is there such thing as high dynamic range headphones?

[ontheline]

is there such thing as high dynamic range heaphones or can certian headphones improve dynamic range of a cd?

 

[dalethorn]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

For best dynamics, you'll want a headphone with a fast responsive driver - the Beyer Teslas are good, the Stax electrostatics are even better, but even though the planar drivers are supposed to be superior to the regular dynamic headphones, they for some reason don't excel in the treble, albeit they are usually better in the bass.

 

[The_Lhc]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, on the one hand you say it's better to rip a CD but then you seem to be implying that playing those rips has a downside?

Either way I'm not sure what the relevance to the original question is?

 

[dalethorn]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, on the one hand you say it's better to rip a CD but then you seem to be implying that playing those rips has a downside?

Either way I'm not sure what the relevance to the original question is?

Your question "....improve dynamic range of a CD" - you asked if a headphone could do that. I answered that question in both ways - what a headphone could do, and what else you need to do to improve the dynamic range of a CD. So you got a bonus answer!

 

[fr0g]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

So...nothing. The processing power required to uncompress a FLAC is negligible. It was possible 13 years ago without issue. A top spec PC 13 years ago had way less processing power than a modern mobile phone.

Suggesting there is any problem doing the decompressing is akin to saying that weeing in the Thames could cause a flood.

 

[The_Lhc]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, on the one hand you say it's better to rip a CD but then you seem to be implying that playing those rips has a downside?

Either way I'm not sure what the relevance to the original question is?

Your question "....improve dynamic range of a CD" - you asked if a headphone could do that.

Not me guv'nor, I never asked nuffink of no one squire! Just stickin' me nose in where it's not wanted!

I answered that question in both ways - what a headphone could do, and what else you need to do to improve the dynamic range of a CD. So you got a bonus answer!

Hmmm, I'm not convinced ripping a CD is going to improve the dynamic range, as you said, it'll be bit-perfect to the CD, so the same in all aspects, surely? I think the original question was simply are there headphones that have a greater dynamic range than other headphones? I'm sure there are but those headphones will only provide the DR of a recording that's presented to them and I don't know of many recordings that are likely to have a DR anywhere near that of the majority of headphones or speakers, so I'd imagine it's a bit of a moot point...

 

[dalethorn]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

So...nothing. The processing power required to uncompress a FLAC is negligible. It was possible 13 years ago without issue. A top spec PC 13 years ago had way less processing power than a modern mobile phone.

Suggesting there is any problem doing the decompressing is akin to saying that weeing in the Thames could cause a flood.

Actually, no. It's like saying that weeing in the Thames would pollute, which it does.

 

[fr0g]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

So...nothing. The processing power required to uncompress a FLAC is negligible. It was possible 13 years ago without issue. A top spec PC 13 years ago had way less processing power than a modern mobile phone.

Suggesting there is any problem doing the decompressing is akin to saying that weeing in the Thames could cause a flood.

Actually, no. It's like saying that weeing in the Thames would pollute, which it does.

I feel my analogy is better as I am saying there is plenty of reserve in any modern playvback device to decompress a FLAC without having any effect on any playback, i.e - It not bursting out over the edges... but still, we can take yours...

So. If I take the water out of the Thames (Many billions of litres), test it. Then wee in it. Then test it again. Do you think there will be a measurable difference? Do you think you could taste the difference?

 

[dalethorn]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

So...nothing. The processing power required to uncompress a FLAC is negligible. It was possible 13 years ago without issue. A top spec PC 13 years ago had way less processing power than a modern mobile phone.

Suggesting there is any problem doing the decompressing is akin to saying that weeing in the Thames could cause a flood.

Actually, no. It's like saying that weeing in the Thames would pollute, which it does.

I feel my analogy is better as I am saying there is plenty of reserve in any modern playvback device to decompress a FLAC without having any effect on any playback, i.e - It not bursting out over the edges... but still, we can take yours...

So. If I take the water out of the Thames (Many billions of litres), test it. Then wee in it. Then test it again. Do you think there will be a measurable difference? Do you think you could taste the difference?

