[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by SumB Thomas have you heard the the V6? It's questionable if most people who recommend them have. One of these headphones is better by a landslide to my ears and it ain't the Sony.

I've owned V6's for the better part of 16 years, and I recommend them all the time. I've owned Grado SR-60's, 80's and 325's too. Frankly, I like them all very much. Nevertheless, the V6's remain one of my favorites (particularly with the velour Beyer pads). Maybe it's a particular compatibility with my ears, but, for whatever reason, I listen to my V6/7506 phones at least as much as my Sennheiser HD-600's.

It could also be due to the fact that I listen to my music at quieter volume levels than what I'd guess is the average. The HD-600's seem to perform better the louder you turn them up. The V6/7506's deliver more impact, to my ears, than anything else I've heard at the quieter volume settings.

 

[KR...]

can you guys please stop it before I wind up buying a freaking Sony

 

[bootman]

Quote:

can you guys please stop it before I wind up buying a freaking Sony

LOL!

 

[Mike Walker]

Thomas, you're right that 128kbps is certainly not good enough for "serious" music listening (my term, not yours). But it IS fine for casual listening on portables in most listening environments (outdoors, at the mall, on a crowded/noisy street). 128kbps is used a lot these days for distributing audio online to fm radio stations from independent production studios and agencies. However, I DO NOT use 128kbps for this purpose, as I usually find OBVIOUS degradation between the uncompressed .wav file and the 128kbps mp3. So I use Fraunhofer VBR (variable bit rate) encoding built into Cool Edit 2000, with a bit-rate setting of "70" (sometimes higher, although 70 is usually sufficient to sound artifact-free) for my material that I distribute online to radio stations. They frequently rave that the audio I produce for them, even after mp3 encoding (they NEVER even hear the uncompressed versions) sounds BETTER than what they produce in-house (with VERY high quality equipment!)

How do I make mp3 files sound "better" than most uncompressed audio? I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you

(actually I have a couple of audio plug-ins which I use "religiously" to make my work sound LOUDER, cleaner, and more "in your face")

 

[SumB]

The HeadRoom crossfeed doesn't interfere with the HRTF's. I use an Airhead on the pc and am an avid gamer.

 

[Galveston]

Quote:

LOL, even the average DumBass knows that 128k is not even close to Cd quality. ANY detail in the orignal recording is replaced by tons of artifacts and flanging.

Actually, bit rate isn't the only factor that determines sound quality of the mp3. The encoder you use is also very important. I find that the original Fraunhoffer (sp?) codec (l3enc.exe) can often produce very good sounding mp3's at 128kbs with the high quality switch turned on. In fact, I find l3enc's 128kbs mp3's to be superior to other encoder's 160kbs mp3's. However, there are certain songs that just don't encode well at 128kbs.

Anyhow, I still think that 192kbs would be a much better choice for a standard encoding rate. Not only does it represent (for me, at least) the point where mp3's sound almost identical to CD on normal equipment (i.e., computer speakers, and not audiophile gear), but it also marks the point where it becomes difficult to distinguish between which encoder was used. Since most people don't encode their mp3's with a good encoder, it would greatly increase the sound quality of what's out there.