>I finally get this joke
>>51908646
I don't. Care to elabor9?
cool audio gear, I don't get the joke :C
>>51908646
I don't. Is that machine sucking his brains out through his ears?
>>51908668
he doesn't need gasses
>>51908668
He's using computers but he is clearly age 60+, implying his life has been a worthless shell of an existence and he doesn't have a wife, child or beach home as any man his age should.
>>51908668
>>51908672
>>51908674
It's the lamp. It's on.
>>51908688
He has filled the holes of his life with bullshit gadgets like in pic. Maybe the headphones sound amazing... maybe... but probably not.
>>51908668
I think it's the guy who looked like he had a seizure when he listened to a pair of "bad" headphones.
>>51908668
When you're new to /g/ you wish you could hear what he's hearing with such a cool and advanced setup.
The joke is that you can, by just plugging your headphones into the normal audio jack in your computer.
>>51908646
can someone explain what all the devices he is using are?
>>51908789
snake oil
All that fucking hardware and the results are still just a pale reproduction of the original source material.
That's pretty fucked up.
>>51908789
Yeah, they're all out of your price range.
>>51908784
incorrect
>>51908789
If you have to ask you can't afford them
>>51908784>>51908646
>>51908668
>those FUCKING cables
>using tubes for hi-fi
Basically his setup looks cool but costs thousands upon thousands of dollars for either marginally better quality. Though the tube amp may be marginally worse unless it's extremely well designed and the tubes are very well matched...
tl;dr he's like the kid who buys the most expensive alienware computer (laptop AND desktop) and thinks, because it's alienware and looks a certain way, it's any better than a roughly equivalent self built computer.
>>51908789
Looks like a power regulator, a Ray Samuels Pre-amp, tube headphone amp and a conditioner driving a pair of Sennheiser HD800s with a macbook source.
>>51908929
>not using Beats by Dre
>>51908841
>Though the tube amp may be marginally worse unless it's extremely well designed and the tubes are very well matched
http://www.raysamuelsaudio.com/products/raptor
It is a safe bet the amp is "extremely well designed and the tubes are very well matched."
>>51908784
>>51908646
>not using cable pebbles for crystal clear audio
>>51908646
Fucking, if the music is made on a digital format (which is 99% of music these days) and with the nonusage of analog tape recordings. Literally all this does is distort the fucking music.
If the intent was to hear what the musician/producer heard and made from their format, you have failed miserably.
>>51908943
Well matched massive distortion.
>>51908956
The intent is to feel superior to people who don't buy shit like that. It works well. Especially when you are old and can't make out most of the human audible sound range.
>>51908997
Are we moving the goalposts now? Isn't the whole point of a tube amp for the "wamth" or as you call it "distortion" rather similar albums over cds?
>>51908952
Even my grandma does this shit. Git gud plebs.
i get it
we mock him, but hes no different to people here who buy a $700 CPU over a $150 one to get 3 more FPS in games they dont even enjoy
>>51909033
>buying a new cpu to improve fps
you fucked up m8
>>51909043
I did fall for this meme, I bought 4770k over 8350 for muh extra gaymen fps
>>51909054
dang, you got tricked into buying a processor that will last you several years longer than the 2010 tier amd shit. poor baby.
>>51909215
>will last you several years longer
doubt that, running at a toasty 80C all the time :^)
Middle class income with no family to suck it all up
>>51908952
i can understand people buying into the whole tube amp and flac shit because even though they are snake oil they still have some effect all be it slight and not worth it. but this shit, you have to be absolutely brain-dead dope shit and insane to buy into this. do these people also welcome doorknockers in and hear them out?? do they join isis just because jihadi jon said they were a peace group??? i just dont fucking understand
>>51908646
Great joke op, but it's not nice to bash gay people. The person in the picture is obviously a homosexual and so making fun of him because of his sexual preferences is distasteful
/r/ing the one with him and the screenshot overlay
>>51909774
>>51908798
topjoke
>>51909826
found the guy that sells this shit for a living.
Yes if you look closely you can see they are not actually connected.
Bandwidth up to 10GHz?
Didn't get this meme until I found out my co-worker have a 2 meter power cable for his 15'000 usd amplifier that's worth 3'000 usd.
I told him that's retarded, and he showed me a site that sells a 2 meter power cable for 40'000 usd.
His audio cables and speakers are worth another 20'000 usd. Cables and plugs alone around 6'000 usd
>>51911966
Well did you go over to his house and audition it?
Audiophiles are rich idiots that almost always have terrible music taste anyway
Not yet, he's currently moving to a new place. Told me to visit him as soon as he's done moving. I'm guessing january Q1 then
Is this the schizophrenia general?
>>51908646
>LITERALLY EATING SHIT FROM HIS OWN EARS
>>51908646
this fucking retard things he can hear the difference
>>51908688
no, he´s glad that his kids are finally out of the house and now he enjoys his hobby
>>51908789
that is just overpriced esoteric audiofoolery
>>51912109
>literally.
audiophiles are fools because they're never satisfied. always looking for imperfections and not actually just enjoying the music.
You want good sound just buy a Steinberg interface. All that stuff the guy is using isn't making it sound better. It is coloring the sound of the music. All that can be done via eq kind of like how Dre beats did it.
>>51908807
Incorrect, you're right. You just need the 1k headphones to hear it.
>>51912332
i fucked up and posted in the wrong thread
>>51912358
oh ok
Normalfags and poorfags will never know whats it like to listen music on a whole different level.
>>51912403
>You will never feel your prostate being smashed by just listening to music like this old man
I'm completely alright with this tá Žbh
>>51912403
Anybody got a link to this guys videos?
