|
This is all disgusting. Like UFO people, conspiracy nuts, etc. You could spend under $300 on sound equipment and $30 on cables and 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell a difference between that and the idiot poo poo these people spend thousands on.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Arrowsmith posted:Ted Kennedy was larger than life, but can you hold the fat jokes until they find enough It's actually a reference to JFK to allow for the burn in time for Aldous Huxley's death. Xenomorph posted:This is all disgusting. Like UFO people, conspiracy nuts, etc. I'm sure the posters on head fi would find that to be an outrageous troll (despite being factual).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
Have to say that sometimes, I can't imagine what was going through the designer's head. Like this stereo 3.5mm to 2x mono 1/4" adapter by Planet Waves; take a close look at the photo. That's the sleeve that is missing half of the metal, and has been shredded from being (understandably) moved about now and again when connected.    Why do they do it? Well from what I can gather from their site: quote:After more than two and a half years of intense research and product development, Planet Waves had come up with a cable with conductors that actually short unwanted triboelectric currents to the ground as they occur. A new connector was developed with a series of compression springs along the ground sleeve that ensure the plug makes a firm connection into the jack ground; gold-plated contact points were added for better connectivity and reduced oxidation. Add an almost indestructible strain-relief design with common-sense features like color-coded O-rings for easy identification, packaging that explains how Planet Waves solved problems, and a lifetime guarantee, and the Planet Waves cable line was on the road to success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:You could spend under $300 on sound equipment and $30 on cables and 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell a difference between that and the idiot poo poo these people spend thousands on. Haha are you serious? A $30,000 set-up that includes room acoustic treatment and CHEAP rear end cables will sound worlds better than a $300 set-up to pretty much anyone who isn't deaf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 05:44
|
|
|
Pibborando San posted:Haha are you serious? A $30,000 set-up that includes room acoustic treatment and CHEAP rear end cables will sound worlds better than a $300 set-up to pretty much anyone who isn't deaf. Their may be a different sound (the sound is one reason I tell my wife I prefer watching movies at the theater), but not everyone is a crazy/anal audiophile when it comes how they hear things at home. That's why the cheap built-in speakers that come in TVs is good enough for most people. "Can I hear it clearly?" is the qualifying question many people have if they put any thought into the sound system. Of course some people will spend hundreds, or even thousand on great theater-like sound, but the people linked to in this thread are just over the top, with the stupid cables and wrapping their equipment in paper and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 16:12
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:Cooling those CDs will make the zeros and ones on a CD more orderly. This reminds me of a vinyl elist telling me about the zeros being the missing sound quality on a CD. His comment was pretty stupid but the 44 kHz limit of CDs means that vinyl can technically be better (kind of like how old-school film is almost always higher resolution than digital tape). I'm actually convinced audiophiles do have some sort of mental illness, and I don't mean to be a prick about it. I'm a bit of a videophile and there's times I rip my hair out trying to set my TVs up perfectly; I can't imagine what it's like to be that way with audio because of how much harder it is to discern between the pieces of equipment/green marker tricks. It's gotta be 100% placebo; I'm sure of it. I remember I had a stereo system and I was adjusting the "tuning" knob while listening to a CD, 100% convinced it sounded best 3/4ths of the way turned. Except the tuning dial was for the radio stations and had nothing to do with sound.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Milky_Sauce posted:His comment was pretty stupid but the 44 kHz limit of CDs means that vinyl can technically be better (kind of like how old-school film is almost always higher resolution than digital tape). I think the idiot Devian666 was referring to meant that each digital '0' in the binary CD data was somehow "missing" audio data, which makes no loving sense. Yes, technically vinyl does sound "better" than digital audio sampled at 44khz, but the "audiophile" lacked a fundamental understanding of how digital storage works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
The funny thing is about all this bullshit with CDs and whatnot is that if any of it was true, it would mean that data corruption on software-based CDs would be rampant. If you need to freeze/color/shave a CD in order to get the "true" sound, then how come if that same CD had data on it that data would be usable without special treatment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 20:44
|
|
|
Zombie Dictator posted:The funny thing is about all this bullshit with CDs and whatnot is that if any of it was true, it would mean that data corruption on software-based CDs would be rampant. If you need to freeze/color/shave a CD in order to get the "true" sound, then how come if that same CD had data on it that data would be usable without special treatment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 21:10
