|
GutBomb posted:He's saying he can hear a difference between lossless and 360kbps lossy files. His purchases don't make a lot of sense, but this does. I can hear the difference (I just don't care) pretty easily. Whether I'd be able to identify which was compressed or lossless is another matter but I'd be able to hear a difference. Nope. If you go to hydrogenaudio or elsewhere where the local audiophiles accept and encourage ABX tests, even the most ardent of them will tell you anything above 192 is transparent in any format, and AAC nearly-always at 160 too. I've *never* seen anyone ABX 320kbs on a codec made after 2005 unless they're uploading tiny samples to point out a specific artifact that occurs in order to improve errors in the codec. The only reason to use lossless is to avoid issues where, 5 years later, you hear a bit of artifacting in one song when played on a $50,000 setup in perfect conditions and this ends up annoying you. If you think 320 sounds "lossy" to you, do yourself a favour and ABX yourself. e: somehow thought I was replying to the end of the thread, but eh the point remains. Khablam fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 28, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
How does the 320kb lossy codecs hold up if you decide to load the file up in an editor and run it through 26 filters? I heard the more aggressive "optimized for human hearing" stuff falls apart pretty quickly if it gets transposed or multiplied. Or scenarios like "re-encode in a new future codec"? Granted, probably not really something anyone actually ever does, but it seems like a potential functional difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
RoadCrewWorker posted:How does the 320kb lossy codecs hold up if you decide to load the file up in an editor and run it through 26 filters? I heard the more aggressive "optimized for human hearing" stuff falls apart pretty quickly if it gets transposed or multiplied. Or scenarios like "re-encode in a new future codec"? This is the reason lossless codecs exist. They're not pointless, they're just not meant for listening to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This is the reason lossless codecs exist. They're not pointless, they're just not meant for listening to. Well, if you have enough space on your device, why not? It saves you a transcoding step. All of my music is stored losslessly, and I can't really be bothered to transcode when my player has ~40 gigs of storage and plays FLAC natively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
There really isn't a good place to post this, but I'd like to make some speakers that look like this: http://brokenliquid.com/52503/3525132/gallery/rough-waters I figure they'd be pretty audiophile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Because not all of us have "reasonable" amounts of music. Also, I've moved to Spotify and it's saved me thousands in song purchases. TomR posted:There really isn't a good place to post this, but I'd like to make some speakers that look like this: http://brokenliquid.com/52503/3525132/gallery/rough-waters This is made of dozens of pieces of glass sandwiched together, and is completely awesome. Speakers would ruin it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah I know it's awesome. Maybe just have them in the same room as the speakers. Job done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This is the reason lossless codecs exist. They're not pointless, they're just not meant for listening to. If it matters to anyone I recommend WinRAR. The later versions have done a great job at keeping top-end harmonics clear and open even after being in an archive with other files. Make sure you use the RAR5 format or you won't get the benefit. Never compress on AMD, either, their obsession with cramming more cores onto every chip means they have poor jitter. I pity anyone who hasn't heard a proper i7 decompression of Dark Side of the Moon. When I played it for the first time my girlfriend in the other room came running in asking what happened to the soundstage and instrument placing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
My eye began twitching as I read that
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Saying they're not designed for listening to is a bit disingenuous, because that's exactly what they're designed for. If you just wanted to archive them, you can RAR/ZIP the wav files. Most archivers will have a special mode for working with audio so you get similar-or-better compression ratios than using FLAC/ALAC, whilst giving the other advantages of an actual archive format (CRC checks, incremental backups, encryption, error tolerance, whatever). this is a fakepost right. right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:this is a fakepost right. right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Saying they're not designed for listening to is a bit disingenuous, because that's exactly what they're designed for. If you just wanted to archive them, you can RAR/ZIP the wav files. Most archivers will have a special mode for working with audio so you get similar-or-better compression ratios than using FLAC/ALAC, whilst giving the other advantages of an actual archive format (CRC checks, incremental backups, encryption, error tolerance, whatever).
