[tojamm]

Hi, I'm wondering how I notice if good headphone reveal 320kbps bitrate files and under. How does it sound?
 
I'm wondering because I listen to a streaming service called rdio with my sennheiser hd 518, which I've read can reveal songs that are not transparent enough or are badly recorded. I've been thinking a lot about this.
 
But should I worry that I miss some of the song because of the quality of the headphone?
What do you think? I still enjoy the music though. maybe someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.

 

[PurpleAngel]

Quote:

Hi, I'm wondering how I notice if good headphone reveal 320kbps bitrate files and under. How does it sound?
 
I'm wondering because I listen to a streaming service called rdio with my Sennheiser HD 518, which I've read can reveal songs that are not transparent enough or are badly recorded. I've been thinking a lot about this.
 
But should I worry that I miss some of the song because of the quality of the headphone?
What do you think? I still enjoy the music though. maybe someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.

My two cents.
I'm going to guess that at a minimum the audio files played by the rdio service are at least fairly decent to really good quality audio files.
So I'm guessing you will not hear badly recorded songs on rdio.
And as the Senn HD518s seem to be designed to work well from unamped headphone jacks, they may not be as revealing as you might think.

 

[tojamm]

Quote:

My two cents.
I'm going to guess that at a minimum the audio files played by the rdio service are at least fairly decent to really good quality audio files.
So I'm guessing you will not hear badly recorded songs on rdio.
And as the Senn HD518s seem to be designed to work well from unamped headphone jacks, they may not be as revealing as you might think.

Ok, thanks. Maybe i shouldn't think about It too much. I mean I still enjoy the music.

 

[PurpleAngel]

Quote:

Ok, thanks. Maybe i shouldn't think about It too much. I mean I still enjoy the music.

You would think someone that runs a music service would take the time to make quality audio, helps keep the customers.

 

[tojamm]

Quote:

You would think someone that runs a music service would take the time to make quality audio, helps keep the customers.

I agree

 

[ImperialX]

I don't know how much of the difference between 256 and 320 are just your head imagining things, but I use 320 anyway to be safe.

 

[akshayshah12]

256 Kbps and 320 Kbps do not sound very different, there are very subtle differences and you'll have to listen bunch of variety of songs to feel those subtle differences. Anyways i have HD 518 and can easily recognize difference between 128Kbps and 192Kbps but can't say the difference would be so prominent in case of 256 kbps vs 320 kbps, coz after certain point, the difference between quality of the magnitude of 64 kbps becomes very unnoticeable. You can do simple math, 192kbps is 150% of 128 kbps where as 320 kbps is 125% of 256 kbps.......... it does not work out exactly like this but this example was just to elaborate my point....

 

[Destroysall]

I have a few 256 kbps AAC files that I have purchased from the iTunes store that sound excellent through my headphone setup. I digress; lossless is still the way to go in terms of format, but I believe that its the music itself and how it is produced that determines the overall sound quality. Thus in most cases, I find 256 kbps AAC files "decent".
 
destroysall.

 

[tojamm]

Thanks for the answers.
 

 

[ozarkcdn]

If you really want to suck it and see... foobar has a ABX testing feature you can use.  I see the arguments about 128 v 192 v 256 etc etc - and then mp3 vs aac etc etc.
 
I tested it for myself, just with my lowly SR60's and couldn't believe what I thought was the 'golden standard' and what was actually audible.  Glad I had some FLAC files to re-rip.  Ended up compressing my library to a portable version with AAC and saved about 35% of the space and I could only hear the difference.  IIRC @ 192k, mp3 and aac were very close, at 128 it was no contest, and 96k (!!!) vs.128k (just between bitrates of AAC) wasn't enough degredation to overcome the benefit for saving space on my small SD card.  Lots has changed with compression schemes, but old habits die hard.  Keep in mind that you'll be straining and real world listening out there in the jungle will not be nearly as easy to hear.
 
I used hydrogen audio forums to research it a bit, and you can listen for yourself before you make any big assumptions, here:  http://soundexpert.org/   
 
OH, and standard disclaimer... I'm getting older and I'm a honey badger.

 

[tojamm]

When I listen to spotify maybe i've stumbled across some songs that are 160kbps, but i don't know if I can distinguish them from the other songs that are 320 kbps. Maybe It's not audible for me.
 
Okay  ozarkcdn
Interesting.

 

[ozarkcdn]

Try testing it for yourself and let us know what you find out.

 

[proton007]

For me it depends on the track.
 
Ones that have a lot of instruments, especially those with drums and cymbals are easier to distinguish than purely electronic ones.