[Tympan]

Quote:

 
Is this normal? Why would converting CD->ALAC (lossless)->WAV be any different that directly from CD->WAV?
There is no lossy conversion/compression step introduced in either case so I'm surprised the final wav files would sound different.

 
If a CD contains 700 MB of data and whatever "lossless" format takes out 30% of it. Even though the music quality is still pretty close, it does not surprise me that the 30% taken out translate into a perceptible difference.
Maybe on players like ipods... one cannot tell the difference because these were made for itunes and ipod/iphones devices, which are a lot less pure sounding than the Tera or HM801... but on a high end DAP, it is audible during quieter music passages.
Even Flacs that are supposed to be lossless, I can hear a background noise on the HM801.
True lossless does not take any data off an original CD. 

 

[Makiah S]

any comparisons to the dt 880, i swear to gawd I hear soo much good about these, and if these do indeed have an almost dt 880 like signiture these might be the portable cans I'm looking for 

 

[zyzyx]

If a CD contains 700 MB of data and whatever "lossless" format takes out 30% of it. Even though the music quality is still pretty close, it does not surprise me that the 30% taken out translate into a perceptible difference.


Maybe on players like ipods... one cannot tell the difference because these were made for itunes and ipod/iphones devices, which are a lot less pure sounding than the Tera or HM801... but on a high end DAP, it is audible during quieter music passages.


Even Flacs that are supposed to be lossless, I can hear a background noise on the HM801.


True lossless does not take any data off an original CD. 

Tympan, not trying to pick a fight but you put "lossless" in quotes, as if it's clearly a concept you just don't believe in. It's not an arbitrary, almost lossless-can't-tell-the-difference-most-of-the-time type of thing. Lossless means just that. This can be verified through theory or practice, bit for bit.

 

[Makiah S]

Quote:

Tympan, not trying to pick a fight but you put "lossless" in quotes, as if it's clearly a concept you just don't believe in. It's not an arbitrary, almost lossless-can't-tell-the-difference-most-of-the-time type of thing. Lossless means just that. This can be verified through theory or practice, bit for bit.

Lossy compression removes upper frequiancies, that's a fact and those lost sounds result in poor sounding audio quality. Granted 320k mp3s sound very close to loseless, but loseless still has better sound end of discussion 
 
Now I have heard a lot about how GREAT, the Kef are... except for that the Kef are at some points a little honky... what I really want to hear is a more balanced review of these cans... all I hear is how wonderful they are... I'm not buying it. The Mad Dogs where also rated as being "best value at $300" I got them I didn't like em... no one mentioned how thick the mids where and how dark the treble was.
 
That being said... I'm going to avoid these until the hype dyes. Yes the Mad Dogs are excellent cans, and I'm sure the Kef are too, but all I'm seeing is hype at this point. A lot of hype and over enthusiastic reviews!  I'll see you guys in 200 pages <3 

 

[zyzyx]

Lossy compression removes upper frequiancies, that's a fact and those lost sounds result in poor sounding audio quality. Granted 320k mp3s sound very close to loseless, but loseless still has better sound end of discussion 

Bit of a strawman as I didn't see any statements regarding lossy compression; I'm sure most of us are familiar with cut-offs on 320 and V0 schemes. But yes, lossless is ofc better haha.

Anyway, these M500s are extremely impressive headphones, all typical head-fi hype-aside Very balanced sig and beautiful tonality. Wasn't planning on keeping them, tbh...was going to test them out and gift them to a family member but these are keepers.

 

[blueangel2323]

With anything below 128 the loss of certain frequencies becomes very obvious, and to me is unlistenable. Once you hit 128 though, all the most important frequencies are there, and to my ears the main improvement you get with higher bit rates like 320 is in tonality, instrumental separation, and "air." It's most obvious in accoustic guitars.  
Instead of waiting for 200 pages of impressions, why don't you try to find a store where you can listen to them yourself? It's the best way to tell if you'll like them. They are becoming more common, and even discount computers/electronics retailers are starting to carry them.

 

[gelocks]

Quote:

Lossy compression removes upper frequiancies, that's a fact and those lost sounds result in poor sounding audio quality. Granted 320k mp3s sound very close to loseless, but loseless still has better sound end of discussion 
 
Now I have heard a lot about how GREAT, the Kef are... except for that the Kef are at some points a little honky... what I really want to hear is a more balanced review of these cans... all I hear is how wonderful they are... I'm not buying it. The Mad Dogs where also rated as being "best value at $300" I got them I didn't like em... no one mentioned how thick the mids where and how dark the treble was.
 
