Listening on portable players

[Ciel_Rouge]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post here and I hope for some interesting answers. Namely, I noticed most avid listeners tend to listen on a system incorporating a CD player and decent speakers. However, I am still a kind of a beginner. I have moved beyond the few most widely known composers and my experience is growing. However, technology-wise, I am rather unsophisticated. During the day I listen on 2.1 speakers connected to a PC. However, at night I am able to listen most closely on an... mp3 player with ear buds. I noticed that if the compression rate is not too high, the amount of detail is quite acceptable. I am not sure if this way of listening is popular among classical listeners (or maybe it is condemned altogether ;-) ) but if there is some merit to it, could you recommend any players and earbuds to be used for this purpose?

[scarpia]

I would not recommend ear buds.  An set of headphones that go outside your ears will do better at producing a rich sound with full frequency response.  You can get something quite nice for less than $100, although fanatics will spend thousands.  A portable player will ordinarily not have the ability to reproduce the wide dynamic contrasts that occur in classical music.  A separate component CD player run through a pre-amp (the headphone jack on an amp, or a pre-amp specifically designed for headphones) will do a much better job than a portable player.

You could look at this site for general information about headphones and related stuff
http://www.headphone.com/

[Gurn Blanston]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post here and I hope for some interesting answers. Namely, I noticed most avid listeners tend to listen on a system incorporating a CD player and decent speakers. However, I am still a kind of a beginner. I have moved beyond the few most widely known composers and my experience is growing. However, technology-wise, I am rather unsophisticated. During the day I listen on 2.1 speakers connected to a PC. However, at night I am able to listen most closely on an... mp3 player with ear buds. I noticed that if the compression rate is not too high, the amount of detail is quite acceptable. I am not sure if this way of listening is popular among classical listeners (or maybe it is condemned altogether ;-) ) but if there is some merit to it, could you recommend any players and earbuds to be used for this purpose?

Of course, a regular stereo setup is best, but you can get good results out of may MP3 players nowadays. iPods are generally the player of choice, but I have a SanDisk Sansa e280, 8 gig flash player and I get excellent results with it. Of course, the first thing was the ritual tossing of the earbuds in the trash bin.   There are plenty of decent headphones available, many for even less than $100. My Sennheisers were $55 at Amazon.com and they sound just fine. More importantly, once you get the player setup that you like, if you are ripping your own MP3's, rip the highest quality you can find room for. This will minimize any compression artifacts. True, file size will be larger, but it is well worth the trade off. If you rip constant bitrate (CBR), go with 320. If you do as I do and rip V(ariable)BR, set it on the highest setting. This will only give you an average of 250 or so, but VBR is peaks and valleys, so if it needs 320 it will get 320, if it needs 128 it will get that. The result is quality at least as good if not better, and smaller file size.

On your computer, rip to FLAC, which is a lossless compression. Most computer playback software will play FLAC straight up. Then, when you want to fill up your player, you can convert the FLACs to MP3, download and (possibly) delete them to save space.

You're doing OK with what you have. Concentrate your efforts on improving your source files, because no matter what $$$ you spend on equipment, it won't sound good if the files are shabby. 



----------------
Listening to:
Work - Schumann Hornwerke - II

[DavidRoss]

I use better playback equipment for most of my listening, but also enjoy taking it with me on my iPod, using LAME "insane" 320kbps ripped from CD and Etymotic ER-6i earphones.  Good enough to enjoy the music, even on a recent flight with a nice but noisy little kid in the row behind me!

[Gurn Blanston]

I use better playback equipment for most of my listening, but also enjoy taking it with me on my iPod, using LAME "insane" 320kbps ripped from CD and Etymotic ER-6i earphones.  Good enough to enjoy the music, even on a recent flight with a nice but noisy little kid in the row behind me!

David,
Are those noise-canceling? Or do they just do a good job of letting you hear? I take long flights 2 or 3 times a year, and find the cabin noise insufferable, but I really don't want to invest in NC's just for that, as I don't need them otherwise. I haven't flown since I got my Senns, but I don't hold out high hopes for them anyway. Hope I'm wrong.



