Duck and Cover

For many years now I've been using almost exclusively my PC to play music. The ease of storing and accessing your collection is an obvious advantage here. I didn't only download stuff but I also ripped my numerous CDs for my private and easy use.

I used to just use on-board sound card + some average 2.1 speakers. Then a few years ago I took interest in the role of sound in on-line FPS games and I got myself an excellent sound card (Creative X-Fi), decent 2.1 Creative speakers, and a pair of good headphones. With these, I would listen to lossless music or high-bitrate mp3 while also applying Creative's 'Crysalizer' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Blas ... rystalizer ). The increase in sound quality was absolutely great and made me quite pleased.

In the process of educating myself on acoustics I became a sort of headphone aficionado, however I thought I couldn't justify spending a few hundred pounds on a "good" pair. That was until recently when I thought "what the heck" and got myself some really good cans. These needed supplying with some other stuff (creative's amplifier integrated in the speakers was no longer enough).

Consequently at the moment my music is going from the X-Fi card over a decent quality cable to a decent hi-fi amplifier, and into these are plugged my excellent headphones. I've noticed how nice and clear the base sounds with this setup (apart from generally good sound) and I decided to play a song I used to listen to 15 years ago, Poison by the Prodigy, which has a lot of base. I was absolutely amazed how different this experience was from the muddy sound I remember from the past. Fucking sweet! This inspired me to start this thread.

So what's your music playing system and what do you guys think about such stuff?

On a related note, when I'm on the go I listen to music straight from my mobile phone - I think it's pretty uncomfortable to have both a phone and a music player in your pocket, unless you want one that supports lossless codecs.

Back in the day when I had more space and didn't live in a crowded suburban area, I used to have an old-school, vacuum-tubed packed stereo receiver plugged into my computer. Two two and a half foot speakers that originally came with it outputted a wall of crystal-clear sound.

I used to have an MP3-player. I don't have one anymore these days. The only times I play music are the rare occasions when listening to some of my ripped CDs on my desktop computer, when I'm driving a car I listen to either my CDs or the radio and when I'm jogging I often take my cell phone with me, since it has a radio.

By the way, can anyone honestly say they'd hear a difference between compressed and lossless audio files? I sure can't.

http://mp3ornot.com/

I think the difference between 128 and 320 kbps is subtle, at least in this case; you could perhaps hear it if you were able to switch quickly between the two back and forth while the tune was playing without a pause.

I generally store all my music on my PC, but whenever I do stuff away from the PC I just throw my ipod into this thing.

To answer your question, just my pc, with either the standard onboard card or an Audigy 2 ZS i got for free, coupled with a pair of decent low-end 30w stereo power speakers.
The hi-fi I currently have set-up is an average 90's Sony amp coupled with a pair of old-school 50w/6ohms Akai speakers. They're a bit underpowered for the amp, but at low volumes they just work.

As for your setup, it's all about what you want to do with it.

If it's just for games, then I wouldn't bother that much. Game sound quality has taken a back seat to positional sound, so you're better off actually enjoying that with some 3/5 point speakers (or 3.1/5.1 though I can't say I really care for subwoofers) rather than paying top money for a pair of stereo speakers that are only going to play compressed .ogg files anyway.

If it's for music, again, depends on the type of music. Again i'd say not to go too overboard. Even lossless rips are still only cd quality (44 khz) so, in a practical way, sound quality standards haven't really evolved.

If you enjoy electronic, then the setup you have is probably ideal, theoretically Creative speakers don't have a very good cost/quality ratio, so you probably could have picked up something cheaper for the same quality, or something better for that type of money. Still you'd probably want to test them out before buying.

If it's 90's-2010's mainstream pop/rock, then it's worth spending the goods on. Higher production values usually = better sound engineers, so the extra quality on the recording end of the album can shine through when coming out on your end. Dump the subwoofer tho.

If it's pre 80's pop/rock and/or todays indie, then don't bother. The original recording doesn't usually have enough quality to warrant you spending top dollar on the sound system so, again what you have will do perfectly.

However, if you do enjoy classical/jazz THEN it's worth spending top dollar. Nothing today can still beat an analog source (vynil) going into a valve amp, and coming out some low impedance old speakers (like mine, but these were never top quality to begin with).
That is the kinda thing to make the hair stand on the back of your neck, but it's all in how much you're actually gonna use it.

Also high quality headphones (up to the 200$ mark, any more than that is overkill IMO) are
Just keep in mind the quality is always better on comparable speakers

CD player.

Tofu I no longer use the Creative speakers.
For music I'm using Wharfdale Diamond 9.0 plugged into Pioneer A-109 amp. Seemed a more natural combination than the Creative stuff, especially as one of them is sometimes mute.

I mostly listen to jazz and electronic. Also I have one LP ripped losslessly from vinyl, so it's better quality than CD I think

For games I'm using my uber-headphones plugged into the same amp, which - paired with the X-Fi card - provide excellent positional sound cues, far better than any speakers.

