|
Patch posted:Not to defend Monster or their prices, but those labels are just for convenience. If you want to unplug a specific component for some reason, you just look at the label rather than tracing the cords back to the equipment to see which cable goes to what. I'm sensing a market here, though.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Patch posted:Not to defend Monster or their prices, but those labels are just for convenience. If you want to unplug a specific component for some reason, you just look at the label rather than tracing the cords back to the equipment to see which cable goes to what. And here I thought it was some voodoo audiophile stuff, why else would a surge protector be upwards of 200 dollars? That makes a ton of more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:42
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
grack posted:No. Actually the answer is "no, and even if it did it wouldn't make a difference in the sound".
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Actually the answer is "no, and even if it did it wouldn't make a difference in the sound". Well, yeah, but how am I supposed to charge stupid people $43/foot for single strand copper wire with 10 cent RCA connectors on the ends with that answer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
grack posted:Well, yeah, but how am I supposed to charge stupid people $43/foot for single strand copper wire with 10 cent RCA connectors on the ends with that answer? "HOWEVER, burn-in will subtly change the standing acoustic wave pattern field matrix levels in the room the cable is installed in."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
It's funny because JVC has these earbuds for 17 bucks on amazon.com that actually sound better than headphones in the 400-600 dollar price range, even audiophiles and average users have raved about them. So it doesn't help the credibility of most audiophiles at all and their excessive $5000+ gear. I'm a peculiar mix between audiophile and thinking most audiophile stuff is pure bullshit. I've been around audiophile forums for years, tested out plenty of software, equipment and unorthodox listening advice to have better sound in my music. I would say only a fraction of it is good advice. To my ears, I can hear a dramatic audible difference between a 128kpbs MP3 file versus that of a FLAC file, for example. Past the FLAC area into WAV files, you'd have to get a really detailed headphone to even spot the difference, and if some claim to, I'd be more than glad to call them out on their bullshit. Hell even the difference between a 320kbps file vs a FLAC is extremely marginal at best. Most of the music produced these days is so overblown and brick walled that even getting a decent audiophile setup is pretty much pointless, if all you do is listen to new albums. I've come across a few albums that were mastered really well but that's becoming a rarity. It's all about getting as much volume on your iPod earbud than anything else, which is why when CD's started to become popular, they came out they are audibly much more quieter. If you turned up say Fear of A Black Planet all the way up, it still sounds pretty quiet to a new record at medium volume. More emphasis on dynamics, I suppose. Don't get me started on that 2011 Nevermind remaster either, it's awful. If you went over to head-fi.org forums, there is a guy over there that has reviewed all the big name audiophile phones and I think he has probably spent well over $40,000 for it all. It is a very expensive "hobby" once folks start overdosing on the placebo pills. Most of the audiophiles on message boards don't have a loving clue what diminishing returns means. I've seen folks spend over 2000 dollars for the Audeze LCD3 only to gain 10% "performance" increase over the 1000 dollar Audeze LCD2. Hey if people want to spend their money on that sort of bullshit, go right ahead but don't mislead other people into buying your bullshit. "Oh you got those Hifiman HE-500s? You need these 400 dollars cables to REALLY maximize the headphones"  As of right now I have some very nice headphones, an amp, and SACD player. I really enjoy my setup because I don't get any headphone fatigue and the sound is pretty awesome. Plus I got my stuff second hand on Craigslist, which didn't cost all that much. But I would never spend over 1000 dollars for headphones, even if one of them was sprinkled in fairy dust and made out of narwhal. Going to work I love my Sansa Clip+ and those 17 dollar JVC IEMs. I buy new SD cards around Black Friday because they are really cheap for the 32GBs, but I mostly just delete albums on the ones I have and just load new stuff on them. And of course I buy a lot of used CDs for pennies or a dollar. My approach to pretty much anything electronic based is more bang for the buck. What's going to maximize my dollar? Also, when audiophiles say Beats by Dre are loving awful. They aren't just saying that because they have a Sennheiser HD800 w/amp, but they truly are terrible headphones. So they are right about something. Jerry Cotton posted:"HOWEVER, burn-in will subtly change the standing acoustic wave pattern field matrix levels in the room the cable is installed in." I am almost convinced burn in is a total loving myth. Not so sure if that extends to tube amps, for example. But cable burn in is loving hilarious. How exactly do cables "burn-in"? KillHour posted:Go big or go home: Good lord. I have seen AC line conditioners that supposedly clean up the AC for better sound. The prices on those things are just ridiculous. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:It's funny because JVC has these earbuds for 17 bucks on amazon.com that actually sound better than headphones in the 400-600 dollar price range, What model are these?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
