|
davepsilon posted:Why would he want a 100-seat theater? Part of the allure is probably the expense. He has money and wants to turn that money into nice things. He gains the ability to show it off as well. Just like other rich guys collect fine art I suppose. It just seemed strange to read that interview where he seems to be saying that he'll spend whatever it takes to most accurately reproduce the experience of a theater, when top of the line theater projection and sound would be a maybe a 5th the price he's already paid if you had them spec'ed for 150-200 seat auditorium (it would be much cheaper for a smaller space). Hell, you could build a pimped out IMAX theater for less than he spent. So today I got am email from a guy complaining that we had put the movie he wanted to see in our theater which has inferior sound (its a 4 screen cinema). He spent two paragraphs explaining how superior the adjacent theater clearly is to anyone who can hear. The spaces are the same size, with the same wall treatments. Both theaters are running the exact same sound equipment (amplifiers, speakers, etc.) which was installed and is maintained by the same technician. The life of a ridiculous audiophile must be sad indeed. He can't even enjoy his crappy movie. 
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Acinonyx posted:Hell, you could build a pimped out IMAX theater for less than he spent. a home IMAX theater would probably be a more impressive sight. however in the spirit of ridiculing audiophiles it should be an IMAX-in-a-box with 100% real 3D sound. davepsilon fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Oct 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 22:43
|
|
|
davepsilon posted:a home IMAX theater would probably be a more impressive sight. Well, an IMAX projector only costs around 120k, so you'd probably need to add a few pounds of gold somehow to make it respectable. On the plus side for audiophiles, the digital version of IMAX is compete poo poo compared to the film version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 22:24
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:It just seemed strange to read that interview where he seems to be saying that he'll spend whatever it takes to most accurately reproduce the experience of a theater, when top of the line theater projection and sound would be a maybe a 5th the price he's already paid if you had them spec'ed for 150-200 seat auditorium (it would be much cheaper for a smaller space). Hell, you could build a pimped out IMAX theater for less than he spent. If you're going for absolute top-of-the-line, it's easy to blow past the $1,00,000 mark on a dedicated home theater, especially if you factor in design and construction. The goal is not to reproduce the theater experience, it's to outperform it in every way imaginable. If you have the money, it's worth paying to have it done right, since simple errors can really spoil the final result. This guy definitely seems to miss the mark in a lot of regards, but I can respect the fun he's had getting to where he is. He literally has every product produced by one company over the last few years, and can easily swap pieces. I would have a ball toying with this, even though my choices in terms of which companies would definitely be different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 06:52
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:If you're going for absolute top-of-the-line, it's easy to blow past the $1,00,000 mark on a dedicated home theater, especially if you factor in design and construction. The goal is not to reproduce the theater experience, it's to outperform it in every way imaginable. If you have the money, it's worth paying to have it done right, since simple errors can really spoil the final result. How many movie tickes can you get for a million dollars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 00:10
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How many movie tickes can you get for a million dollars? Plenty, but how often will the theatre be showing an obscure late-70's German art film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:The goal is not to reproduce the theater experience, it's to outperform it in every way imaginable. This would be sort of difficult though, as no home projection system or TV comes close to the resolution of a 35mm or even a digital projector (let alone an IMAX projector) that you would find at a theater. So how much better does the million dollar ultimate audiophile system sound, assuming you spent the money on things that matter and not $5,000 HDMI cables or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 04:50
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:This would be sort of difficult though, as no home projection system or TV comes close to the resolution of a 35mm or even a digital projector (let alone an IMAX projector) that you would find at a theater. A true cost-no-object home theater would use the exact same digital projection system you would see in the theater, with modifications made to make it suitable for home use. And the 2k standard used in the many (most?) theaters is only 2048 x 1080, which is only a negligible difference. This is set to change within the next year or two, as digital projection moves to 4k (some films are already being released and played at this resolution, but it's not particularly common). quote:So how much better does the million dollar ultimate audiophile system sound, assuming you spent the money on things that matter and not $5,000 HDMI cables or something? Compared to your local movie theater? The difference is night and day. Commercial theaters are full of design compromises that seriously affect sound quality, but are almost necessary in a commercial venture. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a commercial theater to have equivalent sound quality, but to do so in so large a space would be prohibitively expensive. What would be fun, and what I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to do, is to compare the sound of some of these top-end theaters to the mixing rooms where the soundtracks were created. That would yield a lot more insight into the value of the home theater than a comparison to your local cineplex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 06:29
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:(...)What would be fun, and what I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to do, is to compare the sound of some of these top-end theaters to the mixing rooms where the soundtracks were created. That would yield a lot more insight into the value of the home theater than a comparison to your local cineplex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 14:55
