Sennheiser HD 558 tips

[hug0mac]

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.

 

I believe you. And I don't know if I do but I can hear the difference on mp3 and wav. I'm not here lying about it. >_>. You try to explain sound with words. I know I can't... 

[LeeWonky]

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. 

Because no one has to spend millions or cheap out either. I'm not even sure if you've done a thorough-enough research that the STX has a mess and you can get a headphone DAC and AMP combo for less than even $100 and it'd eat the STX alive.

[LeeWonky]

I believe you. And I don't know if I do but I can hear the difference on mp3 and wav. I'm not here lying about it. >_>. You try to explain sound with words. I know I can't... 

Like I said, its placebo or expectancy bias. Someone/Some people must've told you in the past, whether you still remember or not, that a format with a lower compression gives better quality, and you've unconsciously lied to yourself that you can hear the difference. Ofcourse there's still a difference if the compression was lower than 192kbps where the compression kicks in the hardest, but there comes a point that 256kbps and 320kbps are great enough that there's no reason to get compressions higher than that like Wav.

Even 24-bit VS 16-bit argument is pointless.

[iShad]

I believe you. And I don't know if I do but I can hear the difference on mp3 and wav. I'm not here lying about it. >_>. You try to explain sound with words. I know I can't...

I don't think you're lying, but I do believe there's some expectations bias/placebo here. It's fairly rampant on headfi, and on cases like this there's little point to convince you otherwise, you hear what you hear. Nothing wrong with buying things just for the ease of mind that there's no bottleneck in the chain, and if you're ok with spending the amount then why not?

[hug0mac]

So I'm mental to think 24bit is better?

 

 

 

Like I said, its placebo or expectancy bias. Someone/Some people must've told you in the past, whether you still remember or not, that a format with a lower compression gives better quality, and you've unconsciously lied to yourself that you can hear the difference. Ofcourse there's still a difference if the compression was lower than 192kbps where the compression kicks in the hardest, but there comes a point that 256kbps and 320kbps are great enough that there's no reason to get compressions higher than that like Wav.

Even 24-bit VS 16-bit argument is pointless.

 

Everything is pointless for you isn't it?

[LeeWonky]

So I'm mental to think 24bit is better?

 

 

Everything is pointless for you isn't it?

No, you're not mental... unless you really, really insist. Because even science proves there's negligible benefits on 24-bit.

Arguments that already debunked that are still being talked about are pointless.

Hell, I just found out Head-fi has members that make actual sense. And here's his post about:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

And, I quote:

I know that some people are going to say this is all rubbish, and that “I can easily hear the difference between a 16bit commercial recording and a 24bit Hi-Rez version”. Unfortunately, you can't, it's not that you don't have the equipment or the ears, it is not humanly possible in theory or in practice under any conditions!! Not unless you can tell the difference between white noise and white noise that is well below the noise floor of your listening environment!! If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference.

 

[SSL]

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.

 

I am a musician. I do enjoy music. I've spent nearly $1500 on audio gear to date. All I have been doing is instructing you in the folly of assuming that 24/96 or higher bitrates really matter to audio quality for listening. If you don't care, great, but let's not spread the pretend information that it is useful or even necessary to source files over Red Book in order to get the best possible digital audio quality.

 

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.

 

Stop. This kind of comparison is not valid. Obviously, quality gear matters, but these parallels you two keep trying to draw between audio and video simply do not make sense. Again, I encourage you to educate yourself about how music is actually encoded digitally. Again, we're talking about listening, not editing.

[SSL]

snip

 

Actually, it is perfectly possible to hear the difference in dynamic range between 16 and 24 bit. Problem is, that you'd need an audio system capable of pushing well over 140dB, probably 160-170+. Needless to say, this would cause instant hearing and property damage. It also isn't easy; actually getting a headphone that can play to those levels takes work.

 

But the reality is that very little music out there is recorded and mixed with anything approaching 16 ENOB dynamic range, let alone 24. Combine that with the fact that there is no gear out there capable of more than 20-21 ENOB and 24-bit is looking pretty pointless.

[Fluffinator]

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...

Well those examples don't have anything to do with what we are talking about. Putting new top of the line tires and rims won't make your car go faster, if you want to go faster you buy a new car. Which is why if you want a huge difference buy new headphones first, you said you wanted HD 700's in the future? Then just save up for those and buy those as quick as possible because a new dac/amp will make little to no difference on your current headphones. Then you bring up your arguments on different bitrates and how the difference is huge.... When you have headphones that are currently $69.99 on Amazon, just get new headphones be happy and be done with it.

[hug0mac]

Well those examples don't have anything to do with what we are talking about. Putting new top of the line tires and rims won't make your car go faster, if you want to go faster you buy a new car. Which is why if you want a huge difference buy new headphones first, you said you wanted HD 700's in the future? Then just save up for those and buy those as quick as possible because a new dac/amp will make little to no difference on your current headphones. Then you bring up your arguments on different bitrates and how the difference is huge.... When you have headphones that are currently $69.99 on Amazon, just get new headphones be happy and be done with it.

