Ridicule Audiophiles - Find the cat shit's resonant frequency

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > Ridicule Audiophiles - Find the cat shit's resonant frequency

«‹›274 »

Turtle Parlor: Sep 12, 2005; village idiot

How about some long heating-pad like things that stretch from the speaker to the listeners seating position. That way the temp of the air is consistent. Thermic air-column generators sounds expensive. Studio rated covers could be optioned.

# ? Feb 1, 2010 20:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 00:47

Princess: Oct 11, 2009; That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over!

Bioware takes a stab at this crowd, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpzTRGGGB-k

# ? Feb 10, 2010 11:21

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

Turtle Parlor posted:

How about some long heating-pad like things that stretch from the speaker to the listeners seating position. That way the temp of the air is consistent. Thermic air-column generators sounds expensive. Studio rated covers could be optioned.

Too many audiophiles these days consider a dreadfully short list of variables in creating their soundstage. Yes, those gold-standard better than studio speakers produce a lively and warm sound, at your friends house. Your rainbow discs are able to get rid of the annoying judder and add warmth to the environment, at a buddies basement. Your acoustic tiling does a lot to eliminate unwanted echo.

But in reality we all know that it doesn't matter what capacitors you use, or your speakers- its where you use them. Many of us have had the dreadful experience of feverishly trying to reconfigure their room for optimal staging. It takes hours of labor based on scientific measurements that... well they don't seem to pay off.

There's a reason for that: it's not just whats on your walls. It's whats in your room.

Hi, my name is John Harting. I have struggled long and hard with 'building the perfect room'. First I spent a lot of money on music hardware. It got me nowhere. I spent money on reconfiguring my room. That made little dent.

A little more than a year ago, I stumbled on the discovery that would change my life.

Music is just one of my passions. I also would be called, as a magazine would state it "Cigar Aficiando".

I knew some people in the business and was able to get a good deal on a custom-built walk-in humidor a few years ago. I keep all of my choice cigars in there. One day I went inside to pick out a (name redacted), and my iphone rang (ringtone is a little ditty I like to call "Bach's ballbuster") and I could not believe my ears. The dinky little speaker on the iphone made the deepest, richest and clearest soundstage I have ever heard. I was so dumbfounded I missed a call from my financial planner (and ended up losing 100,000 on a deal!). I didn't even care. I just stared at disbelief at my cell phone. How could this gadget provide the richness of sound that I had been wanting all of this time? I immediately went through all of my ringtones just to see if it was an aberration. All of my ringtones sounded as if I was right there as the song was being recorded.

I immediately went to the local hardware store and picked up a humidifier and cranked it up in my listening room. The sound came out so much richer that I couldn't believe it- but it felt like something was holding it back. It turns out that the humidifier not only made too much noise, but its design ricochet sound around the room causing acoustic juddering.

So I ripped the thing apart and made some improvements. After much labor I finally made the humidifier soundproof and acoustically transparent. The difference was unbelievable. I wasn't done experimenting. After time I found out that by adding a certain type of salt to the humidifier that the soundstage was beyond believable.

So, friends, after much work and investment on my part I am pleased to announce the Harting Acoustic Humidifier and Harting Acoustic Space Heater.

There's no dial to set on your part. The Harting Acoustic Humidifier will automatically sense and release enough humidity for the perfect soundstage. In conjunction with the Harting Acoustic Space Heater (which both can be connected to each other), it will create the optimal listening environment that your room has been missing for decades.

I'm also working on refining the salt mixture for the Harting Acoustic Humidifier, and let me tell you it is going to be amazing. Tests already show a 40% improvement over regular humidified air as well. I'll be offering this in a special purified water solution with the perfect amount of the salt mixture added for the best effect.

The Harting Acoustic Humidifier is available now, for only $5,000. I will be releasing the manufacturing specs to my supplier for the Space Heater in June of 2010, with an estimated price of $5,100. Folks, this is a small investment on your part to expand your soundstage to galactic proportions. We expect to be able to deliver the Harting Acoustic Humidifier Solution by August of 2010. We do not have an MSRP as of yet but early studies show it will cost us around $300 to develop each liter.

