[thor777]

Exactly why most companies have a wide range of products and how they make $$$, and to get us to slowly work our way up to the "best" 

.  "hmmm.....I have these great sounding $300 headphones....but for just $200 (not that much since I already spend $300) more I can get something better" 

Quote:

Actually this is probably true..it would explain why I keep spending more money for something "better".

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

you too

Huh?

 

[devhen]

Quote:

 
And as for the bolded part, please tell me where I've said that. I haven't. You're misrepresenting my argument, making it simpler, because you feel a need to conceptualize an easier target to attack. If you would read my posts you will see they are near-completely devoid of any insults and opinion, which is certainly not what I'm getting in return. For someone who says "show some respect", they don't give any.

 
This isn't true. I've tried to come to respectful conclusion here but that is obviously not going to happen. I'm done talking to you.

 

[SandvichDISH]

Quote:

These are very infantile turns of phrase and wordings. You were only asked for information as to why you believe what you believe, then you flew off the handle and regressed to a childish, insulting manner.

Good. Those are way more enjoyable phrases and wordings than the ones old men with a big stiffy on their superior ideas like to use. 
Also, I kinda did give you information about why I believe what I believe. I gave you a description of what I hear and experience when I compare mp3 to lossless, and you never talked about it.

 

[NightFlight]

Quote:

on topic: I let a buddy at work listen to my Grado 325s on a E11 and he just looked at me and shrugged. With the "and you point is?" look on his face.  He went back to his stock ibuds and said they were good enough for him...Oh well I tried.

 
Some people turn on instantly, others take time with long exposure to fidelity. Once turned 'on', they generally find it difficult to back step.  Were you demonstrating the same recording? I personally don't understand how someone could ignore how poor the ibuds sound. Personally I think they sound like ****.

 

[soundstige]

How old do you think I am? lol
 
Also, about your bolded point, that's a good one and thank you. I did read it in fact, but didn't have time to respond yet. 
 
"If you need to know, I find that the smallest details are more audible and probably a bit more sparkly, the clarity of the audio really shines and the textural goodness of my music genres of preference (glitch (hop), IDM, etc) give me just that extra thrill when I truly hear those tiniest details to their fullest. That when I hear Amon Tobin's crazy environmental pops and clicks and guitar plucks, they just feel like they are truly reachable, real, texutral and delicious."
 
Those are definitely the more minute details usually audible in tracks, but it confuses me as I'm able to hear those minute detail with  MP3 encodings much lower than 256kbps. Their "texture" and "sparkle" are certainly diminished at around 150kbps, but often times when I hear a minute artifact I think is present in a lower-bitrate file, I listen to the FLAC and it's actually an artifact from the original recording. Texture and sparkle themselves are very inaccurate words that audiophiles like us would use to give a general idea, and they work great for generalities; but my point in this thread has been about the specificities and small details.
 
And of course, to be really cynical (which I'm trying to avoid), saying you hear more texture and sparkle doesn't have any application on reality like a double-blind test would. It's what you would expect to hear. Imagine convincing someone that their new glasses prescription is better, and they respond "oh wow, I can really see the fine details better. Everything's a lot clearer and more transparent", and all you've done was given them the same prescription and a few lines of BS.
Quote:

Good. Those are way more enjoyable phrases and wordings than the ones old men with a big stiffy on their superior ideas like to use. 
Also, I kinda did give you information about why I believe what I believe. I gave you a description of what I hear and experience when I compare mp3 to lossless, and you never talked about it.

 

[SandvichDISH]

Quote:

How old do you think I am? lol
 
Also, about your bolded point, that's a good one and thank you. I did read it in fact, but didn't have time to respond yet. 
 
"If you need to know, I find that the smallest details are more audible and probably a bit more sparkly, the clarity of the audio really shines and the textural goodness of my music genres of preference (glitch (hop), IDM, etc) give me just that extra thrill when I truly hear those tiniest details to their fullest. That when I hear Amon Tobin's crazy environmental pops and clicks and guitar plucks, they just feel like they are truly reachable, real, texutral and delicious."
 