 

Mhm.

[Sharp_3yE]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok guys I have 2 things to say, 1 question and a fun challenge that we could do.

1. I agree that in most cases that "HD audio files" won't have any benefit. I agree that the biggest benefit you can get is by getting better(or style of sound you like better) speakers/headphones

2. I disagree that there is no benefite to HD audio files. With the right equipment I think it is possible to hear slightly better quality audio. Sure, it's not drastic but it's like 4k vs 1600p (i know you don't like this comparison but w/e).

 

My question is when do you find compressing audio actually makes a noticeable difference?

 

1 fun thing we can try if you guys are up to it is doing some blind test with a few HD audio tracks. We should compress the HD audio to compare the same track with uncompressed and compressed.

This http://www.realhd-audio.com/?page_id=2 offers free HD audio tracks. We can download these ones.

This program http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx allows us to do blind tests. We can take screen shots of our results and post what we used hardware wise.

 

 

This method proves there is a very slight difference (I'm sure you guys have seen this test before) and shows how to use Lacinato.

[Sharp_3yE]

Well those examples don't have anything to do with what we are talking about. Putting new top of the line tires and rims won't make your car go faster, if you want to go faster you buy a new car. Which is why if you want a huge difference buy new headphones first, you said you wanted HD 700's in the future? Then just save up for those and buy those as quick as possible because a new dac/amp will make little to no difference on your current headphones. Then you bring up your arguments on different bitrates and how the difference is huge.... When you have headphones that are currently $69.99 on Amazon, just get new headphones be happy and be done with it.

To be very picky, Tires don't actually make your car faster BUT what they can do is give better traction to the surface you are driving on. That is actually a HUGE improvement. If you have a car with a bunch of horse power, it doesn't matter if your wheels just keep spinning/ sliding on the road. Someone with a weaker engine can beat them because of better traction. Things have to be balanced with pretty much anything.

[iShad]

snip

As stated before, I have tried every format there is and have listened to a wide range of totl headphones + amp/dac from meetups in the bay area. If there's a difference, then I simply can't detect it as a human being with no super hearing power. No one is arguing that lossless is a superior format than lossy on paper, but it's out of the scope of what we can hear. This is not about headphone gears not capable enough, it's about what our ears are capable of.

[SSL]

2. I disagree that there is no benefite to HD audio files. With the right equipment I think it is possible to gain slightly better quality audio. Sure, it's not drastic but it's like 4k vs 1600p (i know you don't like this comparison but w/e).

 

It's not that I "don't like" the comparison, it's the fact that you are comparing the incomparable. Again: if you think this comparison is in any way valid, please educate yourself about PCM audio and Nyquist sampling theorem.

 

1 fun thing we can try if you guys are up to it is doing some blind test with a few HD audio tracks. We should compress the HD audio to compare the same track with uncompressed and compressed.

 

Why? Red Book isn't compressed, so why would be throw compressed music into the mix?

[iShad]

 

Also, some sources to read: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Heck, even headfi is more sane than this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/738552/testing-the-claim-i-can-hear-differences-between-lossless-formats

[Fluffinator]

To be very picky, Tires don't actually make your car faster BUT what they can do is give better traction to the surface you are driving on. That is actually a HUGE improvement. If you have a car with a bunch of horse power, it doesn't matter if your wheels just keep spinning/ sliding on the road. Someone with a weaker engine can beat them because of better traction. Things have to be balanced with pretty much anything.

I don't think you understand analogy's very well and you made all that stuff up, that has nothing to do with anything again..

[Sharp_3yE]

It's not that I "don't like" the comparison, it's the fact that you are comparing the incomparable. Again: if you think this comparison is in any way valid, please educate yourself about PCM audio and Nyquist sampling theorem.

 

 

Why? Red Book isn't compressed, so why would be throw compressed music into the mix?

 

 

As stated before, I have tried every format there is and have listened to a wide range of totl headphones + amp/dac from meetups in the bay area. If there's a difference, then I simply can't detect it as a human being with no super hearing power. No one is arguing that lossless is a superior format than lossy on paper, but it's out of the scope of what we can hear. This is not about headphone gears not capable enough, it's about what our ears are capable of.

Yes, I understand it's about our ears.

Ok let me ask the question again. When is an audio file not as good to your ears.

 

I don't think you understand analogy's very well and you made all that stuff up, that has nothing to do with anything again..

Actually I do understand analogy's. First of all, analogy's don't have to be perfectly equal. They are there only to relate to something else.

What did I make up?

 

 

Guys, I just thought it would be fun. I guess I'll have to do it on my own.

[iShad]

Yes, I understand it's about our ears.

Ok let me ask the question again. When is an audio file not as good to your ears.

 

As long as it's 320kbps and maybe even 256kbps, it's good enough for me. Don't get me wrong, most of my files are in flac just because I can, and space is not an issue. File is not as important to me as the actual recordings and how the song was mastered. I wouldn't be surprised if you can hear the differences in 24bit version of a song because it's literally a different version of the song if you read the article I linked.