Audiophiles are cancer?
yep
>>51419306
Not really... They tend to be reclusive and spend time waxing on about gear in their own communities and are rarely seen in public or arguing about the quality of their audio unless you explicitly stumble into an audiophile forum.
As long as you leave them be its like they're not even there.
>>51419306
you tell me
>>51419306
not enough cable holders
>>51419306
Have fun
https://www.youtube.com/user/AVequipmentReviews/videos?view=0&flow=grid&sort=da
http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html
oh look it's schizophrenia thread again
bump, there are always fun
does anyone have the one where someone blames barcodes for fucking up sound and claims that transparent stickers with spells written on them clean the sound when placed on top of the barcodes?
>>51419306
If by audiophiles you mean people who gear whore, listen to their gear and generally fall for the marketing of any niche, esoteric end expensive gear, yes. I wouldn't have a problem if they kept into their own containment circles with equally lost cases but they often open their mouths to spout the placebo ridden crap of subjective listening impressions of their new DAC or power conditioner anywhere where audio is discussed. Not to mention cables and all the shit which won't make a difference unless specifically designed to to color the sound and lowering fidelity.
There's nothing wrong in being enthusiastic about audio as long as you are level headed enough to research and understand what matters and where should your money and effort go.
Consumer audio industry is pretty shit.
>>51419372
This desu
>>51419474
>If by audiophiles you mean people who gear whore,
desu desu desu desu desu desu
Nah just autists. I pity them, their overpriced placebo equipment to listen to shitty rock band nobody gives a fuck about is all they have in the dark lonely void they call their lives.
>>51419306
The biggest meme with idiotphile: tubes, cables, vinyls, ultrasound sources.
>>51419472
>...as long as you are level headed enough to research and understand what matters and where should your money and effort go.
said /g/
>>51419306
That guy's pants look copy pasted with paint
It's a shame that the equipment isn't useful, because it looks so neat
inb4 ps1 everywhere
>>51419306
lol nothing can fix your shitty old eardrum gramps
>>51419483
You quoted the wrong guy senpai.
>>51419508
Yeah well you seemed to think price is an indication of placebo and making blanket statements that a setup costing more than x amount of money is pointless and "placebo" for home use or something. It was dumb as fuck.
>>51419545
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/rmaf07/stephaen.html
>>51419570
>that stain
wew
>>51419570
The hell is this?
>>51419557
I don't have problem with high end speakers. It's more the placebo thing like this>>51419516
>>51419566
>Yeah well you seemed to think price is an indication of placebo and making blanket statements that a setup costing more than x amount of money is pointless and "placebo" for home use or something. It was dumb as fuck.
Am I really wrong though? Would spending more than $1,000 for a home listening equipment make music "sound" better? True $1,000 is just a number I randomly selected, I could have said $2,000 or $500.
Point is after spending a certain amount of money you are getting placebo equipment, $1,000 is just an approximate guess on my part.
>>51419645
>>51419646
well, the cable raisers can, theoretically speaking, have an impact, though it's definitely inaudibly tiny.
>>51419306
Speakers are going away, you don't have much of the crusty old audiophile speaker market now since their average customer base is getting older and dying from being old. Speaker market is dying.
It is being replaced by headphone listeners, who are being inducted into the ways of the exorbitant prices and absurd sausage cables. It's now okay to have a terribly built headphone for thousands of dollars, there are speakers that cost half a million USD and more.
>>51419645
Line array. The principle is not the worst idea an audiophile has had.
>>51419686
Subwoofers cost money. Serious money, it's easier to do DIY for these things that the rest of the speaker setup.
>>51419722
>well, the cable raisers can, theoretically speaking, have an impact,
Oh, so you're floor is electrified I assume then? Just full of electrons scooting their way around?
>this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3rJjRzfN_0
>>51419306
>>51419570
>>51419645
>tfw you realize these are old farts who can't hear above 14-16Khz.
>>51419722
die pls
>>51419724
>Line array.
Won't that just result in interference patterns no matter what you do? It's not like you only play sine waves.
>>51419686
$1,000 won't get you any acoustic treatment, f.e
>>51419784
yes, that's how the directivity is created
>>51419748
>>51419768
I said it's inaudible. I was speaking about measurable with good Oscilloscopes, definitely not by ear.
The way most people use them though, it wouldn't even make a measurable difference.
>>51419805
That seems dumb unless you're in a massive room or something.
MBL speakers are one the most bizarre. If only. If only I could try ;_;
>>51419834
that's why the best use of that kind of design is in live sound
>>51419791
What will mr.placebo? $5,000? $20,000? $100,000?
Also what kind of magic stones and cable lifters should I use in my setup? :^)
>>51419760
>implying high pitch squeaking adds anything worth hearing
theres good money to be made parting fools and their money.