Joke: Presbycusis, or age related hearing loss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbycusis
Guy in pic related is in his 50-60's. As you age you slowly become deaf on all frequencies and completely lose the ability to hear frequencies above 15-16 Khz. He has all that dank audiophile equipment but he's fucking deaf above 14Khz frequencies and has a hard time hearing in general. All that equipment is more of a placebo because he's old as shit.
>>51912403
Yea we do. We also have it better its called LSD
>>51912450
This.
>>51912485
>being a drug using degenerate
lmao
>tube amp
He's fucking half deaf you morons. As you age, your hearing naturally goes to shit.
>>51909813
underrated toast. bravo, anon.
>>51912403
Apparently his expressions of pain were too subtle.
>>51912436
Just look up innerfidelity.
>>51908646
>rich guy invites me over to his home to listen to music on his $50,000 sound setup in summer 2004
>it sounds like complete and utter garbage
>my $30 creative speakers on my sound blaster 16 sounded 10 times better
Fucking audiophiles.
>>51912495
>not using recreational drugs occasionally
>having 0 friends
Lamo, I simply cannot understand young people pretending to be prudes, like it's something cool.
Also, you may laugh at these old men, but we spend thousands on gayming equipment, hours debating if this piece of silicon is better than the other and days testing said equipment in the loneliness of our rooms.
To each its own fags
>>51908784
What's the sound card on your computer anon?
Most built-in dacs are shit and sound like shit compared to a 50 bucks dac. Either you've got a fairly good built-in dac or you've never listened to something coming out of a good dac.
>>51912641
Speak for yourself m8
I've spent thousands of dollars on computers through my life, but i also have friends and a gf.
A gaming pc is just a hobbie, nothing else. If it means something else for you, then you have problems.
These "audiophiles" take it to a whole different level.
>>51908646
the joke is you can't afford the set-up, like some imbecile running Intel 4000 graphics to try to play Crysis, so you make fun of something you can't have
hurr, who needs that $600 graphics card; i play my games and 640x480
>>51912641
A difference is that there is an actual difference. A common effect in audio is they imagine the improvements into perception.
The only thing that was worth spending money on is the speaker/headphone.
>>51912832
Not even. Have you ever used these gears?
>>51909813
>VLC on Windows
>On a Mac
>spending this much money and time on making the "perfect audio setup"
>using a tube amp known for their harmonic distortion (not pure sound)
>putting everything on a 50 dollar ikea desk
>probably wouldn't be able to double blind between his setup and a single Fiio that costs 90 dollars
Oh well, at least they keep the economy going with bullshit purchases.
>>51912756
maybe its just a hobby for them too?
im sorry that you dont have something you are that passionate about, and feel the need to justify yourself on an anonymous imageboard
>>51912888
he is using parallels desktop
>>51912890
>probably wouldn't be able to double blind between his setup and a single Fiio that costs 90 dollars
this is what plebes have to believe to not feel inadequate when someone else has superior devices
"Yeah, dude. My emachine could take your Cray micro any day. Sick of your placebo memes.
>>51912890
>muh Fiio that costs 90 dollars is better than premium hardware worth thousand of dollars
ok buddy
>>51912885
The reality is that people who have obtained genuinely better audio equipment have heard substantial improvement over consumer-grade garbage, and once that experience is known and understood, they go looking for compatible experiences, some yielding better results than others.
Ultimately it is a hobby and matter of personal preference.
I use a cheap Onkyo receiver and some old speakers to play sports broadcasts because it sounds alright. To play real music, I use my better speakers and amp-preamp set-up. I'd never do the reverse because the cheaper set up would make music sound thin and underamplified, and the more expensive set up would bring out all the noise and distortion of sports radio; plus sports radio would ruin good equipment.
>>51908798
Yes. Like over 24 fps content.
>>51912403
JUST LOWER THE VOLUME OLD MAN.
>>51913090
Seriously though there are limits to how much "better" something can get before it becomes a placebo.
Also the joke in OP's pic is >>51912450
>>51910439
newfag detected
He's in a hotel?
>>51913161
Likely yes. Most of these "high end audio" conventions and exhibitions are held in hotels.
>>51913161
He should be in a morgue.
>>51913063
Audiophile equipment is consumer grade. This is what audiophoolery is about, coloration of sound and flashy expensive magic boxes. Your onkyo receiver most likely sounds the same as your preamp-poweramp. The two main parameters that are important when evaluating amplification are frequency response and distortion, and both of your amps most likely measure good, well beyond the past of audibility.
Speakers on the other hand make real differences.
>>51913063
The reality is every single device you put between your computer and headphones adds noise to the signal you want to hear.
>>51912890
>probably wouldn't be able to double blind between his setup and a single Fiio that costs 90 dollars
Actually, they probably could. Because the expensive set up most likely adds coloration and distortion, especially if it's split over so many devices like in OP's pic.
>>51913063
>The reality is that people who have obtained genuinely better audio equipment have heard substantial improvement over consumer-grade garbage, and once that experience is known and understood, they go looking for compatible experiences, some yielding better results than others.
Sure, but audiophile gear tends to be underperforming compared to similar pro audio kit.
>Ultimately it is a hobby and matter of personal preference.
The problem is that they dictate their preference to nothing. Audiophiles can and do wax poetics on the differences between two identical objects. If they like the aesthetic, that is one thing, but they aren't talking about sound.
>Not spending that audiophile money on hookers
Doesn't matter what you are listening to, it sounds better with a blowjob.
>>51913250
Are you this one guy that doesn't know the difference between analog and digital?
