[Eurobeat]

  Perhaps tell us what you already own, it might make it easier for us to guide you?
 
I have settled for the Yam MT220 with Hidizs AP100 DAP and Geek-Out 450 USB-DAC after going through a load of different gear.

The only pair of headphones worth anything would be the Logitech G35's I got years ago for 135$.  They sounded really good a few weeks ago when I listened to them, but since they broke I need a new pair.

I also originally had this Sound Card, but it's really old.  I see posts back from 2005, and I bought this in 2007 I believe,.
 
http://www.nordichardware.com/Multimedia/creative-soundblaster-x-fi-elite-pro/Specifications.html
​

It uses a PCI Slot, so I might not be able to get it to work with a PCIe to PCI converter, but people seemt o have luck with soundcards.

I'm curious if this would suffice enough, in regards to amp/Dac quality?


Also, I originally was looking to get "surround sound headphones,"; but it seems "Virtual Surround Sound" is what I was looking for.

Another user was asking a question about them too, and I ended up finding virtualization software, and curious if anyone has messed with these/heard of these programs?


http://www.razerzone.com/surround

and

http://software.store.creative.com/p/software/sound-blaster-x-fi-mb3

http://www.creative.com/oem/products/software/x-fimb3.asp


Some people like the Creative solution better, some like the razor solution better...

It's a shame that they cost money (razor has a free version), but I wish there were trials.

One comment was that most "onboard" audio is "good enough" and the "software" is the most important part.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Also, I originally was looking to get "surround sound headphones,"; but it seems "Virtual Surround Sound" is what I was looking for.

Another user was asking a question about them too, and I ended up finding virtualization software, and curious if anyone has messed with these/heard of these programs?

 
Look into Out Of Your Head, beyerdynamic Virtual Studio, TB Isone, and Redline Monitor.

 

[Eurobeat]

   
Look into Out Of Your Head, beyerdynamic Virtual Studio, TB Isone, and Redline Monitor.

How do they compare?  Especially to the ones liked above?

I would personally assume that Creative would have the edge, seeing as they are fully into creative audio quality components, but I would assume that the headphone makers would also know what they are doing?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  How do they compare?  Especially to the ones liked above?

I would personally assume that Creative would have the edge, seeing as they are fully into creative audio quality components, but I would assume that the headphone makers would also know what they are doing?

 
You linked to entry-level stuff. Probably doesn't compare at all to the ones I listed.

 

[Eurobeat]

   
You linked to entry-level stuff. Probably doesn't compare at all to the ones I listed.

By the price you could say that, for sure.

From the "OOYH" it seems to do things differently than what the others do... 

Interesting, have you used any of these?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Interesting, have you used any of these?

 
I tried beyerdynamic Virtual Studio, but couldn't get it to work in foobar2000, even though I installed it properly.

 

[Alexnova]

 
Are you sure the tracks for which you compared the 320 mp3 versions and the FLAC versions were actually the same master?  If not, then making such a comparison is a moot-point, as any differences in quality you hear could just as easily come from the different mastering than from the resolution/file-type itself.

Typically, hi-res vs. lossy versions of a track that are distributed in different places, will also happen to be completely different masters of that track from different masters of the album.  In that case, the superior master is almost always used for the lossless files, so that the illusion is created of the lossless sounding "so much better."  There's actually a very large body of evidence that if you use the exact same master of a track (say, start with a FLAC version of a file, then convert it to a 320kbs MP3 using dbPoweramp, for example) and then do A/B blind testing between the two versions of the track, even people with so-called "golden ears" cannot reliably tell which one is the lossless and which one is the lossy version.  The differences only seem to actually become audible at the threshold of around 256kbs MP3 files and below.  Many of these tests, by the way, have been done with VERY high-end headphones, as in, summit-fi level electrostatic and planar magnetic cans and such, and even the most hardcore audiophiles typically cannot reliably distinguish the 320kbs MP3's from the same master but as a FLAC.
 
So yeah, most likely, the real problem with your MP3's isn't the lower resolution, but rather just them being poorer-quality studio masters.

No. The MP3 and FLAC versions are from the same master.
 
And there are certain tracks I am using that make the differences between both formats pretty obvious. Other tracks not so much.

 

[Alexnova]

So Eurobeat, why haven't you jumped on these cans yet? Sorry been out for a week.

 

[Eurobeat]

  So Eurobeat, why haven't you jumped on these cans yet? Sorry been out for a week.

Because I wanted to see if tehre was anythign else that would be better for my needs and @inthere recommended the Pioneer HRM-7's and I think I'm goign to go with those for a few reasons.

I'm also curious about your above comment, and I'm trying to find your original post to that affect.

Is there an issue with tge Yammies or something from what you're saying?

 

[Alexnova]

 

Because I wanted to see if tehre was anythign else that would be better for my needs and @inthere recommended the Pioneer HRM-7's and I think I'm goign to go with those for a few reasons.

I'm also curious about your above comment, and I'm trying to find your original post to that affect.