>>51419784
>interference patterns
You are looking to use it to manipulate sound dispersion. Mostly something you see in PA.
>>51419472
Jesus Christ DAC fags are the worst fucking kind of cancer.
It baffles me how people think they're actually hearing a difference between a perfect 20 dollar DAC and an 800 dollar one.
You don't even need to spend more than 60 bucks on an amp for headphones with a ridiculous impedance that is perfectly transparent and drives them enough to make your family deaf yet people buy these thousand dollar fucking placebo machines.
The actual headphones make a difference, buying unnecessary and overpriced audio equipment does not.
audiophiles are poorfags who cant into private orchestras.
>>51419886
It's not just frequencies the problem for old people though. As you age your ears are less sensitive to ALL frequencies while also losing the ability to hear high frequencies. This is why old people get hearing aids and why eventually they go completely deaf.
Okay all you smarty-pants who don't believe in magic cables, blessed tubes, or enchanted +5 speakers.....give me some examples of a decent setup (no headphones) that would be affordable and realistic.
>>51419933
I agree with the point you are making but hearing loss due to age is largely depended upon genetics. Some old people still have great ears. Bob Ludwig is 1000 years old and he still masters the fuck out of some albums.
>>51419752
By Gaben, the reviews for that monster aren't even subjective impressions anymore. That shit reads like a religious experience that transcends all reason and logic.
>>51419998
ATH-M50, $125
Best /g/ meme I ever bought.
>>51420053
This. Anything above the based ATH-M50 is literally a fucking placebo.
audiophiles are to music what pedophiles are to children.
Any of them found near audio equipment should be put on a list Those fuckers are naughty touching amps
>>51419998
pair of used b&w matrix 801 s2 or s3 - $1500
used nad 356 - $500
rockwool, wood and acoustic curtains - depends on the size of your room
>>51419998
Pair of M-Audio BX8's ($500), KRK 10s ($400), and a Behringer Xenyx 1204USB interface ($150)
>>51420131
kek'd
>>51420053
>no headphones
>>51419998
For your living room, buy some 2.0 or 5.1 receiver (like yamaha, denon etc), decent floorstanding speakers or bookshelf speakers with the biggest sub you can found.
>He doesnt go to parts express or usspeakers
>He doesnt pick his own drivers
>He doesnt build his own box
>He doesnt build his own crossover with the proper know how
>He doesnt use an amplifier with and snr more than 100db and with a damping factor of at least 300
>He doesnt crank that shit to max volume with no distortion
everyone besides me is a pleb
>>51420030
>I agree with the point you are making but hearing loss due to age is largely depended upon genetics. Some old people still have great ears. Bob Ludwig is 1000 years old and he still masters the fuck out of some albums.
To a certain extent. There are no human beings on earth who have good hearing after 60 no matter how much they deny it.
Bob Ludwig is 70 years old, he cannot hear above 14-16 Khz. It is not due to genetics but simply due to human aging. He may be able to to make good finalized music but that is no indication that his hearing is not shit.
>>51420131
This setup is shit but it's still better than headphones.
>>51420187
At least were not going to go almost deaf in a few years like you. Hope you like hearing aids (at least until you go completely deaf after a few more years).
>>51419516
>Tubes
When you push a transistor sound device you get a crack/popping sound. When you max a tube out the sound is more pleasurable to the ear
>Vinyls
Is more about that vinyl sound and listening to the original mix. When the industry moved from LPs to CDs they had to remix thousands of albums, so they made a really poor job
Now tubes are just placebo
>>51420213
>This setup is shit but it's still better than headphones.
No setup in the world is better than headphones. Kill yourself.
>>51420237
*Cables are placebo
>>51420246
Back to your mom's basement, poorfag.
>>51420237
>When you push a transistor sound device you get a crack/popping sound. When you max a tube out the sound is more pleasurable to the ear
Literally a lie.
>>51420258
Go back to bed gramps, you can play with your tube amps in the morning. I need some sleep.
>>51420271
I pushed a transistor and it fell off the table. It made a popping sound when it hit the floor.
>>51420246
A $30 driver has more flat frequency response than the most expensive headphone
>>51420258
You can't be THIS stupid...
>>51420237
>When you push a transistor sound device you get a crack/popping sound. When you max a tube out the sound is more pleasurable to the ear
The best T U B E S in the world (over +30K$) sound like a midrage basic transistor and I don't talk about the T U B E short lifetime.
>Is more about that vinyl sound and listening to the original mix. When the industry moved from LPs to CDs they had to remix thousands of albums, so they made a really poor job
citation
>>51420286
Nobody gives a flying fuck since you can't hear the difference.