Those are definitely the more minute details usually audible in tracks, but it confuses me as I'm able to hear those minute detail with  MP3 encodings much lower than 256kbps. Their "texture" and "sparkle" are certainly diminished at around 150kbps, but often times when I hear a minute artifact I think is present in a lower-bitrate file, I listen to the FLAC and it's actually an artifact from the original recording. Texture and sparkle themselves are very inaccurate words that audiophiles like us would use to give a general idea, and they work great for generalities; but my point in this thread has been about the specificities and small details.

I don't really know how to describe audio in words too well as I'm not much of a veteran in this regard, and English isn't my first language. But I don't mean that these details don't exist in lower quality codecs and bitrates, but I just find that they are more refined, defined and accurate sounding when I listen to my lossless audio. 
It's just that I find that these things sound even better when they are completely uncompressed. And I love it very much, so to me it's a significant difference.

 

[soundstige]

Well, I didn't mean to make that argument either; they should be present at varying levels of quality even down to something crazy like 64kbps. I'm just saying they sound as textured as they do in real life even at those lower ~150kbps rates. Did I mention I'm a musician too? I mean, I know what these things are supposed to sound like. Just because I'm not boastful and arrogant doesn't mean I haven't had the same or more experience...
 
But not to repeat myself, this doesn't matter much without some kind of testing... read the last paragraph I added to my previous post.
Quote:

I don't really know how to describe audio in words too well as I'm not much of a veteran in this regard, and English isn't my first language. But I don't mean that these details don't exist in lower quality codecs and bitrates, but I just find that they are more refined, defined and accurate sounding when I listen to my lossless audio. 
It's just that I find that these things sound even better when they are completely uncompressed. And I love it very much, so to me it's a significant difference.

 

[329161]

Quote:

 I think they could be dismissing things they could be enjoying.

You too

 

[DestinyBear]

Not really high end but when my friend tried my se215, she said that she usually hates the song I was playing but she likes it with them. Brought a smile to my face

 

[329161]

Quote:

Good. Those are way more enjoyable phrases and wordings than the ones old men with a big stiffy on their superior ideas like to use. 
Also, I kinda did give you information about why I believe what I believe. I gave you a description of what I hear and experience when I compare mp3 to lossless, and you never talked about it.

LOL

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

You too

Could you elaborate? What am I dismissing here?

 

[NightFlight]

Quote:

By listening to my music.
Now go away and listen to some music too. Maybe you should realize this forum is about appreciating audio gear and audio quality rather than appreciating your superior opinion on whether or not I personally like listening to .wav because to my ears it sounds better than 320kbps .mp3 
 
If you need to know, I find that the smallest details are more audible and probably a bit more sparkly, the clarity of the audio really shines and the textural goodness of my music genres of preference (glitch (hop), IDM, etc) give me just that extra thrill when I truly hear those tiniest details to their fullest. That when I hear Amon Tobin's crazy environmental pops and clicks and guitar plucks, they just feel like they are truly reachable, real, texutral and delicious. This is of course in the very microscopic level of differences, but as I've said many times before (but you seem to completely ignore that) it is something that personally matters to me, rather than it being objectively much better.

 
Note: Nuance are additive and cumulative to experience.  There is a vast difference between the ability to cognitively describe and enjoy.
 
Just remember... "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

 

[soundstige]

Now I know you're fearful of not being able to defend yourself and are just trying to insult others with all of your being, rather than learn. You're about 5 posts behind in content, just combing for things to feed on.
Quote:

LOL

 

[thor777]

Music (listening) is subjective and no 2 people are built exactly the same.  So why is it not possible that SandvichDISH can hear a difference?  Maybe his ears are more sensitive than the majority of us?