So... lossless formats

[TL]

I used to like wrap-around in-ear earphones. After getting a really good pair of 'headband' style headphones though, I couldn't go back. I fully accept that, especially for headphone listening, some people just don't care as much. At times, I wish I could get past it too. I don't look for things to be annoyed with in lower quality files. I actually try to get past it, but more often than not, certain aspects of the sound just bother me. One of the worst is how cymbals sound in lower quality.

For headphone recommendations, if you're looking for something with good sound, unfortunately, you probably won't be able to get anything cheap. They'll probably run you at minimum around $75, and it's likely that it will be more than that.
I will say, I've liked every pair of Sennheiser headphones that I've ever listened to. They're pricey, but for a reason.

[Pyroph]

https://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-IMAGE-S4-Noise-Isolating-Headphones/dp/B001V9LPT4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1283026675&sr=8-1

[TL]

Also, purely anecdotal, but every pair of Bose headphones I've ever heard have sounded terrible. I would avoid Bose.

[Zook]

I thought Bose was supposed to be the best them.

[zxlkho]

I thought Bose was supposed to be the best them.

Oh, god no.

[Quadrochosis]

I thought Bose was supposed to be the best them.

Nope, just the most expensive them.

Granted, their speakers are awesome, but there are certainly better headphones out there than what Bose has to offer.

[ariich]

From my experience their actual stereo systems are awesome, haven't used their headphones myself but it sounds like they're not the best.

[Groundhog]

Bose is a popular brand, but it seems to have gotten that position only with succesful marketing. People who know about audio never recommends Bose. Whether it be speaker systems or headphones. I've never heard Bose myself, but based on what I've heard I would stay away from that brand.

[Perpetual Change]

For the record, guys, I can tell the difference between 128knps and 230kbps. Just not in my headphones. Tried it on a stereo today, and I could definitely hear how the latter sounded a tiny bit more clear.

[sonatafanica]

Bose is a popular brand, but it seems to have gotten that position only with succesful marketing. People who know about audio never recommends Bose. Whether it be speaker systems or headphones. I've never heard Bose myself, but based on what I've heard I would stay away from that brand.

I have a set of Bose speakers and I think they're incredible.

[Groundhog]

^^ Did you compare your Bose speakers to other brands?

[Quadrochosis]

For the cost, Bose speakers are pretty much the best. There's always going to be some super high quality speaker out there, but it's gonna cost a lot more.

[robwebster]

----

[faemir]

You know in the future when someone makes a revolutionary new codec that gives lossless with an mp3-or-thereabouts compression factor, i'll laugh at you cretins and your 192kbps mp3 files.

To put that better, I prefer to have absolute digital copies of my CDs, not mostly complete digital copies of my CDs.

[Sigz]

lol


For the price, I've had great experiences with Sennheiser phones, even the low-priced ones.

[Quadrochosis]

lol


For the price, I've had great experiences with Sennheiser phones, even the low-priced ones.

I was talking about Bose speakers, I agreed that their headphones aren't the best.

[Sigz]

  My lol was for faemir's post, not yours.

[Quadrochosis]

My lol was for faemir's post, not yours.

oooh OK, sorry bout that.

[Perpetual Change]

Honestly, I'd rather just listen to CDs all the time, if it were more practical.

[Quadrochosis]

Honestly, I'd rather just listen to vinyl all the time.

[Nick]

Yeah, at home vinyl and CD is always practical, which is why I have my super stereo system here. When I'm out I don't worry about it.

[Perpetual Change]

I really don't see the point of listening to digitally recorded records on vinyl. But yeah, I love me some classic rock on vinyl.

[Quadrochosis]

I really don't see the point of listening to digitally recorded records on vinyl. But yeah, I love me some classic rock on vinyl.

Who said anything about listening to digitally recorded records?

[faemir]

Honestly, I'd rather just listen to CDs all the time, if it were more practical.

Which is why FLAC is what you want

[Portrucci]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. Fine for storage purposes, but certainly not something to get all high'n'mighty about. Regardless, if people DO perceive a difference, whether it is actual or not, who am I to rain on their parade? Listening pleasure is the bottom line, and how you arrive at that is entirely individual. Best also not to be a dick about it   (to audiophiles in general and not anyone in this thread)

[faemir]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. Fine for storage purposes, but certainly not something to get all high'n'mighty about. Regardless, if people DO perceive a difference, whether it is actual or not, who am I to rain on their parade? Listening pleasure is the bottom line, and how you arrive at that is entirely individual. Best also not to be a dick about it   (to audiophiles in general and not anyone in this thread)

I have 2TB of hdd space, so tell me why I shouldn't have everything in FLAC (strokes his 5.1 Porky Tree FLACs)

[The Awesome]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo.