>>51420296
I NOTICED that you EMPHASIZED the word "this." I cannot BELIEVE that you would do such a THING. We can't EVEN have a proper discussion without PEOPLE like you emphasizing words ARBITRARILY. It's like you OVER value your OWN intelligence and OPINIONS to the point that you INDISCRIMINATELY choose words to capitalize.
>>51420396
I LITERALLY emphasized "this" specifically to show my level of shock. Don't you fucking patronize me now.
>>51419686
>Am I really wrong though? Would spending more than $1,000 for a home listening equipment make music "sound" better?
Yes. You won't be getting extension throughout the human audible spectrum with 500, 1000 or 2000 dollars. If you spend your money really wisely and carefully by buying used or DIY, 2k can get you close. I have a feeling that there will still be a lot of room for improvement in the accuracy in the response even if you use EQ(which can be a bit tricky with loudspeakers for multiple reasons).
There's much more into loudspeakers when it comes to fidelity though. Directivity, response on and off axis and very importantly, your room. Room treatment is extremely important and will cost you. If you buy off the shelf speakers even without going nowhere near "placebo" equipment(difference in response is NOT placebo btw), a 2.1 setup which can - in a good room - extend to 30Hz with minimal coloration it will cost you over 2k for the loudspeakers alone. Amplifier, most likely needed source and room treatment will set you back even more. And if you want to get extreme extension with just a stereo speaker setup, things will be even more costly.
Price is loosely related to fidelity. Really high fidelity equipment will cost you thousands but once you get to the tens of thousands, most equipment is just downright garbage "audiophile" crap even though there are some examples(mostly mounted pro-audio gear) which still show better performance.
>>51420435
You actually can't. All those headphones with varying levels of flat frequencies sound identical within a 5-10 dB variance. Human ears are dogshit for detecting how "loud" a specific frequency is within a 5-10 dB variance.
>>51420496
>Human ears are dogshit
How dare you insult humans!
>>51420444
THERE you go AT it again.
>>51420463
Thats not the point you daft cunt. Also you can tell if a drivers frequency is flat or not, its a thing called resonance
>>51420535
oops
meant to reply to >>51420496
>>51420463
Jesus christ and marry on toast, your entire post reeks of autism and placebo. Just wow.
>>51420496
this
>>51420463
8/8 b8
>/g/ don't use vinyl/cd demagnetizer
pleb
>>51420496
Stop throwing out silly statements.
>>51420556
Autism, not so much placebo.
>>51419525
>/g/ is one person
>>51419912
>this is what normiefags actually believe
>>51420626
Then prove me wrong fuccboi. 10 dB is the noise produced when breathing very calmly (which is literally inaudible to humans).
Even variance of even 20 dB would be undetectable to most people but I'll make the assumption the listener is in his 20's and has never listened to loud music that damaged his hearing.
So /g/ if you're buying a full audio setup for music:
Turntable, flac player, DAC, Amp, 2 shelf/floor speakers, sub, some sort of acoustic room treatment (Think curtains, rug on the floor, etc)
What do you think the limit is in dollars before you start passing into full retard audiophile territory? I reckon $5G for all that will be top-of-the-line shit, past $10G is retarded.
>>51420556
How was that placebo? Please, explain.
>>51420583
No.
Do you have argument here?
>>51420693
Hey what kind of magic stones and cable lifters should I use? Is $20,000 a good budget for those things or should I go higher?
>>51420463
Everything you've said is correct, except the price points, you can get a very good setup with some rockits or adams speakers linked to a Class A+ pre-amp/mixer for a total cost of what, £500-£600 if you're being smart about where you buy from?
Treat your room with some diffusers (like £10 per metre2), place things properly in your room (ie space between your speakers and the wall, point them to your listening spot, only be twice the distance away from the speakers as they are to each other)
Theres lots of stuff you can do to attain 'audiophile' levels of detail, you don't need to keep piling on money to fix your problem, just read up on it, i bet there's fucking wiki-hows to give you a rough idea what to think about
Try to remember that most audio in media (movies, games, music, random sounds for whatever application you use) are created to play on a wide variety of systems, meaning there will be little below 80Hz and little above 18KHz, you don't necessarily need a sub in those regards unless you want to feel a little 'thump' and the highs wont even be noticeable to the average listener
>>51420769
That I agree with. If you DIY you can keep costs relatively low. Rockits have show some serious coloration in the bass though so I'd consider investing into something like JBL LSR305 instead if you are on a budget. Their response(like most small near-field monitors') drops down below 50Hz rapidly so if you want to have those lowest frequencies to be audible(and true, a lot of stuff doesn't really benefit from this), you can get a sub to pair with them.
>>51420708
The scale is logarithmic. An example can seen as part of equiripple digital filter design. The ripple (noise) is equal everywhere, but the frequency response in the passband is nearly perfectly flat.