That being said... I'm going to avoid these until the hype dyes. Yes the Mad Dogs are excellent cans, and I'm sure the Kef are too, but all I'm seeing is hype at this point. A lot of hype and over enthusiastic reviews!  I'll see you guys in 200 pages <3 

 
Maybe you still need to read more...
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/661032/kef-new-headphones/405#post_9643188
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/661032/kef-new-headphones/435#post_9651650
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/675160/kef-m500-m200-appreciation-thread#post_9672073
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/661032/kef-new-headphones/435#post_9660032
 
 
Anyway, if you didn't like the Mad Dogs, I doubt you'll like these ones... As mentioned, these are as warm or warmer than the Mad Dogs and you need to crank them up a bit at least in my experience, to "properly" enjoy them. But who knows... maybe you'll try them and like 'em.

 

[M-13]

As this thread is derailing... just wanted to add some oil to the fire. LOL
 
Lossless means? Losslesss. Simple? You don't lose anything. Just because it takes up less space in your hard drive doesn't mean you "lost" those bits. What you did was you used a different algorythm to reorganize those same bits into a more compact form but lost nothing. If this is hard for you to understand than I guess the discussion is over and you need to learn more about computers/programing.

 

[M-13]

Quote:

That being said... I'm going to avoid these until the hype dyes. Yes the Mad Dogs are excellent cans, and I'm sure the Kef are too, but all I'm seeing is hype at this point. A lot of hype and over enthusiastic reviews!  I'll see you guys in 200 pages <3 

Yes because the Mad Dogs were discovered to be crap exactly at 200 pages. You should definitely wait for the 199 pages of hype to pass. LOL.

 

[MLee]

Not sure I can be considered a fanboy of KEF and full of hype. Yes, they tick off plenty of items on my wish list, but I've also pointed out a few shortcomings. I have tried to compare these to some other headphones that I have some experience with to try and help someone else decide if they are worth a try, and usually preface it with "One man's opinion and I don't have golden ears". Hopefully I've helped someone make up their mind on these and haven't misled too many........

 

[LFC_SL]

Quote:

 
That being said... I'm going to avoid these until the hype dyes. Yes the Mad Dogs are excellent cans, and I'm sure the Kef are too, but all I'm seeing is hype at this point. A lot of hype and over enthusiastic reviews!  I'll see you guys in 200 pages <3 

 
The only person that needs to like them is 'you'. In the UK they are everywhere at independent high street dealers. Do not know about USA.

 

[Change is Good]

Lossy compression removes upper frequiancies, that's a fact and those lost sounds result in poor sounding audio quality. Granted 320k mp3s sound very close to loseless, but loseless still has better sound end of discussion 

Now I have heard a lot about how GREAT, the Kef are... except for that the Kef are at some points a little honky... what I really want to hear is a more balanced review of these cans... all I hear is how wonderful they are... I'm not buying it. The Mad Dogs where also rated as being "best value at $300" I got them I didn't like em... no one mentioned how thick the mids where and how dark the treble was.

That being said... I'm going to avoid these until the hype dyes. Yes the Mad Dogs are excellent cans, and I'm sure the Kef are too, but all I'm seeing is hype at this point. A lot of hype and over enthusiastic reviews!  I'll see you guys in 200 pages <3

Which MDs did u try again? Was it th 3.1s or 3.2s? I find the M500 to be the little brother to my MD 3.2s

 

[Lorspeaker]

my "buy" baseline is set at usd150 for the m200....now to wait it out. 
pls keep knocking these KEFs. 

 

[flatmap]

Quote:

It is balanced and neutral to my ears, with great recording (for eg, Please Mr. Postman - The Carpenters) - It just gives me chills up my spine.

Any headphones that can do this for you -- well you've got a keeper.  

 

[zackzack]

Quote:

Hifiman has a HM601 for about $160 (used) to $249 new that sounds very good too. It is not as warm/full sounding as the HM801 but fed with wave or Flac files, it sounds really good. I sold mine couple years ago so I can't say for sure if it would be a good match but it also has an EQ so I'm sure you could tame the upper mids and add a little bass with great results. The M500 respond well with  the HM801's EQ.

 
Anyone can recommend an alternative to Hifiman Digital Player?