There's tonnes of controversy in the audio "industry" about measurements versus audibility. No point in rehashing all of that here. In this day and age (2015 AD/CE), when music players do sometimes hiccup in playback due to one problem or another, we actually see that processor cycles can become strained at times (too many reasons to list, among which are various resource hogs and background processes running).

Regardless of anyone's assumptions about "loads of extra power" available, we can know that playing FLAC versus WAV is "not the same". It will always be not the same, no matter how absolutely certain someone is that it is the same.

 

[fr0g]

The best thing you can do for a CD is a "bit perfect" rip to a lossless file. That eliminates the real-time errors that can't be fixed by the CD player in Real Time. When you compress that file, even to a lossless FLAC, the player has to uncompress it in real time to play it - most 'experts' will swear that's no problem, however it's a fact that the player has to uncompress it to play it, so.....

So...nothing. The processing power required to uncompress a FLAC is negligible. It was possible 13 years ago without issue. A top spec PC 13 years ago had way less processing power than a modern mobile phone.

Suggesting there is any problem doing the decompressing is akin to saying that weeing in the Thames could cause a flood.

Actually, no. It's like saying that weeing in the Thames would pollute, which it does.

I feel my analogy is better as I am saying there is plenty of reserve in any modern playvback device to decompress a FLAC without having any effect on any playback, i.e - It not bursting out over the edges... but still, we can take yours...

So. If I take the water out of the Thames (Many billions of litres), test it. Then wee in it. Then test it again. Do you think there will be a measurable difference? Do you think you could taste the difference?

There's tonnes of controversy in the audio "industry" about measurements versus audibility. No point in rehashing all of that here. In this day and age (2015 AD/CE), when music players do sometimes hiccup in playback due to one problem or another, we actually see that processor cycles can become strained at times (too many reasons to list, among which are various resource hogs and background processes running).

Regardless of anyone's assumptions about "loads of extra power" available, we can know that playing FLAC versus WAV is "not the same". It will always be not the same, no matter how absolutely certain someone is that it is the same.

You're right it's "not the same". Audibily about as different as playing a tune wearing a t-shirt is "not the same" as playing it wearing a polo.

 

[cheeseboy]

In this day and age (2015 AD/CE), when music players do sometimes hiccup in playback due to one problem or another, we actually see that processor cycles can become strained at times (too many reasons to list, among which are various resource hogs and background processes running).

If any music player is hiccuping whilst playing back a flac file, there's something seriously wrong with it.

 

[dalethorn]

In this day and age (2015 AD/CE), when music players do sometimes hiccup in playback due to one problem or another, we actually see that processor cycles can become strained at times (too many reasons to list, among which are various resource hogs and background processes running).

If any music player is hiccuping whilst playing back a flac file, there's something seriously wrong with it.

It's easy to say, but google some posts where people are trying to fix those problems. It's ugly. But it illustrates that just because yours seems to work perfectly, it doesn't really. It's software, it's complex, and nobody really knows....

 

[pauln]

I don't recall ever having a "hiccup" in the 5 or 6 years I've been using Foobar to play flacs even when doing something as processor intensive as 3D Autocad. I do have a pretty high spec laptop though.

 

[dalethorn]

I don't recall ever having a "hiccup" in the 5 or 6 years I've been using Foobar to play flacs even when doing something as processor intensive as 3D Autocad. I do have a pretty high spec laptop though.

Most software works most of the time, but as a 25-year software engineer, I can tell you that the source code is buggy, it's very complex at the source level ('C' language), and you're very lucky not to hit snags. I can read testimonies all day long, or even write them here, regarding all of my positive experiences, but it doesn't address the issue - namely that saying FLAC playback is effectively the same as WAV playback. That word 'effectively' sweeps a lot of dirt under the rug.

"But it sounds perfect to me".

Well, enjoy it while you can.

 

[fr0g]

I don't recall ever having a "hiccup" in the 5 or 6 years I've been using Foobar to play flacs even when doing something as processor intensive as 3D Autocad. I do have a pretty high spec laptop though.

Conversely, I do get hiccups when I use Photoshop (as I do often). But that isn't really the point if we're simply talking about listening to music.