The ear is keyed to detect ratio changes rather than absolute deviation. 50 micropascal doesn't matter then the main signal is closer to half a pascal. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive showed that people can detect 1dB variations in frequency response.
>The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement
>>51420900
Floyd Toole and Sean Olive showed that people can detect 1dB variations in frequency response.
True but not accurately. If I held 10 people hostage and made them listen to headphones with 5-10 dB of flat frequency variance while playing music and told them that I would not kill them if they could tell me which ones had 5 and 10 db of different levels of flat frequency variation - all of them would be dead.
And it would all be YOUR fault.
>>51420956
Actually, the threshold is less than 1dB. As for accuracy:
>A trained listener is able to detect frequency response deviations of a loudspeaker from flat within few decibels
Now put down that gun before you get the Lima disease.
>>51420496
This is just retarded. Goddamn stop these ignorant blanket statements. Audibility of differences in amplitude depends on the Q value, amplitude value itself and its position in the frequency spectrum as well as the content present in the audio during that specific time. 5dB at ANY point of the response is very much audible with sine tones or white noise and definitely audible in music listening, too. As a real world example to give you some perspective, in double blinded listening tests the equipment needs to be level matched under a tolerance of 0.5dB minimum. Below 0.3dB is recommended because at this point hearing differences in amplitude gets near impossible even in sine tones with no harmonics or other content present.
5-10dB variation is a massive scale. Fiddle around with parametric EQ and white noise for a while and you'll see how easily these kinds of values are audible even without specifically focusing on the differences. Flip the EQ on and off.
Test your ears to the variations in amplitude in audiocheck.com or whatever that site is.
>>51420369
>>51420879
Yea, exactly what you've said, the JBL's are great and ion general most JBL are great purchases because the company releases (or used to, haven't checked all their range and not for a few years) the specifications of frequency response and directionality.
For my scale of worst to best speakers to get (at price points) are;
Behringer/Yamaha (they can be very muddy, but compromises can be made to make them sound pretty neutral)
Rockits (most entry level producers use them for a reason, albeit most not correctly)
Adams (a bit pricey, but they look great and start to be great at any frequency)
JBL (very open with specs so you know what you have and how to compensate before buying)
Genelecs (These are AMAZING but very ugly in my opinion, the sets with 15" woofers are very broad, but can set you back over 1K for just one speaker)
Anything above is generally placebo for what they're used for, but the quality does keep improving above this point when playing the appropriate sounds through it.
>>51419389
I'm sure they can tell the difference
>>51421457
yeahhhh
>>51420608
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V98KUteailc
holy fucking shit people
are you serious?
these people do not fucking know how technology works
>>51421499
I swear it's worth the money guys
>>51420237
Your equipment is complete trash if you can push transistor like that to hear audible distortion.
>>51419389
>all that cable
>terminating in a dinky little wire at the end
it's almost like they dont know what they're doing
>>51419389
>cable have over 9000 layers of isolation
>contacts and 3cm of cable is completely exposed
>>51419389
What's that thingy on top of the amp supposed to be/do?
>>51419508
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bait to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
What kind of music audiophiles even listen to?
>>51419806
>measurable with good Oscilloscopes
its not
>by ear
definitly not
>>51420167
>biggest sub
subs are disgusting
>>51421718
I would pay a lot of money to see the reaction of an audiophile if I play a 128kbps MP3 song of Justin Bieber on their system
>dad buy psw10
>very decent
>backwards
>Monster Cable ultra subwofer cable
>>51421781
better try a 360p youtube miku song on internet explorer
>>51421718
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDnE7nZYK9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf3iBJ67A7E
@4:24
>>51420167
>decent floorstanding speakers or bookshelf speakers with the biggest sub you can found.
>decent floorstanding speakers
>with the biggest sub you can found.
A pair of decent floorstanding speakers don't need a sub, anon. They provide plenty of bass on their own.
Source: I own a pair of Infinity Reference 61i's. I also own both an active and a passive subwoofer, and I still run the 61i's in 2.0 because they just don't need a sub.
>>51421855
lol they are like Patrick Bateman speaking about music
>>51419306
only the autistic ones who plug $2000 crystals into their power outlets and whatnot
high-end audio is pretty cool stuff
>>51421905
He say bookshelf with subwoofer, not floorstanding.
>A pair of decent floorstanding speakers don't need a sub
Maybe for you but It's absolutely not always true. I owned two big Klipsch reference and the speakers had pretty shit bass without the sub even with the EQ.
>>51421779
Can you elaborate?
>>51421781
I'm pretty sure many wouldn't be able to tell that it's compressed if you used a modern encoder there and if they are unfamiliar with the song.
