Quailty Heaphones and Bit Rate

[BigPicnic]

I've had my iPod for awhile, but I've only ever had the standard Apple headphones. I definetly want to upgrade to some premium headphones (a la Shure , or some such). My question is this:

Does my music have to be encoded in the top bitrate to take advantage of the better headphones? Or will anything sound better?

Most of my music is encoded at 128 kbps. Will it sound better on the Shure headphones, or will quality headphones only make a difference if I encode everything at 192 or cd quality or whatever?

[doctorjuggles]

About 70% of my music is coded at 128. There's a little bit of difference, but either way, good earphones will improve the sound, even if the bit rate is low.
My phones are in my sig.

[thedodgyguy]

The better the phones resolve, the more artifacts become audible. 128K MP3's still pack quite a lot in the way of artifacts and on decent phones it will become more apparent. So in many ways you could say that low-bitrate files can sound worse on better phones. 192K is the minimum bitrate I'd say the normal person would have to listen quite hard to hear problems.

[BigPicnic]

Crap, I was afraid of that. Why oh why didn't I just encode everything at 192. The prospect of re-doing all my cd's and everything isn't really appealing at all.

What about mid-range phones like the Shure E2c? Will it make the atrifacts obvious? I guess If Dr. Juggles there can tolerate them on his E5s I should be alright... I mean, not that I'm some crazy audiophile or anything.

[kauffee]

I think you should be fine with either the E2 or E3. You'll definitely hear the difference between 128 and 192 on them, but 128 won't sound bad at all. If you encoded the CDs yourself, you can take solace in the fact that it's a good encoding job, and that does make a difference.

So yeah, don't shy away from high end phones just because your files are in 128. I converted most of my collection over to VBR, and I just did it little by litte... a few CDs a day. It's not that bad a project. In retrospect, I wish I converted into a lossless codec first. You may want to consider that if you re-rip.

[BigPicnic]

Thanks. Also, now that I look things over, it turns out I've been encoding almost everything at 160, which should be a little better. I'll do the old VBR jump though, in time.

[thedodgyguy]

Originally posted by kauffee
I think you should be fine with either the E2 or E3. You'll definitely hear the difference between 128 and 192 on them, but 128 won't sound bad at all. If you encoded the CDs yourself, you can take solace in the fact that it's a good encoding job, and that does make a difference.

So yeah, don't shy away from high end phones just because your files are in 128. I converted most of my collection over to VBR, and I just did it little by litte... a few CDs a day. It's not that bad a project. In retrospect, I wish I converted into a lossless codec first. You may want to consider that if you re-rip.


It's something I considered too. The problem at the moment is that if you use iTunes, you can't on-the-fly transcode from Lossless to something lower (and in any case, if you're going to do that in a regular way you'll need a very fast PC) for optimal portability vs storage on the iPod. Until that happens I'll rip at 256K VBR. It's the optimal choice for portable use IMO so that you can attach premium quality headphones (beyond E5) if need be and still not really notice anything amiss.


Besides, in retrospect I'm already up to 120Gb+ in 192K ~ 256K VBR (including some of friend's CD collections, natch) and had I chosen lossless, even the terabyte I have now might be a squeeze for my entire CD collection and the additions over the next year or so.

[random person]

big picnic --

I've got just about everything encoded at 162 AAC and only a few things at 192. The Shure E3 made everything sound great. And my new dual-driver Ultimate Ears UE5c? Made everything sound absolutely fantastic!!!!

Great earphones will NOT make you collection sound worse -- at any bitrate. Anything will indeed sound a whole lot better!!! Will you hear more detail??? Absolutely. Will things sound better at 192? Certainly. Do you need to go higher? No. Should you re-encode your entire file? Hell no!!!

Get the more expensive earphones and put that big smile on your face and enjoy them!!!! (Oh and the Ultimate Ears are do die for fabulous)

[br-]

Great earphones will NOT make you collection sound worse
Incorrect. Detailed headphones accentuate compression artifacts and poor recording/production.

[hitkaiser]

im no audiophile, nor am i a deaf dingbat, however, in 128k mp3s i dont really find any of these "artificats", the only difference i find between higher bitrates is that in higher bitrates u can hear more detail,.. bearing that in mind, (and havin tried a couple of good phones, i wont name them!), i find that high end (well, medium end, 150bucks..) do provide better quality in all songs, however, in 128k songs this is minimal and is notice much more on higher bitrates, it doesnt however "show more artifacts"..

[random person]

With higher end phones youl will hear more of everything -- the good, the bad and the ugly. So you will hear more of the source materials flaws -- but also more detail in general. IMHO the positive aspects of the detail, clarity, extended frequency range, etc., more than outweigh the increased awareness of source flaws and low bitrate artifacts.

[BigPicnic]

I guess I'm just gonna have to try for myself. Recently I've been improving my encoding anyway.

I mean, in the long run, I guess it's kind of pointless to use crappy earphones just to cover up crappy files. Since SOME Percentage of my music is encoded properly, it doesn't make sense to drag them down for the ones that aren't.

[random person]

You are so right Big Picnic -- go and get the new 'phones! Maybe the Shure E3 as a start -- you won't regret it!

[BigPicnic]

Shure e3, eh? I was trying to decide betwen those and the e2.