----------------
Listening to:
Philharmonia Orchestra / Giulini Itzhak Perlman - Bia 432 Op 61 Concerto in D for Violin & Orchestra 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo (cadenza: Kreisler)

[DavidRoss]

David,
Are those noise-canceling? Or do they just do a good job of letting you hear? I take long flights 2 or 3 times a year, and find the cabin noise insufferable, but I really don't want to invest in NC's just for that, as I don't need them otherwise. I haven't flown since I got my Senns, but I don't hold out high hopes for them anyway. Hope I'm wrong.

No, Gurn, they're ear-canal phones with eq optimized for iPods and the like.  Sound isolating, not noise canceling.  Work better than NC, I think, and sound better, too.  And much easier for the little iPod to drive than the headphones I use sometimes at home.  Plus very small and unobtrusive. 

[Gurn Blanston]

No, Gurn, they're ear-canal phones with eq optimized for iPods and the like.  Sound isolating, not noise canceling.  Work better than NC, I think, and sound better, too.  And much easier for the little iPod to drive than the headphones I use sometimes at home.  Plus very small and unobtrusive. 

Interesting. I'll check them out. I don't have a great huge set of phones anyway because I don't use them at home, only on the road. The over-ear Senns work well, but I doubt they will stand up to jet engines...

Thanks,


----------------
Listening to:
Philharmonia Orchestra / Giulini Itzhak Perlman - Bia 432 Op 61 Concerto in D for Violin & Orchestra 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo (cadenza: Kreisler)

[marvinbrown]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post here and I hope for some interesting answers. Namely, I noticed most avid listeners tend to listen on a system incorporating a CD player and decent speakers. However, I am still a kind of a beginner. I have moved beyond the few most widely known composers and my experience is growing. However, technology-wise, I am rather unsophisticated. During the day I listen on 2.1 speakers connected to a PC. However, at night I am able to listen most closely on an... mp3 player with ear buds. I noticed that if the compression rate is not too high, the amount of detail is quite acceptable. I am not sure if this way of listening is popular among classical listeners (or maybe it is condemned altogether ;-) ) but if there is some merit to it, could you recommend any players and earbuds to be used for this purpose?

  I have always felt that the best way to listen to Classical music is on CD with a decent stereo system and speakers.  However as my collection has grown over the past 5 years carrying all those CDs around and storage space for them became serious issues so I had to get myself a portable player.  I have an iPod video and all my CDs are ripped at a mimimum of 192 Kbps AAC- I would recommend that you do not go below this!  For speakers I use BOSE Triport Headphones. 

  marvin

[DavidRoss]

  I have always felt that the best way to listen to Classical music is on CD with a decent stereo system and speakers.  However as my collection has grown over the past 5 years carrying all those CDs around and storage space for them became serious issues so I had to get myself a portable player.  I have an iPod video and all my CDs are ripped at a mimimum of 192 Kbps AAC- I would recommend that you do not go below this!  For speakers I use BOSE Triport Headphones. 

Marvin--as you are a fan of opera and Wagner's "music dramas," I'm surprised you can tolerate 192kbps AAC.  When I first got an iPod I tried ripping to various bitrates with the codecs Apple's mp3 player would accept, seeking the optimum tradeoff between file size and sound quality.  192 kbps using either Apple's AAC mp4 or the Fraunhofer mp3 built into iTunes proved intolerable due to the numerous artifacts induced especially in complex passages with voice and orchestra.  The problem was evident even with the standard earbuds but became even more apparent with better quality cans.

For a while I tried 256kbps AAC, which sounded reasonably good on the iPod, but commonsense prevailed and I ended up ripping my CDs with the LAME mp3 codec at the 320kbps "insane" setting.  This not only assures me of the best sound available with a lossy compression codec supported by the iPod, but also since LAME is supported by every mp3 player, I'm not held hostage to Apple by having ripped my files in AAC.  (I admit to having a perverse admiration for Jobs's clever marketing that not only obscures sleazy business practices but turns them into pluses in the minds of the kids whose naivete they exploit.)

