What does he listen to?
>>52191042
chart music from the mid 1960s
patrician audiophile music obviously
>>52191042
This is the most patrician picture i ever saw
>>52191042
electric wizard
>HD800's
Gotta be some shitty "audiophile" solo bassoon album.
some plebeian headphone crap I should imagine
>>52191059
>most patrician picture i ever saw
>the guy isn't using cable elevators
>>52191042
whateaver is or was mainstream at some point of time at, usa, his country, uk, worldwide and maybe japan. This may also include anime soundtracks, movie soundtracks, tv series soundtracks, game soundtracks (but no non game chiptune).
>Digital signal
>Running it through a tube-amp
>using those transmission lines
>LEL NOW IT'S ANALOG
NO, you piece of fucking shit, god damn.
I fucking cringe whenever I see faggots like him. I'm an audiophile, and enjoy high quality audio of course, but I'm also an electrical engineer.
When you record digitally, the analog quality is LOST. It is not "recoverable" because it was never there to begin with. Running it through a tube amp is fucking pointless and only adds imperfections to the sound.
Now for those wires. Holy shit. Why didn't he just buy those that came with anti-virus protection as well? Literally for what fucking reason do you need such thick and coated wires for such a short distance? The ONLY thing transmission lines can do to your signal is shunt capacitance / inductance, which is not a problem for even the cheapest audio cables. The ONLY fucking thing to worry about, is the length of the cable. That is, if you need a fucking 30 m cable, then maybe YES you need to upgrade to a better cable, but this fucking guy.
>MUH COAXIAL WIRES
The only reason I haven't publicly executed these idiot is because it's illegal to do so.
>>52191216
>the analog quality is LOST.
No because even 16-bit 48 kHz exceeds the audible quality of the best studio tape.
Analog a shit.
>spend that much on audio equipment
>have a shitty desk and chair
>>52191216
This. Also I guarantee you that cunt is listening to wav files because "they're just warmer than FLAC."
>>52191216
"Digital guru Dan Lavry (Lavry Engineering) listening to the rig I brought, which included a MacBook Pro with lossless files optically feeding the Lavry DA11 (as DAC), which, via Cardas Clear interconnects, was feeding the Ray Samuels Audio Raptor which was driving the Sennheiser HD 800. Power cables were Cardas Golden Reference AC and TARA Labs RSC Air AC. Perfect power was courtesy of PS Audio's PowerPlant Premier. This rather simple rig produced some of the best sound I heard at the show."
>This rather simple rig
>simple rig
>simple
WTF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F21aifX0lZY
Donald Fagen
A 128kbps to 320 transcoded mp3
>>52191059
>macbook
>>52191261
What each one of those things do?
>>52191305
Adds anywhere between .5" and 2.0" to an audiophile's claimed penis size.
>>52191305
I wouldn't be surprised if they did nothing at all.
>>52191379
They fucking don't. Those cables are about $1400 a piece and do nothing that normal speaker wire doesn't. A power conditioner is 100% pointless in this application. That dude is a massive fucking cunt.
>>52191305
>MacBook Pro
media player
>Lavry DA11
DAC, digital to analogue converter, turns a digital file into an analogue audio signal
>Ray Samuels Audio Raptor
headphone amp
>Sennheiser HD 800
headphones
>PS Audio's PowerPlant Premier
power supply
>>52191305
Seaching on google. If I am right it would be this
Lavry DA11 = convertes digital audio to analog audio. How this is done, I dont know
Cardas Clear Interconnect= cable that reduce interference
Ray Samuels Audio Raptor = if I am not wrong converts data into sound.
Cardas Golden Reference AC = reduces interference
TARA Labs RSC Air AC = reduces interference
PS Audio's PowerPlant Premier = generate non distorted power??? WTF
>>52191042
This picture was taken in a hotel (look at the black thing with the card next to the lamp, looks like a hotel wi-fi thing), which means that someone lugged all this crap around with them, maybe on an airplane.
>>52191511
>>52191549
>no cable elevators
>>52191555
its at a hifi show. they book out a couple of floors and each exhibitor uses a different room
>>52191305
>Macbook
His computer.
>DAC11 (Digital-to-Analog Converter)
This does nothing more than converting to analog.
Adds to NF (noise figure) and THD (total harmonic distortion)
>Cardas Clear interconnects
Super expensive audio cables. As I mentioned before in >>52191216, these factors can play in, when it comes to signal quality:
- Resistance per meter (distributed resistance)
- Shunt capacitance (comes with voltage difference between two wires)
- Distributed inductance L (due to the magnetic field around the wires, self-inductance, etc.)