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
It goes from "This could be a legitimate post" to "What the gently caress" to  in like 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:neither any of the ZIP compressors, nor WinRAR do have those fabled audio modes. That are apparently also better than the actual dedicated audio compressors. Not "most" archivers though. And never "or better" ratios. And it wouldn't be available in the RAR5 format he suggests when the post turns to even more complete gibberish. Why am I arguing with someone arguing with someone making a joke?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
http://tidalhifi.com/us On-demand, 16-bit FLAC streaming. $20/mo, with a free 7-day trial to start. Kinda tempted, but Apple has me so tied to my iTunes library (playcounts, playlists, etc.) that it's really hard to take any streaming option seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
WinRAR is to compression what a 5000 dollar power cable is to powering audio equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
The Modern Leper posted:http://tidalhifi.com/us Or you could just get Spotify for half that and stream in 'extreme' quality. And here, let me free you from your iTunes hell: https://support.spotify.com/us/problems/#!/article/Convert-Playlists-to-Spotify Spotify has last.fm integration, if you want to keep track of your playcounts. It can also play music stored locally on your computer if you have iTunes albums not available through the streaming service. You really have no excuse. KillHour fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Or you could just get Spotify for half that and stream in 'extreme' quality. Nah, I'm pretty reliant on smart playlists at this point. New songs get cycled in pretty frequently, with a separate playlist of songs I haven't heard in a while. I've never been one to just shuffle my library, and couldn't imagine manually maintaining one. EDIT: I think Spotify free is great for finding or sampling new songs, but I still like getting deep into my own library. The smart playlists keep the "loved" songs on hand, while shuffling in enough "liked" songs to keep things fresh, all without me having to think too much about it. I sort of feel that the "liked" songs tend to get lost in something like Spotify - I don't necessarily want a 3-star song in my "Starred" or "Saved" playlist, but having it pop up randomly every six months or so is still nice. The Modern Leper fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
The Modern Leper posted:Nah, I'm pretty reliant on smart playlists at this point. New songs get cycled in pretty frequently, with a separate playlist of songs I haven't heard in a while. I've never been one to just shuffle my library, and couldn't imagine manually maintaining one. Well poo poo, then why aren't you on a streaming service? I just right click on a song I like and hit "Start Radio." and it makes a playlist for me. Or I'll just listen to a playlist someone else made. Or I'll listen to the music my friends are listening to in the sidebar. There's like a billion and one ways to find new music, and none of it involves buying an album. It's fantastic. And if that's still not enough for options, there are a ton of third party apps directly integrated for just that: Last.fm, Lazify, Moodagent, Sifter.... KillHour fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Well poo poo, then why aren't you on a streaming service? I just right click on a song I like and hit "Start Radio." and it makes a playlist for me. Or I'll just listen to a playlist someone else made. Or I'll listen to the music my friends are listening to in the sidebar. There's like a billion and one ways to find new music, and none of it involves buying an album. It's fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Nope. Jesus. I'm not even an audiophile, I listen to my music most of the time in the car over Bluetooth. I don't think 320 sounds lossy in the sense that I wouldn't subject my ears to such garbage. I've downloaded 320kbps mp3s that sounded like crap, likely due to a lovely rip, then downloaded flac files of the same album that sounded better. I don't feel superior because I can hear the difference, I just stated that I have heard a difference. lovely rips are possible with mp3 but ripping a CD to flac is guaranteed to be the same poo poo that's on the CD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:WinRAR is to compression what a 5000 dollar power cable is to powering audio equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
RoadCrewWorker posted:Where can i get a free audiophile power cable that constantly reminds me that its 30 day trial period ran out in 1998? You know that straight up free and better compression exists right? It's 7zip dude. Similarly, real audio equipment tends to come with a power cord that performs exactly as well as a $5000 one for free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:Why am I arguing with someone arguing with someone making a joke? As for the compression remarks, other than the paragraph deliberately stuck in the middle of Poe's law, I was being serious. WinZIP for example uses Wavpack on .wav files, which beats FLAC, ALAC and APE for overall compression ratios. If your literal use is "not to listen to, but to archive" then zipping a wav and cue file is better all around. I was replying to someone who was saying lossless formats aren't for listening to; they are because they all make tradeoffs on their compression ratios so they can be decompressed on portable devices - i.e. they are made to be listened to. Khablam fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You know