At 320kbps, my lossy files are 22% the size of the redbook CD files.  At 256, they were 18%.  At 192, they would be 13%.  In other words, in the same space that one CD would require in WAV format on my iPod, I can get 4 1/2 CDs @ 320kbps, 5 1/2 CDs @ 256kbps, or 7 1/2 CDs @192kbps. Even a few years ago, when drive capacity was so much less than today's 160gb iPods sport, the size difference wasn't worth the cost in sound quality.  192kbps might be just fine for pop music that's made in the studio with electronic instruments put together on a mixing board so hot that there's not enough headroom for Mini Me, but when it comes to reasonably well-recorded acoustic music with a huge dynamic range and complex layering of sounds (i.e. most classical music), what sounds okay on your crappy computer speakers or mass-market headphones today will sound like crap when you get better gear../and then you'll either have to live with the crappy sound or re-rip all your files.

[George]

For a while I tried 256kbps AAC, which sounded reasonably good on the iPod, but commonsense prevailed and I ended up ripping my CDs with the LAME mp3 codec at the 320kbps "insane" setting. 

I thought that the AAC setting afforded one better quality at the same bitrate. Wouldn't this mean that 256 AAC would pretty much the same as 320 MP3?

For the record, I never use AAC for anything I rip for myself, but my girlfriend uses it all the time since her listening is exclusively with itunes and 192 AAC gets you better sound than 192 MP3 in the same amount of space.

[mn dave]

I thought that the AAC setting afforded one better quality at the same bitrate. Wouldn't this mean that 256 AAC would pretty much the same as 320 MP3?

That's my understanding.

[marvinbrown]

Marvin--as you are a fan of opera and Wagner's "music dramas," I'm surprised you can tolerate 192kbps AAC.  When I first got an iPod I tried ripping to various bitrates with the codecs Apple's mp3 player would accept, seeking the optimum tradeoff between file size and sound quality.  192 kbps using either Apple's AAC mp4 or the Fraunhofer mp3 built into iTunes proved intolerable due to the numerous artifacts induced especially in complex passages with voice and orchestra.  The problem was evident even with the standard earbuds but became even more apparent with better quality cans.

For a while I tried 256kbps AAC, which sounded reasonably good on the iPod, but commonsense prevailed and I ended up ripping my CDs with the LAME mp3 codec at the 320kbps "insane" setting.  This not only assures me of the best sound available with a lossy compression codec supported by the iPod, but also since LAME is supported by every mp3 player, I'm not held hostage to Apple by having ripped my files in AAC.  (I admit to having a perverse admiration for Jobs's clever marketing that not only obscures sleazy business practices but turns them into pluses in the minds of the kids whose naivete they exploit.)

At 320kbps, my lossy files are 22% the size of the redbook CD files.  At 256, they were 18%.  At 192, they would be 13%.  In other words, in the same space that one CD would require in WAV format on my iPod, I can get 4 1/2 CDs @ 320kbps, 5 1/2 CDs @ 256kbps, or 7 1/2 CDs @192kbps. Even a few years ago, when drive capacity was so much less than today's 160gb iPods sport, the size difference wasn't worth the cost in sound quality.  192kbps might be just fine for pop music that's made in the studio with electronic instruments put together on a mixing board so hot that there's not enough headroom for Mini Me, but when it comes to reasonably well-recorded acoustic music with a huge dynamic range and complex layering of sounds (i.e. most classical music), what sounds okay on your crappy computer speakers or mass-market headphones today will sound like crap when you get better gear../and then you'll either have to live with the crappy sound or re-rip all your files.

 I went with 192 Kbps AAC because I read somewhere that that was the best compromise between storage space on the iPod and sound quality. I do have a problem however in that my collection is growing by the week. I am currently at 650 CDs and rising. Carrying CDs around when I am on holiday or travelling by car  is no longer feasible and I needed to maximize the use of my iPod.  I remember reading somewhere that the human ear can not tell the difference between CD quality sound and at minimum 192 Kbps AAC files.  I am not so sure about that and I really should put my ears to the test!  