No. Especially if you have high end hardware. But even if you don't, still no.

[Portrucci]

Do you need high end hardware to enjoy music? No

Is your enjoyment somehow greater than others because you have a better set-up? Probably not

Again it's completely personal. My only beef is with the pompous dicks who feel to the need to constantly tell people how amazing their set up is and therefore, that they are the superior music-lover. Funny they talk more about set-ups than the actual music 

[TL]

I agree that people who always need to make a big deal about how great their setup is can be annoying.
I do genuinely prefer listening to songs in high quality when available though. I can enjoy a song without high quality, but I can enjoy it more with.

[MetalManiac666]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. Fine for storage purposes, but certainly not something to get all high'n'mighty about. Regardless, if people DO perceive a difference, whether it is actual or not, who am I to rain on their parade? Listening pleasure is the bottom line, and how you arrive at that is entirely individual. Best also not to be a dick about it  (to audiophiles in general and not anyone in this thread)

FUCKING THIS

[faemir]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. Fine for storage purposes, but certainly not something to get all high'n'mighty about. Regardless, if people DO perceive a difference, whether it is actual or not, who am I to rain on their parade? Listening pleasure is the bottom line, and how you arrive at that is entirely individual. Best also not to be a dick about it  (to audiophiles in general and not anyone in this thread)

FUCKING THIS

BECAUSE QUOTING SO CALLED 'FACTS' VALIDATES THEM EVEN FURTHER

edit: ESPECIALLY WHEN SHOUTING THEM AT EVERYONES FACES

[The Awesome]

Do you need high end hardware to enjoy music? No

Is your enjoyment somehow greater than others because you have a better set-up? Probably not

Again it's completely personal. My only beef is with the pompous dicks who feel to the need to constantly tell people how amazing their set up is and therefore, that they are the superior music-lover. Funny they talk more about set-ups than the actual music 

Before I address your tangents, my point was that high end hardware highlights the weaknesses of lossy formats. I can listen to streams or MP3 files on my mediocre computer speakers and be fine with it, but if I put an MP3 CD in my car, it bothers me. My attention is drawn to the flaws in the sound rather than enjoying the music.

Now for your other questions. No, you don't need high end audio equipment to enjoy music. Yes, it is more enjoyable to listen to music with better equipment. If it weren't, we would all just buy Ipods and be done with it. As for the "pompous dicks", I'm assuming that's a general statement and not directed at me, but it does have a simple answer. People that buy high end equipment tend to enjoy audio as a hobby just like a guy who flies RC planes, or any other hobby on the planet. As a result, We/they enjoy talking about what other people have done, what their results are, and how we can improve our own setups. It's no different than a bunch of musicians discussing their rigs. Now if someone actually claims they are "musically superior" because they dropped more money on equipment, they are retarded, and you should leave the area immediately.

[Portrucci]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. Fine for storage purposes, but certainly not something to get all high'n'mighty about. Regardless, if people DO perceive a difference, whether it is actual or not, who am I to rain on their parade? Listening pleasure is the bottom line, and how you arrive at that is entirely individual. Best also not to be a dick about it   (to audiophiles in general and not anyone in this thread)

I have 2TB of hdd space, so tell me why I shouldn't have everything in FLAC

My point is I can't tell you why you shouldn't. And vice-versa. It's a personal choice.
If I had the space on my HDD, all my music would be FLAC too   , but that's not the point. Read below for what my point is.

Yes, it is more enjoyable to listen to music with better equipment.

Isn't that subjective? I'm sure there is many people who don't care if they are listening on their ipod as apposed to an expensive fiddly set-up. I personally greatly enjoy playing vinyls through my good headphones, but I can't say that my experience is somehow more enjoyable than someone else using mp3s

As for the "pompous dicks", I'm assuming that's a general statement and not directed at me, but it does have a simple answer. People that buy high end equipment tend to enjoy audio as a hobby just like a guy who flies RC planes, or any other hobby on the planet. As a result, We/they enjoy talking about what other people have done, what their results are, and how we can improve our own setups. It's no different than a bunch of musicians discussing their rigs. Now if someone actually claims they are "musically superior" because they dropped more money on equipment, they are retarded, and you should leave the area immediately.

