Sennheiser HD 558 tips

[Sharp_3yE]

Have you actually tried comparing 16/44 vs 24/96 in blind tests? I doubt you could hear any difference.

 

 

You're gonna be really dissapointed from the impression you're giving off on how you can hear the minuet details in music, or maybe the placebo effect will carry you forward? Honestly just get the best headphones you can and put that money you were going to spend on that soundcard into better headphones. Also $175? That's more than the price of HD 598's even the special editions were $149.99 for the 598's.

 

 

How is a higher sample rate and bit depth supposed to improve quality if not by increasing the bandwidth and dynamic range? 16/44.1 already captures as much of the audible spectrum as could be required or useful for music playback.

 

Let me give you guys a of visual.

 

Lets say listening to music is like watching a movie. For a digital movie or song you have the file, there was the hardware to record, and the hardware view or listen to. With recording audio or video there is always a loss. For video there are only so many pixels, colors and contrast that can be captured through a camera, then the file that is given out of this video captures a certain amount of quality (the file can be lower quality or the same quality of video as the original shots), then there is a loss of quality on the screen that you watch on.

Now, if you are supplied a high quality video file of a movie you then have to provide the correct software and hardware combination to get the best viewing experience. If you are supplied with a 4k movie file with fantastic colors, to get the best viewing experience you need to have the hardware that can support running a 4k movie smoothly, software that supports 4k and doesn't downsample the file, and a 4k monitor that hopefully have great color and contrast. You need all of that to have the best experience watching that movie.

 

If you are supplied with a crappy 480p video files with bad colors then it doesn't matter how nice everything else is. If your hardware is bad then the movie wont play well, maybe it will be stuttery. And if the software doesn't support a high quality file then it may not be able to play. If your screen is only 1080p and has bad colors then even if your video file and eveything else is higher quality, your monitor will still make the video look worse.

 

It's the same with with sound. This isn't about getting good enough sound. This is about getting the best sound. If you want to play pc video games with the best experience you have to have the hardware. If you want the best experience to watch a movie you have to have the hardware and good video file. It's the same with sound and listening to music. If you want the best you have to have the hardware to drive the sound, a good file, and great speakers/headphones.

 

YES, there will be a noticeable difference getting a good sound card here with his HD 558s.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

Let me give you guys a of visual.

 

Lets say listening to music is like watching a movie. For a digital movie or song you have the file, there was the hardware to record, and the hardware view or listen to. With recording audio or video there is always a loss. For video there are only so many pixels, colors and contrast that can be captured through a camera, then the file that is given out of this video captures a certain amount of quality (the file can be lower quality or the same quality of video as the original shots), then there is a loss of quality on the screen that you watch on.

Now, if you are supplied a high quality video file of a movie you then have to provide the correct software and hardware combination to get the best viewing experience. If you are supplied with a 4k movie file with fantastic colors, to get the best viewing experience you need to have the hardware that can support running a 4k movie smoothly, software that supports 4k and doesn't downsample the file, and a 4k monitor that hopefully have great color and contrast. You need all of that to have the best experience watching that movie.

 

If you are supplied with a crappy 480p video files with bad colors then it doesn't matter how nice everything else is. If your hardware is bad then the movie wont play well, maybe it will be stuttery. And if the software doesn't support a high quality file then it may not be able to play. If your screen is only 1080p and has bad colors then even if your video file and eveything else is higher quality, your monitor will still make the video look worse.

 

It's the same with with sound. This isn't about getting good enough sound. This is about getting the best sound. If you want to play pc video games with the best experience you have to have the hardware. If you want the best experience to watch a movie you have to have the hardware and good video file. It's the same with sound and listening to music. If you want the best you have to have the hardware to drive the sound, a good file, and great speakers/headphones.

 

YES, there will be a noticeable difference getting a good sound card here with his HD 558s.

I know how sound codecs work and how sound hardware works. However, I believe that any sound files with more than 16 bit resolution and 48khz sample rate don't make sense. In terms of bit resolution, I doubt anyone could hear the difference between 16 bits and 24 bits. In terms of sample rate, the human ear can't hear more than 20khz, which is why I doubt that anyone could tell the difference between a sample rate of 44.1khz and 96khz, let alone 192khz.

[SSL]

Let me give you guys a of visual.

 

-snippsters-

 

Not really a valid comparison. I suggest reading up on PCM and PDM encoding, as well as Nyquist sampling theorem. To summarize, it is possible to perfectly reconstruct a bandwidth-limited continuous signle up to one half the samling rate (the Nyquist frequency). Since human hearing is bandwith-limited as well, anything above 44.1 is wasted for reproduction.

