OT - Headphone (Can) Shopping
Printed From: the12volt.comForum Name: Car Audio
Forum Discription: Car Stereos, Amplifiers, Crossovers, Processors, Speakers, Subwoofers, etc.
URL: https://www.the12volt.com/installbay/forum_posts.asp?tid=52032
Printed Date: May 11, 2024 at 8:36 AM
Topic: OT - Headphone (Can) Shopping
Posted By: kfr01
Subject: OT - Headphone (Can) Shopping
Date Posted: March 16, 2005 at 10:54 PM
Replies:
Posted By: Asmodeus
Date Posted: March 16, 2005 at 11:46 PM
I used to own some Sennheiser hd650 headphones....I loved them...The sound was AMAZING......Very clear vocals bass response great.....Highs were crisp but not deafening....
I loved them till someone broke in my house and decided they loved them too...
Everyone asked me why I paid $450 for a set of headphone...All I said to them was "Put them on" then they knew...
-------------
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 12:14 AM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 12:42 AM
Posted By: sirairun
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 12:45 AM
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 9:29 AM
kfr01] wrote:
haemphyst - I have re-ripped my favorite cd's using flac + exact audio copy w/ secure mode. Everything I currently listen to is as close to a perfect lossless rip as I can get. :-)
That said, however, would you then first recommend a product like this https://www.headphone.com/layout.php?topicID=3&subTopicID=27&productid=0000010004
It takes audio straight from USB --> onboard DAC --> headphone amplifier section of decent quality.
The bottom line is that my current solution is not adequate and I am willing to spend up to $1,000 to remedy it. Less money would be nice, I don't like to get to the point of diminishing returns, but that is my budget. Any suggestions?
A grand, eh? Well, you might not need to spend that much...
The FLAC compression is a good start (what compression level are you using?), I like FLAC as well. I have noticed, however, even with FLAC and compression level 0, and my good (not great) 24/96 external Philips Aurilium soundcard, if I try to play them on my car system or especially on my home system, fatigue does set in quite a bit faster than it does with Red-Book or .wav... I like to listen to 24/96 (DVD-A ROX... SACD can blow me!) recordings a lot, so even Red-Book can cause some eventual fatigue. The compression, even as good as FLAC is, trashes high frequencies. As an experiment, see if you can listen longer with a .wav source, just don't compress your music at all. Space is so cheap today, I carry a USB powered 80G hard drive with pretty much ALL of my favorite CDs (about 150 of them!) in WAV format... I can listen anywhere!
The outboard device certainly can't hurt anything - that looks like something even I might be interested in, if I listened to 'phones more... Internal soundcards, ESPECIALLY those that might be integrated (yours isn't an integrated sound card, is it? BLECH!), are notoriously noisy devices. Unless you have spent upwards of 500 to 600 dollars on a very high quality soundcard, from an audiophile point-of-view, you probably won't be happy...
For those of you wondering what I consider a VERY GOOD soundcard, I recommend, at a minimum, the E-MU products from Creative. Spendy, but worth every penny! You can get them, ususally in stock, at Guitar Center.
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 10:09 AM
Posted By: Francious70
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 10:20 AM
Posted By: DYohn
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 10:54 AM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 10:57 AM
haemphyst wrote:
The FLAC compression is a good start (what compression level are you using?), I like FLAC as well. I have noticed, however, even with FLAC and compression level 0, and my good (not great) 24/96 external Philips Aurilium soundcard, if I try to play them on my car system or especially on my home system, fatigue does set in quite a bit faster than it does with Red-Book or .wav... I like to listen to 24/96 (DVD-A ROX... SACD can blow me!) recordings a lot, so even Red-Book can cause some eventual fatigue. The compression, even as good as FLAC is, trashes high frequencies. As an experiment, see if you can listen longer with a .wav source, just don't compress your music at all. Space is so cheap today, I carry a USB powered 80G hard drive with pretty much ALL of my favorite CDs (about 150 of them!) in WAV format... I can listen anywhere!
The compression level should be irrelevant. Regardless of what compression level is used the resulting decoded audio stream signal is exactly the same as a wave file. The compression level settings simply affect the speed at which the compression works and the resulting file size. This is because the slower compression levels allow the program to search for more ideal encoding functions (space / time). Once the functions are picked, however, they are still lossless. If you find any references that say otherwise, please shoot them my way. :-)
Anyway, I may have to go with one of those little usb headphone amplifiers. I am, sadly to say, still using my Dell laptop's internal soundcard for listening most of the time. When home at my desk I use the m-audio mobile pre. In any event, I'm sure the headphone amplifier stage in all two devices is of very low quality.
