What to expect coming from stock ipod ear buds to beyerdynamic Dt990 pro's
Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 15

Plantain990

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Posts
6
Likes
0
I just bought beyerdynamic Dt990 pros and I am wondering what to expect coming from stock ipod earbuds(the old kind). I also bought a fiio portable DAC and Amp. I plan on buying a tube amp later.
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM Post #4 of 15
It's like watching an old tube TV then suddenly someone replaces that tube TV with a 4k TV. You will definitely "see" the difference.
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 3:35 PM Post #5 of 15
That's a major upgrade. You'll have much greater volume, much more detail (from top to bottom), more dynamics, you'll feel the music more, and the Beyers will be MUCH more comfortable than the "buds". Sounds to me like you'll be very happy with your purchase.
 
Once you hear your setup, you'll probably have created an addiction to music that you've never had before.
 
Enjoy! :)
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 3:39 PM Post #6 of 15
So I will be able to tell a difference. All of my music is 320 kids, is that good for these headphones

 
That will probably be fine, but if your DAC supports 24-bit / 96khz-192khz, then you may want to check out some FLAC or ALAC files. They are generally 4x higher resolution (or more) than your standard 320k MP3.
 
But, only your ears will make that determination. Some 320k files still sound very good and I sometimes even fail the blind MP3/FLAC test on my FiiO X3/E12 combo.
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 3:44 PM Post #7 of 15
Humans can't hear all those hertz, but generally it's best to use FLAC anyway.
 
Quote:
   
That will probably be fine, but if your DAC supports 24-bit / 96khz-192khz, then you may want to check out some FLAC or ALAC files. They are generally 4x higher resolution (or more) than your standard 320k MP3.
 
But, only your ears will make that determination. Some 320k files still sound very good and I sometimes even fail the blind MP3/FLAC test on my FiiO X3/E12 combo.

 
Jun 30, 2014 at 4:13 PM Post #9 of 15
I'd say yes. I wen't and started with an M50 myself, but from there I moved on up to a DT880, DT770, HD598, AKG Q701, HD650, Denon D2000 and LCD XC (and quite a few cans in between that I left out). I hope for your wallets sake that you don't get hit by the disease upgrade-itis that a lot of head-fiers, myself included, have had to endure. Lol
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM Post #11 of 15
Humans can't hear all those hertz, but generally it's best to use FLAC anyway.

 
Hear all those hertz?
 
It's not the audible range that is advertised on a DAC with 24/96 or 24/192, that's the sample rate that the DAC controls the audio stream. The more samples, the more data being processed = more music to be heard.
 
There is a night and day difference between my 16bit/44.1k HiFiMAN EF2A and my 24bit/96k Schiit Magni/Modi when comparing the same FLAC files.
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 4:32 PM Post #12 of 15
Samples = hertz = frequency. It's all expressed in sine waves at the end... not stairsteps.
 
Quote:
   
Hear all those hertz?
 
It's not the audible range that is advertised on a DAC with 24/96 or 24/192, that's the sample rate that the DAC controls the audio stream. The more samples, the more data being processed = more music to be heard.
 
There is a night and day difference between my 16bit/44.1k HiFiMAN EF2A and my 24bit/96k Schiit Magni/Modi when comparing the same FLAC files.

 
Jun 30, 2014 at 4:37 PM Post #13 of 15
Samples = hertz = frequency. It's all expressed in sine waves at the end... not stairsteps.

 
But is there not a difference between sample frequency and signal frequency?
 
I always thought that 96/192kHz audio refers to the sampling frequency, or how many times per second you are plotting a digital point to approximate the analog wave. Telling me this has nothing to do with the range of human hearing.
 
Jun 30, 2014 at 4:44 PM Post #14 of 15
Take it from the psychoacoustics analysts on the Xiph team. They can write a lot better than I can about this subject:
 
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
 
Quote:
   
But is there not a difference between sample frequency and signal frequency?
 
I always thought that 96/192kHz audio refers to the sampling frequency, or how many times per second you are plotting a digital point to approximate the analog wave. Telling me this has nothing to do with the range of human hearing.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top