[Fluffinator]

Not really a valid comparison. I suggest reading up on PCM and PDM encoding, as well as Nyquist sampling theorem. To summarize, it is possible to perfectly reconstruct a bandwidth-limited continuous signle up to one half the samling rate (the Nyquist frequency). Since human hearing is bandwith-limited as well, anything above 44.1 is wasted for reproduction.

This.

[hug0mac]

Let me give you guys a of visual.

 

*text*

 

Great post! And yeah I totally agree. I can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit. And I have even tried that. I can see when a picture is 4K and when it's 1080p for example, like have anyone ever tried viewing a high res photo taken with a pro camera on a 10 bit panel that is hocked up to a quadro card? No? Neither have I but I believe it's wonderful.

 

 

Not really a valid comparison. I suggest reading up on PCM and PDM encoding, as well as Nyquist sampling theorem. To summarize, it is possible to perfectly reconstruct a bandwidth-limited continuous signle up to one half the samling rate (the Nyquist frequency). Since human hearing is bandwith-limited as well, anything above 44.1 is wasted for reproduction.

 

Not saying I can hear the difference between 44,100hz and 192,000hz. But 16 to 24 bit? YES.

 

 

I know how sound codecs work and how sound hardware works. However, I believe that any sound files with more than 16 bit resolution and 48khz sample rate don't make sense. In terms of bit resolution, I doubt anyone could hear the difference between 16 bits and 24 bits. In terms of sample rate, the human ear can't hear more than 20khz, which is why I doubt that anyone could tell the difference between a sample rate of 44.1khz and 96khz, let alone 192khz.

 

 

Same thing about 16 and 24 bit. I can hear a difference even without a sound card that support it (theoretically my on board sound do support 24bit in the windows settings) but it's meh.

 

 

YES, there will be a noticeable difference getting a good sound card here with his HD 558s.

 

or hers

[LeeWonky]

I have had the time to do that for a long time, yes. Difference, yes. Huge? Eh no. Do it matter for my ears? Yes. 

[hug0mac]

 

Okay?

[SSL]

Great post! And yeah I totally agree. I can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit. And I have even tried that. I can see when a picture is 4K and when it's 1080p for example, like have anyone ever tried viewing a high res photo taken with a pro camera on a 10 bit panel that is hocked up to a quadro card? No? Neither have I but I believe it's wonderful.

 

Except it isn't a great post. Again, the comparison is not valid. Video has gradiations that require a higher bit depth to capture. Digital audio is a discrete signal, so the word size only need be concerned with the dynamic range at a given time.

 

Same thing about 16 and 24 bit. I can hear a difference even without a sound card that support it (theoretically my on board sound do support 24bit in the windows settings) but it's meh.

 

This confirms that what you are "hearing" is placebo. Word size is about dynamic range, and if you don't have the gear to hear it, you won't.

[LeeWonky]

This confirms that what you are "hearing" is placebo. Word size is about dynamic range, and if you don't have the gear to hear it, you won't.

Yep

 

[Sharp_3yE]

I know how sound codecs work and how sound hardware works. However, I believe that any sound files with more than 16 bit resolution and 48khz sample rate don't make sense. In terms of bit resolution, I doubt anyone could hear the difference between 16 bits and 24 bits. In terms of sample rate, the human ear can't hear more than 20khz, which is why I doubt that anyone could tell the difference between a sample rate of 44.1khz and 96khz, let alone 192khz.

 

 

Not really a valid comparison. I suggest reading up on PCM and PDM encoding, as well as Nyquist sampling theorem. To summarize, it is possible to perfectly reconstruct a bandwidth-limited continuous signle up to one half the samling rate (the Nyquist frequency). Since human hearing is bandwith-limited as well, anything above 44.1 is wasted for reproduction.

 

 

This.

 

 

All I am saying guys, is that people buy an external DAC or internal sound card and I always hear about how it makes a very noticeable difference. I have noticed a difference with the sound coming out of my own PC by adding a sound card. It's more clear (no background noise/fuzzy sounds) and the highs and lows really "pop". Most Mobos still don't have higher grade audio chips.

Everywhere I read and everyone I listen to that talk about this stuff there is a unanimous decision on 16 bit vs 24 bit. Everyone says 24 bit is better. The people I read from are either just people who love listening to the best music they can to musicians to people who do mixings.