>>51912403
Is this what audiophiles call an "eargasm"?
>>51913205
Hmmm... no. Consumer grade is plastic JBL shit from Best Buy with woofers that are so stiff they don't move. Or "Sony" speakers with the plastic cones that sound like a P.A. system. Or Bose, with the muffled sound, like you live in a carpeted room -- with carpet on the walls -- and the ceiling.
You know what I mean.
As for the Onkyo receiver, you're showing some ignorance. Break open a lower tier Onkyo receiver and look at the components. Then play it, with good speakers, against a "decent amp" (Krell). The music produced from a cheaper receiver-amp will sound the way watered down soda tastes compared to a decent amp. If you've done this before you'd understand exactly what this means.
>>51913323
No, he actually hated the headphones he is wearing in the vid. Utterly ridiculous either way, ofc.
>>51913372
It's $1600 headphones. If $1600 headphones don't sound perfect he has every right to make fun of them.
>>51913372
Have a direct link? Can't find it on his faggy Youtube channel.
>>51908940
>Using overpriced garbage
>>51913421
I listened to music on a $5 MP3 player coming with headphones, and I didn't look like I was having a stroke.
We have every right to make fun of him.
>>51913421
2600 dollars
>>51913450
>throwaway earbuds
The Ultrasone ED10 actually sounds worse than that.
>>51910439
>
>>51913471
>The Ultrasone ED10 actually sounds worse than that.
I'm sure you're lying but whatever.
>>51913349
Did you just call JBL a consumer brand?
And no, you're the one showing ignorance. Audio isn't all about ''hearing''. Vision definitely influences the way one perceives sound. And, there's also confirmation bias. Tell me, did you whip out your oscilloscope and distortion meter to measure the cheap onkyo? Did you even A/B test with the same speakers, cables and source?
>>51913323
no, he is in pain
>>51913315
i think anon assumes "after computer" means after it has been converted into analog, because in that case he is completely right.
>>51913436
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L34S4Tt1EuQ
>>51913042
>>51913012
I don't even own one. But adding that much shit to your setup only fucks up the signal. Also tube amplifiers always color sound since they have a much higher harmonic distortion rate than any mosfet amp.
I mean fuck, people can do whatever they want with their money. But if you pretend you can hear the difference at least use a setup that theoretically delivers the best sound.
It's also quite funny how people spend thousands of dollars on "the perfect setup" when in reality uncolored sound makes most music sound dead and lifeless.
>>51913545
>"the perfect setup" when in reality uncolored sound makes most music sound dead and lifeless.
Music can be made to sound dead but this only applies to room acoustic. If you're listening to some song and it sounds dead on a flat system, it's probably because the music was mastered and recorded like shit because whatever studio it was done in was crap.
>>51913490
ED10 has ridiculous, crazy treble spikes to it, more unpleasant than cheap radios.
>>51913518
>perceives
Isn't that always the trick? Psychology complicates straightforward perceptual testing, one stimulus always mixes in with another.
>>51913545
Hearing the difference doesn't have to amount to preferring uncolored, as they demonstrate with vinyl.
The difference in harmonic distortion isn't necessarily meaningful, the ears are very bad at detecting harmonic distortion.
>when in reality uncolored sound makes most music sound dead and lifeless.
A very contentious statement.
>>51913483
FIFY sempai
>>51913692
>two color rebalances
I am truly sorry to have failed to meme.
>>51913518
>Vision definitely influences the way one perceives sound
>being this autistic
>>51910439
Even the fags did a better job and made a proper-ordered color spectrum.
>>51912708
You're retarded m8.
30 buck DAC is literally all you would ever need.
I've blind tested DACs of varying prices from 30 bucks up to 500 bucks and theres literally no difference in sound and anyone saying otherwise is a biased retard trying to justify their shit purchase.
>>51913736
>being this uninformed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
>>51908940
Kek
>>51912403
I should have never made this.
>>51913540
Wow what an autist.
>>51912708
Nice job falling for the audiophile meme. You do know that the DAC is a very small, very cheap, very simple little IC and that it costs no more than $2, maybe up to $5 for the very top of the line most advanced ones? The rest is all fluff, packaging, LED's, dials, brands, and engraved pieces of aluminum. You're literally paying hundreds of dollars for a $3 component because you're gullible. You can't hear any difference between the highest-priced "DAC" on the market and any working, properly grounded and isolated integrated MoBo soundcard - saying that you can just proves that you have no clue what you're talking about, you'd might as well go buy audiophile power strips made of marble.. A DAC is a DAC, it makes zero difference as long as it supports 16b/44.1kHz.
>>51909709
Is flac bullshit? I am not an audiophile, i'm usually content with shit tier quality files but i swear i noticed a very big difference in sound quality with some flac versions of albums vs my mp3 versions of those same albums. Was it just placebo? Are flac proven to be bullshit?
>>51913545
>adding that much shit to your setup only fucks up the signal.
Depends on the signal path and how the amp and pre-amp "release" the signal. Higher quality equipment has very low noise and excellent capacitance. You can test this by "playing silence" on your system at high volume. And by playing music that has real cannon or gunfire, or cymbal tone, in it. Good systems produce no noise on playing silence, and gunshots that sound real on playing gunshots. Good systems playing cymbals the right way is just about one of the best sounds you'll ever hear.
And, no, I didn't say all JBL is consumer shit. But you all know as well as I do that many speaker manufacturers make several different collections of speakers -- some for imbeciles that purchase what Best Buy sales associates tell them to, and some that are used by concert halls and music recording studios.
I can't tell is /g/ is this stupid or if everything is a shitpost.