>>51419508
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my best to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>51421674
>>51422534
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my best to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>51421674
>>51422534
>>51422645
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my best to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>51421499
I laughed but then I remembered these are real things
Feels sad man
>>51422645
>>51422667
lol waddafugg
>watch audiophile related video on youtube
>everyone is an autist
Yeah.
>>51421515
>I'll clean the magnetic field of the cd so the cd reader can actually read the impressed bits better
>a bunch of mid 20s/30s guys with no money getting mad a a bunch of late 30s/40s guys with lots of money
Keka
I don't even know what I'm looking at anymore...
>>51422752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZHjRe-hm_s
>>51422051
>>51422079
Normal 'good' speakers should be able to propagate enough of the low tones for not having to compensate with a subwoofer. If you have bose-style milk-carton speaker shit it's necessary, If you've got decent stereo speakers it's disgusting. I have to admit that I do not like any of the 5.1 shit or 99.2 'surround sound' shit going on, anyone in this topic who opts for that shit and still has the guts to call that quality has more reason to get >>>/out/ than me I think.
>>51422977
>Normal 'good' speakers should be able to propagate enough of the low tones
But most can't. Period
>nobody posted the audiogasm webm
it's like you guys aren't even trying
>>51422977
Disagree, even this idiotphile use two subwoofers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30onoWXjYSA
>>51422773
>i do this same 5 step deep cleaning process on all my cds, dvs, blu-rays, and even computer games
>even computer games
WHAT
>>51422895
>the vinyl cartridge has a cosmetic diamond in it
wowo
>>51422977
It not about bass extension and volume, it's about a even modal distribution, acoustics of the bass region.
2 channel listening is painfully limited, and I really do hope that 5.1/5.2 and stuff gets more popular.
>>51422803
You can waste your money if you want, but it's when you start talking about how your overpriced placebo gear is objectively superior that people start having problems with you.
>>51422977
You're a retard. The majority of tower speakers only go down to around 40-45HZ and that's not even accounting for drop when starts to happen much earlier since manufacturers will list the frequency range of what can is barely audible.
Humans can hear down to 20Hz and feel even lower, so to achieve this, a subwoofer with a large driver is necessary.
Addtionally, if you get a sealed subwoofer, the bass will actually tighter from 80hz down since nearly all speakers use ports to extend the the bass response which are inferior.
>>51421347
>Anything above is generally placebo
>anything I am not immediately aware of is placebo
>>51422977
Monitorspeakerfag detected
>>51421718
camila, todo cambio, renowned recording, movie soudtracs, adele, jazz flute.
>>51421673
I believe it's a tonal zen resonator.
It keeps the chakras of the frequencies in balance.
Only the most devoted audiophiles have them.
>>51422977
>>51423188
This is the sole reason Applel exists tho
guys its literally just audio ricing
>>51422977
I hate /g/
what is the equivalent of this for video?
Why don't they just listen to live music?
>>51419306
Didn't know these people existed and I'm not surprised
>>51423563
it's more rare
>>51423563
there is none
not enough room to add bells and whistles and stupid shit for the end consumer to build up an idiotic community like in audio
of course home theater fags will tweak their beamers with different power and hdmi cables but that's about it
>all those fucking batteries
is it supposed to be some sort of a portable audiophile amp or some shit? what the fuck is the point of that? the batteries aren't even rechargeable.
>>51423563
FULL HD
WIDESCREEN
>>51423653
Are you serious??? This madness start when they release the CDs
>>51423563
4K on a phone/tablet
8K+ on a 40" TV when you're not right in front of it
IPS because VA and OLED are both better (don't even mention TN crap)
TV OEM crazy 240Hz+ refresh rates (600Hz plasma is real though)
h.265
daiz
>>51421515
God damn, I should start selling cd drives from old PCs as high end audiophile gear for thousands of dollars. Just remove the markings showing it is a cd drive and slap stickers over it calling it an "angular velocitizer."
>he doesnt use a light harmonic stereoseperated usb cable
$999
What kind of media do audiophiles use? Placeb- i mean flac? 300+kbps mp3s? CDs pressed in a cheap chinese workshop by children?
>>51423856
cd, sacd, dvd audio and vinyl
oh and bluray audio is as well growing quite quickly
>>51423756
It existed before that but in lesser numbers. Cables were the first thing people started parroting about.
>>51423856
DSD, PCM, "Hi-Res" formats.
>>51423856
SACD and vinyl
>>51420284
underrated post senpai
>>51423856
cds
they claim the ps1 is the best sounding cd player made
>>51423891
>>51423881
>>51423878
So only physical, no digital? Does modern music get mass produced on those nieche formats?
>>51423902
lmao at this setup
>>51423902
This can't be fucking real.