# ? Mar 8, 2010 20:22

proudfoot: Jul 17, 2006; Yak! Look! a Yak!

Theres apparently an entire forum dedicated to ridiculing audiophiles: http://stereocentral.tv/phpbb/

# ? Mar 9, 2010 11:08

Hippie Hedgehog: Feb 19, 2007; Ever cuddled a hedgehog?

El Mariachi posted:

I'll be offering this in a special purified water solution with the perfect amount of the salt mixture added for the best effect.

Try some etheric oils or something instead of the salt. Salt is very much not something that vaporizes along with water, and I think even some audiophiles might catch on to that.

# ? Mar 9, 2010 15:51

Devian666: Aug 20, 2008; Take some advice Chris.; Fun Shoe

Hippie Hedgehog posted:

Try some etheric oils or something instead of the salt. Salt is very much not something that vaporizes along with water, and I think even some audiophiles might catch on to that.

You could dissolve a gas in water. A secret audiophonic gas that expands the soundstage (sell them bottled farts).

# ? Mar 9, 2010 22:15

Turtle Parlor: Sep 12, 2005; village idiot

El Mariachi posted:

Too many audiophiles these days consider a dreadfully short list of variables in creating their soundstage. Yes, those gold-standard better than studio speakers produce a lively and warm sound, at your friends house. Your rainbow discs are able to get rid of the annoying judder and add warmth to the environment, at a buddies basement. Your acoustic tiling does a lot to eliminate unwanted echo.

But in reality we all know that it doesn't matter what capacitors you use, or your speakers- its where you use them. Many of us have had the dreadful experience of feverishly trying to reconfigure their room for optimal staging. It takes hours of labor based on scientific measurements that... well they don't seem to pay off.

There's a reason for that: it's not just whats on your walls. It's whats in your room.

Hi, my name is John Harting. I have struggled long and hard with 'building the perfect room'. First I spent a lot of money on music hardware. It got me nowhere. I spent money on reconfiguring my room. That made little dent.

A little more than a year ago, I stumbled on the discovery that would change my life.

Music is just one of my passions. I also would be called, as a magazine would state it "Cigar Aficiando".

I knew some people in the business and was able to get a good deal on a custom-built walk-in humidor a few years ago. I keep all of my choice cigars in there. One day I went inside to pick out a (name redacted), and my iphone rang (ringtone is a little ditty I like to call "Bach's ballbuster") and I could not believe my ears. The dinky little speaker on the iphone made the deepest, richest and clearest soundstage I have ever heard. I was so dumbfounded I missed a call from my financial planner (and ended up losing 100,000 on a deal!). I didn't even care. I just stared at disbelief at my cell phone. How could this gadget provide the richness of sound that I had been wanting all of this time? I immediately went through all of my ringtones just to see if it was an aberration. All of my ringtones sounded as if I was right there as the song was being recorded.

I immediately went to the local hardware store and picked up a humidifier and cranked it up in my listening room. The sound came out so much richer that I couldn't believe it- but it felt like something was holding it back. It turns out that the humidifier not only made too much noise, but its design ricochet sound around the room causing acoustic juddering.

So I ripped the thing apart and made some improvements. After much labor I finally made the humidifier soundproof and acoustically transparent. The difference was unbelievable. I wasn't done experimenting. After time I found out that by adding a certain type of salt to the humidifier that the soundstage was beyond believable.

So, friends, after much work and investment on my part I am pleased to announce the Harting Acoustic Humidifier and Harting Acoustic Space Heater.

There's no dial to set on your part. The Harting Acoustic Humidifier will automatically sense and release enough humidity for the perfect soundstage. In conjunction with the Harting Acoustic Space Heater (which both can be connected to each other), it will create the optimal listening environment that your room has been missing for decades.