|
|
|
qirex posted:I froze my MS Office install disc and now my bold fonts are "fatter", my Excel column dragging is smoother and my PowerPoints have a more holographic presence with more forward oranges and sparklier bullet points Why stop there, noob? I freeze my RAM sticks before I boot up my PC and my windows have insurmountable crispness and color depth. An extra dimension of clarity is revealed in "Windows Startup.wav". Hello.jpg seemingly leaps out at me and engulfs my entire head...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
I propose that music has substantially better imaging and crispness at or below sea level. In fact, to truly experience sound from speakers you need as much atmospheric pressure as possible to increase the molecule connection between the speakers and the eardrums. Therefor the best place to analyze audio equipment would be within a hyperbaric chamber with a pressure of approximately six atmospheres or 85 PSI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 22:12
|
|
|
All I know about music: After spending ~$120 on some desktop speakers, I swear 128kbps and 192/256kbps MP3s sound different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 22:19
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:All I know about music: You should be able to notice the difference between 128 and 256-320, but I've never, ever been able to hear a difference between that and any of the lossless codecs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 22:43
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:You should be able to notice the difference between 128 and 256-320, but I've never, ever been able to hear a difference between that and any of the lossless codecs. Well, yeah. Kind of what they mean by lossless, as in, "No different from the original once it's decoded."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 00:22
|
|
|
kuffs posted:Well, yeah. Kind of what they mean by lossless, as in, "No different from the original once it's decoded." I mean the difference between 256 and lossless. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
Zombie Dictator posted:The funny thing is about all this bullshit with CDs and whatnot is that if any of it was true, it would mean that data corruption on software-based CDs would be rampant. If you need to freeze/color/shave a CD in order to get the "true" sound, then how come if that same CD had data on it that data would be usable without special treatment? I wish I could buy a CD off of the shelf and put it in my player, instead of having to do all these things before it will give me the true sound. I believe most audiophiles have no technical understanding. They're ripe for exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:I mean the difference between 256 and lossless. I am completely unable to read. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:54
|
|
|
Pibborando San posted:Haha are you serious? A $30,000 set-up that includes room acoustic treatment and CHEAP rear end cables will sound worlds better than a $300 set-up to pretty much anyone who isn't deaf. I think we'd need you to define "sounds worlds better" before we can argue this. A $300 setup is not going to be a static-ridden low volume adventure ride through a sawmill, and a $30k setup is not going to make me think angels have sprayed hot loads of musical ejaculate into my brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:49
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I think we'd need you to define "sounds worlds better" before we can argue this. A $300 setup is not going to be a static-ridden low volume adventure ride through a sawmill, and a $30k setup is not going to make me think angels have sprayed hot loads of musical ejaculate into my brain. It would... if you were an audiophile!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 05:27
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I think we'd need you to define "sounds worlds better" before we can argue this. A $300 setup is not going to be a static-ridden low volume adventure ride through a sawmill, and a $30k setup is not going to make me think angels have sprayed hot loads of musical ejaculate into my brain. If you think that's good you should try these $3000 cables with trible vibronic vibration dampening gelatine, and EMP boosting wire cage. The improvement is 100% better quality than a compact disc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
Gromit posted:I think we'd need you to define "sounds worlds better" before we can argue this. A $300 setup is not going to be a static-ridden low volume adventure ride through a sawmill, and a $30k setup is not going to make me think angels have sprayed hot loads of musical ejaculate into my brain. It really depends, certain things actually can have a noticeable effect on audio quality, or at the very least allow you to increase the volume. Room treatment to isolate noise is probably one of the few expensive things that actually do make a noticeable improvement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 06:14
|
|
|
proudfoot posted:It really depends, certain things actually can have a noticeable effect on audio quality, or at the very least allow you to increase the volume. Room treatment to isolate noise is probably one of the few expensive things that actually do make a noticeable improvement. Well, what do you mean by "effect on audio quality"? I can turn my hifi up pretty drat loud in my untreated house, and it all sounds fine to me. True, I spent $7k on the audio components, but that's a far cry from $30k. "Sounds worlds better", to me, would be like going from AM radio to CD. Not making my subwoofer produce 2dB less inaudible resonance on my antique bottle collection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 07:25
