|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I've never seen a switch like he's talking about, maybe he can post an example? The only thing I can think of is like a source selector where position 3 is position 1 plus position 2, then that layout makes sense from both a use standpoint and probably a wiring one. Most of my DJ mixers inputs are like that, left is phono 1, middle is line 1, right is phono 3, but that's more of a design choice for doing tricks rather than a necessity.
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:You should just be able to use whatever input you didn't use on that little amp and connect that to the primary input of the system that the sub was a part of, be it on the sub or a box attached to it. Because you have no speakers attached to that system anymore, all you should get is the noises that would have come out of the sub. I did this for years with a Logitech z something 5.1 sub. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Was just flicking through youtube watching a video on redlining mixers and how it fucks your signal path (obviously). Then in the related videos found a video on about digital cables where the dude was like "if you pay X amount on digital thinking it'll make a difference, you're mad" and in the comments:quote:Several others have picked up on this also, what you've missed when it comes to digital cables is that you're not trying to maintain the actual data being passed. You're aim is to lower resistance so that data gets to its destination as fast as possible. Poor cables can give noticeable lag which is a bastard for sound cards. That's where the value comes in.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
So let's see exactly how little sense that guy is making. The speed of light is approximately 300,000,000 meters per second. According to wikipedia, the speed of electricity in consumer devices can be anywhere from 50% to 99% of the speed of light, so let's say the worst-case scenario is 150,000,000 meters per second. That's roughly 15-30 centimeters per nanosecond. In other words, the signal traveling down a 2 meter long cable will be delayed between 6.6 and 13.2 nanoseconds. So either cheap cable manufacturers have somehow invented an electricity delay line in the shape of inexpensive copper wiring, and are selling this wonder of technology for next to nothing, or that guy is making literally no sense at all. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 14:54 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
They're probably hooked on to the fact that latency is an actual issue for people doing recording, and decided that it must affect their playback too. Which it obviously doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Either that or they're somehow extrapolating the idea that you have to adjust relative delay for multi-speaker setups with varying distances to the listener and assume the speed of sound "in cables" is the same as in air? You know, the kind of interpretation that "feels" right and smart if you're totally ignorant.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
RoadCrewWorker posted:Either that or they're somehow extrapolating the idea that you have to adjust relative delay for multi-speaker setups with varying distances to the listener and assume the speed of sound "in cables" is the same as in air? You know, the kind of interpretation that "feels" right and smart if you're totally ignorant. Well, the audiophile world has spent decades comparing signals in cables to water in pipes, so it's no wonder the gullible audiophiles are confused.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Finally! A sure fire way of finding out whether you are an audiophile... http://www.clickhole.com/quiz/are-you-audiophile-2491?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feeds
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
quote:I named my car “Beats By Dre” then drove it off a cliff. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
The Onion is pretty good and Clickventures are the best game genre of 2015 "I can distinguish between earbuds and over-the-ear headphones." has never been that hilarious in context
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
RoadCrewWorker posted:The Onion is pretty good and Clickventures are the best game genre of 2015 Clickhole is insanely good. I think I've listened to the "Original theme music from Jaws" a dozen times.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Here's a bunch of bullshit for the PC audiophiles: Elfidelity PC SNR enhancment for PCI bus  ElFidelity PC SNR Enahancment for USB Power  ElFidelity PC SNR Enhancement RAM Power Purifier  Here's the company web site (in Chinese): Elfidelity Home Page And a similar product from HIS: HisDigital PC Video Noise Enhancment  E: And there's more! http://www.ebay.com/itm/251893473120 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Elfidelity-...=item3cf61b27e4 KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 12:35 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Well I received the second set of ElFidelity SATA filters yesterday. Installed in my other music server - this time without changing the PS (this unit already had a nice fanless PS unit). These things are blowing me away! The added air, transparency, bass depth is excellent - immediately noticeable. I mean a major step forward - sound stage wider and deeper. I'm truly shocked - how $40 worth of these could have such an effect. I have three HDs in this machine, one had a SotM filter the other none. I only added two of the ElFidelities, as that's what I had ordered. I'll order another to replace the SotM SATA and a couple of the fan filters to replace the SotM's already installed. I have two empty RAM slots so will order a couple of those filters and a PCI-E board as well. I'm sold on these http://www.head-fi.org/t/754654/new-pc-music-server-build-project-all-ssd-no-fans/105 Edit: that drat computer will run for 5 minutes after pulling the plug on it. A Lone Girl Flier fucked around with this message at 15:18 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Why isn't he using a first gen PS1 for his cd audio playback