I used to have a 1 gig mp3 player for about 4 years.. but it broke a week ago.. and i felt sad.. becuase that was the only thing i listened to away from my computer. When im on my computer/ aka at home.... iuse my computer to listen to music. I have an onboard audio (5.1 sound) pretty decent, makes no noise and the output is good. (with my set up, there is a HUGE difference between 128 bit and 320 k/bit.. , although to me there is very little difference between lossless and 320bit compressed.

Anyways... i have a pair of cans.. mdr v6's pretty good. I think.
I love the clear sound of sony's.

i recently got an ipod touch. and put my 25 gigs of music on that.. for some reason the sound sounds different than the sound that comes from the pc when comparing the same song. Idk why that is.. but its not bad.. it might be a different equalizer settings..slightly.

I had a system that I loved...it was one of those high-end x-fi or whatever 5.1 Creative cards, couple with the Logitech 5.1 Z-5500's. It kicked for gaming, music, and movies. Huge bass, really clear. I guess I still technically have this setup, but it's all boxed up back in the states.

i have a mp3 player for when im walking around or i plug it into the amp in living room. i dont really use my pc much as its at mamas home but when i do uh i do jeez whats with all the questions buddy

i also have a digital radio in my bedroom i use when im in my freakin bedroom but sometimes the signal goes shit.

PiP wrote:Tofu I no longer use the Creative speakers.
For music I'm using Wharfdale Diamond 9.0 plugged into Pioneer A-109 amp. Seemed a more natural combination than the Creative stuff, especially as one of them is sometimes mute.

Wow, good sensible choice there. Pioneer is remarkable in that unlike Sony or other big japanese brands, it stays true to its high-fi origins, instead of branching out and making several different types of lower quality products, so they're always a good pick.
As for the Wharfedales, I've seen these used professionally on 2 instances, so that's really as high praise as there is.

PiP wrote:I mostly listen to jazz and electronic. Also I have one LP ripped losslessly from vinyl, so it's better quality than CD I think

For games I'm using my uber-headphones plugged into the same amp, which - paired with the X-Fi card - provide excellent positional sound cues, far better than any speakers.

I really don't know much about lossless conversion, but a quick search showed me that FLAC can manage compressions up to 635 Khz (as, opposed to a CD's 44Khz) so I guess it depends on how much storage space you're willing to part with.
It's always lossy, though I suspect 3 times as much quality as a regular CD (about, say 130Khz) will render it virtually indistinguishable from the analog source, though I'd really have to listen to both to make such a statement. That is if you don't mind 3 gigs to only be worth 40 minutes of music.

Oh since last time I thought i'd wall-of-texted you enough, I didn't get to the Crystalizer thingy.
I'd recommend you do without it. You could show me the difference, and I could even agree that it sounds better with it rather than without, but you might be doing yourself a disservice, in that, the more you use it, the more you'll notice when you have to do without it. In a sense you might be creating a pet peeve unknowingly.
I guess it'd be better just to use a graphic equalizer instead, since the stuff it promises to do ("restore portions of the sound which were lost during compression") can't really be done (and in practice, what it does is "enhance the high and low frequencies of the input audio" which can be done through the equalizer without fear of altering the base sound).

BTW how much more are you enjoy your electronica over a good pair of speakers with good woofers, rather than a pair of those creative shoeboxes coupled with a subwoofer?

Tofu Man wrote: Wow, good sensible choice there. Pioneer is remarkable in that unlike Sony or other big japanese brands, it stays true to its high-fi origins, instead of branching out and making several different types of lower quality products, so they're always a good pick.

heh actually the Pioneer was a compromise 'cause I was trying to get a non-basic Harman-Kardon, Cambridge Audio or similar but just couldn't get one for a low-enough price

Tofu Man wrote: I really don't know much about lossless conversion, but a quick search showed me that FLAC can manage compressions up to 635 Khz (as, opposed to a CD's 44Khz) so I guess it depends on how much storage space you're willing to part with.
It's always lossy, though I suspect 3 times as much quality as a regular CD (about, say 130Khz) will render it virtually indistinguishable from the analog source, though I'd really have to listen to both to make such a statement. That is if you don't mind 3 gigs to only be worth 40 minutes of music.

I've just discovered that that rip I mentioned is 44kHz but the bitrate is around 900.
Think I'm gonna get some more of that vinyl stuff.

I guess it'd be better just to use a graphic equalizer instead, since the stuff it promises to do ("restore portions of the sound which were lost during compression") can't really be done (and in practice, what it does is "enhance the high and low frequencies of the input audio" which can be done through the equalizer without fear of altering the base sound).

the crystalizer works fine for the average MP3 so I think I'll stick to it. I'm not really worried about developing a peeve.

BTW how much more are you enjoy your electronica over a good pair of speakers with good woofers, rather than a pair of those creative shoeboxes coupled with a subwoofer?