44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz is a different story. What a lot of people who mix music say at least is that a higher sample rate at least gives you room for when you mix the audio to be able to do things to it and having it still sound great. Different things effect it as well such as AA.

I'm in agreement with you guys that in most settings a person won't hear a difference between 48kHz and 192kHz. Especially since people typically use ear buds with their phone or play music on their car stereo system or on the Beats Pill. In certain settings you may hear a difference.

I don't know where you guys get your information but I can only say what I have read and heard from other people who know more about this then I do.

 

For me personally, the convenience of something like Spotify, Groove Music, or Google Play Music is an easy sell for me. For any music I want to personally own or would sound better using a better audio file such as a jazz song I am going to purchase it on hdtracks, most likely in 96/24.

 

I was just listening to this (I like TWIT) and thought it was informative.

[SSL]

le snip

 

Great job side-stepping every point made in the comments you quoted. The discussion was about reproduction, not audio editing.

[Sharp_3yE]

Great job side-stepping every point made in the comments you quoted. The discussion was about reproduction, not audio editing.

I'm not trying to argue. A lot of your points are right and some are subjective. I didn't just talk about editing. I mentioned that people I've heard and read from are people who really enjoy the high quality music files, musicians and people who mix. Some aspects of HD audio are for really editing. Other aspects really just allow us to hear more details that are noticeable.

 

All I am saying is that you do need the right equipment. @hug0mac wants to get the most out of his headphones and hear the fine details. In order to do that he will need an internal sound card or external dac and amp as well as having files that produce the finest details. He apparently isn't look for "good enough" or "what the average person will notice" but what the average person won't notice.

[hug0mac]

I'm not trying to argue. A lot of your points are right and some are subjective. I didn't just talk about editing. I mentioned that people I've heard and read from are people who really enjoy the high quality music files, musicians and people who mix. Some aspects of HD audio are for really editing. Other aspects really just allow us to hear more details that are noticeable.

 

All I am saying is that you do need the right equipment. @hug0mac wants to get the most out of his headphones and hear the fine details. In order to do that he will need an internal sound card or external dac and amp as well as having files that produce the finest details. He apparently isn't look for "good enough" or "what the average person will notice" but what the average person won't notice.

 

1+ No need to fight. I got the files from my CD's, the best possible source I could get. (compared to download online etc etc) that I ripped in a real reliable program at the best settings possible (32 bit is useless perhaps) so I had a standard of 24/96. As I don't got too much desk space I see that the STX is probably the best I can get. (I guess probably a rack mounted professional stuff is "best" but no I can't get that haha!)

 

I got started on high res sound with the HD558 on the real way after I got tired of my old headphones (I still had 24/96 back then and I noticed a HUGE difference on my old and HD558) I still had on board audio. It can only get better and I am not sure if I am some super human that can hear difference.

[LeeWonky]

I'm not trying to argue. A lot of your points are right and some are subjective. I didn't just talk about editing. I mentioned that people I've heard and read from are people who really enjoy the high quality music files, musicians and people who mix. Some aspects of HD audio are for really editing. Other aspects really just allow us to hear more details that are noticeable.

 

All I am saying is that you do need the right equipment. @hug0mac wants to get the most out of his headphones and hear the fine details. In order to do that he will need an internal sound card or external dac and amp as well as having files that produce the finest details. He apparently isn't look for "good enough" or "what the average person will notice" but what the average person won't notice.

Well, why trick ourselves into enjoying "high quality music files" when the "inferior mp3" has evolved so well with new algorithms over the years that its a headache to even compare or differentiate between FLAC and MP3 other than file size? Is there a difference between 24bit and 16bit? Saying yes is just trying to justify your G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).

Saying that we need the right equipment is a pointless argument. Which is why I don't understand the point of guys buying headphone amps and dacs that are worth as much as one or two Titan X's, that still have the same purpose as much as a Schiit Stack with more dials, ports, DSD playback, what have you. I used to be guys like you saying "I can hear the difference" and what not. But guess what? Doesn't hurt to admit that one cares to much that you've just ended up lying to yourself to the point that you believe it.

[hug0mac]

Well, why trick ourselves into enjoying "high quality music files" when the "inferior mp3" has evolved so well with new algorithms over the years that its a headache to even compare or differentiate between FLAC and MP3 other than file size? Is there a difference between 24bit and 16bit? Saying yes is just trying to justify your G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome).