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Why isn't he using a first gen PS1 for his cd audio playback Pfft, that's for his stereo setup, not his receiver. Also, he probably has it covered in three feet of caulking. Why is it so difficult to tell the difference between shills, people making jokes and True BelieversTM? I read one and a half pages of that thread and I'm already thinking "Nuclear sterilization, yes, that could work."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
grack posted:Also, he probably has it covered in three feet of caulking. Never do that. You have to pack around it with jute and lambswool, then smear pitch all over that. Same effect, but no nasty caulking chemicals eating away at your capacitors.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
It's "test your hearing" time! http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality The comments are a cornucopia of the Dunning-Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:It's "test your hearing" time! quote:I got them all except the Jay Z one, but that's not "music" anyway. I used the mediocre-to-poor built-in speakers on my Dell laptop. The uncompressed files had a fullness to them that was obvious to me, even with my subpar gear. Amazing first sentence. Also unbelievable third sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
2/6 (iMac -> Minidisc -> Sansui amp -> Mordaunt Short midsize speakers). I think the test mainly showed me that properly compressed 128kbit audio can sound pretty good compared to how the old Fraunhofer IIS encoder used to do things back in the day, where every cymbal hit sounded like absolute garbage. And if that 128kbit audio is in a code like AAC encoded from source? I'm happy with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
I am so in tune with sound quality that I was able to ace the test without even listening  WAV is slowest to load
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:He's half right. Audiophiles are bad but goons are bad too. In PC hardware analogy, a Behringer UCA202 DAC would be akin to Nvidia selling a GTX Titan X SLI for the price of a 8GB USB flashdrive which will be shunned by our game-o-philes who would rather be discussing to death about whether their $10,000 VGA cables makes any difference to the FPS on their lovely 1024x768 TN LCD screens when playing Doom 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Palladium posted:In PC hardware analogy, a Behringer UCA202 DAC would be akin to Nvidia selling a GTX Titan X SLI for the price of a 8GB USB flashdrive which will be shunned by our game-o-philes who would rather be discussing to death about whether their $10,000 VGA cables makes any difference to the FPS on their lovely 1024x768 TN LCD screens when playing Doom 1. They improve the emotional depth of the game, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
grack posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
The SA Vinyl thread is generally pretty good with most posters just listing their recent finds at thrift stores, cool limited editions and most have an understanding that the vinyl format isn't inherently better than anything else out there. But sometimes...Brinner posted:I can listen to vinyl for hours at a time with no listening fatigue, whereas cd/digital kills my ears after an hour or two. Brinner posted:No I'm equating critically listening to music for 12-13 hours a day and getting paid for it. Try mixing a decent post rock track after 8 hours of listening to Mr Top End on CD. Suppose it does sound pretty At least he realises it's crazy, but...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The SA Vinyl thread is generally pretty good with most posters just listing their recent finds at thrift stores, cool limited editions and most have an understanding that the vinyl format isn't inherently better than anything else out there. But sometimes... First of all there is no such thing as vinyl format and second of all LPs are inherently better than CDs, just not sound quality-wise. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
I hate CDs, so you've got no argument there. I've been MP3/vinyl only for many years now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
On Friday I'm going down to the Men's Shed to convert a bunch of dude's records onto CD, DVD and MP3. Will report back any audiophile nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I hate CDs, so you've got no argument there. I've been MP3/vinyl only for many years now. What's wrong with CDs? Other than the fact that FLAC etc. downlads have made it obsolete as a storage format for digital audio, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:What's wrong with CDs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The SA Vinyl thread is generally pretty good with most posters just listing their recent finds at thrift stores, cool limited editions and most have an understanding that the vinyl format isn't inherently better than anything else out there. But sometimes... I don't think he's crazy. The loudness war means a lot of poo poo released on CD is overdriven and has the dynamic range compressed all to poo poo. If you tried doing that with vinyl (to that extent, vinyl's where the trend started in the first place), you'd snap off styluses.  Listening to stuff that's all peaks is fatiguing, and I think that's what he's referring to ("Mr Top End").
