Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Audiophiles are not much different than other hobbies or addictions (e.g., Mac addicts, iPod addicts). Sure some audiophiles go way over board (e.g., green markers on CD, $2,000 speaker cables), but audiophiles simply value good accurate sound. Without them, home theater audio would not have reached the state it is in now.

I consider myself an audiophile, although I did not spent a ton of money building my system. To us, "listen to what sounds good to you" is often not a good yard stick. Essentially, one of the common missions audiophiles seek after is recreating very accurate sound to match recording engineers/musicians/filmmakers' intention. Boosting bass and/or treble is a big no no. We use equalizers to merely flatten the sound further (compensating for speaker's weakness and playback environment). We use several tools to tweak our system to sound as neutral and accurate as possible, with minimal distortion, etc.

That said, I am also an iPod user (just replaced the old one with new 5G 30 GB) and no, I did not encode all my music in Apple Lossless format. I am using 256 kbps AAC VBR instead. Although encoding at even 128 kbps AAC would often result in good enough sound on average earphones, on full-range speakers or studio headsets, you can easily tell them apart. Lower bitrate encoding often results in tiny/flat sound with weaker bass or treble.
 
I'm not an Audiophile, but there's a few tracks that are horrible at lower bitrates, the worst one for me is 'Creep' by Radiohead, i reckon if someone can't hear anything wrong with that track in the first 15 seconds
(encoded@ 128kbps AAC) then they should be declared deaf.

Though most other tracks I can't notice *much* of a difference.

Am I right in thinking that 128kbps music bought from the ITMS sounds better than ripped 128kbps stuff? (because it does to me!)

edit: oh, and in reply to the OP, I couldn't hear a difference in the tracks within the zip file with my Etymotic ER-6s, that's why I'm not an audiophile :)
 
iTMS encoding method & question

maddav said:
Am I right in thinking that 128kbps music bought from the ITMS sounds better than ripped 128kbps stuff? (because it does to me!)

I read about this when the iTMS was first introduced. Apple does not rip tracks from CDs like me and you do on our computers. Instead they use master tapes for playback and some custom software to do the encoding. This results in their 128 kbs files sounding as good as our 160 kbs tracks.

I have a question for the so-called audiophiles on this forum: is it possible to rip music from Super Audio CDs and DVD-Audio disks and convert those tracks into AAC?
 
Sound to smile for!

I have tried loads of earphones including Shure E2C's, Sony MDR EX71,Koss ,Yahaba Opus and EGears eZears SX50. I am a little rough on them so they don’t tend to last to long.

Shure E2’s can’t be faulted but the price is too high for me. I don’t think they are worth the extra. But if you got the money then why not

Sony MDR EX71 are ok but not the best sound for your money. The cable is very flimsy so after a couple of weeks the wire showed in parts and it goes round the back (one cable longer).Most annoying is, although you get 3 bud sizes none fit properly.

Yahaba Opus were very similar in sound to the Sony MDR EX71. They are cheaper than Sony , a better build and very comfy. They have a very distinctive look though!

Koss are really rubbish. Its like listening to normal earphones in a can. Complete waste of Money.

EzGear EzEars SX50s are really good. No gimmicks, no fuss. It’s a simple, well made ,small, light earphone with fantastic sound (almost as good as Shure). Really makes me smile. I have had a good few months now, which is a record for me and I still love them! Check out ebay or www.soundwise.co.uk (who actually sell as F1 )they seem to have the best prices.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.