanks

 

[nullstring]

Quote:

On this note, I was wondering how everyone normallized their music. Right now I use MP3gain, as this program is claimed to be the most sonically accurate. However, I still don't understand how to use it correctly, so I'm asking if anyone has expertise on MP3gain or other more intuitive alternatives.
 
Thanks

This is something I refuse to do, as I only have a 16bit DAC.
Realize that any change in volume done on the software side is going give you an effective loss in bit resolution.
 
If you are playing 16bit music and have a 24bit or 32bit dac, this won't matter as much.

 

[ljperez84]

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by pwnasaurus 





"A 2TB drive is less than $100..."


That just brings my point home even further. With 2TB of storage most users will have more than plenty of space to not only have the lossless files for their main rig but to also have those files in 320kps mp3 for their DAP. ...

To the OP's point, I think $100+ headphones are more than worth it. But also think of upgrading to lossless music for your main rig. Even if it takes time for you to do, I believe, it's worth it in the end. There are people that can hear an appreciate the difference.

That''s exactly what I think.  

 I would go with 256 kbps on the DAP.
 
 

 

[TheOtus]

Reading this topic, what made me really confused was the fact that people are claiming that the original record means more than mp3/lossless. Since when was hi-fi about high quality RECORDS? I must have missed that part completely...

 

[jerg]

One carries onto another I suppose. Audiophilia is about maximizing cost of everything in the process, so naturally enough time and money put into hi-fi translates to the same level of attention paid to other aspects that 'may' improve the listening experience.
 
Also there's the "staying classy" aspect to hi-fi hobby, maybe that's why.
 
Quote:

Reading this topic, what made me really confused was the fact that people are claiming that the original record means more than mp3/lossless. Since when was hi-fi about high quality RECORDS? I must have missed that part completely...

 

 

[yepimonfire]

this is because a high bitrate MP3 above 256kbps discards information that is physically inaudible by the human ear, information the brain will discard by itself, you will most certainly not hear a difference between 256kbps and a lossless file ever. no matter how good your ears are, it is just impossible. it's the same thing that goes for video compression and image compression, you can't tell a blu-ray disc is compressed can you? no....that is because the information discarded could be safely discarded without affecting what the viewer sees. the brain interpolates a large amount of the information it receives. the only time mp3 begins degrading the sound quality audibly is when people use lower bitrates, lower then 192kbps, then it is forced to throw out information you can hear, which does affect the sound quality (duh). there are also several much more effeceint codecs such as WMA and AAC that do a much better job of compression. both WMA and AAC at 128kbps cannot be distinguished by even a trained listener from the original, so using AAC or WMA at 320kbps is double that bitrate and you can put your mind at ease that nothing you can hear has been removed from the audio.

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

On this note, I was wondering how everyone normallized their music. Right now I use MP3gain, as this program is claimed to be the most sonically accurate. However, I still don't understand how to use it correctly, so I'm asking if anyone has expertise on MP3gain or other more intuitive alternatives.
 
Thanks

I don't think many people on here normalize their music, simply because it distorts the original image too much. For instance if you are listening to a recording thats starts quiet, a normalizer will try and match the frequencies to the loudest part of the track and in doing so remove all of the impact of the louder passages and will cause a lot of distortion in doing so.

 

[baka1969]

Quote:Originally Posted by yepimonfire 

"this is because a high bitrate MP3 above 256kbps discards information that is physically inaudible by the human ear, information the brain will discard by itself, you will most certainly not hear a difference between 256kbps and a lossless file ever. no matter how good your ears are, it is just impossible. it's the same thing that goes for video compression and image compression, you can't tell a blu-ray disc is compressed can you? no....that is because the information discarded could be safely discarded without affecting what the viewer sees. the brain interpolates a large amount of the information it receives. the only time mp3 begins degrading the sound quality audibly is when people use lower bitrates, lower then 192kbps, then it is forced to throw out information you can hear, which does affect the sound quality (duh). there are also several much more effeceint codecs such as WMA and AAC that do a much better job of compression. both WMA and AAC at 128kbps cannot be distinguished by even a trained listener from the original, so using AAC or WMA at 320kbps is double that bitrate and you can put your mind at ease that nothing you can hear has been removed from the audio."


Many people prefer lossless and hi-rez files. The hi-rez market is expanding. Not contracting. I can't see where mp3 files are better than any lossless format. Where is the benefit of mp3? Storage is cheap and plentiful. Used CDs are inexpensive. By definition hi-rez is better.

I want someone to show me how mp3 is a better alternative. I've already read how there are people who can't hear the difference. No-one has told me why or how mp3 is better than lossless taking storage space out of the equation.

 

[yepimonfire]

never said it was a better alternative, just that there is nothing wrong with it. for hi-rez files MP3's are pretty much a no go because when the sampling rate goes up and the bit depth goes up so does the bitrate of the lossless file. a 320kbps mp3 on a 24bit 48khz file will remove the equivalent amount of information as a 128kbps mp3 on 44.1/16bit and everyone agrees 128kbps mp3s do sound bad.

 

[LugBug1]

 

I want someone to show me how mp3 is a better alternative. I've already read how there are people who can't hear the difference. No-one has told me why or how mp3 is better than lossless taking storage space out of the equation.

I don't think anyone can show you how it could possibly be a better alternative sound wise. Even if you cant tell a difference objectively, subjectively you will feel better knowing that there is nothing lost in the process from the original recording. It can only be because of the convenience of mp3 otherwise all audiohpiles would have lossless. By convenience I mean every program accepts mp3 and only a few accept Flac or Apple lossless, Wav is just too big a file for most portable players and takes up too much space on my pc. If like me you download music every night from different sources you have a lot more choice through mp3 format. If all you do is buy cd's then why not play them through a good cd player in the first place?

 

[peskypesky]

Quote:

this is because a high bitrate MP3 above 256kbps discards information that is physically inaudible by the human ear, information the brain will discard by itself, you will most certainly not hear a difference between 256kbps and a lossless file ever. no matter how good your ears are, it is just impossible. it's the same thing that goes for video compression and image compression, you can't tell a blu-ray disc is compressed can you? no....that is because the information discarded could be safely discarded without affecting what the viewer sees. the brain interpolates a large amount of the information it receives. the only time mp3 begins degrading the sound quality audibly is when people use lower bitrates, lower then 192kbps, then it is forced to throw out information you can hear, which does affect the sound quality (duh). there are also several much more effeceint codecs such as WMA and AAC that do a much better job of compression. both WMA and AAC at 128kbps cannot be distinguished by even a trained listener from the original, so using AAC or WMA at 320kbps is double that bitrate and you can put your mind at ease that nothing you can hear has been removed from the audio.

thank you. this makes a lot of sense. no wonder i haven't been able to tell a difference between 320k mp3s and FLACs!