>>51423902
>>51423934
Christ allmighty, it's fucking real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmmQdWmhoMc
>>51423912
Some audiophile will buy CD, but with 10 000$ CD player or 192/24 FLAC
>>51423934
its discussed all the time
something about how the originals had 24bit dacs or something
and its easy to run headless just for the cd player
its like the final nail in the coffin about how autistic audiophiles are
>>51423912
>So only physical, no digital?
SACD means Super Audio CD. Audio data on SACD is stored in DSD format.
>Does modern music get mass produced on those nieche formats?
Of course not.
SACD and DVD-Audio got killed before, DSD is dying again. Vinyl is still a miniature niche in the physical media market, which is itself shrinking.
>>51423958
Almighty.
And even better, you should have a look at the Esoteric CD players, specifically their 5 digital price tags.
>>51423912
>So only physical
Nope, there are dedicated sites for DSDs with files sizes up to 300 MB for a 3 minute song. I have a few, but I forgot the site right now...
I stopped taking advice on audio when I realized anyone with an opinion on audio seems to be a fucking idiot. My father and my brother talked about how big of a difference in quality vinyl and flac, "it sounds warmer!" they said, wtf does that mean? My only guess of what that means is that stupid static layer smeared onto the audio track because of the medium.
Now I just ask people if they know about the high pitched noise in 'Sublime - what I got?' If they can't hear it I ignore everything they have to say about audio.
>>51424021
>Vinyl is still a miniature niche in the physical media market, which is itself shrinking.
i argue that hipsters brought it back
you can now go into a barns 'n nobel or booksamillion and find LOTS of vinyls from brand new releases, or repos of the Beatles (in both stereo or mono)
New groups are randomly also starting to produce really nice heavy vinyls.
>>51424027
>I have a few, but I forgot the site right now...
Eh, would be interesting, but dont bother - they probably dont have what i'm listening to anyway.
>>51424027
https://www.hdtracks.com/
>>51424055
Saying music sounds "warmer" is valid but the term lost its meaning a long time ago.
>>51423856
>>51423912
watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZHjRe-hm_s
>>51424055
1:50?
>>51424055
>Sublime - what I got
>tfw i have no idea what your talking about
>pull it up on youtube
i can hear it with my MDR-v150s
its subtle but i can hear it, that shit that sounds like an old CRT television set?
>>51424068
It was mostly classical, it's also on what.cd, like from the Nordic company 2L
>>51424078
Fine we'll go with it's valid, but it still falls back on the fact all it is a "filter" of sorts put on the music and unintended by the original creator.
>>51424115
The whole song except the start, I've read it's part of the drum track.
>>51420313
Not him but I've seen albums released with 320kbps masters, the only way to get the lossless songs is to record from vinyl copies of the albums
>>51424064
By volume it is still small.
>>51424055
It's the high frequency rolloff found on vinyl, and the static. Reproducing it tend to give an "analog" effect, because audiophiles don't like perfect sound or something.
Then you have the burn-in crowd that need to take a course on material design and engineering.
>>51419306
Are you asking us or telling us?
>>51424083
>tfw I have a PlayStation "audiophile" setup simply because I had an extra one lying around
>>51423073
>idiotphile
So I made my point I think
>>51423166
That's why ALL of the music is 2 channels right? And how to flatten the total frequency response when you've got a shitload of speakers with overlapping frequency ranges? IMO just a plain speaker is wayy better than correcting for corrections for corrections. That's retarded.
>>51423205
>and feel even lower
Tards think that you literally need to feel the music. You seems to be liking music so much that you're ruining you're fucking ears fucking retard, enjoy it while you can.
>>51423340
Are you fucking blind? I said I hate those milk cartons.
>>51424083
I'm not an electrical engineer but i still get how much BS he's talking...
>>51424083
I mean it's overkill for sure and I'm sure he's WAY passed the point of diminishing return. It's cool though. And there's no REAL way of hearing how it sounds without being in the room
>>51419998
>>51419389
I know they use cable risers on top of commercial buildings, but thats mostly just so they dont get as wet when they rain (it could also be a fire-preventing protocol, not sure), is that where this meme came from?
Quick audio question
I have two JBL eon 110's hooked up to my electric drum set and I think they sound pretty good but the bass isn't there. The bass drum sounds much fatter through headphones then those amps.
These amps have a 10" driver and a compression horn each. Would I get better results if I traded them for a pair with 15" drivers, or If I added the jbl eon sub to the stereo pair I currently have?
>>51419854
You know, there are places around the country that have monthly meetings, and people who like audio gather, and usually an industry personality (with a lot of cash or equipment) sets up some of these really expensive arrangements, and you an listen to them for the day, as a group.
Some of the wives are pretty cute, too.
The alternative is CES.
>>51424142
Downloading now.
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1756938
>sublime sublime
>>51424211
What's the bass roll off frequency of the speakers? You might need a more powerful amp.