>>51913758
>McGurk Effect
It tends to work poorly on people who tend to watch poorly dubbed films.
There are other effects, a difference in the color affecting perceived loudness as an example.
>>51913893
Some of the ICs are about 50-60 dollars per channel, the TI/BB PCM1704 sign-magnitude DAC. Laser trimmed and all that crap, because it has to be.
>>51913978
>gunshots that sound real on playing gunshots
Haha, no.
>>51913934
Almost everyone can hear a difference between 192kbps mp3 and FLAC. 320kbps is more questionable but the difference is still there, it's a compressed file. There is no reason not to get FLAC when disk is as cheap as it is today.
>>51908646
>audiophile
>headphones
That's the biggest meme to me.
>>51908841
>>using tubes for hi-fi
Also this.
>>51913893
You are wrong about the pricing of DACs. Yes indeed most DACs used in consumer electronics are probably under 1 dollar a piece but dedicated audio gear tends to use the top of the line ICs which can cost anywhere from 5-80 bucks per IC and you can pay tens of dollars for mono chips still.
Hearing a difference is another matter though and most DACs perform well over human hearing capabilities. In the expensive ones you should be paying for features, quality control and the construction of the unit using the chip, not really sound quality itself.
DAC can make a difference in listening but it's rarely the case as most gear is so good nowadays.
>>51913934
FLAC is an excellent format and the opposite of bullshit but almost any lossy audio file(including mp3) can be encoded to be indistinguishable("transparent") from the lossless(file such as a FLAC).
As for reasons why you heard a difference might be plenty. They could be from a different master, the mp3 might have been encoded with an insufficient bitrate and/or with an old shitty encoder, mp3 could be a transcode from another lossy file or it just might be placebo. You can easily set up an ABX test to try if there really is a difference between the files.
>>51913997
>Almost everyone can hear a difference between 192kbps mp3 and FLAC
No.
>320kbps is more questionable but the difference is still there, it's a compressed file.
Difference is measurable but not audible due to the encoder, codec and/or bitrate used. Being a "compressed" file has no correlation to audibility or human perception in general.
>There is no reason not to get FLAC when disk is as cheap as it is today.
I agree for home use.
>>51913993
>Some of the ICs are about 50-60 dollars per channel, the TI/BB PCM1704 sign-magnitude DAC.
32b/192kHz is not for consumers, there is no use for anything over 16b/44.1kHz for consumers. It's for studio work.
>Laser trimmed and all that crap, because it has to be.
Laser trimmed? Is that the latest audiofool buzzword? You sound like a huge fucking tool.
>>51913997
>Almost everyone can hear a difference between 192kbps mp3 and FLAC.
False.
>>51913063
>plus sports radio would ruin good equipment
>good equipment
>can be ruined radio
>good
>can't play radio without being damaged
>good
wtf man?
>>51913893
>that it costs no more than $2
http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en?keywords=AD5791BRUZ
r2r ladder meme mono dac
4 u
>>51914050
>You are wrong about the pricing of DACs. Yes indeed most DACs used in consumer electronics are probably under 1 dollar a piece but dedicated audio gear tends to use the top of the line ICs which can cost anywhere from 5-80 bucks per IC and you can pay tens of dollars for mono chips still.
That's not chips for consumer use though and they have no advantage for consumers.
>Hearing a difference is another matter though and most DACs perform well over human hearing capabilities. In the expensive ones you should be paying for features, quality control and the construction of the unit using the chip, not really sound quality itself.
Every DAC in every sound card "perform" (support rather) a lot higher than human hearing capabilities. It's been like that for about 15 years.
It's fun to see you audiodumbs squirming when trying to justify your shams. You don't pay for... other things than sound quality. In a DAC IC chip. Okay.
>DAC can make a difference in listening but it's rarely the case as most gear is so good nowadays.
Yeah well technically this is true but DAC's have been at 16b/44.1kHz for a very long time now. So yeah sure if you dig up an old Amiga or first-gen Sound Blaster card you could compare to cards of today and hear a difference. But any sound card bought in 2015 will sound the same DAC-wise, there just isn't any difference in what it does or how it does it.
>>51914205
>>51914050
You need a DAC/AMP only if you use xxx-ohm headphones.
>>51913997
>but the difference is still there, it's a compressed file
That's not how perceptual audio coding works.
>>51914075
>32b/192kHz is not for consumers, there is no use for anything over 16b/44.1kHz for consumers. It's for studio work.
I never said anything about higher bit rates. 192 kHz has no use in professional work anyway.
>Laser trimmed? Is that the latest audiofool buzzword?
PCM1704 is a legacy product that TI wants to kill, but doesn't because while it is expensive to make, audiophools keep buying.
The resistors are cut by a laser because they cannot be matched in any other way. Try and think of how a resistor DAC works and the errors that you can end up with even 0.1% matched resistors.
PCM1704 is an out of date piece of crap anyway, outperformed by cheaper and newer chips, with additional functionality.
>>51914175
It's not an audio converter. It's really meant for high speed applications
>>51913934
Isn't FLAC good because it, by definition, isn't lossy, and holds up better over time? So it's better for archival stuff?
Or am I wrong on this
>>51914304
It's a placebo especially compared to 192 VBR Opus
>>51914304
>holds up better over time?
>So it's better for archival stuff?
FLAC is the original data. Lossy perceptual coding aims to get rid of the audio data that is not important, the things that are not heard.
Let's not get into bit rot.
>>51914329
>placebo especially compared
Not how that works.