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 11:36 AM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 11:46 AM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 11:56 AM
Posted By: DYohn
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 12:28 PM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 12:30 PM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 12:49 PM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 1:09 PM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 1:27 PM
Oh, thank you, you actually just cleared up the conflict I was "seeing"
.
I did know that all files are stored in binary 0/1 format, but I was thinking that sinse music is so "non-repetitive" that there wouldn't be many repitions in the code. As you said, dependent on the individual song, the compression will very.
Thank you.
P.S. Thanks for calling me a smart guy
-------------
.
I did know that all files are stored in binary 0/1 format, but I was thinking that sinse music is so "non-repetitive" that there wouldn't be many repitions in the code. As you said, dependent on the individual song, the compression will very.
Thank you.
P.S. Thanks for calling me a smart guy
-------------
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 2:20 PM
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: March 17, 2005 at 9:37 PM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 18, 2005 at 7:34 PM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 18, 2005 at 8:56 PM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 18, 2005 at 9:26 PM
Oh, thank you. SO you're saying that there is a difference, right. <-Sarcasm 
Ok, I do quite a bit of video compression and converting. What I've found is that you can use lossless compression, but like you said it takes alot longer. I have found that on some programs there is an option to do multiple "analysis" of the file before it ever even starts to compress it. This allows it to more easily discern what can be compressed, and how much.
Sorry for giving you the "hassle" before
-------------
Ok, I do quite a bit of video compression and converting. What I've found is that you can use lossless compression, but like you said it takes alot longer. I have found that on some programs there is an option to do multiple "analysis" of the file before it ever even starts to compress it. This allows it to more easily discern what can be compressed, and how much.
Sorry for giving you the "hassle" before
-------------
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 18, 2005 at 11:15 PM
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: March 19, 2005 at 9:41 AM
This is a good discussion. I agree that there is no difference between a .zip and the orignal binary, but I really don't see (I do see, but it still seems wrong) how any compression can NOT hurt the quality of the audio signal. I understand lossless, and I understand it SHOULD NOT hurt the integrity if the original signal, but neither should SACD (and it does, BTW). (Incedentally, Sony referrs to SACD as a "distribution format" - which, translated from Japanese, means "Good enough for the public". Sony themselves do not archive their recordings in DSD. They use 24/192 PCM files. DSD is mathematically as good as it can EVER get, where PCM can be and is (theoretically) infinitely perfectable.)
If FLAC is indeed lossless, why are the recording companies not using it for "distribution formatting" of their audio... Couldn't they get smaller, more "perfect" music on a CD, and thus charge more? (Is the RIAA listening right now? You BAStards!) Why are there so few portable and NO home (none that I have seen anyway) audio players capable of direct playback of FLAC files? This overwhelming preponderance of evidence tells me there is something different about the files. I know, they are willing to distribute in MP3, (another discussion altogether) just because of the industry support, but I will continue to buy the CD, because of the HIGHLY INFERIOR quality of even 320k MP3s - I want the perfect recording. It would seem to me, that in the same respect as password protecting a zip file, without affecting whatsoever the original binary, the industry would LOVE the FLAC format, as they could watermark the audio file with absolutely no affect on the audio quality itself. How does this argument fit in with lossless vs. "lossless"?
One last thing. If the format is indeed lossless, then I should not be able to hear the difference on my home system, but why can I?
This is good stuff! Keep it coming. We may actually get you some new headphones, after all!
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
If FLAC is indeed lossless, why are the recording companies not using it for "distribution formatting" of their audio... Couldn't they get smaller, more "perfect" music on a CD, and thus charge more? (Is the RIAA listening right now? You BAStards!) Why are there so few portable and NO home (none that I have seen anyway) audio players capable of direct playback of FLAC files? This overwhelming preponderance of evidence tells me there is something different about the files. I know, they are willing to distribute in MP3, (another discussion altogether) just because of the industry support, but I will continue to buy the CD, because of the HIGHLY INFERIOR quality of even 320k MP3s - I want the perfect recording. It would seem to me, that in the same respect as password protecting a zip file, without affecting whatsoever the original binary, the industry would LOVE the FLAC format, as they could watermark the audio file with absolutely no affect on the audio quality itself. How does this argument fit in with lossless vs. "lossless"?
One last thing. If the format is indeed lossless, then I should not be able to hear the difference on my home system, but why can I?
This is good stuff! Keep it coming. We may actually get you some new headphones, after all!