The shunt capacitance and inductance are only a problem for high voltage signals, or wires that are maybe in size order of nanometers. The resistance is generally only a problem for extremely long cables (worst quality / cheapest cables of maybe more than 20 meters. Buying the ones that cost $5 or $10 more per meter makes it to 100 meters maybe).
>Ray Samuels Audio Raptor
An analog headphone amp. This does nothing but amplifying the audio. Add to NS and THD.
>Cardas Golden Reference AC & PS Audio's PowerPlant Premier
He does not trust his power outlets to supply a steady and balanced power signal, so he runs it a power supply unit with expensive cables to make sure he has "perfect power". (This is a fair thing actually, if he lived in fucking uganda where power stations tend to fuck up or vary a lot in signal strength).
Here's a setup that would sound just as good.
Computer -> excellent stereo amp -> headset
He LITERALLY only added noise and harmonic distortion to his sound.
>>52191549
>Use all this stuff
>listen to mainstream loudness war stuff
>>52191569
>He LITERALLY only added noise and harmonic distortion to his sound.
if he only used cable elevators everything would be fine tho
>>52191577
What?
Being an audiophile is about listening to a sound as close to the original intention sound, as possible. If the producers and audio engeneers of mainstream artists want loudness war, this is what their intention for the final result are and what an audiophile will want to hear.
Some brazillian producer of brazillian mainstream bands (mostly post-grunge), made a video showing him mixing stuff, he actually showing his hardware, blinking, telling the music was actually clipping and he said "well this this stuff is blinking because [...], but I am accepting this because this is "ROCK" after all"
>>52191207
>anime soundtracks
The man is obviously older than 15.
>>52191577
>listen to mainstream loudness war stuff
How do you know?
>>52191689
>"back off, plebeian scum"
>>52191689
this chap is 100% british
>>52191719
American
http://www.lavryengineering.com/about.html
>>52191631
This was just to make sure.
I forgot to add, cartoon songs and ads songs
>>52191042
>tube amp
dropped
>>52191813
they look damn cool though, you can't disagree
>>52191824
Sure, but they totally defeats the purpuse of all that high-end 0.00000-someting audiogear he's using.
>>52191261
Audiophiles are insane.
>>52191980
everyone is an audiophile
>>52191042
why are the cables so big
I feel like the wires are photo shopped to be larger
>>52191624
Being an audiophile means you care more about the equipment being used and not the actual sound.
If you care about having your kbps in 320 or higher you are an audiophile
>>52192143
my niece explained she was not pleased with her father (my brother) because he did not buy her the new taylor swift in "mp3" and instead told her to "rip it off youtube". she said the quality was "fuzzy" and hurt her ears. she's 12. audiophile, or no?
>>52191980
they are extremely knowledgeable about everything audio-related except music itself
hilarious that they spend all this money just to listen to their sad, tiny collections of Frank Zappa and English Chamber Orchestra Plays Vivaldi CDs
>>52192069
to prevent electrical infetterance
>>52192138
weird, the dictionary says the opposite
>>52192183
>Frank Zappa
lel zappa sucks so hard
>>52192183
on the opposite ive found that people know their stuff are usually indifferent about audio quality past a certain point and will settle for whats available
>>52192183
>they are extremely knowledgeable about everything audio-related except music itself
not really. they believe in so much bullshit placebo shit and cant even into actual blind listening tests.
the word "audiophile" has acquired a negative connotation (at least to me), kinda like the word "feminist"
>>52191042
Test tones and test sounds all day long, only to hear how good his system is. No time for music.
>>52191042
>mfw lofi sounds better anyway
Steely Dan only.
>>52191059
Peter Gabriel and Men at Work
>>52191042
he listens to noise on a ear blasting volume
>mfw there are fags on /g/ with this type of setup that prob just listen to anime OSTs
>>52195793
>>52191059
>having lots of expensive hardware makes you patrician
Same way having a $5000 dollar PC makes you a skilled gamer, right?
>>52191980
Audiophiles are an easy market because all of it is basically a huge dick-measuring contest with hardware instead of dicks. I guarantee that 99% of people who buy stuff like this would fail a blind test between their fancy amps and whatnot compared to significantly cheaper hardware.
>i-it's better because it's e-expensive
Fucking losers. I appreciate nice quality sound, but spending several thousand dollars on your audio equipment just for listening to music is retarded.
>>52191261
>Dan Lavry
Audiophiles are idiots, but as a producer who owns a Lavry, I tell you having a good quality IO and some nice headphones is sweet.
