[williamgoody]

Kelly.
No need to give you heat. I was merely trying to point out what Minya has already stated. This was an excellent article, very informative and precise like you always provide. Going back to read it again, you do allow for the use of mp3's as an alternative for your suggested rig, recognizing the fact that there are inherant limitations. Maybe it would have been a better idea not to bring up mp3's altogether if you didn't want to field a question about making a better mp3. Is this thread the best place for that? Maybe, if that person who may or may not have valid reasons for making that quality/convenience decision wanted to tap your brain, recognizing how well versed you are in the game of total sound quality, to help them out with what's best for their situation (portability). They, like I, read what you have to offer because you are an expert, and may, like I would, ask a specific question of you in order to get a correct, educated answer.
Also I'm generally not a fan of sweeping generalizations. Everyone's sitution is diifferent.
Please call me Bill

 

[kelly]

You guys are right, generalizations are always bad.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum Well-ripped well-encoded MP3s at high bit rates can sound excellent. At 320 kbps or even 256 kbps many or most would be hard pressed to tell the difference between mp3s and ordinary CDs, if indeed an audible difference actually exists. If it exists, its significance is questionable.

Not if you have a good system -- on a good system, the differences between 320kbps MP3 and CD are easily detectable. Does 320k sound good enough for most portable uses? Yes! But, like kelly, I wouldn't use them in a dedicated listening system.

 

[elrod-tom]

I have to concur with MacDEF on this one. I make regular use of MP3's in many different settings. My favorite use is while exercising, as the portability and lighter weight of my MP3 player make for an acceptable trade-off as compared to other alternatives.

However, there is NO DOUBT that there is a significant difference between the quality of playback of MP3's and CD's in my home rig. I've run coax out from my CPU to my DAC, and done the blind comparison side by side. No comparison. CD's win hands down every time. Even when using 320K compression, there is a substantial loss of fine detail and depth.

If you compress something, the details and nuance will suffer. Think novel vs Cliff's Notes...

 

[dparrish]

I agree with MacDEF also.

For some of us, divorcing the quality of sound from the music isn't desirable.

Of course, in a portable rig, one has to make priorities regarding portability and cost, as well as sound.

David

 

[Jeff Guidry]

I am intrigued by these Ultrasones. Can you comment Kelly on the fit of the headphones? I am looking for a higher-fi solution in a closed headphone, but so far I cannot find one that does not clamp my head too tight or is too small for my ears (all faults of the Beyer 250-80).

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Guidry I am intrigued by these Ultrasones. Can you comment Kelly on the fit of the headphones? I am looking for a higher-fi solution in a closed headphone, but so far I cannot find one that does not clamp my head too tight or is too small for my ears (all faults of the Beyer 250-80).

Jeff
Someone mentioned concern of the Ultrasone being too small for them in another thread, also. I don't actually have the DT250-80 here for direct comparison but my suspicion would be that the Ultrasone would probably be a similar fit for you to the Beyer. The cups are slightly bigger and the foam pads are thicker than my old V6 were. I can do a direct comparison of these sometime next weekend since I still know the person who has my old V6. This is probably a good reason to be cautious if your noggin is gargantuan.

 

[JaZZ]

No intent to contradict to MacDEF's and elrod-tom's statements. I would surely agree if I had the opportunity to compare MP3 to Wave/CD on my main rig. But I haven't. The only thing I did is to compare it through my computer's soundcard (SB Live Platinum) and its headphone out – in particular by use of an HD 600. And there, I can say, there's no significant difference between 320 kb/s MP3 and Wave. Even 256 and 320 kb/s are barely distinguishable in most cases, to my ears. I even like the sound of MP3s with lower bitrates (to a certain limit) a bit, although it's slightly to very artificial. But I don't use such myself.

I have an Archos MP3 Jukebox for outdoor use, sometimes paired with a Porta Corda, together with ER-4X, HD 600, SR 80 or Portapro. I like this setup very much. It's the «fruit» of the priority which I give to sound quality since a very long time, partly even at the expense of the music itself. The Jukebox actually beats my older D-99 Sony Discman in terms of sound quality.
Quote:

Originally posted by kelly All I can say about mp3 is that using a lossy compression technique tells me your true priority is not sound quality. To each his own.

