Will 192k Mp3's sound rubbish through $200 cans?
Oct 24, 2007 at 10:43 PM Post #3 of 40

Chri5peed

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Posts
3,611
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagasaki_Kid /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I would have to say it depends on the complexity and type of the music and if they're LAME mp3s.


I agree, high-bitrate mp3s are decent.
 
Oct 24, 2007 at 10:57 PM Post #5 of 40

DesmondDavidH

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Posts
140
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by smarrad /img/forum/go_quote.gif
is it worth spending $200 on a pair of good cans - A900s's, D2000's, ES7's etc. - when the majority of my music is mp3's imported at between 180k and 256k?


Yep, definitely.
While it's not exactly easy to spot the difference between lossless and mid range lossless (192k) it's very easy to appreciate the qualities of a high end headphone. Even in the first seconds.
 
Oct 24, 2007 at 11:26 PM Post #7 of 40

Schalldampfer

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Posts
1,490
Likes
10
Meh... I personally wouldn't use it at home. For portable, sure, but not when you're actually listening to them.
 
Oct 24, 2007 at 11:45 PM Post #8 of 40

4ki

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Posts
245
Likes
11
I say keep it at VBR and it will sound pretty darned good for as long as the source was clean/lossless. For portable, do some testing; your player has a big impact on the SQ as it processes the noise differently than, say, a home stereo.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 12:28 AM Post #10 of 40

tstarn06

Banned
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
7,929
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by DesmondDavidH /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yep, definitely.
While it's not exactly easy to spot the difference between lossless and mid range lossless (192k) it's very easy to appreciate the qualities of a high end headphone. Even in the first seconds.



192k is lossy in any format. Is that what you meant?
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 12:32 AM Post #11 of 40

Logistics

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 29, 2007
Posts
640
Likes
51
Just don't listen to the same song ripped directly to WAV afterwards because that will make you sad*.


*because you'll want to rip EVERYTHING to WAV after that.
wink.gif
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 12:41 AM Post #12 of 40

Febs

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
2,853
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Logistics /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just don't listen to the same song ripped directly to WAV afterwards because that will make you sad*.


*because you'll want to rip EVERYTHING to WAV after that.
wink.gif



Unlikely.

Take this thread, for example: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=252681

NONE of the participants have yet shown with statistically significant results that they can tell a LAME -V2 (~192 kbps) MP3 from the original.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 2:29 AM Post #13 of 40

GreatDane

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Posts
12,470
Likes
34
Location
Virginia
I use $300 cans for HQ mp3 often...but word is that with a portable amp they'll suck anyway
evil_smiley.gif
OK, not really.

Using my Elite player and PreSonus DAC as source/amp I can't hear any difference between 320 kbps and Redbook CD (same file on a CD-R). I'm not worthy.
600smile.gif
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 3:07 AM Post #14 of 40

TheAnomaly

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Posts
527
Likes
10
i do it every day
smily_headphones1.gif
i've tested myself using very non-scientific standards...i'm pretty sure i can't tell much difference in non lossless file formats. between 192 and FLAC though, there might be an extra crispness or definition or something...need to test that more. regardless, yes, it is worth doing.
 
Oct 25, 2007 at 3:38 AM Post #15 of 40

DSlayerZX

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Posts
833
Likes
22
basically on my hard drive, I have three kind of music file

flac, 320kbps and 192 kbps.

flac and 320kbps sounds really really really close to me. until a point that I can bearly notice the difference when I have the same song rip in different format and carefully compare it.
basically, if I am not doing the hearing test, I really can't tell
between flac or 320.

192.. on the other hand, well, most of my 192kbps files came from the songs that I got few years ago (maybe 2-3 years)
maybe the encoder isn't that good at that time, or something,
but when I do random shuffle between albums, sometimes I would switch back to my foobar and look at the bit rate, then smile

aww.... it is in 192kbps, no wonder it sounds kind of muffle.
but again, that is only on some of the 192 album.
on some of the other 192kbps albums, I didn't notice the difference and just play though them.

so.... conclusion...
no 192 kbps would not sound like rubbish through $200 can
in my case, the E4C(yeah, i know, its not a can) I currently own, and the HD595 that I used to own

128kbps and below are definitely garbage though.

but my suggestion, rip them in 320 if you are really concern about space. other wise, do flac XD hard drive are dirt cheap these days
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top