[bigshot]

I still have doubts that a mid level headphone can reproduce the level of detail of a pair of HD 800s, as well as the soundstage

Distortion isn't a real issue with decent headphones. It's MUCH better than with speakers. And when it comes to headstage, no, EQ won't turn open cans into closed ones. But the level of detail is primarily due to response and auditory masking. Correct the response imbalances and you get more detail.

I participated in a group that worked with a designer of high end cans to help him produce something as near to perfect as practical. He told me that the difference between flagship models and normal high end models wasn't the quality of the materials. They usually include the same parts. The difference is the manufacturing tolerances. The headphones he was designing had a +/-1dB tolerance across the entire frequency range. This meant that as the cans came off the line, they were tested and the ones that didn't meet that standard were thrown in a reject pile. The cost of the rejects was amatorized into the cost of the final retail copies. In this particular case though, the company followed up the flagship with a 2 and 3 model. I suspect that all those rejects ended up being used for the lower end models.

 

[Davesrose]

Thank you!
But I do not need this test. I can hear the differences between mp3 and flac files.
Wav files sound better than 16bit/44kHz flac files.
But the best are the 24 bit/192kHz files.
It is unfortunate there is no higher resolution files than that. Maybe in the future if we had enough storage space.

I'm just wondering since your premise is that high resolution audio always sounds best. So if you take a 16bit/44khz file and convert to 24bit/192khz, it will sound better?

 

[bigshot]

Too much is never enough!

 

[castleofargh]

Is it also applicable to people who claim that 128-160 mp3 are indistinguishable from CD-quality flacs?

Of course. ^_^ no claim should come without some demonstration of the fact. The only time we don't need to support our claims is when there are demonstrations of the claim already available that make the claim common knowledge. Both times a demonstration of the facts should be easily found.

IMO 160 with LAME is really the lower level of mostly transparent audio. Even then I expect to notice some stuff from time to time without having to seek the killer samples. 128kbps mp3, that's cool when you want to try to ABX while running or while in a subway and on the move. I wouldn't bet too much on transparency under better listening conditions.
But in any case, there really is little interest in encoding with mp3 nowadays IMO. With AAC and Opus available, it seems counter productive to stick with mp3 while trying to save as much storage space as possible.

 

[Davesrose]

Too much is never enough!

LOL...why not waste disc space with filling higher bitrates uncompressed. These days when it comes to mp3, I just go with 320k because I'm still not filling my 256GB micro SD card on my mp3 player. Talk of 128-320k mp3s are minor compared to a premise that one needs fully uncompressed high res files.

 

[bigshot]

Outside of this bastion of sanity in the wild world of Head-Fi general, "MORE is always BETTER! And EVERY NUMBER CAN BE HEARD! And YOU CAN HEAR THE UNMEASURABLE! EVEN MY WIFE CAN HEAR IT!"

 

[PhonoPhi]

With lame, MP3 can be tranparent for most music and people. V4 Lame = 128k AAC/Vorbis.

Even hydrogenaudio has defended that claim.



Yep i don't bother with headphones anymore since i got the ER4SR/ER3SE. If i want a bassier sound for EDM/Metal/etc i just do a +5 db 125Hz and few fixes on 2 dips/peaks I'm all set.

Most people are listening from smartphones with whichever phones.
In a spirit of this forum (which I found nothing but scientific, I am sorry to say), I do not need personally any proof and won't even bother to argue any further that 128 mp3 are noticeably sonically inferior. (I was dabbling into 24/196 and 24/192 for a while, and won't claim that I hear any difference with CD-quality flacs for the same mastering (often they are different, mostly for the better, sometimes for the worst); 320 mp3 vs. flacs - pretty close as well, below ~192 - sorry, just listen to any good recording of violins).

 

[PhonoPhi]

Outside of this bastion of sanity in the wild world of Head-Fi general, "MORE is always BETTER! And EVERY NUMBER CAN BE HEARD! And YOU CAN HEAR THE UNMEASURABLE! EVEN MY WIFE CAN HEAR IT!"

That sums very well the science of this forum, thank you!

 

[Blackwoof]

For the average casual listener, that is certainly true. But the devil is in the details... and the words "most music and people".I spent a couple of weeks testing Fraunhofer, LAME and AAC. I found that what you say is generally true, but it wasn't uncommon for some tracks to artifact at that level. I found one particular recording with a string tone that was very difficult to encode. It required 320 LAME and 256 AAC to safely encode. (Frau was *almost* perfect at 320.) Since I didn't want to have to check each and every file I encoded, I chose 256 AAC and added VBR to it, just to be safe. Encoded like that, I think it's safe to say "all music and people".

I use musepack at 170kbps for tracks that need 256 AAC & 320 Lame since it being a subband codec pre echo & transient attacks don't phase it.

