I like WavPacks because it makes me feel superior to all the people who listen to FLACs and 320kb/s MP3s, even though I mostly can't tell the difference between the three. :D I find that lossless formats & AAC-LC also have 'fuller' sound than MP3, but I can't put my finger on why. In any case, for library and e-penis purposes I use AAC-LC, since I think it stupid to have some huge 1200kb/s file if I can't tell the difference if it were much smaller.

That and I don't have the space for 30-40MB per song. :)

You can tell the difference between

192
256
320
V0
and FLAC

With the HD 555s that i own very easily, especially with the terrible artifacting in the high tones that occurs in below 320...

320 or bust.

Hmm, on 196 kbps i'm happy already. and i have troubles using FLAC files for disc jockeying myself.
i guess using FLAC would be best when you have a 'precious' piece of music.
for everything else, there's small data storage (even though i have 3 terabytes of disc space)

I go with 320kbps out of convenience (iTunes + iPod doesn't support FLAC or APE, and ALAC is too proprietary of a format for me to bother with), but if anything is available in lossless format, I will always get that, and then burn it as an audio CD for archival purposes - I have a very good drive for DAE (PlexWriter Premium), and so I can always re-rip and encode them into lossless if I need to in the future.

It depends.if you're an audiophile, of course you will choose FLAC.But if you don't want to burden your HD and have an iPod, of course you'll choose MP3.But, i think 192 kbps is enough to listening music everyday

Mmmm interesting topic, seeing as how there are quite a few audiophiles here, I'm sure you know the following then; the human ear cannot perform Fourier transforms, therefore, we can only perceive one wave at any given instance. That is, if we held a dedicated analyzer to a rock band, we would be able to detect the frequencies and timbre of the drums, the guitar, the vocals, etc, but a human ear would only detect one wave, a combination of all of those sounds. Also, while the human ear cannot technically hear anything above a certain range (30,000 khz I believe it was? Correct me if I'm wrong), BUT, for some reason this inaudible range affects how we PERCEIVE the sound and actually increases, although only minutely, our perceived sonic clarity. This is why sound technicians still record things upwards of 50,000 khz for master copies, because generally for best sound quality we want double the frequency of what we can hear.

Knowing all of this, unless you have a very robust sound system and speakers, you aren't likely to notice any differences between a 192kbs mp3 and a lossless file. Even with a decent audio card and speakers (Audigy 2 ZS and Z-680 Dolby 5.1 speakers), I can BARELY tell the difference between a 192kbs and a CD, and I'm going to say that my hearing is pretty average. So for all intents and purposes, mp3 is still the way to go, unless you've several terabyte harddrives sitting around.

I say that there are noticable differences in the way FLAC and mp3 sound. Just listening to the same track in mp3 and FLAC i can notice some higher pitched treble sounds coming from the FLAC that are generally really quiet in the mp3 file. This is just because higher and some lower pitches are generally tossed out of the mp3 in turn for the more mid ranged sounds.

At 320kbps though it is hard to pick up the differences but if you pay attention it is noticable.

FLAC sounds a lot better! If only I could use it...
I have around 15gb of music files in MP3, can you imagine how big this would be in FLAC!?
And that's not all, my iPod(6G) can't play them, Apple hates Open Source to much to support FLAC, use Apple Lossless instead =p. MP3 is still the best size and compatibility wise, I challenge everyone here to find a recent player that doesn't support mp3's!

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.
For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.
Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.
And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)
Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.
In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.
@AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.
Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.