The Locator posted:What model are these? I'd guess FX40s, which aren't bad at all. I wouldn't say "better than 500-600 headphones", but not bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Past the FLAC area into WAV files, you'd have to get a really detailed headphone to even spot the difference, and if some claim to, I'd be more than glad to call them out on their bullshit. Not trying to be a dick (since you clearly have your head on straight), but there's no difference whatsoever between a FLAC and a WAV. That's what the "L" in FLAC stands for—"lossless". You'd be right to call someone out on claiming to know the difference, because there literally is no difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I am almost convinced burn in is a total loving myth. Not so sure if that extends to tube amps, for example. But cable burn in is loving hilarious. How exactly do cables "burn-in"? Did you see the thread title? (Also: "almost"  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Do phono cartridges actually need a break in period or is that also just audiophile garbage? It makes sense since it's has moving parts, but I don't want to spread bullshit through my own ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
You could argue that the stylus needs to wear out a little bit, but who really knows. Nobody for sure, that's who.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Do phono cartridges actually need a break in period or is that also just audiophile garbage? It makes sense since it's has moving parts, but I don't want to spread bullshit through my own ignorance. A few seconds, maybe even more? Can't imagine it being more than a few minutes. The cantilever suspension is the only thing that gets 'broken in'. Carts don't really sell like hotcakes so I can imagine one having sat in a storage for years or decades so it's quite possible it'll sound different after a moment's use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Pro-tip: to avoid loose connections, run a few mA of DC through your cables, this is one weird tip the telephone company has been keeping from us for years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
I have a question for you guys. If a headphone say has a frequency range from x to y, does that really matter versus what the human ear can actually hear at certain frequencies? It sounds highly suspicious when headphones boast about stuff like that.Penguissimo posted:Not trying to be a dick (since you clearly have your head on straight), but there's no difference whatsoever between a FLAC and a WAV. That's what the "L" in FLAC stands for—"lossless". You'd be right to call someone out on claiming to know the difference, because there literally is no difference. LOL that's what I tried to say in my post but it didn't come out that way. I've seen plenty of audiophiles say they can hear a difference between a FLAC file and a WAV one. Because the latter is uncompressed and at a consistent 1124kbps (I think that's the number) versus that of FLAC which could range from 700-900kbps, I've seen plenty of stupidity validating 40 MB per song just to keep it as WAV. Im not sure if foobar2000 is an anomaly in this because I can tag WAV files using freedb and Windows recognizes the tags. But it's sort of impossible to do any real tagging on them. But how my Sansa Clip+ sorts music is by folders so it wouldn't matter how things are tagged. And no I don't use WAV files either, unless you absolutley must have them archived that way. Anyway depending on the source it doesn't mean jackshit anyway. Hell play 256kbps or VBR files on your iPod with their earbuds and you couldn't tell a difference between that and Apple lossless. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Because the latter is uncompressed and at a consistent 1124kbps (I think that's the number) versus that of FLAC which could range from 700-900kbps, I've seen plenty of stupidity validating 40 MB per song just to keep it as WAV. They can't even argue that the "unzipping" process takes too long and introduces playback stutter or whatever bullshit because it's actually faster and more accurate to read a smaller file from disk and decompress/play it in memory than reading the large, uncompressed data from a slow-rear end harddrive. RoadCrewWorker fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
