[Brooko]

Yes, it's definitely worth it, but you'll get the most with a lossless format. I just re-ripped my entire library in lossless and was amazed at the difference. This comes from someone that was extremely picky with my conversion methods. The better the cans the more noticeable things get. Good and bad.

 
Let me guess .....
 

1. Testing was sighted
2. Testing was not volume matched (using an SPL meter) - or using software like replay gain
3. Perhaps different masters were used?

 
What were your files originally (format / bit-rate)?  What encoder did you use?
 
Here - if you want to objectively retest - try this : http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
 
Rip your favourite track as flac.  Transocde to aac256.  Blind abx.  Shall look forward to the results 

 

[Shaffer]

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

No.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

No.

 
[citation needed]

 

[Shaffer]

[citation needed]

I don't know what that means in this context.

 

[AmericasTeam]

Yes, it's definitely worth it, but you'll get the most with a lossless format. I just re-ripped my entire library in lossless and was amazed at the difference. This comes from someone that was extremely picky with my conversion methods. The better the cans the more noticeable things get. Good and bad.

You noticed a big difference?
 
What bitrate was your music ripped at before you went to lossless?
 
Are you saying you could notice a big difference between 320 and lossless?

Yes, the impact and clarity of the music just isn't the same. Most of my files were encoded at the highest vbr setting with Lame.

 

[pockits]

Clearly having a good source pair with a good headphone is the correct correlation. Even thou better bit rate means more information. 
So, for this reason keep this in mind... excellent headphones and gear means great sound, if this sound is from a great file... greater sound.

 

[AmericasTeam]

Yes, it's definitely worth it, but you'll get the most with a lossless format. I just re-ripped my entire library in lossless and was amazed at the difference. This comes from someone that was extremely picky with my conversion methods. The better the cans the more noticeable things get. Good and bad.

 
Let me guess .....
 

1. Testing was sighted
2. Testing was not volume matched (using an SPL meter) - or using software like replay gain
3. Perhaps different masters were used?

 
What were your files originally (format / bit-rate)?  What encoder did you use?
 
Here - if you want to objectively retest - try this : http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
 
Rip your favourite track as flac.  Transocde to aac256.  Blind abx.  Shall look forward to the results 

Honestly, why would you think I'd go through all the trouble. I can definitely tell the difference and that's all that matters. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have taken all the time to do it and eat up valuable drive space.

Everyone has their own opinions. Mine is no more correct than yours or anyone else's in this thread. Encode your music however you most enjoy it.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Honestly, why would you think I'd go through all the trouble. I can definitely tell the difference and that's all that matters. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have taken all the time to do it and eat up valuable drive space.

Everyone has their own opinions. Mine is no more correct than yours or anyone else's in this thread. Encode your music however you most enjoy it.

 
Sure you would. It's psychologically satisfying to know that all of your music is lossless, even if you can't actually tell the difference. You know that even if you can't actually hear the difference, it's THERE. Your ears are experiencing the full recording with nothing compressed or cut out. If ours was a world of unlimited storage and infinite bandwidth, I'd be doing the same just because I could (and if any streaming services offered it). 
 
The point, though, is that there is no audible difference. A person is not losing anything by saving hard drive space, and it's pretty well recognized that 320 vs lossless is inaudible, with ABX tests showing that it's hard to reliably even tell 192 from lossless. So you may think you can tell the difference, but if you were blind testing? Sorry, wouldn't be getting it right with any reliability. 

 

[MattAnthony1990]

   
Sure you would. It's psychologically satisfying to know that all of your music is lossless, even if you can't actually tell the difference. You know that even if you can't actually hear the difference, it's THERE. Your ears are experiencing the full recording with nothing compressed or cut out. If ours was a world of unlimited storage and infinite bandwidth, I'd be doing the same just because I could (and if any streaming services offered it). 
 
The point, though, is that there is no audible difference. A person is not losing anything by saving hard drive space, and it's pretty well recognized that 320 vs lossless is inaudible, with ABX tests showing that it's hard to reliably even tell 192 from lossless. So you may think you can tell the difference, but if you were blind testing? Sorry, wouldn't be getting it right with any reliability. 

true that, I have all my music in lossless and will be the first to admit I cannot hear any discernible difference between those and 320 kbps (I definitely can with 192 kbps). That being said, yes, I know it is a superior sound. Being an audiophile is often about making a higher quality rig or SQ just for the sake of it. I use ALO cables with my rig (which aren't cheap) even if the difference I can hear is nil. Money well spent? That is debatable. 

 

[joker97]

I tell you what. I use wmp. Play 320k mp3 eq up the bass it gets louder.

Play flac using the same eq the bass clips. Something is different.

In my listening with eq 320 is better! Go figure.

I can however tell 192k mp3 from flac. Easy. The low treble (pop not rock cymbals region) sounds like under water. Not sure about 320 ... if they say they can't maybe they can't

 

[Dogmatrix]

If you like to EQ up the bass and you cant pick a difference between loss less and compressed buying high end gear would be a waste of money IMO
Obviously there is a difference between loss less and compressed and to claim that it cannot be heard is frankly ridiculous

 

[Brooko]

Honestly, why would you think I'd go through all the trouble. I can definitely tell the difference and that's all that matters. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have taken all the time to do it and eat up valuable drive space.

Everyone has their own opinions. Mine is no more correct than yours or anyone else's in this thread. Encode your music however you most enjoy it.

Hey - go with whatever makes you happy. I just figured if you took all the time to rip the CDs - then you might actually also want to take the time to test yourself properly. The software is free. All it takes is time. But the choice is yours. It is enlightening though

 

[wnmnkh]

Many headphones cannot simply properly play nimble 128k mp3 files. Maybe not after certain lineups (HD600, K701, DT880) but the fact is technology is still not decent enough to produce good linear freq response with low harmonics.
 
After certain limit on the sound quality of the music format, the transducer makes the biggest impact.

 

[pp312]

  If you like to EQ up the bass and you cant pick a difference between loss less and compressed buying high end gear would be a waste of money IMO
Obviously there is a difference between loss less and compressed and to claim that it cannot be heard is frankly ridiculous

 
Why is it ridiculous? There are many differences in audio that cannot be heard. Indeed the whole basis of compression relies on what we don't hear even though it exists (same with Atrac and Minidisc). The human ear is not a scientific instrument; it can be fooled quite easily. And when combined with the human brain, it gets fooled more often than we care to admit, as this thread ably proves.

 

[Dogmatrix]

   
Why is it ridiculous? There are many differences in audio that cannot be heard. Indeed the whole basis of compression relies on what we don't hear even though it exists (same with Atrac and Minidisc). The human ear is not a scientific instrument; it can be fooled quite easily. And when combined with the human brain, it gets fooled more often than we care to admit, as this thread ably proves.

It is ridiculous because it is a blanket statement steeped in ignorance
I worked in the audio industry and met many techs and engineers who could reliably pick much more subtle differences than loss less vs compressed
In my own system the difference between loss less and compressed is not subtle at all, compared to loss less compressed files have a muddy smear over them
Furthermore it is illogical to claim that something which is manifestly different ie compressed is in fact the same
Apologies to any this stance may offend