To me, Kelly, you're one of the most reliable voices in this Forum. I like your writing style and your experience. But this sentence has a heavy patronizing undertone. And it is wrong: MP3 is not synonymous to low-fi or even mid-fi, and people who confine themselves to MP3 for non-home setups may have their reasons. As well as you, Kelly, have limited your demands to an Art DI/O instead of a Wadia, a Corda Blue (not bad at all, anyway!) instead of a Blockhead and the ER-4 or the HFI-650 instead of the R10.

Yes, I know, you have already come around («generalizations are always bad»), but to make it clear: there are several ways to compromise between mobility and sound quality (not to mention the financial situation) as well as there are different degrees of the ability to adapt oneself to a slightly compromising sound quality. This without giving up a high priority to the latter, well-understood! I for myself would never do such an expense for a work system like you do. Apart from the circumstance that I need my full concentration for my work, so I can't listen to music at the same time, and if it was just half of it, it wouldn't matter if it was high-end MP3 or high-end redbook. So I'm even tempted to call such an excrescence of a hobby «bizarre». But no fear: I don't (think of my own freakiness...).

Nevertheless: for a mobile setup there's nothing better (and convenient!) than a decent MP3 jukebox. Consider: this way you can look forward each day to the perfection of your home rig!

But let's be friends!

JaZZ

 

[kelly]

Jazz
So often I think people are offended by the absolute frankness of what I have to say rather than by the content of what I've actually said. You seemed, like others, upset at my general statement that choosing mp3 was choosing convenience over sound quality--yet you went on to agree with me that it was. You are certainly welcomed to make your own choices. My work system is not mobile and using a lossless compression in it is audibly better to my ears. Yes, if you don't mind lugging a balanced source, the HeadRoom BlockHead, a CD rack and a custom modified Sony R10 to work, you can indeed probably build a better work system than I have built. In either system you would probably find (if you could figure a way to get mp3s to the BlockHead) lossless compressed files sounding better than lossy compressed files -- and the lossless files won't cost you any additional money or any additional physical footprint on your desktop. Not worth it to you? That's fine--that's between you and your codec.

 

[JaZZ]

Kelly...

..yes, a bit I felt offended...
Quote:

So often I think people are offended by the absolute frankness of what I have to say rather than by the content of what I've actually said.

«All I can say about mp3 is that using a lossy compression technique tells me your true priority is not sound quality. To each his own.»
I believe you that it wasn't meant that way, but the wording has left space for such an interpretation. What's a «true» priority? I'd say «first» priority if it's not meant as heresy not to have it.
Quote:

You seemed, like others, upset at my general statement that choosing mp3 was choosing convenience over sound quality--yet you went on to agree with me that it was.

Not exactly so. I wouldn't do so much expense for a work, mobile or portable system anyway. So MP3 would in each case barely be a restriction to the sound quality (and still less so to the listening pleasure). Well, so your general «offense» against MP3 users has striked me, too. For within the criterion «portability» my first priority is indeed sound quality. And portability can also mean not to have to carry dozends of CDs with you. So: an MP3 Jukebox is it! Or, if you want, I have put the music (the musical diversity) over the sound quality that way...

Besides my non-compressing Sony Discman sounds clearly worse than my Archos MP3 Jukebox, so I guess portability means sonical compromises either way.
Quote:

You are certainly welcomed to make your own choices. My work system is not mobile and using a lossless compression in it is audibly better to my ears. Yes, if you don't mind lugging a balanced source, the HeadRoom BlockHead, a CD rack and a custom modified Sony R10 to work, you can indeed probably build a better work system than I have built.

So you obviously also made your compromises at the expense of sound quality and in favor of practicability – a special aspect of convenience. There's just a gradual difference between your practicability and mine. Don't misunderstand me: I don't want to convert you to MP3 – I'm sure that MP3 sounds worse in your work rig and not acceptable for you (since you know how uncompressed music can sound).
Quote:

In either system you would probably find (if you could figure a way to get mp3s to the BlockHead) lossless compressed files sounding better than lossy compressed files -- and the lossless files won't cost you any additional money or any additional physical footprint on your desktop. Not worth it to you?