I'm also working on refining the salt mixture for the Harting Acoustic Humidifier, and let me tell you it is going to be amazing. Tests already show a 40% improvement over regular humidified air as well. I'll be offering this in a special purified water solution with the perfect amount of the salt mixture added for the best effect.

The Harting Acoustic Humidifier is available now, for only $5,000. I will be releasing the manufacturing specs to my supplier for the Space Heater in June of 2010, with an estimated price of $5,100. Folks, this is a small investment on your part to expand your soundstage to galactic proportions. We expect to be able to deliver the Harting Acoustic Humidifier Solution by August of 2010. We do not have an MSRP as of yet but early studies show it will cost us around $300 to develop each liter.

It was sooooo good he lost 100k on a deal, but does not care. The paltry 5k for his box o' musically charged moisture is but 1/20th of his REAL costs. Potentially corrosive atmosphere and whisperings of toxic black mold for only 5k! Sign me up.

# ? Mar 11, 2010 16:41

RIP Paul Walker: Feb 26, 2004

Elephanthead posted:

Someone should sell an audiophile air conditioning unit that makes the air more sonically neutral. Send me half the profits. I think a cardboard box with a rubber band inside should do the trick. The key is selling it for $15,000.

I'd buy an "audiophile" air conditioner that was as close to silent as possible...

# ? Mar 13, 2010 22:34

TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT: Oct 12, 2008; this is what happens when you take UI design away from engineers and give it to a bunch of hipster art student "designers"

Is there a standard link I can copy & paste for responding to audiophile nonsense? Something along the lines of an "audiophile crank index". Trying to come up with a not-angry reply to stuff like this is making my head hurt:

quote:

Hi there long time lurker first time poster, felt like I might be able to contribute some useful information.

Digital audio, in brief, is an approximation of a linear signal. The linear signal is sampled periodically, we call this sample rate. CD quality audio is 16 bits 44.1khz sample rate. This means for every second of linear audio encoded, we take 44100 samples, like "snapshots" or "pictures" of the signal. Then we represent the value of the signal within a sample with a 16 bit word.

quote:
For digital signals, the cable doesn't matter. As long as the digital bits make it, you have 100% reproduction.

This is not quite true, even in digital reproduction systems the cables DO matter! In general, with increased lengths of cable comes increased capacitance of said cable. In extreme cases the increased capacitance can slew the rising edge of the bits and introduce errors.

When our signal is being represented by ones and zeroes, a differently shaped bit is not interpreted well. Capacitance can also be an issue when passing analog signals through cables too.

The second part of this problem comes from improper clocking of digital devices. Two digital devices exchanging audio need to be synchronous. Lets say Device A sends 3 words of data to Device B. This means 3 separate representations of a sample, each using 16 bits of data. In total we are sending 48 bits of data, or 48 ones and zeros. Device B needs to know that bits 1-16 17-32 33-48 are of word 1,2 and 3 respectively. If there is improper clocking Device B could think that bits 2-17 are from word 1. This would result in an error that could be audible.

I would like to say I'm not an Audiophile, I do recording and sound design for a living.

# ? May 7, 2010 02:26

Opensourcepirate: Aug 1, 2004; Except Wednesdays

Janin posted:

Is there a standard link I can copy & paste for responding to audiophile nonsense? Something along the lines of an "audiophile crank index". Trying to come up with a not-angry reply to stuff like this is making my head hurt:

This is not quite true, even in digital reproduction systems the cables DO matter! In general, with increased lengths of cable comes increased capacitance of said cable. In extreme cases the increased capacitance can slew the rising edge of the bits and introduce errors.

When our signal is being represented by ones and zeroes, a differently shaped bit is not interpreted well. Capacitance can also be an issue when passing analog signals through cables too.