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:What would be fun, and what I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to do, is to compare the sound of some of these top-end theaters to the mixing rooms where the soundtracks were created. That would yield a lot more insight into the value of the home theater than a comparison to your local cineplex. Hans Zimmer's Studio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 16:25
|
|
|
qirex posted:I just wonder how much of that $1 mil is markup. $600k? $700?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 16:30
|
|
|
I dunno if any of you guys saw this on Slashdot, but apparently 1/3rd of people can't tell the difference between 48k and 160k encoding, even on very high-end audio equipment. http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49303980,00.htm I'm probably one of those people. I conducted a test for myself a number of years ago with a 56k song vs it's identical 256k song, and I could barely discern any difference at all. Even when playing identical samples side by side, I could tell that they each sounded slightly different, but I couldn't have called either one better. (for what it's worth, the songs I tried it with was Billy Joel's "Piano Man" and Rob Zombie's "Dragula")
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:A true cost-no-object home theater would use the exact same digital projection system you would see in the theater, with modifications made to make it suitable for home use. And the 2k standard used in the many (most?) theaters is only 2048 x 1080, which is only a negligible difference. This is set to change within the next year or two, as digital projection moves to 4k (some films are already being released and played at this resolution, but it's not particularly common). True, but an actual 35mm film print at traditional film theaters (which still comprise the majority) are going to be closer to 4k in resolution, assuming the print is of decent quality. Really though, the big thing is these people will be confined to blu-ray as the source of their media and the track record for releases has been a bit spotty. You can play the numbers game all day long, but "poo poo in poo poo out" still applies. I find it amusing that people will spend $500k on a home projector to play back media that some studio guy slathered in DNR and edge enhancement so that it looks like Monday Night Football for the person with a $400 wal-mart special LCD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone could miss the way cymbals sound at really low bitrates, especially using MP3. There's a few songs with very distinctive synth noises I can always tell when they're compressed, namely "Cowgirl" by Underworld and "Looking for the Perfect Beat" by Afrika Bambaataa. I think that's because the compression algorithms are tuned more towards vocals than perfect waveforms. The original MP3 creator used "Tom's Diner" extensively when working on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
I'm not to sure how a 48kbps AAC encoded track sounds vs an MP3 encoded at the same rate, but I can definitely tell the difference between a 128kbps and 64kbps MP3. Especially if the song has cymbals. It starts to sound like I'm diving down Neo's throat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
Tsaven Nava posted:I dunno if any of you guys saw this on Slashdot, but apparently 1/3rd of people can't tell the difference between 48k and 160k encoding, even on very high-end audio equipment. Excuse me, but that's comparing 2 entirely different encoders. AAC+ is designed to sound good at very low bitrates, and is used in applications like terrestrial digital radio broadcasting. OGG Vorbis has no such optimization. I can't see how you couldn't tell 56k from 26k, assuming you were referring to MP3. Most people have trouble tellign the difference between 128k and higher bitrate MP3s on average cheap hardware, but 56k sounds like total poo poo no matter what it's on, except for purely spoken word content.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
Even the bigger players seem to be cashing in on the expensive cable game - http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp Sure, its nicely built but US$499 for 1.5m of Cat5? Nice one, Denon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
Waldo P Barnstormer posted:Even the bigger players seem to be cashing in on the expensive cable game - http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp Denon posted:Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 03:14
|
|
|
Waldo P Barnstormer posted:Even the bigger players seem to be cashing in on the expensive cable game - http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp I'm a little ashamed of my wonderful ancient Denon receiver now
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 03:17
|
|
|
Waldo P Barnstormer posted:Even the bigger players seem to be cashing in on the expensive cable game - http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp I'm speechless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:57
|
|
|
It's hard to blame them. The markup on cables is beyond ridiculous, and people will pay for it.Boiled Water posted:Be careful now, you're moving from audiophile madness to something which might be called science. The home theater guys tend to be much more grounded in reality, mostly because the focus is on video, and video has objective standards that you can match -- standards that were created to assure that the produced picture matches the original intent. You don't really have the same thing for audio, especially 2-channel. bull3964 posted:Really though, the big thing is these people will be confined to blu-ray as the source of their media and the track record for releases has been a bit spotty. You can play the numbers game all day long, but "poo poo in poo poo out" still applies. I find it amusing that people will spend $500k on a home projector to play back media that some studio guy slathered in DNR and edge enhancement so that it looks like Monday Night Football for the person with a $400 wal-mart special LCD. That's very true, but at least they're looking at the best-polished turd imaginable, right? This next year should be a really interesting one to watch in terms of price/performance, though. Runco's new LED-based DLP, for example, is apparently nothing short of amazing, albeit somewhat limited in terms of brightness and therefore screen size. Some very knowledgeable industry insiders have said it has the most film-like picture of any projector they've seen, regardless of price. It retails for only $15-18,000. qirex posted:I just wonder how much of that $1 mil is markup. $600k? $700? Whatever it is, it's not as high as the margin on clothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