>>51914304
Yes the reason for using flac isn't hearing the difference, it's because of rotational velocidensity. I see you've done your research well anon. Good stuff to see.
>>51913934
Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.
>>51912450
/thread
>>51913483
>expecting Apple not to fuck up
>>51914205
>It's fun to see you audiodumbs squirming when trying to justify your shams. You don't pay for... other things than sound quality. In a DAC IC chip. Okay.
Hey, fuck off. How the hell did you take my post as some rambling of an audiophool? And you just moved the damn goalposts by saying "not what consumers use though"(as if I ever disagreed) and listed supported sampling rates and bit rates of the ICs which aren't numbers of their performance, especially not when they are integrated into a larger scale circuit. Most problems with DACs people have are not because of the IC used, it's because of the shitty circuit design around it.
>>51914250
No baits allowed.
>>51914329
>placebo meme
No. It's not "placebo". Fuck I hate how that word is thrown around here at every corner. Sure it doesn't sound any different than 192kbps Opus or even 160kbps Opus. FLAC is a format which retains every piece of the original information in the file while lossy formats like Opus throws it away for higher level of compression. There are uses for both, lossy and lossless data compression, and this damn thing seems to fly over every single person shitting on the lossless formats.
>>51914267
>Try and think of how a resistor DAC works
How do modern DACs work then? I thought all DACs were resistor DACs with low pass filters on the back.
>>51914304
>holds up better over time
Lossy encoding isn't called lossy because it loses quality over time. It is called lossy because some of the information from the original recording is lost. The idea is that some of the information captured during recording is inaudible and that if you remove that information you can store the audio in a smaller file and it still sounds the same. The devil is in the details. How well a lossy encoding system differentiates between audible an inaudible information is what determines the quality of the lossy encoding.
Personally I've never been able to tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and flac. Personally I've never been able to tell the difference in free space on my hard drive when my audio is encoded in flac vs mp3. So if given the choice I choose FLAC. If the content is only available in mp3 I don't worry about it.
If I were archiving audio I would use FLAC because it archiving is a way of preserving information. You can tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 with an oscilloscope. Say it is a hundred years from now and someone wants to create a physics model of Barrack Obama's vocal chords. What information do you need to develop that model? I don't know. So I would use FLAC because it reduces space and still produces the data as a .wav when decoded.
>>51914304
Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
>>51914467
FLAC is a meme, nobody wants to use that shit. Music producers and scientists use WAVs because they load faster.
If you're listening to music FLAC is literally a placebo. Yes you can re-encode with FLAC and get no generational loss but nobody gives a fuck. Especially since there are people who are using and have used 320k mp3 since the 90's.
>>51914467
Flac is a piece of shit. Just use wavs you fucking autists.
>>51908841
>marginally better
all that extra shit in between his crap macbook audio port and his ears?
I would bet my left testicle that it is objectively worse sounding
>Collect music library full of v0 mp3s when storage was expensive
>Build 8TB NAS device
>Have to download new FLAC copies of all my music
Why even live?
>>51914557
>>51914537
.flac is basically a better and compressed version of wav.
And what the fuck are you talking about with wavs loading faster
>>51914598
just transcode to .flac brah
then share the flies on filesharing sites, nobody will notice
>>51914537
>FLAC is a meme, nobody wants to use that shit. Music producers and scientists use WAVs because they load faster.
That is useful in production yes but as for storage and for your home/local listening, I'd rather save the space than worry about latency of a few milliseconds. WAV also supports higher bit depths which is also something useful in production.
>If you're listening to music FLAC is literally a placebo
You still don't get what placebo is.
>Yes you can re-encode with FLAC and get no generational loss but nobody gives a fuck.
Sometimes I actually do.
>Especially since there are people who are using and have used 320k mp3 since the 90's.
And those will sound like shit because all the mp3 encoders back then were shit.
>>51914598
Why change perfectly fine format if you already have it?
>>51914497
>create a physics model of Barrack Obama's vocal chords.
>Not Gilbert Gottfried or Bobcat Goldthwait
The joke is that he's in a hotel room.
>>51914497
The signal is oversampled so that the LP filter requirement is easier. Delta sigma is the logical extension of the idea of oversampling. Delta sigma is the norm for audio applications, less precision matching required than resistor ladders for generally superior performance. This also mean cheaper and better.
It has been this way since the 90's. The lowered throughput is nothing anyone cares about for audio signals.
Wouldn't his hearing be shit since he's an old fart?
>>51914694
No it's that he's half deaf using audiophile equipment. He looks like 60.
>>51914759
Precisely. ba-dum-tuss
>test room?
>>51913997
On good equipment, there is sometimes substantial difference (improvement) between 192kps mp3 and FLAC/WAV. It is usually heard in the dynamic range of the instruments as they are played back, and in the soundstage.
But a well-recorded 128kps mp3 (Baby Come Back by Player) can sound much much better than a poorly-recorded WAV/CD file (Bat Out of Hell by Meatloaf).
>>51914428
I don't like the hump or the lollipop sempai but what that other guy was saying was wrong
>all this bullshit about dacs,amps,headphones,formats
>visit /mu/
>has thread about what mutants listen their music to
>its all iphones with iphone earbuds and windows media player or music bee
>one or two guys in the whole thread use stock f2k
>most of their music is in mp3 and some even use streaming services that dont deliver more than 256kbps.
Guys dont bother with something you dont have or dont do.there is no point to it.
>>51909540
It's getting cold, isn't it?[Dismiss]
>>51916194
This is the technology board not the music board though. I guess music fans just don't fucking care or something.
>>51914614
Bullshit.I dont even have good setup and I can tell right away.