The second part of this problem comes from improper clocking of digital devices. Two digital devices exchanging audio need to be synchronous. Lets say Device A sends 3 words of data to Device B. This means 3 separate representations of a sample, each using 16 bits of data. In total we are sending 48 bits of data, or 48 ones and zeros. Device B needs to know that bits 1-16 17-32 33-48 are of word 1,2 and 3 respectively. If there is improper clocking Device B could think that bits 2-17 are from word 1. This would result in an error that could be audible.

I would like to say I'm not an Audiophile, I do recording and sound design for a living.

This all seems pretty reasonable. The important thing though is that if there are any problems, they will be pretty evident. People run into problems with HDMI and cheap/long cables all the time, but it's always obvious that there's a problem.

Edit: Here's an article on what's wrong with HDMI - http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi.htm

# ? May 7, 2010 03:45

Agreed: Dec 30, 2003; The price of meat has just gone up, and your old lady has just gone down

I hate the "digital audio is a snapshot" explanation because it misses the really significant math done to the samples to recompile them into a correct analog waveform on output. People think "snapshot" and then go off on a crazy tangent in their minds about how you need more snapshots to approach the truest waveform and next thing you know people are freaking out and wanting 96khz or 192khz audio, when really 44khz with modern, quality DACs is as good as it gets within the human hearing range. No one ever hears "snapshots," no one ever hears a digital signal. By definition.

While storage is not very expensive, there's a reason that a lot of high end studio guys are still recording at and working directly with 44.1khz for CDs, 48khz for DVDs, etc.

# ? Jun 1, 2010 21:22

electronicmaji: Feb 23, 2010; by Fistgrrl

Music is not only heard though, it is also felt if your speakers are loud enought.

And if you don't have a good DAC and a good one costs at least 100 dollars there is a lot of truth in the claims. A realtek or Creative sound card just ain't gonna cut it when comparing to a turntable.

# ? Jun 2, 2010 09:55

eddiewalker: Apr 28, 2004; Arrrr ye landlubber

electronicmaji posted:

Music is not only heard though, it is also felt if your speakers are loud enought.

And if you don't have a good DAC and a good one costs at least 100 dollars there is a lot of truth in the claims. A realtek or Creative sound card just ain't gonna cut it when comparing to a turntable.

You're trying to say that the first thing you lose with low-end equipment is visceral bass? You're wrong.

# ? Jun 2, 2010 19:05

Agreed: Dec 30, 2003; The price of meat has just gone up, and your old lady has just gone down

electronicmaji posted:

Music is not only heard though, it is also felt if your speakers are loud enought.

And if you don't have a good DAC and a good one costs at least 100 dollars there is a lot of truth in the claims. A realtek or Creative sound card just ain't gonna cut it when comparing to a turntable.

The first bit of your post isn't related to the second, and the second bit is just wrong. While I would hope (expect, really) studios would have very good, pricey ADCs/DACs, we're at a point where an affordable, sound-card intended DAC like the AK4396VF is more than adequate, with specs that will likely be the best in your signal chain in terms of real THD, SNR, etc.

# ? Jun 2, 2010 21:13

the wizards beard: Apr 15, 2007; Reppin

4 LIFE 4 REAL

electronicmaji posted:

A realtek or Creative sound card just ain't gonna cut it when comparing to a turntable.

I really hate this argument, whether it's pro-analog or pro-digital. An apple just ain't gonna cut it when comparing(sic) to an orange.

# ? Jun 11, 2010 18:16

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Devian666 posted:

Audiotology would make a great spin off of Scientology.

From Page 11, the Black Box quantum thingy:

quote:

"Can you give an example of how to test the effectiveness of this device?

Of course. Here is but one test: the assistant holds a Blackbody up behind the tweeter of the audiophile�s left speaker. The audiophile then chooses which speaker draws his interest more. (He will report that the left speaker has cleaner highs and draws his attention more than the right speaker, which sounds uninteresting in comparison.) Then, the assistant moves to the right speaker, pretending that he is still holding the Blackbody, but in reality he has left it behind the tweeter of the other speaker, where it was before. The audiophile is asked once again to choose which speaker sounds more interesting, more believable. (He is still drawn to the sound of the left speaker, even though he believes that the Blackbody is now behind the right speaker.)"