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't think he's crazy. The loudness war means a lot of poo poo released on CD is overdriven and has the dynamic range compressed all to poo poo. If you tried doing that with vinyl (to that extent, vinyl's where the trend started in the first place), you'd snap off styluses. a good post; this is why I cannot listen to the latest albums of some of my favorite bands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the lack of dynamic range (compression) and overall loudness similar but different? Compression generally means to me that the softest guitar plucking would be the same volume as the drums in the mix, resulting in a really boring and flat sound. This doesn't necessarily mean the waveform is clipped or that the needle would jump out of the groove if it was pressed to vinyl. Loudness is where you see clipping and it's like they just cranked the master volume slider to 11, and this is the real cause of listener fatigue. So with that in mind, modern vinyl albums might have the same level of compression as their CD versions (because they were likely made using the same digital master), but the overall volume is lower to prevent clipping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:What's wrong with CDs? taqueso posted:They take up space. Yep, all these points. I jumped into MP3 back in 1997 and over time with portable devices that supported it (like MP3 CD players, iPods) it just became my absolute go to format while CDs took up space and didn't look as pretty as vinyl (which I started collecting around the same time). In the end I put most of my CD collection into binders with just the front art and the disc, half of which are probably in the wrong slot or on various spindles somewhere. Quality wise, I have zero complaints about CD at all. It sounds great, and tbh as good as music probably needs to sound for the mass market. Digital gives comparable quality and an absolute ton of convenience positives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the lack of dynamic range (compression) and overall loudness similar but different? Compression generally means to me that the softest guitar plucking would be the same volume as the drums in the mix, resulting in a really boring and flat sound. This doesn't necessarily mean the waveform is clipped or that the needle would jump out of the groove if it was pressed to vinyl. Loudness is where you see clipping and it's like they just cranked the master volume slider to 11, and this is the real cause of listener fatigue. So with that in mind, modern vinyl albums might have the same level of compression as their CD versions (because they were likely made using the same digital master), but the overall volume is lower to prevent clipping. You're right, and also wrong. Loudness and dynamic compression are indeed two different things, but they've both been used for a while to make hotter records. Photek and some other DNB producers owned their own presses, and would reportedly push the amplitude limit to the point where the cutting needle would break, and back off a little from there, just to ensure that when their vinyl got played at a club it'd be *that* much louder. Partly that's because in club scenarios you have problems with gain before feedback, because with poor isolation of the turntable and really loud speakers the bass from the speakers starts getting picked up by the phonograph cartridge, so maybe you legitimately want a record that's got a higher amplitude to begin with. But CDs can be abused to much greater levels Perceptually/psychoacoustically, dynamic compression will make things sound louder, even though the peak amplitude might be no higher. That's why (until the CALM act changed things), commercials on TV would sound so much louder than the programming they were accompanying: the commercials were dynamically compressed to a higher average range, so even though they wouldn't show up any louder on an SPL meter, they *sounded* louder because they were all peak. And you definitely get this in CDs; even for reissues of stuff from the 50s or 60s, they just get slammed all the way to the wall and anything that relied on dynamics for effect is just ruined. RS had a good article on this years ago, and I don't think things have gotten much better since then: http://www.electriccity.be/Images/The%20Death%20of%20High%20Fidelity%20_%20Rolling%20Stone.pdf Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
You don't have to dance around it by saying dynamic compression makes things 'sound louder, psychoacoustically'. It makes things louder period (post make up gain). Just not the peaks. Everything else literally gets made louder. More/longer parts of the track will be loud. It won't register a higher maximum on a peak meter, but a peak meter isn't a measure of anything but whether you are going beyond the technical limits of your gear. Pretty much any other measurement of loudness will give you a higher readout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
High Resolution Audio: Everything you need to knowquote:These sites use compressed file formats with relatively and low bitrates, such as 256kbps AAC files on iTunes and 320kbps MP3 streams on Spotify. quote:The more bits there are meanwhile, the more accurately the signal can be measured in the first place, so 16-bit to 24-bit can see a noticeable leap in quality. quote:With more information to play with, high-resolution audio tends to boast greater detail and texture, bringing listeners closer to the original performance. quote:As with all the products we review, if you can't see or hear a difference, then save your money... Some gold in the comments too: quote:Nyquist was not a Musician. quote:What a lot of tecnical bla, bla,bla from arrogant prigs who are telling me what I can hear and what not........My only reference are my ears, and believe it or not, I hear the difference! Also their top recommended streamer [$3000] looks like an '80s car stereo had a baby with a Creative Nomad 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
After owning a Cyrus amp for a short while, I've convinced 50% of the manufacturing budget went into the 3" thick enclosure because that poo poo isn't cheap from my experience. It definitely didn't go into the internal components. Form factor is really nice but it sounds like every other "high end audiophile" piece of hardware: crazy bright because audiophiles have hearing damage and equate brightness with "detail". Chafe fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
qirex posted:High Resolution Audio: Everything you need to know What really makes it is that the LCD looks like it came from those old blue on grayish green LCDs used for bad Game Boy clone consoles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What really makes it is that the LCD looks like it came from those old blue on grayish green LCDs used for bad Game Boy clone consoles. You wouldn't want color in the screen interfering with the color of the sound obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Endless Mike posted:You wouldn't want color in the screen interfering with the color of the sound obviously. It could at least be a slightly higher end black-on-white LCD. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 00:39
|
|