>>51424055
>Now I just ask people if they know about the high pitched noise in 'Sublime - what I got?' If they can't hear it I ignore everything they have to say about audio.
Well I can hear the high pitched sound with my ath-m50x, and it's actually quite clear. But does it really add anything of value? It's just annoying squeezing.
>>51424229
If you listen to the lyrics I'm assuming then noise was put in there on purpose to simulate a hangover of sorts.
>>51424242
I think the point he's trying to make is that if you can't hear that it shows you're already suffering from some hearing loss (high frequencies tend to go first) therefore you're not a great source of audio advice.
>>51424167
>this faggot think most floorstanding speakers can go below 40 Hz
Found the DSD/DXD with free downloads, if anyone want to "compare"
http://www.2l.no/hires/
>>51424083
>>velociters
cool
>>51423000
I agree on that, but I just have a decent receiver, receiving 96/24 from my laptop, and a good stereo speaker set connected to that. You can call me old, but there is no single million dollar 5.1 set beating the sound quality (being able to reproduce the sound with as few distortion as possible compared to original) of that.
>>51424242
Damn you guys always reply after I finish up a reply.
No it adds nothing of value per say but it's a great tester in my opinion. To see what people can actually hear.
>>51424281
must be a nice screamer
>>51424160
That one wanted by some retarded audiophiles applies only to a specific batch of Playstations. If you have one of those, sell it on Ebay.
>>51419389
nice antenna
>>51424277
I must admit they're nice to watch.
>>51424287
>receiving 96/24
I stop read there, you lose all your credibility
>>51424167
>That's why ALL of the music is 2 channels right?
Literally argumentum ad populum.
>>51424287
>96/24
Literally placebo.
>but there is no single million dollar 5.1 set beating the sound quality (being able to reproduce the sound with as few distortion as possible compared to original) of that.
If it was actually mixed for surround and you have a good surround system then guess what? You get exactly that.
>>51424307
I know, I've got a few SCPH-1001 models
>>51424287
>96/24
wew lad
>>51424274
>>51424296
Well yeah, I can agree with both of you. At least I now know that my hearing is still pretty good.
>>51424167
You sound like the people who didn't want to buy a second speaker back when stereo was first realized. It was 2 channel because the storage medium is limited. 2 channel is limited in delivering ambient and spatial cues. Surround sound is more than for movies, it delivers more cues about acoustic space..
The problem you are missing is wave propagation. Just looking at the problem as more drivers at the same range being a problem is a case of faulty intuition.
Subbass is not subject to localization, but your room will produce tons of modes in the frequency response resulting in uneven bass throughout the room. Mode cancellation and plane wave propagation are some examples used to ensure a flatter bass response in a room using multiple subwoofers. With just one, you can at least optimize the average room response to be more even, barring building a room just for your speakers like a high end studio.
5 channel is not limited to cheapo HTIB sets but is a part of super-high end recording studio that handle 2 channel just as well as anything else.
>>51424344
Explain then asshole retard, it's all about reproduction.
inb4 can't into nyquist.
>>51424281
Satisfied customer?
>>51424404
Ladies and gentlemen, we found the idiotphile ITT
>>51424372
Who is this cum chum?
>>51424347
>Literally placebo.
>I have a BMW but I'll never driver faster than 60MPH becauzzze I will be just 5 mins earlier.
It's not worse then analog at least, why complain about using the best available options? That's literally /g/ tier stupidity. How do you even dare to be such stupid, and show off your stupidity with that much pride? Can't wait for the utterly-retarded reactions.
>>51424404
>>51424461
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>>51424444
nice explanation man, you've proven your knowledge. Great man, I think your mom is proud for you great explanation. Enjoy your blowjob tonight.
>>51424167
>That's why ALL of the music is 2 channels right
But with the low frequencies, the master is mostly always mono. Also you can buy two subs
My hearing isn't audiophile tier but I have a simple test to see if speakers are worthy, and that is to play a piano keyboard through them. Its obvious to me when frequency response isn't level when you play an instrument through it, recorded music doesn't seem to tell me anything. Is this too damning of a test for basic speakers? I've heard replicating piano sounds is one of the most challenging hurdles to overcome in monitor design. I've tried dozens of seemingly high end gear through my piano that ended up eq'ing it to shit and back again.
Am I a retard or is this a good idea?
>>51424478
Now give me a single good reason why I should set my spdif at 48/16 when 96/24 is available.
>>51424206
Usually it's all about isolating every component from potential sources of "micro vibrations."
>>51424516
Did you just read the headline and nothing else?
>>51419645
tweetdeck
>>51424444
>96000 hz for ~20hz-20kHz
>24bit (-100db)
Are you a dog? you can hear ultrasound
>>51424055
Now I remember hearing it.. I can't anymore, even high passed. My ears are pretty wrecked from too many years of loud music.
