Saw this thread and just wanted to add that even with mediocre headphones, one should be able to hear a difference between a very low bitrate track and a high one. With 128kbps and lower, there are often terrible artifacts that actually ruin the playback of a song. I know this due to my own experiences. With that said - if your listening through a portable device then choice of headphones wont make it much better, it matters more if you listen through a hifi separates system. My expensive Denon headphones are good enough to capture the entire audio spectrum output from my ipod, but it's the ipod that has limitations.
Long story short - for portable playback i'd save my cash...for dedicated hifi system playback the sky's the limit!
An important part of the issue is whether you can tell that you're hearing a difference - or not.
You might think you're hearing a difference (between let's say 320 and FLAC) - but you might
not be able to quite pin down what the difference is.
I say that if you're not certain, you'll want the better files. It's worth owning "the real thing" i.e. lossless,
as technology moves apace,
A 320K file is, at its core, only an ersatz "complete" file. In a strong sense it's actually therefore defective.
People wonder and dither and argue about whether the 320K file sounds "as good" as a lossless file.
With lossless, there's none of that. It's complete, true, and right.
[IMO]
I store FLAC files. I listen to 320/V0. Just like how I store RAW files, but view JPG. I thought most people just did that. That way, if it turns out you have golden ears, back to FLAC it is: until then, good old MP3.
Saw this thread and just wanted to add that even with mediocre headphones, one should be able to hear a difference between a very low bitrate track and a high one. With 128kbps and lower, there are often terrible artifacts that actually ruin the playback of a song. I know this due to my own experiences. With that said - if your listening through a portable device then choice of headphones wont make it much better, it matters more if you listen through a hifi separates system. My expensive Denon headphones are good enough to capture the entire audio spectrum output from my ipod, but it's the ipod that has limitations.
Long story short - for portable playback i'd save my cash...for dedicated hifi system playback the sky's the limit!
Careful with broad statements like that: high-end IEM's are more than happy to be paired with portable devices. My only beef with portable devices is that they either generally lack power or are too noisy. Besides that, they reproduce every signal faithfully enough for me and a lot of other happy consumers.
Careful with broad statements like that: high-end IEM's are more than happy to be paired with portable devices. My only beef with portable devices is that they either generally lack power or are too noisy. Besides that, they reproduce every signal faithfully enough for me and a lot of other happy consumers.
Very high end portable devices are exceptional but can never compare to a proper hifi separates system to listen to high quality music file's with. Pay attention to the DB limitations of your headphones during playback of a particularly loud song. How many DB's does it take from a portable device for a headphone to start clipping?! A proper analog amp or digital amp are much more efficient, allowing for a cleaner signal. Not only that, but they also have better internal digital to analog converters etc etc.
Saw this thread and just wanted to add that even with mediocre headphones, one should be able to hear a difference between a very low bitrate track and a high one. With 128kbps and lower, there are often terrible artifacts that actually ruin the playback of a song. I know this due to my own experiences. With that said - if your listening through a portable device then choice of headphones wont make it much better, it matters more if you listen through a hifi separates system. My expensive Denon headphones are good enough to capture the entire audio spectrum output from my ipod, but it's the ipod that has limitations.
Long story short - for portable playback i'd save my cash...for dedicated hifi system playback the sky's the limit!
Well. I am not so sure about that statement that choice of headphones on a portable system makes no difference. The iPods are quite good and I am not so sure which denons you have but I know plenty of audiophiles that happily use they Westone W60, ie800, SE846 or JH customs with iPods. Unless the headphones are very hard to drive the sound gets much better with better headphones. The opposite of what you say. Until you reach the limitations of the player.
In my opinion this is most important for sound quality in descending order.
Headphones >>> amp >> Earpads > DAC
Earphones >>>> DAP > tips
Very high end portable devices are exceptional but can never compare to a proper hifi separates system to listen to high quality music file's with. Pay attention to the DB limitations of your headphones during playback of a particularly loud song. How many DB's does it take from a portable device for a headphone to start clipping?! A proper analog amp or digital amp are much more efficient, allowing for a cleaner signal. Not only that, but they also have better internal digital to analog converters etc etc.
Well. I am not so sure about that statement that choice of headphones on a portable system makes no difference. The iPods are quite good and I am not so sure which denons you have but I know plenty of audiophiles that happily use they Westone W60, ie800, SE846 or JH customs with iPods. Unless the headphones are very hard to drive the sound gets much better with better headphones. The opposite of what you say. Until you reach the limitations of the player.
In my opinion this is most important for sound quality in descending order.
Headphones >>> amp >> Earpads > DAC
Earphones >>>> DAP > tips
My headphones are $600 Denon's. All i'm saying is this: Portable devices have there limits. Yes my Denons sound better through my ipod compared to my Akg's but marginally. Put the same 2 headphones through there paces connected to a proper hifi - and the difference is an even larger margin. That's all i'm saying...
My headphones are $600 Denon's. All i'm saying is this: Portable devices have there limits. Yes my Denons sound better through my ipod compared to my Akg's but marginally. Put the same 2 headphones through there paces connected to a proper hifi - and the difference is an even larger margin. That's all i'm saying...
A digital amp and an analog amp are 2 different kinds of amp.
They say the quality can only ever be as good as the source. 99.9% of my music is downloaded at 320kbps - given this - is it even worth investing in high-end headphones such as the HE-6's or LCD-2's or HD800's of this world?
Similarly, is it worth buying the amps required to drive these behemoths?
During the 80s, secondary to university life was really very simple. just listen to the radio. Before the end of the 80s', a co-worker from Leeds introduced me the compact disc. Although it sounded bright & flat, it was convenient and plays loud without distortion compared to dear old vinyl records.
FF now, It would be a good idea to take care first & foremost the source. Media Player & the type of media to be played. It is already academic that the 320 kbps MPIII file type is Top notch (for an MPIII type file). And to appreciate its contents, a good to very good set of output sources are desirable.
Your question, is it worth.... , my answer YES of course... by default.
Next question, the front end ? again yes... My own idea of distributing the cost of how much I should invest must be equal to each, especially on the front end. Only speaking for myself, the front end should be best spent. Enjoy your listening...
I think they are talking about a high efficiency switching amps, or Class D amp, which are mostly analog. Even the digitally controlled versions are technically just Class D analog amps with a DAC built in using power components.
I think they are talking about a high efficiency switching amps, or Class D amp, which are mostly analog. Even the digitally controlled versions are technically just Class D analog amps with a DAC built in using power components.
It has to come back to analog in the end, at least for the transducer: after all, reality is modelled after analog signals, not digital. Hence my confusion when you said digital amps and not meaning Class D.
It has to come back to analog in the end, at least for the transducer: after all, reality is modelled after analog signals, not digital. Hence my confusion when you said digital amps and not meaning Class D.
I was stuck at that too. I think the source file sucks. But once I learned to listen to the right part I noticed that the "artifacted" sounded terrible in comparison.
edit: to my surprise the difference was not so much on high frequencies that I focused on, but vocal/overall dynamics..
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