I can't find the manual of Scientology auditing procedures, but the way this is worded bears a striking resemblance to Hubbard's instructions.

# ? Jun 15, 2010 19:45

Arrowsmith: Feb 6, 2006; SAGANISTA!

mr. nazi posted:

Perform all non-double-blind testing inside a pure helium environment for the best sound if you want to die

Studies and our marketing department agree that the best way to get the most out of your collection (other than a perfect vacuum, free from the turbulence introduced by pesky atmosphere injected into the stream) is to listen in a concentrated, helium-rich environment, and the best place in the solar system to accomplish this and gain optimal acoustics and tonal warmth is inside the sun!

But actually getting to hear your music the way God intended used to be but a wonderful fever-induced dream. Good news, fellow golden-ears, all that is about to change! Virgin Records is teaming up with Virgin Galactic to take you there and make every audiophile's fantasy come true! What wonderful times we live in! Reserve your ~~coffin~~ flight today!

Promoted Pawn posted:

Use mineral oil instead of water to make it more plausible (it won't short the electronics) and expensive.

edit: Hell, create (read:label) a special 'Audio Grade' mineral oil specifically for this purpose and mark it up by 1000%.

We typically listen to our music in an environment comprised chiefly of air, but our ears develop while we are still in the womb! Naturally, nature designed the human ear to optimally listen to our favorite tunes in a fluid-rich environment, as found in the human uterus! How can the discriminating aural-enthusiast regain the same quality that our ears were designed for?

Pseudiophile's new Audio-Uterophile Liquid Suspension is the answer! We here at Pseudiophile search out the richest, most premium amneotic fluid available! Simply fill our buffered antistatic polyester synthetic amniotic sound-sack, pull it over your head, fasten it beneath the jawline with our premium airtight elastic ligature, and it's like you're right back in the womb! You'll never hear ~~your music~~ anything the same way again!

Am I doing this right?

# ? Jun 20, 2010 08:30

Devian666: Aug 20, 2008; Take some advice Chris.; Fun Shoe

GWBBQ posted:

I can't find the manual of Scientology auditing procedures, but the way this is worded bears a striking resemblance to Hubbard's instructions.

There are usually a few other procedures including wandering around aimlessly but it is similar to OT3 training (last time I checked you can get the manual from wikileaks).

# ? Jun 20, 2010 21:24

Workaday Wizard: Oct 23, 2009; by Pragmatica

Holy sheeeeeeit

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/471670/upgrading-apartment-into-house-which-country-has-the-best-sound

From the lovable Patrick

# ? Jun 29, 2010 01:00

Hogscraper: Nov 6, 2004; Audio master

Chiming in as a mastering engineer on all of this nonsense. Sorry for bumping a month old thread.

Speakers, placement, listening position, and room shape/size make up the biggest audible differences in your listening chain.

Further down the line but still audible changes are acoustic paneling, better/thicker cable, better amplification, and better digital to analog converters.

Pretty much everything after that is hoodoo. If you claim you can hear a difference you're a whacko.

I've auditioned a lot of speakers and I can honestly say that there's a huge difference between $500.00 speakers and $10,000.00 speakers. There is, however, a point of diminishing returns on your money. Listening position and placement are two absolutely free things that anyone can do to get better sound out of their current setup.

Acoustic paneling makes a huge difference if it's set up correctly. But it's not practical for most people outside of a professional environment. Plus the wives don't like the way it looks. Crazy expensive cabling configurations are a myth that has been disproven time and time again. If you have any shred of intelligence you'll buy cable that is rated to handle just a tad bit more than your amp is rated for. Copper is copper. Period.

Good digital to analog convertors may sound like crazy talk to some people but I can a/b test an iPod with my Lavry convertor playing the same 16-bit 44.1k wave source and amaze people every single time. These get better and cheaper every product cycle.