Saying that we need the right equipment is a pointless argument. Which is why I don't understand the point of guys buying headphone amps and dacs that are worth as much as one or two Titan X's, that still have the same purpose as much as a Schiit Stack with more dials, ports, DSD playback, what have you. I used to be guys like you saying "I can hear the difference" and what not. But guess what? Doesn't hurt to admit that one cares to much that you've just ended up lying to yourself to the point that you believe it.

 

I don't use FLAC nor MP3 so there's that. Yes, sometimes you need the gear for it. Good headphone amp, good headphones, cables (if analog) etc. Same as you don't take a damn Intel HD graphics and try to edit 5K raw video files in Premier! You don't take a cheap Honda to a Le Mans race and try to win. You don't take a Pentium 4 and 1GB of ram trying to run GTA V.

 

If someone want to spend the money for "premier/exclusive" stuff than that person should have the right to do that. That the person seek help upon the first time buying such things from others is also not weird. That you even can compare FLAC to MP3 makes me wonder, sure it depends how you really encode it, I'm no audio expert but.

 

Maybe that it's ridiculously expensive for you to spend 1000$ on headphones or such but yet you maybe did spend more then that on your PC that I would think is useless.

 

I'm not mad, I'm just making things clear...  

[iShad]

I don't use FLAC nor MP3 so there's that. Yes, sometimes you need the gear for it. Good headphone amp, good headphones, cables (if analog) etc. Same as you don't take a damn Intel HD graphics and try to edit 5K raw video files in Premier! You don't take a cheap Honda to a Le Mans race and try to win. You don't take a Pentium 4 and 1GB of ram trying to run GTA V.

 

If someone want to spend the money for "premier/exclusive" stuff than that person should have the right to do that. That the person seek help upon the first time buying such things from others is also not weird. That you even can compare FLAC to MP3 makes me wonder, sure it depends how you really encode it, I'm no audio expert but.

 

Maybe that it's ridiculously expensive for you to spend 1000$ on headphones or such but yet you maybe did spend more then that on your PC that I would think is useless.

 

I'm not mad, I'm just making things clear...  

 

Now, I don't claim to be an expert but I do own a pretty decent setup Fostex hpa8 and th900, with a pair of 1964 A12 on the way in a few weeks. The people that replied are just trying to save you some money, and if you don't want to heed their advice then go ahead and buy whatever you want. I personally can't tell the difference between flac and mp3 even with my gears, but if you can then more power to you.

[hug0mac]

Now, I don't claim to be an expert but I do own a pretty decent setup Fostex hpa8 and th900, with a pair of 1964 A12 on the way in a few weeks. The people that replied are just trying to save you some money, and if you don't want to heed their advice then go ahead and buy whatever you want. I personally can't tell the difference between flac and mp3 even with my gears, but if you can then more power to you.

 

Great setup! The thing is that with that, I think you should hear the difference on a MP3 downloaded from iTunes or something and the same song from the same album in CD format and rip it with 24/96 .wav.

 

The difference is MP3 256kbps lossy compression vs 4608kbps wav. lossless compression. Try that, probably you will hear the difference. That is what I did at least. Now I don't got the same gear, you even got better than me, should even be more clear.

 

And saving me like what, 30 bucks is nice. But it's not about the money here, it's about getting the most close to the best sound possible for a reasonable price (not spending 500,000$ on the setup..)

[LeeWonky]

Replies in red

I don't use FLAC nor MP3 so there's that. Yes, sometimes you need the gear for it. Good headphone amp, good headphones, cables (if analog) etc. Same as you don't take a damn Intel HD graphics and try to edit 5K raw video files in Premier! You don't take a cheap Honda to a Le Mans race and try to win. You don't take a Pentium 4 and 1GB of ram trying to run GTA V.

There's a difference between using crap and using acceptable stuff. In enjoying audio, for fucksakes what does racing, rendering, and gaming on shit have to do with enjoying something that mostly requires your ears? A good headphone and headphone amp can be good at $100 as well. You just need to know the right one. And good cables? Are you high on placebo?

 

If someone want to spend the money for "premier/exclusive" stuff than that person should have the right to do that. That the person seek help upon the first time buying such things from others is also not weird. That you even can compare FLAC to MP3 makes me wonder, sure it depends how you really encode it, I'm no audio expert but.
MP3's algorithms have improved to the point that comparing FLAC to MP3 is pointless.

 

Maybe that it's ridiculously expensive for you to spend 1000$ on headphones or such but yet you maybe did spend more then that on your PC that I would think is useless.
I said headphone amp, not headphone, read! I never said anything wrong with buying $1000 headphones, but I did say I don't get the point of headphone amplifiers costing as much, if not more than $1000. Spend as much as you want. What we're trying to do is save your money.