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 19, 2005 at 10:30 AM
"overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" ...? Which evidence is this again? 
1) Recording companies don't use FLAC because it isn't a standard they've agreed on.
2) Recording companies WON'T use it because it isn't popular enough.
3) It isn't popular enough because the file size is still much too large for consumers who love their mp3s.
4) There ARE home audio players being developed that support FLAC.
---> https://www.slimdevices.com/
---> and "the Zensonic Z500 Networked DVD Media Player, Escient's new FireBall E2-40, E2-160, and DVDM-300, the M300A Digital Music Player from Digital Techniques (see manual), Meda Systems' Bravo servers (more info), and the MS300 Music Server by McIntosh Laboratory."
Dude. McIntosh. :-)
There aren't portables yet because large file sizes and more necessary processing power isn't too compatible with the concept of mass market portable.
These are _business_ decisions. NOT evidence of the quality of the compression method. One thing to remember about ALL compression methods is that they take processing power on both the front end AND the back end to complete encoding. Processing power costs money to implement. Unless a firm feels like it can add value that will increase its profits over its costs - IT WON'T DO IT. :-)
Anyway. There IS adoption of the FLAC format coming. It is VERY new compared to MP3. Even if it wasn't new, you know more than anyone (as someone who has tracked dvda v. sacd), that format decisions are driven by profit and politics; NOT the superior format.
If the format is indeed lossless, you should not be able to hear any difference. HOWEVER, even this isn't evidence of, well, anything.
Just like anything else that decodes to an audio stream, the real time decoding player might not be implemented perfectly. The encoder you use might add options you aren't aware of too.
Does either the decoder or encoder use replaygain?
Does either the decoder or encoder do any dithering?
Did the plug-in author code the player correctly?
Does the plug-in run past errors in decoding if it must?
Does your waveform decoder do something differently?
Does your cd player do something differently?
Anyway, this list can do on and on. Any number of variables can influence sound, as you know. These variables, while they can influence the sound, say nothing about the validity of the lossless nature of the format.
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
1) Recording companies don't use FLAC because it isn't a standard they've agreed on.
2) Recording companies WON'T use it because it isn't popular enough.
3) It isn't popular enough because the file size is still much too large for consumers who love their mp3s.
4) There ARE home audio players being developed that support FLAC.
---> https://www.slimdevices.com/
---> and "the Zensonic Z500 Networked DVD Media Player, Escient's new FireBall E2-40, E2-160, and DVDM-300, the M300A Digital Music Player from Digital Techniques (see manual), Meda Systems' Bravo servers (more info), and the MS300 Music Server by McIntosh Laboratory."
Dude. McIntosh. :-)
There aren't portables yet because large file sizes and more necessary processing power isn't too compatible with the concept of mass market portable.
These are _business_ decisions. NOT evidence of the quality of the compression method. One thing to remember about ALL compression methods is that they take processing power on both the front end AND the back end to complete encoding. Processing power costs money to implement. Unless a firm feels like it can add value that will increase its profits over its costs - IT WON'T DO IT. :-)
Anyway. There IS adoption of the FLAC format coming. It is VERY new compared to MP3. Even if it wasn't new, you know more than anyone (as someone who has tracked dvda v. sacd), that format decisions are driven by profit and politics; NOT the superior format.
If the format is indeed lossless, you should not be able to hear any difference. HOWEVER, even this isn't evidence of, well, anything.
Just like anything else that decodes to an audio stream, the real time decoding player might not be implemented perfectly. The encoder you use might add options you aren't aware of too.
Does either the decoder or encoder use replaygain?
Does either the decoder or encoder do any dithering?
Did the plug-in author code the player correctly?
Does the plug-in run past errors in decoding if it must?
Does your waveform decoder do something differently?
Does your cd player do something differently?
Anyway, this list can do on and on. Any number of variables can influence sound, as you know. These variables, while they can influence the sound, say nothing about the validity of the lossless nature of the format.
-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: March 20, 2005 at 12:28 AM
kfr01] wrote:
"overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" ...? Which evidence is this again?
OK, so maybe there was a "little artistic license" taken here... LOL
kfr01] wrote:
) Recording companies don't use FLAC because it isn't a standard they've agreed on.
I know, this is what I'm saying... The MP3 is known as a highly inferior format, yet it is accepted as a "distribution format". Why not realize, and accept, a superior format? I think the RIAA just needs to pull their thumbs out their asses...
kfr01] wrote:
) Recording companies WON'T use it because it isn't popular enough.