Source makes a huge difference. I work all day long in 24-bit 88.2 kHz/96 kHz pcm. When I flip that switch to dither down to 16-bit 44.1 kHz/48 kHz it breaks my heart just a little bit each time. It's a very audible difference to just about everyone. The higher sample rate matters less than the bit depth in my opinion. Higher sample rates of 176.4 kHz/192 kHz and higher are insane. The fact that those sample rates are even supported in the Blu-ray spec blows me away.

Anyway, what I meant to say was those magic crystals sure are awesome. I'll retire back to the depths of the Musician's Lounge now.

# ? Jul 13, 2010 04:20

Gromit: Aug 15, 2000; I am an oppressed White Male, Asian women wont serve me! Save me Campbell Newman!!!!!!!

Hogscraper posted:

I've auditioned a lot of speakers and I can honestly say that there's a huge difference between $500.00 speakers and $10,000.00 speakers. There is, however, a point of diminishing returns on your money.

You could also say there's a huge difference between $50 speakers and $1,000,000 speakers, and be equally uninformative. What we need to know is where the law of diminishing returns starts to really kick in. I'd hazard a guess at closer to the $500 end than the $10,000 end.

# ? Jul 15, 2010 04:55

Hogscraper: Nov 6, 2004; Audio master

Gromit posted:

You could also say there's a huge difference between $50 speakers and $1,000,000 speakers, and be equally uninformative. What we need to know is where the law of diminishing returns starts to really kick in. I'd hazard a guess at closer to the $500 end than the $10,000 end.

I would say very diminishing returns start at above $2500.00 retail for a stereo pair. The pair of speakers I master with are B&W 805s that I picked up used in perfect shape for about 2 grand. The retail price is a few dollars more. I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find a more accurate 2-way speaker for any price. The only thing that's in my opinion a little better is the B&W 805 and that's only because of extended low frequency response. The 802s need to be paired with a good sub. I would say that it really comes down to your own ears. If you audition speakers in a good room and don't hear the difference between a cheap pair and an expensive pair then it's stupid to buy the expensive pair.

I've auditioned the Barefoot MM27s and while they do sound better than the B&W 802s it's not really worth $10,000.00 a pair. Eff that.

Fun fact: The speakers in all of the Abbey Road control rooms are B&W 802s. You can pick up a used pair for ~3-4,000.00 and be set up for life.

At least speakers hold their value more than most home theatre components. Once a good speakers always a good speaker.

We could also get into the differences in magnetic coil vs electrostatic speakers. Electrostatics are extremely expensive and make certain types of music sound awesome. But for pop/rock/hiphop/movies they sound like garbage.

If you guys aren't hip to audiogon yet check the site out. High end audio classifieds! http://www.audiogon.com/

# ? Jul 15, 2010 05:39

Devian666: Aug 20, 2008; Take some advice Chris.; Fun Shoe

Hogscraper posted:

Source makes a huge difference. I work all day long in 24-bit 88.2 kHz/96 kHz pcm. When I flip that switch to dither down to 16-bit 44.1 kHz/48 kHz it breaks my heart just a little bit each time.

This bit here where you switch to CD quality is the bit that always annoys me. Why is it that I can purchase music online that is better quality that what I can buy in a shop. A shame the replacement formats seemed to die out.

# ? Jul 15, 2010 05:51

Hogscraper: Nov 6, 2004; Audio master

Devian666 posted:

This bit here where you switch to CD quality is the bit that always annoys me. Why is it that I can purchase music online that is better quality that what I can buy in a shop. A shame the replacement formats seemed to die out.

I think something will take hold eventually but with music being more a market of convenience than quality these days I'd say maybe we're a while off from this. SACD sounds awesome but I don't think you'll ever have a format really take off unless the consumer is in complete control of it.

There's alway good vinyl provided it was made from a higher quality master. Unfortunately I'd say at least half of all new vinyl out there is cut from a CD.

