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

[c64]

This is like saying any point getting a car that goes over the speed limit
 
Of course it's worth it it's not just about the music it's about the quality of sound the headphone makes regardless of source.
 
A $300 headphone playing 192 kb mp3 will sound miles better than a $20 headphone playing 192.

 

[Shaffer]

There are two ways to approach audio, two philosophies, "I want to hear every part of the recording, and I want everything to sound good."

The two rarely meet. In the speaker-based whole-system world, if you will, SETs and horns can represent the latter, just as Dunlavy and Wilson represents the former. IMHE in the headphone world, high-end cans center on transparency, meaning, hearing as much of the recorded material as possible. Witness the numerous folks dissatisfied with HD800 until they got proper gear to feed them with. Same goes for source material, if not more. This is why it makes little sense to buy the ultimate cans, only to play lossy media. This being said, somewhat colored gear can make a 320 stream sound very listenable and indeed enjoyable. My favorite combo is a uDAC2 and DT990pro. The resolution of source material is limited with the uDAC2, putting it mildly, and the 990pros complement its deficiencies, tonally. There are other combos that do the same, I'm sure, not unlike what we saw some of the more vocal in this thread use for playing music. Neither is right or wrong. It's purely a matter of preference.

 

[JamesHuntington]

I

There are two ways to approach audio, two philosophies, "I want to hear every part of the recording, and I want everything to sound good."

The two rarely meet. In the speaker-based whole-system world, if you will, SETs and horns can represent the latter, just as Dunlavy and Wilson represents the former. IMHE in the headphone world, high-end cans center on transparency, meaning, hearing as much of the recorded material as possible. Witness the numerous folks dissatisfied with HD800 until they got proper gear to feed them with. Same goes for source material, if not more. This is why it makes little sense to buy the ultimate cans, only to play lossy media. This being said, somewhat colored gear can make a 320 stream sound very listenable and indeed enjoyable. My favorite combo is a uDAC2 and DT990pro. The resolution of source material is limited with the uDAC2, putting it mildly, and the 990pros complement its deficiencies, tonally. There are other combos that do the same, I'm sure, not unlike what we saw some of the more vocal in this thread use for playing music. Neither is right or wrong. It's purely a matter of preference.

What's wrong with wanting both? It's possible.

 

[pp312]

There are two ways to approach audio, two philosophies, "I want to hear every part of the recording, and I want everything to sound good."

 

 
 
Well, I believe there's an ideology that embraces both those concepts. It's called "Hi-Fidelity".

 

[JamesHuntington]

This is like saying any point getting a car that goes over the speed limit

Of course it's worth it it's not just about the music it's about the quality of sound the headphone makes regardless of source.

A $300 headphone playing 192 kb mp3 will sound miles better than a $20 headphone playing 192.

it's more like having a Ferrari and the roads are full of cracks and pot holes.

 

[Shaffer]

I
What's wrong with wanting both? It's possible.

Can you give an example?

 

[Shaffer]

Well, I believe there's an ideology that embraces both those concepts. It's called "Hi-Fidelity".

By which mechanism will a poor sounding recording suddenly flower through a system geared to reproduce as much of what was recorded as possible?

Edit: solely out of personal curiosity, fidelity to what?

 

[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.
 
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.  

 

[JamesHuntington]

The original question is like asking: is it worth buying a $4000 3D tv with 600hz refresh rate if you're just going to use a standard video cable from your standard definition cable box? In this case you buy the $700 720p tv.

 

[pp312]

Actually, no it's not anything like that. Want to try another metaphor? 

 

[EddieE]

The original question is like asking: is it worth buying a $4000 3D tv with 600hz refresh rate if you're just going to use a standard video cable from your standard definition cable box? In this case you buy the $700 720p tv.

It's nothing like that at all.

It's actully more like saying "is it worth buying the $4000 TV and not using a boutique $500 HDMI cable with it?"

 

[Shaffer]

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.

 

[JamesHuntington]

Actually, no it's not anything like that. Want to try another metaphor? 

its either worth it or it's not. I say it's not. High end HPs deserve high end tracks just like high end tv's deserve a HD signal. I understand that high end HPs sound better than medium end ones, but don't underestimate medium end. Also, don't underestimate the ability of the high end headphone to make your medium quality tracks sound less than full definition.
When I moved up to better HPs I also upgraded my music taste, because the stuff I used to listen to was mostly indie and punk. I now like some jazz, classical and more produced music.

 

[JamesHuntington]

It's nothing like that at all.

It's actully more like saying "is it worth buying the $4000 TV and not using a boutique $500 HDMI cable with it?"

no. I am l not emphasizing the cable. I'm emphasizing the source box which many don't have a HDMI output at all.

 

[EddieE]

no. I am l not emphasizing the cable. I'm emphasizing the source box which many don't have a HDMI output at all.

 
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.