I know this also. MP3 beat the compression "schemers" to the punch.
kfr01] wrote:
) It isn't popular enough because the file size is still much too large for consumers who love their mp3s.
Losers... LOL No, really... How cheap is space today? I am referring to both hard drive AND flash media... A 40G 2.5 inch drive can be had for less than a C-note at retail. You CANNOT tell me that, giving the success of the iPod, people are not willing to give up a few songs worth of space - especially those people like you and me who really enjoy their music, and are actually looking for fidelity, in favor of number of songs.
kfr01] wrote:
) There ARE home audio players being developed that support FLAC.
---> https://www.slimdevices.com/
---> and "the Zensonic Z500 Networked DVD Media Player, Escient's new FireBall E2-40, E2-160, and DVDM-300, the M300A Digital Music Player from Digital Techniques (see manual), Meda Systems' Bravo servers (more info), and the MS300 Music Server by McIntosh Laboratory."
Dude. McIntosh. :-)
I stand HAPPILY corrected! Finally, I can look forward to putting all of my music collection on DVD, in FLAC, and have only 75 DVD's instead of 500 CD's... OK, not really, but there you are. Do you know of any way to extract 24/96 from a DVD-A? LOL
kfr01] wrote:
here aren't portables yet because large file sizes and more necessary processing power isn't too compatible with the concept of mass market portable.
These are _business_ decisions. NOT evidence of the quality of the compression method. One thing to remember about ALL compression methods is that they take processing power on both the front end AND the back end to complete encoding. Processing power costs money to implement. Unless a firm feels like it can add value that will increase its profits over its costs - IT WON'T DO IT. :-)
Anyway. There IS adoption of the FLAC format coming. It is VERY new compared to MP3. Even if it wasn't new, you know more than anyone (as someone who has tracked dvda v. sacd), that format decisions are driven by profit and politics; NOT the superior format.
Processing power, I can understand - in addition to processing power, there is actual power consumption to consider, which I had not done until now. Since most of these things run off even as small a power supply as one AAA cell, power consumption is an important design factor.
kfr01] wrote:
f the format is indeed lossless, you should not be able to hear any difference. HOWEVER, even this isn't evidence of, well, anything.
Well, at least I got an "If the format is indeed lossless" out of you... LOL It should be evidence (as I see it) of the loss(es) involved in compression of any sort.
kfr01] wrote:
ust like anything else that decodes to an audio stream, the real time decoding player might not be implemented perfectly. The encoder you use might add options you aren't aware of too.
This is absolutely true. Generally speaking, I shy away from software decoding of ANY format. Who knows what the hell the software designer put in there, but the same really applies to hardware decoding, for the most part. Hardware decoding, AFAIAC, because of the expense, SHOULD have as little effect on the signal as possible.
kfr01] wrote:
oes either the decoder or encoder use replaygain?
Does either the decoder or encoder do any dithering?
Did the plug-in author code the player correctly?
Does the plug-in run past errors in decoding if it must?
Does your waveform decoder do something differently?
Does your cd player do something differently?
Anyway, this list can do on and on. Any number of variables can influence sound, as you know. These variables, while they can influence the sound, say nothing about the validity of the lossless nature of the format.
Again, you are correct, and I agree with you on nearly all of your points. As I said, the "lossless" nature is out still, until I can draw my own scientific and empirical conclusions. I am not discounting you point of view, I just take a little more convincing than some people - especially when it comes to my music.
To address your questions above, however, being as I have used the same software to rip, encode to FLAC, decode to WAV, burn to CD, I have tried simultaneos rip/encode, I have tried rip to temp file then encode, all of the software options available to me in my software. This should prevent any of the above problems from showing up as differences, as the commom elements can all be "removed from the equation". I have definitely heard a difference. Granted, the difference is SMALL, even minute, compared to even a 320 MP3, but the differences are present. I will also mention the differences between the compression levels is also EXCEPTIONALLY slight, but it is there, usually in the highest registers. This is why I suggested the test above. I have not been able to actually set down to do it, yet, but I do have the wav files encoded, just need to convert them to FLAC. While I am at it, I am going to do some similar experiments on MP3 encoded files as well. I already know they are going to be abysmal results, but, what the hell, the rig will already be all setup, so why not?
-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: March 20, 2005 at 12:38 AM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 20, 2005 at 12:27 PM
Posted By: DYohn
Date Posted: March 20, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Posted By: Poormanq45
Date Posted: March 20, 2005 at 1:05 PM
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: March 20, 2005 at 2:35 PM