>>51424549
I FUCKING KNOW THAT A HUMAN CAN HEAR TO ABOUT 22 KHZ, AND HAVE A DYNAMIC RANGE THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT 12 BITS. AS LONG AS THERE'S NO DRAWBACK WHEN OUTPUTTING 96/24 FROM MY COMPUTER WHY THE FUCK WOULD I WANT TO SET IT LOWER EVEN WHEN PLAYING 44KHZ SOURCE???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I ASKED FOR ONE FUCKING REASON AND IT'S FUCKING NOWHERE.
>>51424490
bad quote>>51424566
>>51424566
ANY DRAWBACKS COMPARED TO 44/48?????????????????????????????????????? NO HEH?????????????????????????
>>51422847
autism
>>51419306
>Audiophiles are cancer?
yes
>>51424594
>>51424608
Waste of space. Can potentially cause intermodulation from the ultrasonic frequencies in your stereo system.
But I see this is /g/ guys, we do not care about technology but we'd love to be limited when there's a better option. Very well spoken everybody.
>>51424457
it's a trap
sarina valentina
she looks quite different now
>>51424636
Which space? it seems you're implying I'm using 96khz source files which confirms your own credibility, but I know I have not said that. Still there's no single drawback for using 96khz output.
>potentially
Your mom is my potential girlfriend asshole.
>>51422977
I hate post-beats audiophiles
>>51424444
I actually spent no more than 100 dollar on my set, but it's better than most of /g/'s sets so fuck off asshole.
>>51424511
You mean an electric 88 keyboard? I had one of those, I preferred the baby grand piano we kept in the living room.
Not the worst idea, but the difficulties lie in miking as much as the speaker, if not more.
Piano has very high bandwidth for a single instrument, with extreme dynamic range. It also shows high directivity. All issues in capturing and reproducing.
For checking frequency balance, use pink noise, noise bursts and sines. Denser music, more harmonically rich music, is more revealing of frequency issues, but is harder to detect distortion.
>>51424566
24 bit is a theoretical 2^-23.5 volt RMS floor and accuracy. Not that you will ever get that level of accuracy in reality.
>>51424678
Resampling lowers oversample rate, introduces potential clipping. If you're lucky, there is no degradation in quality. But it no better to worse.
>>51424711
>lucky
now even luck is involved, you sure are retarded.
>>51424678
>it seems you're implying I'm using 96khz source files which confirms your own credibility, but I know I have not said that
Well that's just dumb and totally unnecessary. It also renders my earlier points of argumentation moot.
You gain absolutely nothing with your current setup, but if you want to be silly I'm not going to stop you.
>>51424734
Pick resampler at random. Some distort or clip signals. Some don't. It is either worse or the same thing. Never better.
>>51424781
I might not gain anything apart from the fact that optical cables are practically immune for information loss, (I also did not imply that I gain from the fact I'm using 96k) but I also don't lose anything when using that. For a strange reason /g/ like to make an argument about me using it without any reason for me to not use it. to me that sounds very retarded.
>>51424795
>Never better
This is the last time I say (you might want to look it up asshole) that I DID NOT IMPLY THAT. but /g/'s arguments for not using it are incredibly stupid.
>>51424829
>I also did not imply that I gain from the fact I'm using 96k
Bullshit. In your original post you ONLY mentioned the sample rate and bit depth, you didn't bring up the fact that you were using S/PDIF until later.
There's nothing wrong with using optical cables but it's always for the best to match the output with what you're actually sending to it. Setting it to output 24/96 if you're feeding it 16/44.1 is totally fucking pointless at best.
>>51424287
>but I just have a decent receiver, receiving 96/24 from my laptop, and a good stereo speaker set connected to that.
>>51424795
those distortions will be outside of the audible range if present
>>51424861
>receiver, receiving 96/24
Is that not clear enough? do you think imma send that shit over tulip cables or something?
>totally fucking pointless at best
I slightly agree, but it's not worse or better so still no reason to pick on me for doing it that way.
How's that metric called that shows how fast headphone's loudness can change.
>>51424287
Nigga, keep it @44/16
>b-b-but I can notice the difference@96/24
It's because your soundcard is terrible
>>51424960
>I just missed out a whole lot of talk
Good for you, next time I'll try to be more clear.
>>51424908
"receiver" is a vague term. It doesn't necessarily mean your DAC, and considering that no one but you took it that way I'd say the usage was not perfectly clear.
>so still no reason to pick on me for doing it that way.
You touted it as a point to the quality of your setup when it's not. You did not say you were transmitting over S/PDIF, you specifically pointed out that it was 24/96, and it's known if not well known around here that going to sample rates or bit depths that high is pointless.
