POAL! Which audiosetup would you rather have..

[yhelothar]

Just wondering what ATOTers see in audio format.

 

[Baked]

FLAC > Foobar > Digital Out > DAC > Amp > Headphone

 

[b0mbrman]

The first one...no contest

 

[Ika]

E4C kicks the E3C's ass, but I'm not really into Shure's sound signature anyway.

However, I can't stand 128kbps. Music needs to be at least 192 so I can't hear artifacts. If I hear them they piss me off.

I personally use VBR V2, best compromise between sound quality and file size for me.

 

[Extelleron]

Who listens to CD's/music on the computer........

Besides youtube/mp3's..........

 

[tweakmm]

This is a retarded question.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
This is a retarded question.

why which one did you choose?

 

[JustinGoodie]

as long as you have decent headphones, 128k is way the hell too low to sound decent... unless your ears are used to simple hip hop beats and emo that have very little variation in sound frequencies. hiphop is nothing other than very high and very low frequencies while emo is primarily midrange... personally, i listen to a little bit of everything (minus country with an emphasis on rock) and sound quality is paramount. nothing lower than 192 kbps is even close to acceptable.

high bitrate and at least decent 'phones are the way to go... even on the best headphones, the quality of the source matters most... it's like running premium gasoline in a 1.2 liter kia or trying to drive a ferrari running on cooking oil... you'd be better off with a bmw running midgrade

 

[xanis]

I vote lossless with the E3C.... Lossy formats suck so.... yeah.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
This is a retarded question.

 

[yhelothar]

Anyways, I've personally listened to both setups(the first being the ER4S), and it sounded MUCH better than the E3. The MP3 format didn't make much of a difference, but the equipment made a huge difference.

 

[Googer]

Digital = Simulated Analogue. Long Live the LP!

 

[DaveSimmons]

128kbps is OK some of the time, then I hear an artifact.

I could see enjoying 128kbps MP3 + excellent headphones if you've only ever heard the MP3 version of a song, so you don't know how it's supposed to sound.

I could also see enjoying that combo with heavily processed music that's already smeared and overcompressed on the source CD. A lot of pop, rap, other top 40 music has vocals so processed they can't be hurt any more by a little lossy compression.

Me, I'll stick with lossless FLAC. HD space is cheap, I fit 1,000 FLAC'd CDs into 300 GB of disk space which now costs about $100.

 

[Cerb]

None.

I have the E3c, and wouldn't recommend them (got 'em prior to E4 release), generally. I find their lack of lower bass unnerving.

I also wouldn't bother w/ 128k MP3, as too much stuff is going to be lightyears from transparent.

Currently: FLAC->FB2K->PSC805->amp (Xin Supermini-3)->KSC75, and LAME V 3 to V 0 for portable listening (I need to test alternatives for EL&P and AAP, though).

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Who listens to CD's/music on the computer........

Besides youtube/mp3's..........

Welcome to 2006, enjoy your stay.

I'd say lossless with E3. 128k MP3s hurt my soul.

 

[Tiamat]

what you hear is directly related to the quality of your source. If your source sucks, you are wasting money if you upgrade any other component first.

I would go with the Altec Lansing IM-716 with lossless. The IM-716 costs 70$ and has sound characteristics very similar to the more expensive ER-4P

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
128kbps is OK some of the time, then I hear an artifact.

I could see enjoying 128kbps MP3 + excellent headphones if you've only ever heard the MP3 version of a song, so you don't know how it's supposed to sound.

I could also see enjoying that combo with heavily processed music that's already smeared and overcompressed on the source CD. A lot of pop, rap, other top 40 music has vocals so processed they can't be hurt any more by a little lossy compression.

Me, I'll stick with lossless FLAC. HD space is cheap, I fit 1,000 FLAC'd CDs into 300 GB of disk space which now costs about $100.

It's sad though, these days there is so much dynamic compression in audio CDs there comes the question of how much of a difference there is between "lossless CDs" and MP3 128...

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: tweakmm
This is a retarded question.

why which one did you choose?

Better headphones just make a bad source sound worse.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: goku

It's sad though, these days there is so much dynamic compression in audio CDs there comes the question of how much of a difference there is between "lossless CDs" and MP3 128...

I couldnt agree more. I see people making a big deal about FLAC over MP3, but then they use new remastered CDs instead of the older ones without dynamic compression, which makes no sense.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
The first one...no contest

Then you lose...no contest.

 

[yhelothar]

I wonder how many people saying 128kbps mp3's are filled with artifacts actually took the time to make an objective comparison with blind tests before making such conclusions.
I've had many people tell me how bad 128kbps mp3's sound.. and then when I take them to listen to a blind test on my computer.. none of them can tell the difference, except one, my neighbor who's an audiophile. And even then, he says the difference is mostly only the feeling in the soundstage.
You probably won't hear the soundstage anyways with the E3... but when I tried the Etymotic ER-4S with amp, it was like it opened up a whole new dimension in music. I could discreetly hear where all the sounds were coming from. I can feel the room I'm in.
And no, I'm not talking about synthesized music, rap, or pop. I'm talking about a live recording of the blue danube in a concert hall

 

[Cerb]

I have done ABXing...the more detail and range it has, the worse it will be...but really odd artifacts tend to pop up more on either highly compressed music, or synth-heavy music. Not all 128k are bad. I'd wager that half the music I listen to I could not ABX, and much of it I can only tell from that collapsed soundstage (which is difficult to ABX, as it typically takes many minutes of listening to start feeling the difference), at 128k. For portable use, though, even w/ IEMs, decent quality MP3s are fine. It's listening in a moderately quiet home environment, where you can really be taken away w/ the music, that it makes a meaningful difference.

The big problem with that is that having one or two artifacts in one song that are obvious will ruin the listening experience of an entire album, and this makes a difference even when listening on the go, IMO.

You probably won't hear the soundstage anyways with the E3

I'm mildly claustrophobic (IE, you'd never know if I didn't tell you), and one of the few times I've gotten a panic attack from it was listening to highly compressed (both in terms of lossy compression format and not having much range) w/ my E3, because it just felt so closed in. The difference is there, even if the cans suck at it in general (which they do!).

I couldnt agree more. I see people making a big deal about FLAC over MP3, but then they use new remastered CDs instead of the older ones without dynamic compression, which makes no sense.

Yes, but then, some of us b!tch about the new CDs being that way! On top of that, it seems some newer albums didn't have to be done that way to begin with (Google "Hoffman Californication")! Using a similar example, listening to Blood Sugar Sex Magik in FLAC is just amazing compared to even V 0 MP3...swap over to some NIN, like maybe the Spiral, and I can't tell you which is which. I personally wish more people cared--I'll not be byuing anything new that I know sounds like crap, including RHCP, of which I know I actually like some of the songs, and wouldn't be surprised if I liked their newer albums entirely--if what I'd already heard were not painful after a few mintues!