|
|
|
Gromit posted:Well, what do you mean by "effect on audio quality"? I can turn my hifi up pretty drat loud in my untreated house, and it all sounds fine to me. True, I spent $7k on the audio components, but that's a far cry from $30k. Some people think room treatments can do more for sound than simply upgrading speakers (i dont really but some do). However i do subscribe to the belief that room treatments are the biggest change in sound right after a better loud speaker. I think amps just need to be "adequate", and dont really change the sound, cd players and dac do almost nothing, especially for the high prices. So basically if you want to get more out of your speakers dont look at upgrading the gear, you should look at sound treatments, as they will get you closer to how the speaker is actually supposed to sound.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 07:42
|
|
|
Omegaslast posted:Some people think room treatments can do more for sound than simply upgrading speakers (i dont really but some do). However i do subscribe to the belief that room treatments are the biggest change in sound right after a better loud speaker. I think amps just need to be "adequate", and dont really change the sound, cd players and dac do almost nothing, especially for the high prices. So basically if you want to get more out of your speakers dont look at upgrading the gear, you should look at sound treatments, as they will get you closer to how the speaker is actually supposed to sound. This is basically what I meant, after around the 5k mark, you can't really do anything but room treatment. Any gains in upgrading your speakers/dacs/etc will be minimal, and "esoteric" stuff like cables is utterly pointless. Room treatment, however, does make a noticeable improvement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 11:07
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:I believe most audiophiles have no technical understanding. They're ripe for exploitation. I think it's pretty obvious that they're being nicely exploited, otherwise they'd actually be making all their power cables, instead of spending 12k on them. I keep trying to think of something to make and sell to audiophiles, but I'm fairly sure I don't have the creativity to come up with anything so far fetched that people will actually buy it. My last resort is just going to be making wooden volume knobs, but inlaying pieces of brass and silver. It'll make it WARM BUT DETAILED AND THE MIDS REALLY COME OUT. e: Omegaslast posted:Some people think room treatments can do more for sound than simply upgrading speakers (i dont really but some do). However i do subscribe to the belief that room treatments are the biggest change in sound right after a better loud speaker. I think amps just need to be "adequate", and dont really change the sound, cd players and dac do almost nothing, especially for the high prices. So basically if you want to get more out of your speakers dont look at upgrading the gear, you should look at sound treatments, as they will get you closer to how the speaker is actually supposed to sound. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 18:42
|
|
|
proudfoot posted:This is basically what I meant, after around the 5k mark, you can't really do anything but room treatment. Any gains in upgrading your speakers/dacs/etc will be minimal, and "esoteric" stuff like cables is utterly pointless. You may also try digital room eq'ing.  I was thinking about getting a thread going on this, just need to get a new mic for measurements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Doc Spratley posted:You may also try digital room eq'ing. what's with the dip at 80Hz?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
qirex posted:what's with the dip at 80Hz? If it's there at both the corrected and uncorrected points, its probably a speaker defect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 20:42
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:You should be able to notice the difference between 128 and 256-320, but I've never, ever been able to hear a difference between that and any of the lossless codecs. Gromit posted:Well, what do you mean by "effect on audio quality"? I can turn my hifi up pretty drat loud in my untreated house, and it all sounds fine to me. True, I spent $7k on the audio components, but that's a far cry from $30k.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:19
|
|
|
Doc Spratley posted:You may also try digital room eq'ing. I did some googling, including wikipedia, but I couldn't get a good answer to this question : Is there a way to do this without a $600-7000 piece of equipment? Edit: I would definitely be interested in a thread on that bacon! fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:07
|
|
|
bacon! posted:I did some googling, including wikipedia, but I couldn't get a good answer to this question : Is there a way to do this without a $600-7000 piece of equipment? You can do it with a radioshack SPL meter, test tones, and time. There's apps that can help you, I think one of them is called "room eq wizard" or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 02:23
|
|
|