Also FLAC! I really love the format because there's so much to it. High bit depth and sample rate support. Multi channel support. It really has it all.

# ? Jul 15, 2010 17:35

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

You are truly a master of audio Hogscraper. I bet you can successfully blind test FLAC vs 320 bit MP3 too.

# ? Jul 15, 2010 20:00

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Mercrom posted:

You are truly a master of audio Hogscraper. I bet you can successfully blind test FLAC vs 320 bit MP3 too.

Dude he's talking about multichannel stuff, do they even have 5.1 channel mp3?

# ? Jul 15, 2010 21:03

eddiewalker: Apr 28, 2004; Arrrr ye landlubber

fishmech posted:

Dude he's talking about multichannel stuff, do they even have 5.1 channel mp3?

Yes.

# ? Jul 15, 2010 21:11

Hogscraper: Nov 6, 2004; Audio master

fishmech posted:

Dude he's talking about multichannel stuff, do they even have 5.1 channel mp3?

Multichannel MP3 exists but very few decoders support it because it's an unofficial (as far as I know) extension to the standard. I think AAC is towing the line as far as multichannel web video is concerned right now.

@Mercrom, yes, I can blind test 16-bit/44.1k FLAC vs 320kbit mp3 but only on good speakers. I'd be super hard pressed to hear the difference on my laptop speakers or a pair of iPod earbuds. I think MP3 is awesome as a portable format but when I want to hook my iPod up in my car or listen to it on a nice system I can't help but feel I'm missing out. But with every generation of portable players the storage gets bigger and the DACs get better so I don't think we're too far off from a hifi portable player.

Yes... I listen on crappy iPod earbuds when I go running. In addition to keeping me grounded in average listener reality my Grados are too heavy and I don't want to splurge on a good pair of Shure's only to have them snag and break or worse get mugged and be out $200.00 bucks on a pair of earbuds that someone is going to turn into $50.00 fast cash to someone who won't appreciate them. Ahh, city life!

# ? Jul 15, 2010 21:39

Bensa: Aug 21, 2007; Loyal 'til the end.

I think a lot of the ability to hear differences between lossy/lossless is knowing what to listen for, this is where having experience mixing or doing recordings help. Its like the Fedex arrow, once you know its there you can't ignore it. Some musical styles are more suspectible to it based on how much is spent on production, there is also the effect of having contrast within tracks, not just in terms of dynamics but if your instrumentation covers massive areas of the spectrum rather than various distinct blocks then you're less likely to be able to hear nuances in them. Pauses also help since they allow you to hear resonance and fading tones.

# ? Jul 15, 2010 22:18

Devian666: Aug 20, 2008; Take some advice Chris.; Fun Shoe

I could write a lot of :mordin:

about the topic of low quality audio. I think my awareness has been further aggravated by having a 5.1 system. Why should I put up with movies having higher quality audio than albums?

Maybe I should put a large chunk of jade on top of my amp and perform a ritualistic dance to improve the audio quality.

# ? Jul 16, 2010 00:49

Neurophonic: May 2, 2009

Hogscraper posted:

I don't want to splurge on a good pair of Shure's only to have them snag and break or worse get mugged and be out $200.00 bucks on a pair of earbuds that someone is going to turn into $50.00 fast cash to someone who won't appreciate them. Ahh, city life!

Exactly this happened to my Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5s. I was not a happy chappy.

# ? Jul 16, 2010 14:46

eddiewalker: Apr 28, 2004; Arrrr ye landlubber

Neurophonic posted:

Exactly this happened to my Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5s. I was not a happy chappy.

I wish there had been a way to print, "pleeeease don't steal these. they seriously only fit in MY ears," on
my customs, but there was only room for my name.