Why didn't you go SACD or DVD-A – the very best of the existing codecs? I guess, because the «convenience» stands against that: not enough titles, no compact devices available, not enough space on the HDD for jukebox operation...

Your work system is really great, and I envy you (just) a bit. But as mentioned, my work (and my sense of responsibility) require 100% concentration from me (I'm a corrector), so I can't listen to music at the same time. If I do it anyhow, e.g. during my home work, there's still 50% of my attention adjusted to my work and (just) the other 50% to the music. So MP3 is good enough, because what counts is that there's no bothering element in the sound, not an absolute «fidelity» (whatever this may be in headphones). I know, that's not the topic. That's not first priority to sound quality. But I had to explain my situation. Btw: how do you manage that: working while you're listening to music or vice-versa?

Of course, if I had an 100 GB HDD at the disposal, like you have, and given there is in fact that high-end headphone rig to listen to, I probably wouldn't compress my music, too. But listening that intensely and «critically» is reserved to the home system in my case. Here I never would raise notions to listen to MP3s...

Anyway: my «being offended» is due to the «accusation» not to have sound quality as «true» priority (unfortunately this is just too true!). Why else am I here at Head-Fi...

Peace!

JaZZ

 

[kelly]

Jazz
You have a very interesting way of wording things that always make your posts interesting to read. I'd almost pick a fight with you just to read your responses.

But I'm not, truely. I'm not trying to goad you here. What I'm trying to point out is that you're saying that sound quality is NOT as important to you in your portable system (which really has nothing to do with my work system that is not portable at all), and then getting upset that I said it wasn't important to you.

Let me simplify my opinion on the matter: I understand that sound quality is not of the utmost concern for everyone at work. It's more important to me, obviously, than the average person and even, I think, more important than for the average Head-Fi'er. As you said, you do your critical listening at home and most people here do. My desires in a work rig are skewed a little higher than most folks.

When I wrote the initial post in this thread, I'd intended to clearly identify what my desires were. You point out that my desires are a compromise, but I never denied this. In fact, I stated pretty specifically what I was willing to compromise and why. And hey, believe me if I could figure out how to get SACD playback without sacrificing something else, I'd be on top of it. But, honestly, I only have less a handful of SACDs so I'm not missing too much there. So, in short, if you're still confused about my intentions for this system, re-read the opening post. It is not claimed to be a no compromise system.

For what it's worth, I think it is easier to argue the merits of mp3 compression in a portable system. I'd think that a topic for a different thread, though. This is not a portable system.

 

[acidtripwow]

Nice system. As soon as I find a new job I'll have an even better set up.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by acidtripwow Nice system. As soon as I find a new job I'll have an even better set up.

acid
What have you got planned?

 

[Aboogwa]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly When I wrote the initial post in this thread, I'd intended to clearly identify what my desires were. You point out that my desires are a compromise, but I never denied this. In fact, I stated pretty specifically what I was willing to compromise and why. And hey, believe me if I could figure out how to get SACD playback without sacrificing something else, I'd be on top of it. But, honestly, I only have less a handful of SACDs so I'm not missing too much there. So, in short, if you're still confused about my intentions for this system, re-read the opening post. It is not claimed to be a no compromise system.

I don't think he ever implied that you denied having made a compromise.

But much like you are making a compromise of listening to lesser quality formats than SACD/DVD-A, alot of people choose to make the compromise of listening to MP3 instead of higher quality formats..

For one thing, to a lot of people (not to all) mp3 files are much easier to obtain than CDs or Monkey's Audio format files... Whenever they want to listen to a particular album or song they can just download the mp3s and be listening to what they want right away. Also some people have already amassed a huge collection of mp3s while having very little actual CDs. They just don't find it worthwhile to give up all their existing music in pursuit of higher sound quality. Essentially they are choosing music over sound quality.

I guess it was the TONE of your generalization that indirectly suggested that this compromise in favor of MP3 was not the wisest one, although it is likely that you will deny that you actually meant it like that.

 

[acidtripwow]

Maybe something based on tubes.