that straight up free and better compression exists right? It's 7zip dude. Although now i'd love to see someone sell winrar for 5000 bucks with extremely flowery audiophile language. All the "RAM cleaner" programs out there proof that there's a target audience of gullible marks for it, and hey, it works for those "audiophile grade" music players that just put a shiny frontend on the regular OS sound api, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This is the reason lossless codecs exist. They're not pointless, they're just not meant for listening to. I like FLAC or WAV for listening...mostly because I run my audio thru heavy processing (agc/multiband compression/limiting and other effects), and artifacts tend to get amplified when run thru processing. Plus I have external hard drives, so storage isn't a issue. But I'm a special snowflake who has different listening habits than most, so what works for me might not work for others - and AAC/MP3 codecs are useable for the most part these days, unlike the early Napster days when most MP3's sounded underwater. And I fully support development of AudiophileRAR, just to see who would buy the drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
The fun thing about AudiophileRAR, is that the ones who don't bite and go on to tell you why it can't possibly matter, can have their arguments reflected against their purchase of $500 USB cables. Arguably the biggest problem audiophiles have, is they have to bite on these kinds of things; if they argue a wav-file is a wav-file they're suggesting mathematics and parity-checks can be used as evidence, and they pull the rug out from under their own house of cards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Oh, a wav is a wav, but the problem is repeatedly stressing the bits every time you decompress the RAR. Each decompression includes multiple bit-shifts and addition operations, each taking its toll on the integrity of the bitstream. If you are listening to the track even a few times a week, it will only take 3-4 months before the effects add up and the bits are reduced to shell-shocked, used-up husks of their former selves. The RAR format simply wasn't designed for repeated listening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
taqueso posted:Oh, a wav is a wav, but the problem is repeatedly stressing the bits every time you decompress the RAR. Each decompression includes multiple bit-shifts and addition operations, each taking its toll on the integrity of the bitstream. If you are listening to the track even a few times a week, it will only take 3-4 months before the effects add up and the bits are reduced to shell-shocked, used-up husks of their former selves. The RAR format simply wasn't designed for repeated listening. Luckily for you audiophiles who have been using the wrong way to compress poo poo and wearing out your bits, I can sell you a fully functioning bit recycler to pay for your sins. Only $500! https://archive.org/details/TheBitRecycler_1020
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
RoadCrewWorker posted:Where can i get a free audiophile power cable that constantly reminds me that its 30 day trial period ran out in 1998?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Sweet bejesus, someone talk me out of buying these. https://buffalo.craigslist.org/ele/4769477324.html http://www.klipsch.com/chorus-ii-floorstanding-speaker/details FREQUENCY RESPONSE: 39Hz-20kHz(+-)3dB SENSITIVITY: 101dB @ 1watt/1meter POWER HANDLING: 100 watts maximum continuous (1000 watts peak) MAX ACOUSTIC OUTPUT: 121dB SPL NOMINAL IMPEDANCE: 8 ohms 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Sweet bejesus, someone talk me out of buying these. No one here argues the importance of good speakers. Good room, good speakers, good source, good enough components. The rest of bull poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:No one here argues the importance of good speakers. Oh trust me, I know. But I don't need these. I really don't. I was just looking for some cheap speakers for the basement to work out to. I have a very nice 2.1 system in my office and an even nicer 5.1 system in my living room. I don't need these. But I want these. I have a problem. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Sweet bejesus, someone talk me out of buying these. Those old Klipschs sound like horseshit without a low-powered tube amp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Well he can use them as firewood when his house gets snowed in again this week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Well he can use them as firewood when his house gets snowed in again this week. You're the one selling these, aren't you? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:Those old Klipschs sound like horseshit without a low-powered tube amp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You're the one selling these, aren't you? Mine won't burn that long, sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
 Behold! For those of us stuck in the past using physical media Furutech has come to our rescue. You can throw out your old and lovely SK-II and order the new and improved SK-III. Now with 10% more Corona discharge fibers! This piece you will remove 300-500v of Frictional Static Discharge on CD's! I have no idea what any of this means, but if it's good enough for the Japanese police force, then it's got to be amazing and not bull poo poo at all. http://www.furutech.com/2014/08/06/9773/ Audiot fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Audiot posted:
Somebody overestimated the makeup brush market this quarter
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 07:06
|
|
