Sennheiser CX500 and Lossless Audio

[mechanix]

I listen to music mainly on my ipod touch with a pair of Sennheiser CX500. I didnt care about the quality of my music files until recently. I decided to take a step forward and upgraded stock earphones which came with ipod and bought some entry level sound equipment ( CX500 for on the go and HD201 for home listening). Now I want to revise my music archive and use high quality audio file formats. Since I'm using ipod, I'll have to use Apple Lossless. So my question is, can Sennheiser CX500 earphones benefit from a lossless format, or I shouldn't waste time and get better earphones? Also same question applies for HD201 too.
 
Thanks in advance.

 

[zero7525]

Might as well just get 320kbs mp3s. Though I've never had any experience with apple lossless, I believe that lossless audio (FLAC) overall is very space consuming. With entry-level headphones, I wouldn't make a huge difference in sound quality, but I still recommend getting higher quality lossy audio if you haven't already. I used to have 128kbs mp3s and now I have to redo my entire music library because I bought new (and unforgiving) headphones, ala the RE0.

 

[Photofan1986]

Forget about flac (or any lossless) with CX500. Any bitrate from 192 up will do just fine.

 

[mechanix]

Most of my archive is ripped at 320kbps. I already have doubts about if extra consumed space worth the difference between 320kbps and lossless format. So based on your opinions I think I'll stick with 320kbps.

 

[dziendobry]

Yup stick with the 320 kbps, the only reason I do anything in FLAC is because I want to preserve a copy of the CD in its original quality in case my two year old gets a hold of one. 

 

[Azathoth]

The CX500 isn't exactly the most revealing Senn IEM. 320kbps CBR mp3's will do fine - you won't notice the difference. I just use FLAC for archiving and 320kbps mp3's for portable listening.

 

[mechanix]

Quote:

The CX500 isn't exactly the most revealing Senn IEM. 320kbps CBR mp3's will do fine - you won't notice the difference. I just use FLAC for archiving and 320kbps mp3's for portable listening.

Which models are more revealing?

 

[zero7525]

Quote:

Which models are more revealing?

None of the CX series are revealing. The CX series isn't really a high-end IEM. If you really want to go by the sennheiser brand, the IE series (IE7 or IE8) is the way to go. Though there are a lot of other IEMs that are cheaper with more or less, the same clarity and quality.
An example would be, the Hippo VB, the Fisher Audio Eterna, or the RE0/RE-Zero. These are the absolute killers in the sub $100 range. I recommend you upgrade soon.

On another note, my local futureshop sells the CX300 II for $120!! How ridiculous is that?! I can buy myself some IEMs that are 10x better. Moral of the story, the CX series is overpriced in retail and a very bad bang for your buck.

 

[Photofan1986]

^ agreed!
ps: geeze, $120 for CX300!!

 

[kjk1281]

Quote:

None of the CX series are revealing. The CX series isn't really a high-end IEM. 

While that is certainly true for many cases, I don't think such a blanket statement can be made.  I mean, has any of us here tried the half-million CX models that are currently on the market?  I would hope for Sennheiser's sake that the CX980 sounds half as good as its price would indicate (though yes, I am aware that there is decreasing correlation between cost and performance).  Also, for what it's worth, my CX280 is surprisingly revealing given its low cost and the fact that its model number would suggest it being "worse" than the CX300 and the CX550.
 
However, I definitely agree with the absurd list prices for Sennheisers, particularly here in North America and especially in Canada.  You can do much better than the CX300-II for $120, and the fact that you can buy five or so CX300-IIs in the UK for the same price is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[JoetheArachnid]

Hang on, Amazon says CX 300-IIs are £39.99 RRP... which is about $55, or thereabouts. Actual sale price is £15. How the hell can they charge $120? There must be some kind of law against that, or they must have very gullible customers to actually move them. Mind you, Skullcandies sell...
 
On topic, 320kbps mp3s are fine for most applications, but I sometimes get an album or song i've already heard in lossless because I can tell it's a good recording and want that extra 'wow' factor. Normally it just sounds a tiny bit fuller or smoother, but not so much as to be noticable on low-end headphones.

 

[mechanix]

I used CX300 II before and purchased it for 28 GBP at mymemory.co.uk. My friend screwed it up somehow and I wanted to buy a higher model and got CX500 for 40GBP at same site. Also free shipping was a bonus for an international customer like me

 

[zero7525]

Quote:

While that is certainly true for many cases, I don't think such a blanket statement can be made.

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant the CX line up to 500 only. I've never listened to the higher end models, but I believe that they are much, much better than the lower end. I apologize for the generalization.

 

[koonhua90]

I used to have the IE8, it isn't particularly revealing. An Etymotic does better than it. As for sound files, 320kbps should be good enough...I do notice some differences between 160kbps and 320kbps. But still, it depends on how the song is mastered, and how the particular file is encoded. Recent years the encoding algorithms have improved a lot. Not much differences between 320kbps and flac though. But I didn't spend all the time ab'ing. If there is flac, I get them in flac. If not I am fine with 320kbps.