>>51916221
You can tell a 320kb/s mp3 transcoded to flac apart from the original flac file? How the fuck would you even know how the original .flac file sounded like?
>>51909813
Sikch joke braj. Sneaky
>>51916234
By listening to the music asshole.
How about you clean your ears with q-tips once in a while and set up your headphones right.
Than come back and argue about this you fucking autistic shit.
>>51912495
>not being aware that LSD will improve your hearing and actually lets you hear the difference between MP3 and FLAC
>not being aware of LSD microdosing and its effect as a superior nootropic
>being a degenerate sheep
>>51916279
I think you're the one that's autistic here buddy. You can't tell a fucking difference, do you understand faggot? Just shut the fuck up man.
>>51916234
1. Get a low tier audiophile level sound system.
2. Get a CD.
3. Rip a FLAC and a 320kps mp3 from the CD.
4. Listen to the CD, the FLAC, and the mp3 using blinded comparison method.
I actually do this, and usually there is a slight difference between mp3 and FLAC/CD, and no audible difference between FLAC and CD. Sometimes theres no difference between mp3 and anything else, either. It depends also on how good the original recording was.
The difference between 128kps mp3 and FLAC/WAV is usually slightly to moderately evident.
>>51916691
Now try that with 192 vbr opus and flac.
>>51913934
FLAC isn't a placebo, but the difference between a FLAC file and a well encoded MP3 is hard to notice. I like the idea of using it for archival though just because it's a lossless format that uses less space than WAV.
>>51916779
Velocidensity, etc. Flac is the only option, m8.
>>51908646
Them feels when your GeekPulse gives you everything you want and anymore is a waste.
>>51912403
What the fuck am I watching?
>>51916988
cringe
>>51908841
>tube amp may be marginally worse
With the low quality of today's tubes, and the lack of modern day experience in tube use, it's almost certain to be worse than out the headphone jack.
I am a ham and finding good tubes, and then matching them properly, is a pain in the ass these days. The last mil-spec quality tubes suitable for audio use were made in the early 1980s.
It's fetishism for old dudes. Like you don't want to spend any effort with a creative hobby, like building your own tube radio or tube amp, you can at least buy some shit from a fancy Jew at a high-end audio store and pretend you have a real hobby.
BTW former pro audio guy here, I have golden ears.
>>51908646
he's in a hotel room. This is incredible. I can't believe I never noticed that.
It's because hes using a mac, r-right?
>>51918092
>png
you're a fucking idiot
>>51918004
>former pro audio guy
>cannot recognize Ray Samuels hardware
Pick one and only one.
>>51918151
not him but pro-audio/audiophile
i've never heard of ray samuels, nor have i ever paid $16,000 for a headphone amp, cable lifts, or whatever the fuck is up with those power cables and i'm a current pro-audio guy.
>>51918187
>i've never heard of ray samuels
Let me guess, you've never heard of Sennheiser either or Meyer Sound either.
>>51918187
ray samuels devices are nice and all
but unlikely to be worth more than $150 in components
>>51918151
>pro audio
Pro audio gear is very distinct from audiophile crap.
I don't know who Ray Samuels is and I've been in the industry for 20 years. I bet $1 he's a Jew with overpriced shit-tier Russian- or Chinese-tubed crap.
You don't even understand the scorn pro audio people working in recording and sound reinforcement have for audiophiles. Not just because you are dumb, and that it can be proved that you're dumb in double blind experiments, but because you mistake your own poopy diaper smells for expertise.
No, I don't know Ray Samuels but you can keep your audiophile Jew, you audiophile Jew.
>>51918222
sennheiser and meyer, yes. ray samuels, no.
you do realize that audiophile shit is laughed at my professional audio people, right? there's a reason you don't see people talking about stupidly expensive tube headphone amps and silver cables on gearslutz. unless they have an audiophile board i've never noticed.
>>51918272
pic related
>>51918276
Why do I get the distinct impression that any idiot with a macbook and a high school prom gig is in a "professional audio."
>>51918272
ok. the cheapest headphone amp i saw on the site is still $500 and only has RCA connections, so it's useless for studio work.
>>51918302
you're thinking of DJs. they get laughed at, too. i record orchestras for movies and band demos on the side, plus a few live sound jobs when i need to.
>>51918302
Leave now Ray Samuels.
>>51918371
Thanks for the classic example of an ad hominem.
ITT: People who spend a shit load of money on snakeoil and use it to listen to overly compressed chick music or metalfaggotry.
>>51918451
Actually there's shit like audiophile labels, too. I imagine these are recorded a bit better but the music is probably trash
>>51908784
>all that audio shit
>isn't using the FREE wired internet clearly labeled on the desk
>mfw these guys don't even have dedicated power lines for their audio equipment at home
What a bunch of fucking PLEBS
Man, when I play live and in studio I never think about this kind of people, I wonder if they can hear the amazing qualities of our shitty 5 buck DIs, sampled instruments, and all that shit.
>>51918473
>>51914363
Kek I vaguely remember that pasta
>>51913771
What, converting a mp4 to webm? Wow you are the one written down in the prophecies.
>>51908646
>all that fancy hardware and he's using a wireless mouse
The amount of electrical infetterence that must be going on there makes me cringe.
Let's assume all these electronics actually to improve the audio quality, even if not noticeable for the average listener, what about those outrageous cables, magnets, stones and shit. Is there ANY proof that those improve anything? Is it safe to assume that it's all crazzy-ass shit?
This thread makes me want to start an audiophile company that manufactures retard accessories for retards for disgusting amounts of money.