Most people are listening from smartphones with whichever phones.
In a spirit of this forum (which I found nothing but scientific, I am sorry to say), I do not need personally any proof and won't even bother to argue any further that 128 mp3 are noticeably sonically inferior. (I was dabbling into 24/196 and 24/192 for a while, and won't claim that I hear any difference with CD-quality flacs for the same mastering (often they are different, mostly for the better, sometimes for the worst); 320 mp3 vs. flacs - pretty close as well, below 192 - sorry, just listen to violins).

Still dosen't change that ABX tests are needed, On Ambient & Slow music i can get away with V5 but i use V4 for safety. But for metal/electronic i need V1 to sound fine, I've had more issues with 128 AAC on ambient than i did with V5 Lame.

 

[bigshot]

I use musepack at 170kbps for tracks that need 256 AAC & 320 Lame since it being a subband codec pre echo & transient attacks don't phase it.

I don't want to have to rip and run into problems at all. I have tens of thousands of CDs and I rip them production line. I don't have time to carefully examine every rip for artifacts. I just use one setting that works for everything. I imagine the difference in file size between AAC 256 VBR and musepack 170 isn't that great. The difference in file size between FLAC and AAC 256 VBR is significant.

 

[hakunamakaka]

Here is another spoof. Just recently I've got TOTL ciem, just for the sake of my own interest I wanted to hear how expensive cIEM can sound and to be honest I'm not that impressed. I've decided to replace the stock cable with expensive DUNU 2 pin cable, blew extra 300$ and guess what...maybe, I mean maybe it can sound a "bit" louder, that's it.
Source iphone with lotoo S1 dac. So far this is my first and last experiment with cables and when you read those reviews....it seems there is magical difference between different cables....

 

[Blackwoof]

I don't want to have to rip and run into problems at all. I have tens of thousands of CDs and I rip them production line. I don't have time to carefully examine every rip for artifacts. I just use one setting that works for everything. I imagine the difference in file size between AAC 256 VBR and musepack 170 isn't that great. The difference in file size between FLAC and AAC 256 VBR is significant.

Musepack has no frame limit so tracks like that can range from 224 ~ 600kbps. Since i use PC/Phone using mixed codecs dosen't bother me.

 

[bigshot]

How do you know it doesn't work with a different codec? Do you encode everything three different ways and choose the smallest? If you do, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I'd have no time to actually listen to music if I did that!

 

[bigshot]

Here is another spoof. Just recently I've got TOTL ciem, just for the sake of my own interest I wanted to hear how expensive cIEM can sound and to be honest I'm not that impressed. I've decided to replace the stock cable with expensive DUNU 2 pin cable, blew extra 300$ and guess what...maybe, I mean maybe it can sound a "bit" louder, that's it.
Source iphone with lotoo S1 dac. So far this is my first and last experiment with cables and when you read those reviews....it seems there is magical difference between different cables....

Here is the problem with your approach... You are looking for a solution without defining the problem you want to solve. If you have a problem that you can define, you can research ways to correct it and then have a good chance that it might make an improvement you can clearly hear. If you just swap more expensive stuff in randomly, you are just as likely to screw up sound as fix it, and in most cases, it might not make a difference at all. Random solutions produce random results.

The best way to improve your system is to make an effort to know how it works before you go buying stuff. Read about how capacitance works, google frequency response, research the specs of your equipment, figure out what the audible thresholds are... THEN you will have an idea of what needs fixing.

Too many people think being an audiophile is about shopping. The person who buys the most expensive and most convoluted and inconvenient system has the best. That is what the high end audio salesmen want you to believe because it makes you come back to buy the same thing over and over and over again, spending more money each time.

All you need to do is be an informed buyer. Understand what you are shopping for and decide if it will solve your problem and give you more convenience and better sound BEFORE you pull out your credit card. Once you get the new doohickey, carefully test it and return it if it makes no improvement. If you do that, you'll find that it doesn't cost a fortune to put together a good sounding system.

 

[Blackwoof]

How do you know it doesn't work with a different codec? Do you encode everything three different ways and choose the smallest? If you do, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I'd have no time to actually listen to music if I did that!

My set is Lame V4 & V1 with the bad stuff at Q5 musepack. I just base it off the 4 power electronic albums i have, In most cases i don't need to do ABX tests to aid speed since i did them before. Outside of PE stuff i never had to set a non PE album or track with Lame to V1 ~ 320 but with AAC i had set a few to 256k because they failed at <160k?.

Yes i aim for small 90% of the time because there no point on V1 ~ 320/flac if the V4 sounds the same. But for metal/faster complex music i just target V1 as a happy medium. MPC there as workaround that MP3 limited to 320 frames despite the codec can do 640kbps with hacks.

This is for my non PC music hub since I'm thinking on getting a K702 with a Fiio K3.