 Let me ask you and everyone here this question:  What is the BEST compromise between sound quality and storage space? Bearing in mind a ever growing collection! So much discrepancy in opinion surrounds this issue with some people claiming that you can go down to 128 Kbps   without serious loss of sound quality!!      

 marvin

[mn dave]

...you can go down to 128 Kbps...

I think that's not true. I can hear loss of quality at this level. As you may have read elsewhere, I go with AAC 256 kbps. It seems a good compromise in sound vs. size, especially if you listen mostly through iTunes or iPod as I do.

[George]

  I went with 192 Kbps AAC because I read somewhere that that was the best compromise between storage space on the iPod and sound quality. I do have a problem however in that my collection is growing by the week. I am currently at 650 CDs and rising. Carrying CDs around when I am on holiday or travelling by car  is no longer feasible and I needed to maximize the use of my iPod.  I remember reading somewhere that the human ear can not tell the difference between CD quality sound and at minimum 192 Kbps AAC files. 

I believe that that argument is for 192 MP3s, which would in theory make your AACs more than adequate, as they offer better sound at the same bitrate. I say in theory, because we all hear music differently and therefore have different (if even slight) requirements for our ears. I suggest a shootout using music that you are familar with from different genres, since you may find lower bitrates OK for one kind of music but not another. If you know how to edit files on itunes, you can configure tracks to play the WAV followed by the 320 MP3, followed by the 320 AAC, etc. If you don't know how, let me know and I'll show you.

  Let me ask you and everyone here this question:  What is the BEST compromise between sound quality and storage space? Bearing in mind a ever growing collection! So much discrepancy in opinion surrounds this issue with some people claiming that you can go down to 128 Kbps  without serious loss of sound quality!!     

  marvin

This question I cannot answer, as I still carry around my portable CD player and 6 or so CDs every day. Mark would have been great for this.

[Gurn Blanston]

  I went with 192 Kbps AAC because I read somewhere that that was the best compromise between storage space on the iPod and sound quality. I do have a problem however in that my collection is growing by the week. I am currently at 650 CDs and rising. Carrying CDs around when I am on holiday or travelling by car  is no longer feasible and I needed to maximize the use of my iPod.  I remember reading somewhere that the human ear can not tell the difference between CD quality sound and at minimum 192 Kbps AAC files.  I am not so sure about that and I really should put my ears to the test!   

  Let me ask you and everyone here this question:  What is the BEST compromise between sound quality and storage space? Bearing in mind a ever growing collection! So much discrepancy in opinion surrounds this issue with some people claiming that you can go down to 128 Kbps  without serious loss of sound quality!!     

  marvin

marvin,
you should really read my earlier post at the beginning of this topic, I explained that pretty understandably. In short, the best compromise is to rip to MP3 VBR, set at a high rate. This will give you 320 when you need it, but will give you 128 when you need it (I actually set LAME to 112 min - 320 max). This gives you the best quality/filesize ratio. I've been doing this for nearly 10 years, so I'm not talking out my ass here... 



----------------
Listening to:
Royal Liverpool PO/MacKerras - Symphony #9 in d Op 125 3rd mvmt - Adagio molto cantabile - Andante moderato - Tempo 1 - Andante moderato - Tempo 1

[DavidRoss]

I thought that the AAC setting afforded one better quality at the same bitrate. Wouldn't this mean that 256 AAC would pretty much the same as 320 MP3?

For the record, I never use AAC for anything I rip for myself, but my girlfriend uses it all the time since her listening is exclusively with itunes and 192 AAC gets you better sound than 192 MP3 in the same amount of space.

George--this is marketing hype based on subjective evaluation comparing AAC with the crappy original Fraunhofer MP3 codec built into iTunes.  It doesn't hold with a good codec like LAME.  You could use LAME at a variable bitrate averaging 256kbps or so and have sound virtually identical to that of the fixed 320 kbps bitrate.  I just don't see that the slight advantage in file size is worth enough to bother introducing the additional complexities and potential for errors that VBR introduces.