Well, kinda. If the music is recorded, mixed, and mastered well it is. For most shit none of that stuff matters.
>>52192069
they're called wires, pleb
steely dan
>>52191042
>What does he listen to?
In the Air Tonight, like any self-respecting patrician
He's listening to the equipment. The music is incidental.
>>52195936
>Fucking losers. I appreciate nice quality sound, but spending several thousand dollars on your audio equipment just for listening to music is retarded.
The funny thing is that aside from speakers, headphones and recording studio equipment, you hit a point of diminishing returns very quickly. There's no good reason to spend more than a modest amount on a DAC, amp, etc. These are solved problems. Nothing exotic is necessary. If anything the expensive stuff is often worse.
>>52197681
>He's listening to the equipment.
Actually he's listening to the immaculate, pristine soundstaging of equipment's price tags and marketing materials.
>tfw I bought an expensive DAC but hastily sold it because it made no difference
am i immune to placebo?
>>52197831
No one's immune to the effects of sighted listening.
>>52195936
>appreciate nice quality sound
ok so whats the cutoff point then? what's the accepted limit to how much you should spend on your audio setup? how much did you spend on yours?
most audiophiles don't even listen to music. they're more closer to /g/ than /mu/
also reminder that not a single person has ever passed a lossy/lossless test
>>52197891
the difference between $10 headphones to $100 pair is pretty large. but the difference between $500 headphones to $1000 is fairly insignificant. $200 would get you a damn good pair of headphones.
>>52197948
so anyone who spends over 200 is an audiophile nerd blinded by placebo?
>>52197948
>>52197973
i agree, after a certain point there are better places in the signal chain to spend your money
>>52197948
>>52198010
how much did you guys spend on your setups?
>>52197973
not who you're responding to, but above $200 or $300 there are diminishing returns; the benefit isn't really important unless you're working in a recording studio
I use a Steinberg UR44 interface ($300 is a bit much but it's important for me that it supports sample rates up to 192 kHz and has preamps and more than 2 inputs and outputs), JDS Labs O2 headphone amp ($100 and probably unnecessary with the UR44) and AKG K702 headphones ($270 IIRC). I think that's basically adequate for listening and home recording.
Also it depends on what you're buying. Expensive amps mostly aren't necessary, but if you're buying moderately nice studio monitors, spending $1000 each isn't too unreasonable.
>>52198053
six or seven gorillion dollars
>>52198109
nice mine cost 2 billion dollhairs
>>52198053
do i include the bamboo egg cups that support the cables 'cos I do sometimes use them in the kitchen too
>>52192191
10/10
>>52195875
also same way having $7500 camera doesnt make you a good photographer
>>52195815
jesus christ what the fuck is that
>>52198616
lol i laughed
>>52191042
Bruce Springsteen.
>>52191235
Pretty sure he's in a hotel room
the only piece of hardware that is justifiable to spend $1000+ on are monitors
>>52200320
those headphones and ur still using itunes
what file format is most of ur library??
>>52191042
Probably some sine and square waves
>>52200673
>those headphones and ur still using itunes
Are you stupid enough to think there is an audible difference between itunes, windows media player or foobar2k?
>what file format is most of ur library??
62 kbps mp3 encoded in 2002. I like the retro sound ;^)
>>52191207
>Anime soundtracks
>Game soundtracks
He's not a child
white noise
>>52191624
>Being an audiophile is about listening to a sound as close to the original intention sound, as possible
doesn't that mean exclusively attending live concerts?
recording cannot capture the experience of being in the same room as performers. If you think otherwise, you can't really call yourself an audiophile. sorry.
>>52194758
holy fuck that's such a sad outlook on audiophile
>>52202567
This. Whenever I want to listen to music I pay the band to come over to my house
>>52200954
kek
>>52200823
>Are you stupid enough to think there is an audible difference between itunes, windows media player or foobar2k?
I've never noticed a difference between Foobar or WMP but I remember updating iTunes a few years back and there being an audible difference so I stopped using it. It might not be that way anymore but I've never been tempted to return to it.
I'm not who you were replying to, by the way.
>>52202567
not necessarily, theres plenty of artists who record music with no intention to ever play it live
>>52203303
>I'm not who you were replying to, by the way.
Yeah right, you fucking retarded faggot. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
>>52191042
HD800 instruction manual audio book
i wish i could hear the hd800s. like just hear them one time
>>52200439
>justifiable
well go ahead then, justify it. what are you waiting for?
>>52202567
>implying performers can consistently reproduce the original intended sound
"no"