Playing back music on a dedicated player, or PC will exhibit zero audible difference when playing FLAC / WAV or whatever. Worrying about it is simple Hifi neurosis and is exactly why Charlatans get to sell things to Audiophiles at silly prices and why people insist on arguing about the invisible differences between wires and suchlike.

 

[dalethorn]

I don't recall ever having a "hiccup" in the 5 or 6 years I've been using Foobar to play flacs even when doing something as processor intensive as 3D Autocad. I do have a pretty high spec laptop though.

Conversely, I do get hiccups when I use Photoshop (as I do often). But that isn't really the point if we're simply talking about listening to music.

Playing back music on a dedicated player, or PC will exhibit zero audible difference when playing FLAC / WAV or whatever. Worrying about it is simple Hifi neurosis and is exactly why Charlatans get to sell things to Audiophiles at silly prices and why people insist on arguing about the invisible differences between wires and suchlike.

I'd suggest you take a class in Logic. You should know that you cannot exclude what you're trying to exclude, i.e. "no audible difference exists". That bit of BS has been used to sell "high fidelity" phonographs since 1903, and today we have learned that there are audible differences in everything.

 

[fr0g]

I don't recall ever having a "hiccup" in the 5 or 6 years I've been using Foobar to play flacs even when doing something as processor intensive as 3D Autocad. I do have a pretty high spec laptop though.

Conversely, I do get hiccups when I use Photoshop (as I do often). But that isn't really the point if we're simply talking about listening to music.

Playing back music on a dedicated player, or PC will exhibit zero audible difference when playing FLAC / WAV or whatever. Worrying about it is simple Hifi neurosis and is exactly why Charlatans get to sell things to Audiophiles at silly prices and why people insist on arguing about the invisible differences between wires and suchlike.

I'd suggest you take a class in Logic. You should know that you cannot exclude what you're trying to exclude, i.e. "no audible difference exists". That bit of BS has been used to sell "high fidelity" phonographs since 1903, and today we have learned that there are audible differences in everything.

Have we really? Have you a link for that nugget of misinformation perchance?

As for the class in logic, I think there must be a place reserved for you somewhere. There is proveably no audible difference between a player playing a FLAC or WAV. It's been demonstrated on any number of occaisions, not that it needs to be as logic, if used properly will tell you that pretty clearly. It isn't even a topic worth consideration at any level.

 

[cheeseboy]

Have we really? Have you a link for that nugget of misinformation perchance?

yup, I'll second that. Sources and references please, otherwise it's just hot air.

 

[dalethorn]

Have we really? Have you a link for that nugget of misinformation perchance?

yup, I'll second that. Sources and references please, otherwise it's just hot air.

All you're doing is being argumentative. You're not saying anything except being hostile. What I said is that you cannot prove a negative, which is an absolute fact. Now be good and go look that up - cannot prove a negative, i.e. that something absolutely does not exist.

 

[dalethorn]

Since you argumentative guys aren't able to do research, look up John Swenson and Barry Diament, credible researcher/engineers (unlike y'all) who know about these things.

 

[cheeseboy]

Since you argumentative guys aren't able to do research, look up John Swenson and Barry Diament, credible researcher/engineers (unlike y'all) who know about these things.

firstly, speaking for myself, I wasn't being argumentive. you made a claim, so it's good grace to back it up with some evidence at the very least, otherwise we could all sit here all day making spurious claims and then saying whatever we liked. Your own words, you said "and today we have learned that there are audible differences in everything." All frog and I are asking for is something to back that statement up. You never mentioned anything about proving a negative.

Secondly, as you have absolutely no idea what I do, how can you say for a fact that I (we) don't know about these things? Just popping names out doesn't help anything.

 

[fr0g]

Since you argumentative guys aren't able to do research, look up John Swenson and Barry Diament, credible researcher/engineers (unlike y'all) who know about these things.

Um.

Again, your logic is rather ironically flawed.

You are making a claim for something that is generally accepted as fact. In order to substantiate that claim, it is you who has the burden of proving it otherwise we can all simply carry on as if you hadn't made it.

Nobody is trying to prove a negative, but your comment highlighted earlier is clearly complete nonsense outside of existential philosophy.

 

[pauln]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

 

[fr0g]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

 

[The_Lhc]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

Alantiggger, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.