 

I'm not mad, I'm just making things clear...  
How come I sense sarcasm in this?

[spwath]

Replies in red

Well, good cables to a point.

I don't think he is suggesting 100$ cables, but you just don't want bad cables.

Most headphones cables are fine.

It more matters with speaker wire, you want it all copper, and a heavy enough gauge.

[LeeWonky]

Great setup! The thing is that with that, I think you should hear the difference on a MP3 downloaded from iTunes or something and the same song from the same album in CD format and rip it with 24/96 .wav.

 

The difference is MP3 256kbps lossy compression vs 4608kbps wav. lossless compression. Try that, probably you will hear the difference. That is what I did at least. Now I don't got the same gear, you even got better than me, should even be more clear.

 

And saving me like what, 30 bucks is nice. But it's not about the money here, it's about getting the most close to the best sound possible for a reasonable price (not spending 500,000$ on the setup..)

He already told you he can't tell the difference. Are you trying to shove your idea in to his? Because one thing's for sure, your attempt on "getting the most close to the best sound possible for a reasonable price"... you're doing it wrong.

[hug0mac]

Replies in red

 

I'm. Not. Using. FLAC. Or. MP3, that is good that MP3 have changed, but it's still a loss of quality. FLAC less size and higher quality than MP3... Wav files you could see it as "raw" audio. (Probably I am not sure what format they use to record in the studio)

 

I am not buying a headphone amp for 1000$, I do believe that there is some difference in a high end amp and the STX. The STX cost like 250$. Thank you all for trying to help me to save money but this is not the thing here.

 

It honestly wasn't sarcasm, just saying that I don't want both you or me to get mad at each other for many reasons.

[LeeWonky]

Well, good cables to a point.

I don't think he is suggesting 100$ cables, but you just don't want bad cables.

Most headphones cables are fine.

It more matters with speaker wire, you want it all copper, and a heavy enough gauge.

The only time I can justify getting custom cables is when the cable that came with my headphones are:

1.) Detachable and the included cable/s are, in the words of ZeosPantera, "loops, loops, loops'n shit"

2.) Too damn long

But yeah, most headphone cables are fine anyways.

[iShad]

Great setup! The thing is that with that, I think you should hear the difference on a MP3 downloaded from iTunes or something and the same song from the same album in CD format and rip it with 24/96 .wav.

 

The difference is MP3 256kbps lossy compression vs 4608kbps wav. lossless compression. Try that, probably you will hear the difference. That is what I did at least. Now I don't got the same gear, you even got better than me, should even be more clear.

 

And saving me like what, 30 bucks is nice. But it's not about the money here, it's about getting the most close to the best sound possible for a reasonable price (not spending 500,000$ on the setup..)

Believe me, I have tried every sort of format including dsd which is "superior" to the ones you recommend and there's no discernible difference that I can tell. I am just amazed that you can identify the improvements on a hd558 through onboard; maybe you just have better ears than I do.

[hug0mac]

He already told you he can't tell the difference. Are you trying to shove your idea in to his? Because one thing's for sure, your attempt on "getting the most close to the best sound possible for a reasonable price"... you're doing it wrong.

 

I am not shoving anything into anyone here. Just trying to be helpful. The STX isn't for a reasonable price? Not sure what you are trying to say, I don't look to send millions on setup but I'm totally don't want to cheap out either. 

[LeeWonky]

I'm. Not. Using. FLAC. Or. MP3, that is good that MP3 have changed, but it's still a loss of quality. FLAC less size and higher quality than MP3... Wav files you could see it as "raw" audio. (Probably I am not sure what format they use to record in the studio)

 

I am not buying a headphone amp for 1000$, I do believe that there is some difference in a high end amp and the STX. The STX cost like 250$. Thank you all for trying to help me to save money but this is not the thing here.

 

It honestly wasn't sarcasm, just saying that I don't want both you or me to get mad at each other for many reasons.

Wav is just FLAC in a smaller size. And saying MP3's "still a loss of quality" is just placebo or expectancy bias.

You don't need to buy an amp thats worth $1000. You can get an amp thats even less than $100 like the SMSL SD793-II (if you motherboard has optical out) or something like the Schiit Fulla. They'll serve you better than the STX, which if you haven't heard, is a mess. Its in a mess to the point that the customers themselves have made custom drivers/software/etc... to get it to work properly.