>>51919166
Your first step will be getting connections with audio ''reviewers'' or bribing them. Because audiophiles base their purchasing decisions on subjective reviews.
>>51919231
Well at first I'd probably manufacture cable lifters and cables that are made out of silver instead of copper, and add some stupid shit like "with decreased latency and packet loss you can now truly enjoy your favorite music at the highest possible quality thanks to iSilvrâ„¢"
you guys are fucking fags who cares
>>51919316
Alright dude. I'll be your marketer, I'll shill on /g/, reddit and headfi
>>51919347
you too
>>51912436
found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L34S4Tt1EuQ
>>51918132
>not achieving maximum image quality
>implying a 1MB download is in any way a problem
>>51919316
>latency and packet loss
Whoa, whoa, what's with the valid, testable technical terms?
No. It's for more spacious highs and tighter bass response. It reduces transient interference for a more authentic listening experience.
>>51919553
So...his reactions were the review?
>all of this talk about apple and homosexual rainbows
Remember when rainbows were something for little girls? Why did let the cocksuckers take that away from them.
>>51919671
Why not both? That way if any doubt would ensue in normies, or audiophiles just beginning their journey I could dismiss them with muh actual factual tests. And autisticphiles could use my products as arguments when they are trying to convince normals of the superiority of audiophile gear, creating publicity. And all publicity is good publicity go as miley cyrus
>>51919777
Meant to type "go ask miley", I fucking hate my phone's keyboard, it's probably too much latency and packet loss
>>51919553
>posting king ja/ck/ on /g/
They don't know the horror.
>>51918379
Pot, kettle, black?
Who complains about ad-hominem right after delivering some to another person?
>
3
>>51919104
>what about those outrageous cables, magnets, stones and shit. Is there ANY proof that those improve anything
There is ample proof that they do not do anything whatsoever.
>>51919923
His argument put is character as a pro audio into question, ie. the only way to attack his argument is to attack his character.
>>51919231
You also need to name your company something like Goldstein, Blatz, or Silverberg.
>>51919923
back to 9gag with your faggot pictures, fag
>>51908784
Why is it always old white men?
>>51909009
>Isn't the whole point of a tube amp for the "wamth" or as you call it "distortion" rather similar albums over cds?
If "warmth" makes the song better, the musician can add it during the production process. That will get the same effect, but will allow artists to add different kinds of "warmth" or remove "warmth" entirely when appropriate. Adding distortion indiscriminately during playback limits artistic expression.
>>51919553
>>51912403
He's a cool dude don't talk shit
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/ultrasone-edition-10#3FDlmVK1vxspRZeO.97
>>51920037
>the musician can add it during the production process
Is this the first time you've ever heard of the comparison of "warmth" versus "analytical?" Of course, this overlooks any circumstances that involves more than just "the musician" like say orchestra works. . .
>>51920087
>Is this the first time you've ever heard of the comparison of "warmth" versus "analytical?"
"Warmth" is distortion. You want your playback to be totally soulless and accurate. Adding in ANY distortion, even distortion that sounds good, limits artistic expression.
>Of course, this overlooks any circumstances that involves more than just "the musician" like say orchestra works. . .
Then adjust the sound during the mastering process.
>>51920133
>You want your playback to be totally soulless and accurate.
Many do not like the "cold" and "analytical" sound of "soulless and accurate."
>Then adjust the sound during the mastering process.
Which many do not think the technician got right. For example, a lot of lounge and jazz is preferably warm over say house or dubstep.
Your one size fits all approach to music is ridiculous.
>>51912403
>poorfags
You can put together a top notch system that'll let you hear things in recordings that you never even knew were there for $1200.
Pic related, just add the matching sub.
This is probably what the studio engineer listened to while mixing down whatever album you are listening to anyway so why fuck around? Pretty much everybody I work with uses these at home too.
SShhhh don't tell Ray Samuels.
>>51920133
>. Adding in ANY distortion, even distortion that sounds good, limits artistic expression.
Wut?
>>51920208
>Which many do not think the technician got right.
You can munge up a bad recording so it's even worse, of course. And I guess it's feasible if you think he got it wrong, to try to fix it for your ear, but you're probably throwing away psychoacoustic information like crazy there.
What sucks these days is half the recording engineers themselves. Those fuckers have a degree in cranking compression to the max, and there is no good or practical way (that I have heard of) to un-compress music. I know it is mathematically possible though.
If you have real money Lansche has plasma speakers. Kinda apropos to this thread.
>>51920257
Are you stupid?
>>51920380
>What sucks these days is half the recording engineers themselves. Those fuckers have a degree in cranking compression to the max, and there is no good or practical way (that I have heard of) to un-compress music.
That's generally not their fault though. Labels and/or the band tell them to do that shit.
>>51920380
>guys, I know that P = NP!!1111
Does your mum wipe the froth from your mouth every minute or every hour?
>>51920380
>You can munge up a bad recording so it's even worse, of course.
Who said it is a bad recording? There wasn't anything about squashing all the dynamics by making it "radio ready." No, the point was that the mastering focused on the wrong thing (like being "soulless and analytical").
>you're probably throwing away psychoacoustic information like crazy there.
Softening its emphasis is not throwing it away but making it less of an immediacy to the ear. Do you think tuning your an engine to provide less bhp but more torque is throwing away power?
>>51920410
>That's generally not their fault though. Labels and/or the band tell them to do that shit.
I ultimately blame the Berklee School. Not only are they the source of maybe a good 20% of the session musicians working in the genres plagued by the loudness wars, but they also probably comprise fucking 10-35% of all professionals working in music these days.