^^ I don't disagree with you, I'm just relaying what I hear from audiophiles all the time. grack posted:I'd guess FX40s, which aren't bad at all. Ok so I exaggerated a little bit, but it's not that off IMO. I found more enjoyment with those IEMs than a Grado. Plus Grado sucks because they use the same driver in different wood cups and charge whatever they want for it. I think those IEMs have excellent bass quality and depth. A few hip hop tracks it sounds distorted but otherwise it's good. I bought a Klipsch X10 last year during black Friday on Amazon which was 75 dollars IIRC. Original price was 350, but I sent them back becaus I still preferred the JVC. I know it might sound like I'm overhyping them a lot, but for the cost I was really surprised by them and I use them on a daiy basis. YMMV though. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I have a question for you guys. If a headphone say has a frequency range from x to y, does that really matter versus what the human ear can actually hear at certain frequencies? It sounds highly suspicious when headphones boast about stuff like that. Not really, no. All that says is that it can produce sounds at that frequency, but not whether someone can actually hear it or not. For that, it really depends on factors like age, hearing loss, etc. If you're over 25, you're probably not going to hear anything above 17kHz, so take that as you will. Additionally, the power it takes for you to hear certain frequencies is wildly different. GonadTheBallbarian fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:^^ I don't disagree with you, I'm just relaying what I hear from audiophiles all the time. Comparing IEMs to cups is apples to oranges though, it's like comparing a car system to home audio. The bass quality and depth you're "hearing" is because of bone conduction, and the X10s are bright as gently caress so it's easy to hate them. I'm not 100% disagreeing with you, because I'm totally on board with the facts that people are idiots and there are some amazing underpriced IEMs, but your comparisons are with two notably bright examples so maybe you just hated their signatures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I've seen plenty of audiophiles say they can hear a difference between a FLAC file and a WAV one. Because the latter is uncompressed and at a consistent 1124kbps (I think that's the number) versus that of FLAC which could range from 700-900kbps, I've seen plenty of stupidity validating 40 MB per song just to keep it as WAV. CD-quality WAV is 1411 kbps, which is because it's a 16 bit wide data stream with a 44.1 kHz sample rate and 2 channels for stereo  Actually it comes out to 1411.2 kbps if you want to be precise, but nobody cares about the last .2 of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:CD-quality WAV is 1411 kbps, which is because it's a 16 bit wide data stream with a 44.1 kHz sample rate and 2 channels for stereo The last .2 adds important warmth and opens up the soundstage in ways your worthless ears would never understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 20:24
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:
I've got a set of Beats Pros and they sound great.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I have a question for you guys. If a headphone say has a frequency range from x to y, does that really matter versus what the human ear can actually hear at certain frequencies? It sounds highly suspicious when headphones boast about stuff like that. It does. But the thing is, super high-frequencies (I'd say 16khz and beyond) aren't something you should worry about. I did a blind test once with some tracks straight from a CD and compared to a 192kbps mp3 burned from the CD. I couldn't notice a difference with low-quality headphones but I could using the Denon D5000 by then. It took a WHILE to actually notice what was different, but once I did it was easy to get them correct 100% of the time. The difference? Hiss. Pretty much hiss. Hiss, noise, and if the headphone is bad or the music is poorly mastered, hellish sibilance. Tiny details here and there. So yes, it does matter in the sense that you WILL get extra detail if you're listening to FLAC or CD while using a good headphone and assuming your ear can still hear these frequencies. It doesn't matter in the sense that it's almost always irrelevant detail you most likely won't notice during normal listening. If you're above 25 and can still hear anything above 17/18khz you'll probably see it more like a curse than anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Personal preference doesn't count as proof for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Elentor posted:It does. But the thing is, super high-frequencies (I'd say 16khz and beyond) aren't something you should worry about. So you and I are in agreement with hearing poor mastering jobs or overblown remastering then right? I know this is entirely anecdotal, but am I far off to say I hear a wider soundstage and better dimensional imaging with tracks that are FLAC files or even 320kbps? Also, do you at all regret the Denon D5000 purchase? They are pretty expensive, then again with those I don't think an amplifier is required. And yes I am noticing changes in my hearing as I am turning 26 this year, and it is somewhat of an annoyance. Pudgygiant posted:Comparing IEMs to cups is apples to oranges though, it's like comparing a car system to home audio. The bass quality and depth you're "hearing" is because of bone conduction, and the X10s are bright as gently caress so it's easy to hate them. Well I prefer orthodynamic headphones for listening at home, which is darker than a Grado, for example. I really liked the Sennheiser 650s, but it was too analytical for my taste. I like a fuller bodied sound versus accuracy. My first exposure into better headphones was a Sennheiser HD80 until I blew it messing with an equalizer. grack posted:Personal preference doesn't count as proof for anything. AppleCobbler posted:I've got a set of Beats Pros and they sound great. 
Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:So you and I are in agreement with hearing poor mastering jobs or overblown remastering then right? I think it's psychological. A lot of high-frequency details might help the brain to process the signal better, yes, but I'm willing to bet your brain is amplifying the effect. My favorite pair of cans are the AD900s. I wish they had a bit more bass. You probably wouldn't like them, because I think they're more "analytical" than the 650s. But other than the AD900s I like orthodynamic headphones, I'd say the Hifiman HE-400 is my second favorite because it sounds like a turbo-enhanced version of the Koss Porta-Pro which, gently caress the haters, is one of my favorite phones. I live in Brazil, selling used headphones here results in a net profit because things here are so, so pricey. So I can keep buying headphones, listening to them, and selling them cheap while still maintaining a small profit from the transaction. Aside from the initial investment it's a pretty cheap pseudo-hobby to maintain. The downside is that I never have more than two (decent) headphones at once, so it's hard to compare aside from memory. As for the Denon, it was a good set of cans, but I think they were really overpriced. For me, at least, I'm sure someone somewhere would love them. Elentor fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Part of the theory behind having ultra-wide frequency response (say, 10 hZ - 100 kHz or something) is that if the electronics are capable of handling frequencies that far out they are very unlikely to have any phase distortion or other errors within the audible band. Some of it might be dick-waving but I think there's at least a little truth to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:Part of the theory behind having ultra-wide frequency response (say, 10 hZ - 100 kHz or something) is that if the electronics are capable of handling frequencies that far out they are very unlikely to have any phase distortion or other errors within the audible band. Some of it might be dick-waving but I think there's at least a little truth to it. In theory yes, but in practice they just put numbers on a box. Without an actual measured response curve, phase and group delay plots it's more or less irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:In theory yes, but in practice they just put numbers on a box. Without an actual measured response curve, phase and group delay plots it's more or less irrelevant. But my 3000 watt home theater system from Walmart ($59.99) is legitimately 3000 watts. . . right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Blistex posted:But my 3000 watt home theater system from Walmart ($59.99) is legitimately 3000 watts. . . right? 3000 watts ISL* If Struck by Lightning
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Here's a pro-tip for low distortion audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-F59UnEY8&t=462s 27 minutes in they demonstrate how to bias it into class A
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
That is probably the geekiest thing I have ever seen on Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:That is probably the geekiest thing I have ever seen on Youtube. Well that can't stand.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb3UobSZl34
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Well that can't stand.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb3UobSZl34 I think sir, that you will find that video to be nerdy, not geeky
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I think sir, that you will find that video to be nerdy, not geeky So,it I have this right: Nerdy = Anime, Swords, etc... Geeky = Technical stuff... Creepy = Ponies...
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Nah ... Nerdy = Intelligent but socially awkward Geeky = heavily interested in a hobby I'll bet the Katana guy self-identifies as a geek. Of course, he is actually a nerd. Like many of us here on Somethingawful. And like many Bronies. Wikipedia posted:Nerd is a derogatory term for a person who is intellectually knowledgeable or bright, but socially inept. Wikipedia posted:The word geek is a slang term for odd or non-mainstream people, with different connotations ranging from "a computer expert or enthusiast" to "a person heavily interested in a hobby", with a general pejorative meaning of "a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp[ecially] one who is perceived to be overly intellectual".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
longview posted:Here's a pro-tip for low distortion audio: Analog electronics expertise seems to be linearly correlated with beard size.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Anybody want a 1M RCA cable for 1700 euros? http://www.head-fi.org/t/576614/nordost-valhalla-reference-rca-wbt-nextgen The reason he's selling them? He upgraded to more expensive ones. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Anybody want a 1M RCA cable for 1700 euros? He even notes the class of plastic used for the insulation 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
But it's high purity!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 11:48
|
|
