Is it worth getting really high-end headphones if your source is 320kbps audio files?

[JamesHuntington]

We're arguing a gray area, not black and white. A 700$ tv is still HD. In the end it's about more or less detail.

 

[EddieE]

We're arguing a gray area, not black and white. A 700$ tv is still HD. In the end it's about more or less detail.

 
A best you're trying to draw an analogy between a black-and-white issue and a grey one. At worst you're comparing apples and oranges.
 
ANYONE - and I mean anyone - placed in front of a 720p and 4k TV - provided they were close enough - would pass the test as to which had more pixels. The test would have a 100% success rate.
 
So far, NOONE has proved they can pass a double blind test between a 320CBR MP3 encoded with modern error-correcting software and a FLAC file made with the same encoder. 
 
Saying one is like the other is beyond absurd. 
 
Here is a different analogy –
 
“If you are going to buy an HD TV, you should use HD media” = “If you are going to buy good audio gear, you should use transparent audio files”
 
“If we are going to get the most of the TV experience, we should use a screen that outputs infrared and ultraviolet light” = “if you are going to get the most out of the audio experience, you need hi-rez/lossless files”
 
That is perfectly analogous.
 
The analogy hangs on the so far not unproved notion that the human ear/mind cannot hear the difference between well-encoded, error corrected 320CBR MP3s and lossless FLAC, just like the human eye cannot see ultraviolet or infrared light.
 
Ultraviolet and Infrared light is there all the time, but a screen does not need to output it, as we can’t see it. The difference between FLAC and the highest quality MP3s is there, but it is not a requirement to use FLAC because we can’t hear it. 

 

[serafko]

   
A best you're trying to draw an analogy between a black-and-white issue and a grey one. At worst you're comparing apples and oranges.
 
ANYONE - and I mean anyone - placed in front of a 720p and 4k TV - provided they were close enough - would pass the test as to which had more pixels. The test would have a 100% success rate.
 
So far, NOONE has proved they can pass a double blind test between a 320CBR MP3 encoded with modern error-correcting software and a FLAC file made with the same encoder. 
 
Saying one is like the other is beyond absurd. 
 
Here is a different analogy –
 
“If you are going to buy an HD TV, you should use HD media” = “If you are going to buy good audio gear, you should use transparent audio files”
 
“If we are going to get the most of the TV experience, we should use a screen that outputs infrared and ultraviolet light” = “if you are going to get the most out of the audio experience, you need hi-rez/lossless files”
 
That is perfectly analogous.
 
The analogy hangs on the so far not unproved notion that the human ear/mind cannot hear the difference between well-encoded, error corrected 320CBR MP3s and lossless FLAC, just like the human eye cannot see ultraviolet or infrared light.
 
Ultraviolet and Infrared light is there all the time, but a screen does not need to output it, as we can’t see it. The difference between FLAC and the highest quality MP3s is there, but it is not a requirement to use FLAC because we can’t hear it. 

Well writen. +1
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[JamesHuntington]

Well we could take it a step further and double blind study something like the HE-5 and HE-6 or the HD-600 and HD 800, all with the same set-up.

 

[zazex]

   
My point is - the difference between cables is contentious, the ability for human ears to detect the difference between a modern encoded, error corrected 320CBR MP3 is also contentious. Perhaps an HDMI cable is an unfair comparison, as scientifically there is no difference between HDMI cables, and an RCA cable would be more fair - but in both cases research has shown that listening/viewing test consistently fail to show a determinable difference under double blind conditions.
 
To use the metaphor of 4k vs SD video definitions does not fit. The difference between video resolutions, and the fact that it is clearly determinable from the right distance from the screen, has never been debated or considered up for debate.
 
I would say tests between 4k and SD would have a 100% success rate. Meanwhile, in my experience, DBT between well-encoded 320CBR and FLAC has a 0% success rate. 
 
The difference between well-encoded 320CBR and FLAC is not analogous.

 
I'm not sure this is correct.
IIRC there have been links in this thread to studies showing the opposite.
 
Also, and in any event, 320k files - even those that are 'well encoded' - are still not the "same" as flac files; one is lossless and the other simply isn't.
(Apologies on re-stating the obvious, but it does seem to get lost sometimes in this discussion...)

 

[serafko]

   
I'm not sure this is correct.
IIRC there have been links in this thread to studies showing the opposite.
 