Denon posted:Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer. Yes...Because in those other lovely cables the signal is all like "Oh nos where do I go?" Then Denon swoops in with it's directional roadsigns "This way poor lost signal. I'll get you to your destination." I guess all this time I was losing information because the signal is lost somewhere in my cheap wires. Don't skimp on the directional markings. Otherwise the signal might take a left where it should have gone straight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 13:42
|
|
|
Its funny because it looks like that cable carries control signals as well as audio data. Does this mean the control signals will have a hard time getting through or has Denon taken that into account and reversed the polarity on the control conductors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 13:47
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:That's very true, but at least they're looking at the best-polished turd imaginable, right? This next year should be a really interesting one to watch in terms of price/performance, though. Runco's new LED-based DLP, for example, is apparently nothing short of amazing, albeit somewhat limited in terms of brightness and therefore screen size. Some very knowledgeable industry insiders have said it has the most film-like picture of any projector they've seen, regardless of price. It retails for only $15-18,000. The one 1080p LED projector I've seen so far did not look film-like at all, and I am moderately sure that it was just a rebadged Runco. It kind of hurts my brain when I see "only" and "$15,000" next to each other. Especially for a 1080p projector.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:The home theater guys tend to be much more grounded in reality, mostly because the focus is on video, and video has objective standards that you can match -- standards that were created to assure that the produced picture matches the original intent. You don't really have the same thing for audio, especially 2-channel. There are objective standards for audio - do a simple double blind test or hook up an oscilloscope or something and check against a reference signal - audiophiles just absolutely refuse to use them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 16:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are objective standards for audio - do a simple double blind test or hook up an oscilloscope or something and check against a reference signal - audiophiles just absolutely refuse to use them. No oscilloscope can possibly as accurate as their magic ears. almost all these dudes are like 60 and can't hear
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
qirex posted:No oscilloscope can possibly as accurate as their magic ears. AUDIOPHILE FLOWCHART: Scratched and warped 78 rpm record -> $12,300 needle -> $92,830 turntable (with $1299 power cord) -> $85,000 RCA cable -> $89,200 receiver -> $2000 speaker cable -> $210,000 speakers -> Medicare Discount hearing aid
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 17:59
|
|
|
A buddy of mine is doing some research at his university comparing the emotional response to music containing infrabass and music without it. He actually got the uni to give him tons of money to do this; he's got some major engineering and physics professors to design the room and system, has someone from the psychology department who specializes in spatial sound, and has full access to the uni's experimental acoustic research studio for all testing. Basically he got the uni to give him money to see if poo poo you cant hear affects your response to music  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 18:31
|
|
|
McPhearson posted:A buddy of mine is doing some research at his university comparing the emotional response to music containing infrabass and music without it. He actually got the uni to give him tons of money to do this; he's got some major engineering and physics professors to design the room and system, has someone from the psychology department who specializes in spatial sound, and has full access to the uni's experimental acoustic research studio for all testing. You can feel infrabass though, same reason why deaf people can still somewhat enjoy music with really loud bass - ya can't hear it but you feel it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 18:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You can feel infrabass though, same reason why deaf people can still somewhat enjoy music with really loud bass - ya can't hear it but you feel it. Yeah, this seems like a cool study. Your eardrums aren't the only part of the body that might react to vibrations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 18:46
|
|
|
McPhearson posted:Basically he got the uni to give him money to see if poo poo you cant hear affects your response to music
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 18:59
|
|
|
Twiin posted:Yeah, this seems like a cool study. Your eardrums aren't the only part of the body that might react to vibrations. Eardrums, no, but it's essentially all inside the ear. The exception being very loud bass which you can feel as it pounds your skins and internal organs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
Can anyone offer some history of the audiophile? I'd like to see what passed for the ultimate system over the years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
Has anyone seen or heard of the rotary subwoofer? (and another link). It's one way of reproducing those frequencies below the usual 15-18Hz that most conventional subwoofers start sucking at. I can't see how this WOULDN'T affect emotional response to say, a t-rex stomping around in Jurassic Park.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:What would be fun, and what I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to do, is to compare the sound of some of these top-end theaters to the mixing rooms where the soundtracks were created. That would yield a lot more insight into the value of the home theater than a comparison to your local cineplex. what do you mean dreamworks doesn't use $750 headphone cables?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are objective standards for audio - do a simple double blind test or hook up an oscilloscope or something and check against a reference signal - audiophiles just absolutely refuse to use them. There is a really good thread over on AVSForum that gets into this topic, with some discussion by individuals who know a lot more about the science of sound than I ever will: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1187104
