[smarrad]

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?

 

[Nagasaki_Kid]

I would have to say it depends on the complexity and type of the music and how well it was encoded.

 

[Chri5peed]

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.

 

[physh]

depends on the recording. I have some flac files that sound bad, because they were bad from the start.

192 sounds fine in my d2000's

 

[DesmondDavidH]

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.

 

[Zorander]

Depends on the encoder quality (Xing-encoded ones suck IIRC). Most of my 192kbps MP3s are great, quite a few 128kbps ones are more than listenable too.

 

[Schalldampfer]

Meh... I personally wouldn't use it at home. For portable, sure, but not when you're actually listening to them.

 

[4ki]

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.

 

[TMM]

Lame V0 and 320CBR sound great. anything below 192kbps you will notice on very 'busy' songs, especially when there are a lot of cymbals.

 

[tstarn06]

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?

 

[Logistics]

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.

 

[Febs]

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.

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.

 

[GreatDane]

I use $300 cans for HQ mp3 often...but word is that with a portable amp they'll suck anyway

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.

 

[TheAnomaly]

i do it every day

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.

 

[DSlayerZX]

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