Again, for the record, the old standard Fraunhofer MP3 codec Apple has built into iTunes is CRAPPY.  The free LAME mp3 codec is GOOD.  Comparisons between the crappy mp3 encoder Apple gives you and Apple's own AAC encoder are rigged to make AAC sound like a better choice than it really is.

Marvin--re quality vs. quantity--only you can determine the best compromise for you, based on what YOU hear--not on what some tin-eared internet geek who listens exclusively to iTunes downloads of techno-crap thinks he hears.  The idea that people cannot hear the difference between CD (which isn't that great to begin with compared to analog) and lossy compression at ANY bitrate is not based on fact.  If you cannot hear for yourself (not surprising, since hearing requires training just like seeing), then perhaps you might be served by reading some informed opinions like this one from John Atkinson.  (By the way, John Atkinson, a sound engineer and current editor of Stereophile, is very much a fan of new digital file storage technology and was an early advocate of the iPod.)

[George]

George--this is marketing hype based on subjective evaluation comparing AAC with the crappy original Fraunhofer MP3 codec built into iTunes.  It doesn't hold with a good codec like LAME.  You could use LAME at a variable bitrate averaging 256kbps or so and have sound virtually identical to that of the fixed 320 kbps bitrate.  I just don't see that the slight advantage in file size is worth enough to bother introducing the additional complexities and potential for errors that VBR introduces.

Again, for the record, the old standard Fraunhofer MP3 codec Apple has built into iTunes is CRAPPY.  The free LAME mp3 codec is GOOD.  Comparisons between the crappy mp3 encoder Apple gives you and Apple's own AAC encoder are rigged to make AAC sound like a better choice than it really is.

Marvin--re quality vs. quantity--only you can determine the best compromise for you, based on what YOU hear--not on what some tin-eared internet geek who listens exclusively to iTunes downloads of techno-crap thinks he hears.  The idea that people cannot hear the difference between CD (which isn't that great to begin with compared to analog) and lossy compression at ANY bitrate is not based on fact.  If you cannot hear for yourself (not surprising, since hearing requires training just like seeing), then perhaps you might be served by reading some informed opinions like this one from John Atkinson.  (By the way, John Atkinson, a sound engineer and current editor of Stereophile, is very much a fan of new digital file storage technology and was an early advocate of the iPod.)

Yeah, Marvin should run a test for himself. I suggested that earlier this morning. I'd be very interested to hear what the results yield.

For myself, I am now all the more happy to be listening to my redbook CDs on my portable walkman. I don't need worry about what is missing, because nothing's missing.

(and yes, I turn off my G-Protection, as it reduces SQ.) 

[marvinbrown]

marvin,
you should really read my earlier post at the beginning of this topic, I explained that pretty understandably. In short, the best compromise is to rip to MP3 VBR, set at a high rate. This will give you 320 when you need it, but will give you 128 when you need it (I actually set LAME to 112 min - 320 max). This gives you the best quality/filesize ratio. I've been doing this for nearly 10 years, so I'm not talking out my ass here... 



----------------
Listening to:
Royal Liverpool PO/MacKerras - Symphony #9 in d Op 125 3rd mvmt - Adagio molto cantabile - Andante moderato - Tempo 1 - Andante moderato - Tempo 1

  Sorry Gurn I completely missed your earlier post. 

  marvin

[mn dave]

If you cannot hear for yourself (not surprising, since hearing requires training just like seeing), then perhaps you might be served by reading some informed opinions like this one from John Atkinson.

If he cannot hear for himself, why should he listen to anyone else's opinion?

[marvinbrown]

I believe that that argument is for 192 MP3s, which would in theory make your AACs more than adequate, as they offer better sound at the same bitrate. I say in theory, because we all hear music differently and therefore have different (if even slight) requirements for our ears. I suggest a shootout using music that you are familar with from different genres, since you may find lower bitrates OK for one kind of music but not another. If you know how to edit files on itunes, you can configure tracks to play the WAV followed by the 320 MP3, followed by the 320 AAC, etc. If you don't know how, let me know and I'll show you.

  Thanks George for the suggestion.  I do know how to adjust the "importing" criteria on iTunes and can do these tests  .  Will report back.

  marvin