Twiin posted:You can do it with a radioshack SPL meter, test tones, and time. Do you mean that the EQ settings would only work if a PC was your source? Or, would you just apply the same EQ settings to whatever analog equalizer you have? I just have a stereo integrated amp without an equalizer
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 03:35
|
|
|
bacon! posted:I just have a stereo integrated amp without an equalizer Build some bass traps and then just stop worrying about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 04:17
|
|
|
bacon! posted:Do you mean that the EQ settings would only work if a PC was your source? Or, would you just apply the same EQ settings to whatever analog equalizer you have? The app will help you determine the EQ profile of your listening location, so that you can apply the EQ settings to whatever source your audio is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 04:50
|
|
|
Twiin is right on, REW is what I have been dabbling with. REW is Room EQ Wizard... an extremely popular and accurate application for measuring room responses and correcting modal resonances.  Click here for the full 1082x652 image. http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/ is the place to start. This paragraph tickled the geek in me and seduced me into reading more. Room EQ Wizard is a Java application for measuring room responses and correcting modal resonances. It includes tools for generating test signals; measuring SPL; measuring frequency and impulse responses; generating spectral decay plots, waterfalls and energy-time curves; generating real time analyzer (RTA) plots; calculating reverberation times; displaying equaliser responses and automatically adjusting the settings of parametric equalisers to counter the effects of room modes. That earlier graph I posted is not of my response btw. I am messing about with REW but I need to pickup a proper microphone. The dip I believe is a bass null due to the room? I am striving to learn more about this sort of thing. I think that would have to be addressed with room treatment as Hypnolobster suggests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 05:39
|
|
|
Note that it's almost pointless EQing the system ruler flat - it's only ruler flat at the spot where the calibration mic sits. It might make things worse elsewhere... (Though there is benefits to doing this for the lower frequencies) .
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 15:56
|
|
|
Hand of Doom posted:Note that it's almost pointless EQing the system ruler flat - it's only ruler flat at the spot where the calibration mic sits. It might make things worse elsewhere... That is why the calibration mic is set at exactly my head placement in my listening chair where I sit for 98% of my listening. Another option might be to take measurements from various listening locations in the room and aim for a 'best average', try and see if you can garner some improvement on average overall. Granted, you can't always get ruler flat response everywhere in your environment, and in fact it might sound kinda dead, many clubs and live venues might dial in a 'house curve' to sweeten the sound a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:57
|
|
|
Doc Spratley posted:REW is Room EQ Wizard... an extremely popular and accurate application for measuring room responses and correcting modal resonances. Those fools! They're giving that program away for free?! Audiophiles would pay at least $1200 for such a tool. Reading this thread has made me want to start my own cable/equipment business. They must have one of the highest profit margins out there. Also http://www.ilikejam.org/blog/audio/audiophile.html is a pretty good read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
Quick interview on sound quality with Johnny Greenwood from Radiohead. Sums up an "audiophile" nicely... "I find this sound quality stuff both fascinating and ridiculous. It’s like the pixel resolution of digital cameras: higher numbers are better, but that discussion always pushes the actual photography to one side, somehow. " http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones/2009/09/dithering-jonny-greenwood.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2009 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
quote:No. That comes later. It’s those thirty-something men who lurk in hi-fi shops, discussing signal purity and oxygen-free cables and FLACs. I should know—I was very nearly one of them. I dunno if that comparison really works. Lossy is lossy, and lossless is lossless. A FLAC album is about the same size as ONE tv show episode, and once it's downloaded a person has something on their enormous hard drive that is indistinguishable from a CD. Then you can make your own choices about how much you're willing to shrink it down for ipod. quote:The downside is that people are encouraged to own far more music than they can ever give their full attention to. People will have MP3s of every Miles Davis’ record but never think of hearing any of them twice in a row—there’s just too much to get through. You’re thinking, “I’ve got ‘Sketches of Spain and ‘Bitches Brew’—let’s zip through those while I’m finishing that e-mail.” That abundance can push any music into background music, furniture music. This however I agree with 100%. I hate getting lots of stuff all at once. I hate the idea of a really great album ONLY ever being background music or worse, speaker calibrating music. Although I don't have a 'listening chair' where I sit with closed eyes having some kind of weird acoustic orgasm, I do TRY to give 80%-90% of my attention to the music, even if the other 10%=20% is browsing photos on flickr or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2009 05:51
|
|