They started it and it's pretty much doctrine there AFAICT. I bet there are some anons that went there who could tell more.
The other problem is the listening public - the most popular recorded music venue is inside the car. Compression in this case makes perfect sense, as most cars are noisy. It's possible to get cars with vehicle-noise-sensitive compression though, my Rav4 Sport has ALS which is Toyota's implementation of this feature.
It's Berklee and shitty car soundproofing / car stereos with poor car audio performance that are to blame more than anything I think.
]]51920413 (Douchebag)
Not even going to give you a (You) but rather than complaining why don't you make a good low-latency / near real time decompressor if you're such a techno-mathematical genius. My point was that with digital recordings this could be done, and it's amazing that it hasn't been done effectively yet.
>>51920558
>I ultimately blame the Berklee School.
Aren't most Berklee musicians in Jazz? That's one of two genres (the other being classical) mostly unaffected by compression.
I'm curious about this line of thought though. Have any more details I could read up on?
>>51920387
How is "distortion" a limit?
>>51912403
Is he being tortured?
>>51919316
Silver's cheap now too, anon, and will get cheaper with the Fed bumping interest rates.
>>51912422
>>51913090
>>51913323
>>51913421
>>51916988
>>51920936
The whole point of the video was he thought they were incredibly overpriced and absurdly hyped, and was refuting all the reviews claiming they made anything sound better by blasting his ears with some shitty prog-jazz. He's actually all for great sound without a huge premium, and sincerely believes in avoiding diminishing returns whenever possible. Based dude.
>>51908646
>a good setup and good headphones will only improve the sound marginally
except thats not even true, simply buying better headphones has improved the sound quality. of course the bottleneck is the recording itself. but why is everyone claiming his audiophile shit won't improve the sound quality. My tube headphone amp + studio headphones alone are already gr8
>>51921291
>tube amp
It's the 21th century anon.`
>>51914175
look I can do it too!
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/AD390TD/AD390TD-ND/617125
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/NCT3933U%20TR/NCT3933U%20TR-ND/4360366
eat a dick.
>>51912598
>rich guy invites me over to his home to "listen to music" in summer
i hope he payed you well for your services
>>51920469
>No, the point was that the mastering focused on the wrong thing (like being "soulless and analytical").
Well that's entirely subjective of course so it's hard to argue with you. I also agree that mastering has gone down the shitter but this topic has been discussed at length for years, no point in doing it over. There is a reason engineers choose to make what you'd call a cold or more properly, high fidelity mix though.
>Softening its emphasis is not throwing it away but making it less of an immediacy to the ear. Do you think tuning your an engine to provide less bhp but more torque is throwing away power?
I try to make an objective recording or mixdown if that makes any sense to you. With modern equipment (such as the Korg 1-bit solution which I think is the best in the industry and all the great mics out there) we can make a very high fidelity, accurate recording quite cheaply and easily now. If you want to throw some of this away - we can prove you are mathematically - so it sounds sweeter or more velvety or whatever you're into it's fine, but a really great recording of an excellent performance shouldn't need extra oomph. That's my subjective opinion of course.
Plenty of shit recordings of good music out there though. I know the guy who's the chief broadcast engineer and also sound man for a major city's classical station (another ham) and when he plays a terrible recording I always make fun of him. Beware, anons, there is a truly hideous recording the 1812 Overture (London Symphony IIRC) making the rounds this year.
>>51920719
>I'm curious about this line of thought though. Have any more details I could read up on?
Sorry, I wish I had an article but this is a personal synthesis / conspiracy theory. Find albums that are notorious for bad compression and trace back the chain of responsibility and you'll hit Berklee at some point.
>>51921959
>Beware, anons, there is a truly hideous recording the 1812 Overture (London Symphony IIRC) making the rounds this year.
I honestly don't think I've ever heard a bad recording of classical music before besides really old recordings that weren't bad the standards of their day. Do you have a link to it?
>>51921291
>why is everyone claiming his audiophile shit won't improve the sound quality
A tube amp probably isn't going to improve quality. It might sound good to you but it's quantifiably worse unless you have a *GREAT* class A setup.
Transistorized amplifiers running class AB are going to match tubes these days unless you have very high quality matching tubes and even then you'll probably need lab equipment to tell the difference.
>>51922011
>Do you have a link to it?
I can't remember exactly what it is, but it's making the rounds and it's a newer (<10 yo) recording.
Shit I wish I had more information for you though. It was so bad I called him up and complained while it was playing, so he could get into his car (he has a really nice car with an excellent stereo system) and hear for himself in case it was a transmitter issue.
If you hear it your ears will bleed.
>>51921242
Yeah but silver is the best electronic conductor copper is for peasant fags
>>51921288
>Based dude.
He needs some lab equipment to back up his aging ears though.
>>51922073
Oh hey I think I might have found it. This recording sounds pretty awful to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpPQzQTue00
BTW guys if you want the best ever solid state stereo amplifier the one and only Barney Oliver is the only choice.
I'll take it over tubes any day. I have one and would take a pic but it's at my cabin. It's an HP lab-equipment grade home audio amp.
http://hparchive.com/Manuals/Barney_Oliver_Amplifier_Memo.pdf
>>51922236
OK I'm in my home lab now and I'm listening on a pair of Yamaha HS5M's and a big ancient Klipsch 10" powered studio sub.
Jesus this could be the one. It's like the rolled everything below 160Hz. Fucking why even use the cannons if you can't hear them properly?
They should blow your anus out.
My reference recording is 1979 Cincinnati Pops w/ Kunzel. Early Soundstream Telarc, still one of the finest.
BTW that baby will go all the way down to DC.