Yeah it's much better; this is beaten again (slightly) by the headphones. Or maybe they're just some sort of fetish for me

for records i use technics 1200mk5s with shure m44-7 / whitelabel cartridges along with sennheiser hd25-1 ii headphones which are pretty darn dope. mp3eez wise i mostly just listen to internet/pirate radio stuff which is very low quality to begin with so i just use my desktop + some cheap bookshelf speakers i found which i can't remember the name of right now, or else if it's higher quality i just plug in headphones.

Kashluk wrote:By the way, can anyone honestly say they'd hear a difference between compressed and lossless audio files? I sure can't.

if you're just listening on normal computer speakers or whatever then low bitrate mp3s definitely pass, though if you want to do some audio connoisseur shit there are sound artifacts and other things you can listen for which will show the difference. however, on a higher quality home system or, say, in a nightclub the difference is obvious: all mp3s sound at least a bit flat and lower quality mp3s sound distorted. mixing/mastering is just as much a concern for sound quality as bitrate though.

PiP wrote: heh actually the Pioneer was a compromise 'cause I was trying to get a non-basic Harman-Kardon, Cambridge Audio or similar but just couldn't get one for a low-enough price

Ahh, see now you're turning to the dark side
Trust the ear. The ear don't lie. (as long as you keep it away from that crystalizer mumbo jumbo )

PiP wrote: I've just discovered that that rip I mentioned is 44kHz but the bitrate is around 900.
Think I'm gonna get some more of that vinyl stuff.

Hmm, bitrate usually determines the quality in compressed audio (Mp3s, Ogg, and the like), as opposed to Hertz (number of "still frames" per second, halved) and bits (the quality/size of each individual frame) in uncompressed audio (Wav files and FLAC supposedly), so I'm guessing the program you're using is establishing a sort of comparative value. I wouldn't mind it much.

Also, can I say turntable?

PiP wrote:Yeah it's much better; this is beaten again (slightly) by the headphones. Or maybe they're just some sort of fetish for me

No, it's perfectly normal.
The headphones could be mechanically better than the speakers, or you could enjoy the dampening of external sounds, or maybe you like the extra precision in positional sound (since the speakers are over your ears rather than on the tabletop).

Me, I have the reverse fetish. Can't wear headphones without looking over my shoulder every 10 seconds.

ya i'd lose the chrystalizer shit, seems like a run-of-the-mill digital exciter. nothing wrong with coloring the sound a bit, sounds better to human ears (look up equal loudness contour or fletcher-munson for the geeky scientific explanations), but as i see it the problem is that apparently the crystalizer uses multi-band compression, and modern music is compressed to shit as it is - if you want some "warmth" and "sparkle" to the music consider buying a tube amp or somesuch, probably a much more pleasant sound. or you could try using subtractive "smiley face" equalisation in your music player for a free solution

one thing you could easily improve on are room acoustics. just get some rock wool and build your own acoustic panels (google diy bass traps or something), shouldn't cost too much

anyway, there's always shit you could better but i think once you have the basics down - good digital to analog conversion i.e. sound card, speakers and an amplifier you like, and tolerable room acoustics - the rest is just marginal stuff and nothing worth worrying about if you're not really interested and/or ready to shell out big bucks for it

as for your question, i have cheap cambridge audio amp with equally cheap mordaunt short speakers for everyday listening, and a pair of sennheiser hd600 cans when i want a bit more detail. everything connected to a benchmark dac-1 converter that's connected to my computer, the sound card is e-mu 0404 or something which has the shittiest drivers ever, i think i'll just sell my benchmark and get a proper soundcard instead, focusrite's saffire series looks pretty good for my wallet

If it's 90's-2010's mainstream pop/rock, then it's worth spending the goods on. Higher production values usually = better sound engineers, so the extra quality on the recording end of the album can shine through when coming out on your end. Dump the subwoofer tho.

If it's pre 80's pop/rock and/or todays indie, then don't bother. The original recording doesn't usually have enough quality to warrant you spending top dollar on the sound system so, again what you have will do perfectly.

i have to disagree - thanks to the loudness war, even if the production values are higher today, the mixing / mastering definitely isn't, leading to overproduced, overcompressed shit with little dynamic range ("what transients?"). not much left to "shine through". on the other hand many of the best sounding records were made in the 70s/80s: pink floyd, steely dan, stevie wonder, shit like that, and those really sound better with proper gear

but that's just the pseudo-audiophile in me talking, honestly i don't give a shit, probably can't tell the difference either. besides who the fuck listens to steely dan anyway, most of what i listen to is pretty low quality engineering-wise but at least it isnt OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone music

Also high quality headphones (up to the 200$ mark, any more than that is overkill IMO) are
Just keep in mind the quality is always better on comparable speakers

i definitely prefer proper speakers but you're going to have to fork over some serious cash to match the sound quality of $200 headphones

i use technics 1200mk5s with shure m44-7

m44-7 never forget