# ? Jul 18, 2010 04:36

kuffs: Mar 29, 2007; Projectile Dysfunction

Next up: Audiophile grade SATA cables!

http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/?p=2479

quote:

I have disabled Comments on this post so that respectable visitors do not have to read the remarks made by a small number of extremely ignorant, rude, malicious and disingenuous individuals who cannot tolerate people expressing opinions that do not concur with their own.

read: "I want to believe"

# ? Aug 19, 2010 22:40

The Bunk: Sep 15, 2007; Oh, I just don't know
where to begin.; Fun Shoe

quote:

I have disabled Comments on this post...disingenuous individuals who cannot tolerate people expressing opinions that do not concur with their own.

Par for the course for these guys, I guess.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 23:20

Combat Pretzel: Jun 23, 2004; No, seriously... what kurds?!

kuffs posted:

Next up: Audiophile grade SATA cables!

http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/?p=2479

Ah drat, I just wanted to post this.

Seriously, why are these people so loving obtuse and simply don't want to understand binary encoding systems and transmission?

Hogscraper posted:

The higher sample rate matters less than the bit depth in my opinion.

I really doubt that anything beyond 16bit makes any sense with a good DAC, except in a mixing environment.

Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Aug 19, 2010

# ? Aug 19, 2010 23:26

qirex: Feb 15, 2001

Combat Pretzel posted:

Seriously, why are these people so loving obtuse and simply don't want to understand binary encoding systems and transmission?

Because they're coming from a world where dumbass audiophile tweaks were accepted because of the "mystery" of analog audio. The people involved are either trying to sell/promote useless poo poo or they want to be lied to about it because the very thought that a 50 cent monoprice cable is just as good is orthogonal to their entire way of thinking.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 23:30

kuffs: Mar 29, 2007; Projectile Dysfunction

Combat Pretzel posted:

Ah drat, I just wanted to post this.

Seriously, why are these people so loving obtuse and simply don't want to understand binary encoding systems and transmission?

I really doubt that anything beyond 16bit makes any sense with a good DAC, except in a mixing environment.

I think it's loving darling that he thinks the data lines were susceptible to interference in his NAS. Guess what guy, when you have interference on your SATA cable that means your files are loving corrupted!

# ? Aug 20, 2010 00:02

Combat Pretzel: Jun 23, 2004; No, seriously... what kurds?!

Kinda related to the post above, but not to audio... Years back when I worked at a computer parts wholesale, they had a daughter company that built computers. The PATA cables were neatly folded and zipped to the case. Folded kinda like they're being delivered in bulk too. One day I had to help out tech support, I received a call from an electrical engineering student making a fuzz about these folds. At first I thought it was a prank, but he kept going too long at it and even dared me to follow up with his professor about it. Silly people.

qirex posted:

Because they're coming from a world where dumbass audiophile tweaks were accepted because of the "mystery" of analog audio. The people involved are either trying to sell/promote useless poo poo or they want to be lied to about it because the very thought that a 50 cent monoprice cable is just as good is orthogonal to their entire way of thinking.

I don't know, but I'd expect people to do some simple research about the matter, when it involves several hundred dollars or more, for poo poo like a wooden volume knob. Or some lovely crystals to put on your amplifier (I'm still not sure if it's a prank or not). I get the ultimate laffos especially regarding audiophile cabling. Because I work in the cable industry. And I know that we've a bunch of these guys as clients. Which makes things more hilarious, because I know what they're getting and what they're trying to sell it for.

Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Aug 20, 2010

# ? Aug 20, 2010 16:16

Devian666: Aug 20, 2008; Take some advice Chris.; Fun Shoe

I'm seriously considering trying to push the myth that spreading a thin layer of cottage cheese on top of your CDs will improve audio quality.

# ? Aug 20, 2010 23:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 00:47

eddiewalker: Apr 28, 2004; Arrrr ye landlubber

Devian666 posted:

I'm seriously considering trying to push the myth that spreading a thin layer of cottage cheese on top of your CDs will improve audio quality.

Myth?

# ? Aug 20, 2010 23:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > Ridicule Audiophiles - Find the cat shit's resonant frequency

«‹›274 »