Is there an issue with tge Yammies or something from what you're saying?

Not at all. What I am saying is they seem sensitive to the quality of music playback formats, however that really depends on the recording. There are types of recordings I have listened to where it seems like a layer of thin film is removed allowing the recording to really shine on FLAC or WAV.
 
I have already adjusted my EAC to output the best possible 320kbps from my CDs, I believe there's a guide on audiohydrogen or something.
 
My ears can detect extremely minor details in the recording, but like everything else here YMMV.
 
To be honest, I think you are making a mistake with the Pioneer. Especially the kind of music you listen to, the Yamaha would be preferable over the Pioneer especially in the bass department.
 
EDIT: Wait I thought you listened to electronica or something. Maybe I'm confusing another user here.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  No. The MP3 and FLAC versions are from the same master.
 
And there are certain tracks I am using that make the differences between both formats pretty obvious. Other tracks not so much.

 
Did you convert the 320 kbps MP3s from the lossless files yourself?
 
Anyway, I'm 99.999% sure you wouldn't be able to tell 256 kbps AAC and lossless apart from each other.
 

  To be honest, I think you are making a mistake with the Pioneer. Especially the kind of music you listen to, the Yamaha would be preferable over the Pioneer especially in the bass department.
 
EDIT: Wait I thought you listened to electronica or something. Maybe I'm confusing another user here.

 
Yes, he wants energetic sound. He started a thread about it.
 
I'm actually tempted to get a used HRM-7 instead of the MT220, just so I can hear how it sounds.

 

[Alexnova]

   
Did you convert the 320 kbps MP3s from the lossless files yourself?
 
Anyway, I'm 99.999% sure you wouldn't be able to tell 256 kbps AAC and lossless apart from each other.
 
 
Yes, he wants energetic sound. He started a thread about it.

A slightly wider soundstage, tighter bass, not as condensed sounding, more noticeable separation of instruments, vocal depth and clarity, and so on.
 
Those are the most prominent features that I have noticed between both kinds of formats.
 
I think you are misunderstanding, I am using compression options in EAC in order to extract from my CD when achieving 320kbps. For archival purposes, I use WAV for a clean signal and avoiding any potential artifacts.
 
You can google around, but my claim that the separation is better has been backed up by quite a number of listeners. Your average user isn't going to tell a difference.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  A slightly wider soundstage, tighter bass, not as condensed sounding, more noticeable separation of instruments, vocal depth and clarity, and so on.
 
Those are the most prominent features that I have noticed between both kinds of formats.
 
I think you are misunderstanding, I am using compression options in EAC in order to extract from my CD when achieving 320kbps. For archival purposes, I use WAV for a clean signal and avoiding any potential artifacts.
 
You can google around, but my claim that the separation is better has been backed up by quite a number of listeners. Your average user isn't going to tell a difference.

 
Fair enough. I won't bother requesting a controlled test. (But still, if you used 256 kbps AAC instead, I bet it'd sound the same.)
 
For those who didn't realize, I use lossless for everything, because I have practically unlimited hard drive space.

 

[Eurobeat]

 
Not at all. What I am saying is they seem sensitive to the quality of music playback formats, however that really depends on the recording. There are types of recordings I have listened to where it seems like a layer of thin film is removed allowing the recording to really shine on FLAC or WAV.
 
I have already adjusted my EAC to output the best possible 320kbps from my CDs, I believe there's a guide on audiohydrogen or something.
 
My ears can detect extremely minor details in the recording, but like everything else here YMMV.
 
To be honest, I think you are making a mistake with the Pioneer. Especially the kind of music you listen to, the Yamaha would be preferable over the Pioneer especially in the bass department.
 
EDIT: Wait I thought you listened to electronica or something. Maybe I'm confusing another user here.

So the lesser quality, the worse these headphones are?

why do you recommend them above the Pioneers?  Have you tried them?

Music Alchemist linked the thread I started, and I listen to high energy, engaging music.

The Yamahas sound liek they would work well, but the Pioneers seem to be better.  There are a lot of complaints about "Sound Stage" on these.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I'm listening to the Audio-Technica ATH-M30x at the moment. It's been sitting in the closet for awhile because I usually use STAX. Anyway, the M30x isn't half bad for the price. I like it more than the M50x, actually, but only because the M50x has way too much bass. When you reduce the M50x's bass with EQ, it's clearly better than the M30x. I used to own the M40x as well and want to get it again sometime, also because I like the way it looks. It's the most neutral of the three. Obviously, though, the MT220 is far superior to all these.
 

  So the lesser quality, the worse these headphones are?

The Yamahas sound liek they would work well, but the Pioneers seem to be better.  There are a lot of complaints about "Sound Stage" on these.

 
Any good headphone won't mask lower quality source material. Just use the highest quality source files you can get. (Instead of YouTube, which is compressed so much the songs often sound like a 40 kbps MP3.)
 
I thought the soundstage of the MT220 was excellent for a closed headphone. On the other hand, I think all headphones have a tiny soundstage, since, you know...they're headphones.