Also, and in any event, 320k files - even those that are 'well encoded' - are still not the "same" as flac files; one is lossless and the other simply isn't.
(Apologies on re-stating the obvious, but it does seem to get lost sometimes in this discussion...)

It is very important, what you consudered lossless. If hi-res 192/24 is lossless, than flac 16/44.1/48 is loosy (strictly data view). IMO lossless is everything where I dont find difference between two files in blind A-B test.

 

[pp312]

 

My point was that even a poor or rough sounding recording will sound better through a phone with a smoother, more even FR, especially in the higher regions. This accords with logic and my own considerable experience over the last 50 years with poor recordings.

I distinctly recall saying almost the same thing in my post, even though you chose to omit the text, as I explained my point. Unless, of course, your phone is capable of reproducing everything on a recording. We both know that ain't happening, bringing us back to the two options cited initially. And so it goes. How this is relevant to Hi-Fidelity is beyond me.

Fidelity to what? By definition, to the original sound, to what you would have heard had you been standing in the studio when the recording was made. It's an ideal rather than a practical expectation.  

Agreed.

 
Not sure what your point is here. I'm simply saying: better headphone = better sound at any level, 320, FLAC or whatever. However, when I say 'better' I'm thinking of smoother, with a more even FR, not the detail monster that's so often considered 'better' here. Whenever I've improved my equipment in the past, improved in a true Hi-Fidelity sense of getting closer to the original sound (there, I got it in!), even poor, archival and too-frequently-copied material has often gone from unlistenable to almost pleasant. In fact I now consider one of the acid tests of equipment I'm considering buying how well it handles indifferent material (without of course losing fidelity in the process).
 
And just to reiterate, I don't consider 320 MP3 to represent in any way 'indifferent material'. On the contrary, I would place it among the more benign aberrations inflicted on the music as it makes its circuitous way to our ear drums.

 

[zazex]

  It is very important, what you consudered lossless. If hi-res 192/24 is lossless, than flac 16/44.1/48 is loosy (strictly data view). IMO lossless is everything where I dont find difference between two files in blind A-B test.

 
OK, so that works for you.
 
But there's no need to bend the definition of 'lossless'
to your personal Idiosyncracies.

 

[EddieE]

"Lossless" is not the key word - "transparent" is, meaning the point at which anyone would fail a DBT between the file and the CD it came from.

Whether there is any loss is irrelevant if you can't tell the difference.

 

[jnorris]

Sigh...

I can't hear the difference, but I know there has to be, and as long as I know there has to be I will not be satisfied with an MP3. Illogical...yup...stupid...maybe - in light of the space savings between FLAC and MP3...pigheaded...definitely.

 

[pp312]

The human brain is a strange apparatus... 

 

[JamesHuntington]

However small a difference may be, I think most people can hear the difference with certain quality like vinyl and dsd versus normal cd and downloads. All of the "ears ability" or psychology aside, vinyl from the pre-digital music era is my favorite music to hear. Playing these old vinyl on my old speakers is so far the most amazing to me when I hear it. And it's not the look of or some strange connection to vinyl I have, because they are a pain in the ass with all the cleaning i do and room they take. I do love my new headphones a lot too, but it's funny how much I use my older Sennheiser HD540 with pure enjoyment also.

 

[Flognuts]

no difference between flac and 320/V0
 
if there is: get a flac file, encode it correctly to V0 and ABX test on foobar2000. 
 
when I consistently see 100% test results I will stop using mp3 320/V0

 

[castleofargh]

same for me.
I always put a directory with the same song encoded as mp3(not 2003 version of lame plz) and as flac. you can easily make your own blind test that way.(when I feel evil I put 4 of each and use shuffle) if I don't happen to tell accurately who's who every times, then who cares if it's a mp3? I sure don't.
in the last 2 years I've done that, the only time I felt that mp3 was different was on the fiio X3, so I kept flac on it. as it happened, Marlene shortly after showed that the mp3 decoding of the x3 was flawed at the time(something too clever for me to understand, but you can check it out).
 
anyway I have a hard time forcing myself to have less musics on my dap, only because someone else told me it was better in flac. you're listening for yourself, if it's better for you, then it's better. if it's not, **** it!

 

[BbOO]

This thread was not a good idea...