Yeah definitely not directed at you or anyone in this thread. But I have spoken to many, and I stress, many, audiophiles who do exactly what I said in my post. Now, I am more than happy to discuss set-ups with people and I do respect those who have a very nice set-up. However, it so often regresses into just "I am a big music lover because of this". I understand many audiophiles aren't like that, but I am just telling you from experience, there are a lot who do. And that's probably why I approach topics like this with a fair amount of skepticism. Depending on who you are, a nice set-up is excellent, or it's unnecessary. and neither option is objectively the correct way.

[Groundhog]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. 

Just, no

[robwebster]

For all intents and purposes, any quality higher than 256kbps is merely a placebo. 

Just, no

256kbps is about the speed your ears can process noises at.

Yes, when you play a lossless file the speakers will probably be making vastly different amounts of sound - they objectively are, that's a fact right there - but the perceived quality is only as high as it's possible to perceive, and your ears won't be able to tell the difference, as a general rule. Play a pristine, beautiful orchestra down a telephone line and it'll still sound like it's coming down a telephone line. Compared to the information contained in a lossless file, we're all walking telephone receivers.

If you think you can tell the difference, you're either willing yourself to hear a difference, you've got above-average ears, or you're telling porkies. Probably the second one! We all take music very seriously here, would make sense that your ear was more discerning than most. And if that's the case, congrats. You have elite ears. Well done. I'll make you a hat.

And whichever of the three's correct, fair play, by the way! You're enjoying your music, and that's what counts. But the average ear won't be able to tell the difference. A trained ear possibly could. I wouldn't be surprised at all if musicians or people who frequently listen to hi-res audio could distinguish between 256k and 320k, or even 256k and lossless. I've not looked into it very much, admittedly, so if anyone's got anything substantial (i.e. not anecdotal) to contradict me with then I'll happily scoff a bit of humble pie. Eat it right up with beans - I'm speaking from the position of a half-remembered Physics A-Level course, so you may well be able to find something concrete that puts me in my place.

That said, as I'm aware of it, by 320kbps you'd almost definitely be enjoying a big fat placebo. Key word, enjoying! But... the other key word is placebo.

Lossless audio is useful! It so is. You're gaining something with lossless - peace of mind, complete backup... PERFECT for recording music with. But it's more a tool for storage and accurate copying than a way to make your music sound lovely. Listening isn't one of its uses. By and large, anyway! I'm talking broad brushstrokes, here. Maybe you could, possibly, hear a difference in the v. high frequency noises. Someone upthread (Nick?) mentioned cymbals, and as they resonate at a very high frequency anyway, the discrepancies might be more noticeable there. That'd make sense to me. But I, myself, am honestly not that bothered.  It's great, lossless. But I'm not missing much by listening to 256kbps in my leisure time. And you're not gaining THAT much if you insist on listening to FLAC.

Again, this is all coming from someone who isn't an audiophile. I'm the unwashed masses. But then it always struck me there's something very counterintuitive about taking something as raw and visceral and immediate as rock music and then making it into something fussy - niggly, fusty and perfectionist. It's almost a contradiction.

It's meant to be wild, and aggressive. 'Sides which, not many of us can listen to proper, full-quality, massive-fidelity audio ALL the time, anyway, and I'd rather enjoy the lower-end stuff all the time and not know what I'm missing than listen to the lower-end stuff most of the time and compete with a nagging feeling that something's missing. I consider my inability to tell the difference between 256kbps and WAV a blessing, rather than a curse.

I'll come clean and admit that I don't "get" audiophilia. It turns something positive into something negative. Many of my experiences with audiophiles tend to be limited to watching them moan. Grumpy moaning. Not ecstatic moaning. (Though I'm sure a well-mixed 5.1 would get their gears going.) That doesn't seem to be the easiest way to enjoy music, to me. Falling in love doesn't make your platonic friends redundant. I'm glad that you have this really intense and detailed interest in music music, and that you can appreciate it on a higher level. You get to go home and listen to your music on the equivalent of a cinema screen, that's grand. But it's too much of a chore for me. I'm gonna keep rocking out on my cathode ray tube, and you honestly can't convince me that your approach is better. I like being easily impressed. I enjoy it. Ignorance is bliss. Audiophilia, while consummately beautiful and luxurious and all the rest, is one headache that I really don't need.





So there we go. Listen, take my opinions with a pinch of salt. I know my facts are very flimsily supported, and I acknowledge that audiophilia is so alien to me that it almost makes my opinion moot. But there we go.