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 05:58
|
|
|
porksmash posted:Has anyone seen or heard of the rotary subwoofer? (and another link). It's one way of reproducing those frequencies below the usual 15-18Hz that most conventional subwoofers start sucking at. I can't see how this WOULDN'T affect emotional response to say, a t-rex stomping around in Jurassic Park. That's pretty cool, and while probably expensive(?) not really audiophile type stuff because there actually is science and a reason behind it. Putting a little pebble 3m away from it to produce a more vibrant soundstage, that would be audiophile material.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:something tells me these dudes would be totally terrified if they knew how much oxygen is present in commercial/industrial "interconnects" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 13:55
|
|
|
check out the tokyo audiophile show on video: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_asia/2009-10-12/590485457372.htmlquote:The level of attention in audiophile equipment is extraordinarily specialized. 1:34 posted:Like this 120 pound record player from Acoustic Solid. With that much weight, the record playback is stabilized. It even has a separate motor unit that uses thread to spin the record, reducing vibrations typical of consumer grade record players. $19,000 will buy you the ultimate analog music experience. 2:28 posted:Why are all these cables resting on wooden blocks? Those blocks are cable insulators that help control microscopic vibrations. The material of the blocks also absorbs electromagnetic waves which help things like audio clarity, soundstage, and imaging. quote:the elegant Sonus Faber Elipsa speakers. These speakers push 300 watts, and sound incredibly full and detail rich. Check out the spikes on these speakers! These sharp points neutralize any vibrations going to the ground, and vice-versa. What results is superfine detail and perhaps, scratches to your floor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
davepsilon posted:check out the tokyo audiophile show on video: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_asia/2009-10-12/590485457372.html Sincerely, this is all bullshit. Even if these "effects" were all real, their impact in the final sound heard by a human would be absolutely 0. I'm not much into speakers, but I personally enjoy some good headphones. I'll not deny that head-fi.org can be useful when choosing new equipment - The folks there may be completely obsessive, but they'll know how to tell you which $200 item is better for example. They ARE helpful. But it's sad how so many of them are completely obsessing above the threshold which we can hear any difference in the sound. Anyway this is what I can tell about headphones at least: 1) Amplifiers do make a difference. However there are many variables. For example, the sound source - if you're listening from an on-board sound card, an amplifier will make such an obscene difference it might be bigger than buying a new set of cans depending on what you're using. If you're listening from a good sound card, the end result will be better, but the difference won't be so great. Regardless the difference is real, and present, and usually an upgrade unless you're mixing tube amps with very low-impedance headphones. Unfortunately you do need a good amplifier, and a not so lovely headphone. For example, I was not able to tell a difference from a CMOY (I think it's spelled like this) linked to a Koss Porta Pro, probably because the Porta Pro is very low-end (although an EXCELLENT headphone for its price), and it made a very small difference in a Sennheiser HD-280. However, a hybrid tube amp (about $200) made an enormous difference in the Sennheisers, really, really big. 2) Headphones get noticeably better until the $600 mark (which you can buy for much cheaper on, say, eBay), then the diminishing returns kick in hard and things start to be either side-grades or not noticeable at all. Regardless, for someone who enjoy, well, headphones, they're obviously the only part worth investing since it's where you'll notice 75% of the difference. A $600 pair of cans is better than a $200, but the diminishing returns are present from the beginning. A $500 is not as better than a $100 than a $100 is from stock iPod earbuds. I honestly think that the best headphones you can get for the price are at the $40 range from GOOD companies like the Sennheiser PX 100s or the Koss Porta Pros. Quite honestly, I think to most human beings any combo of Amp+Headphones above $200 start to become pointless, and in MY opinion it becomes superfluous above $1000. Now, some people do claim that electrostatic headphones from Stax for example, that cost several thousand dollars, are a huge jump from even the most expensive grados/sennheisers/whatever. But there are also the people who claim cables bring the "details from the sound", which leads me to: 3) Cables make 0 difference. 0. Zero. The funniest part is how the review websites always say things like "We here at XXX don't believe cables make much of a difference, but THESE cables! Oh my!" and honestly, can you blame them? poo poo sells for dozens of thousands. And people buy them. I bet they make an humongous amount of money for advertising cables. 4) Any other fancy crap that isn't the headphone, the amp or the source (which doesn't make much difference if you have an amp, keep in mind) is complete and absolute bullshit. Unless there's a very specific function you need for something really relevant, these trinkets to improve the sound quality, "bring the details", "enrich your experience" or "reduce the micro-vibrations and the noise level from the omicron rays coming from the outer space" are absurd and I'm amazed people buy them. Sincerely, I don't think it's possible for all of these rich people to believe that what they're buying is really making a difference. I think they see these things as jewelry. It just makes them feel better because it's more expensive. I can't for the life of me comprehend how can someone spend hundreds of thousands and believe all these fancy stuff is really making a minimal difference. On the other hand, we should start our own company to develop sound equipments. I can help with the design. We can be rich. Elentor fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Oct 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2009 08:41
|
|
