Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Jerry Cotton posted:

Incidentally, I've noticed that more and more you'll find gold-plated (or, as it may be, gold-coloured) connectors on the shittiest Chinese-made Fuckshit-brand products out there because that's the thing people want. A lot of "pro" stuff I've bought recently has had nickel-plated connectors even though I'm fairly sure older models had gold.

All of my audio and computer gear etc. is a wonderful mixture of gold and nickel plating. OH NOES THE CORROSIONS DISSIMILAR METALS, I guess.

Hasn't made a lick of difference, the sound doesn't crackle when I move or turn the connectors, everything sounds like it should. Unlike my old cheapo Chinese MP3 player where I sometimes had to turn the headphone jack back and forth a few times to make sure I got sound in both channels.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Combat Pretzel posted:

In the end, it's still just stupid poo poo. Just like these magical power cords, that oh so improve the sound. I like how its users completely disregard the wiring of their house and that, that leads from the main hub to their house. Gold plating serves poo poo, if the wiring and solder points of all the devices in the chain aren't made of pixie dust.

Gold or nickel plating can make a difference.

If you have a habit of dunking your electronics in salt water, have acid fumes in your house (get out now!) or subject your electronics to similarly corrosive conditions.

I've helped pull down speakers from malls where the electronics and connectors hadn't been touched for half a century. There was no corrosion at all, just a bit of dust. Hell, I've pulled stuff from the engine compartments of cars and there was no corrosion in the connections themselves. If anyone thinks corroded connections could ever be a problem in their home setups, they're absolutely mad.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Feb 25, 2012

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Combat Pretzel posted:

Nah, I mean from the sound quality perspective. Audiophiles wouldn't care about anti-corrosive properties, because they're probably the firm belief that things like these wear out and have to be replaced every year.

Well, corrosion could cause a degradation in sound quality on analog connections. My aforementioned MP3 player's headphone jack is a prime example, sound quality (volume levels, actually) would vary between the left and right channels until I turned the headphone jack back and forth a couple of times. It was probably due to both the male and female connectors being made as cheaply as possible, with no plating of any kind and having teeny-tiny contact surfaces. Carrying it around in various pockets and bags and exposing them to dust and humid air probably didn't help, either.

Unlike to the massively idiot things a lot of audiophiles believe about cable burn-in, directionality and so on, corrosion is actually a factor in some types of connections. Not ones you'd ever have to worry about in your home setup, but compared to a lot of other audiophoolery, it has a tiny microscopic grain of actual relevance.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Laserface posted:

Just saw this on my facebook



there you have it. Bose>Beats. headphone discussion from this day forth is moot.

Urge to sperg... Rising!

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Manchild King posted:

*edit* I have figured out why audiophiles prefer vinyl. I'm thinking it's because with records there are so many potential points of failure in a system, this gives audiophiles many many things to upgrade and tweak whether the problem is real or imagined. I actually own two short lengths of monster cable. I figured it was worth it for the peace of mind, even though they likely sound the same as coathangers. I suppose that's what audiophiles are really buying. Peace of mind. The knowledge that a certain component isn't letting down the rest of the system.

I think you're exactly right. Analog audio reproduction leaves room for tweaking and unlike with digital audio reproduction, a fair number of these tweaks actually do something, for good or bad.

Like for instance interconnects. With a turntable, the output is very delicate and needs a lot of amplification, which is why you need good-quality interconnects to preserve the signal and shield against interference. Then you have things like cleaning the records, vibration damping, heavy turntable platters and so on.

A lot of audiophiles then erroneously believe that these very same tweaks (and more, like green pens) also apply to digital audio reproduction and you get insane poo poo like people spending $1000+ on USB cables. Digital has lowered the bar for how much you need to spend to get good sound, and I think a lot of elitist audiophiles hate digital for precisely that reason.

I think you could call me a "it's good enough" kind of guy. $2000 second-hand speakers (from a very well-respected brand, though) and a 15 year old Pioneer stereo amp, fed directly from my PC, and it sounds bloody good to my ears. I just don't feel like spending more money on equipment is worth it considering how small my apartment is and the limits of my living room.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Tesseraction posted:

Well it's more to do with the fact that digital recordings are "best reproductions" of the original analogue signal. Computers aren't very good at drawing true curved lines, and in terms of audio this means that in synthesising the audio output it merely produces a bar-chart like reproduction of the sound. For the vast majority of people this is fine, but because digital methods strip the music of the inaudible (greater than 2 kilohertz) registers to keep the file size low, most old-schoolers don't like this as it apparently robs the music of its "warmth" on playback, and while there are a few studies that report that inaudible frequencies can still affect the mind, I feel that any difference is negligible at the very most.

Edit: oh I suppose I should mention, CDs still have greater than the 20kH line, up to 24kH I believe? But vinyl allows ridiculous levels of Hertz simply by being analogue (thus not limited by digital space saving techniques).

No goddammit. This is the stupidest misconception ever and self-proclaimed audiophile "experts" like to parade it around telling everyone that there are "gaps" in digital sound or that they can hear the "staircases".

If you generate a 20kHz perfectly analog sine wave, record it digitally in 44.1kHz 16bit CD-quality and then play both that and the original analog 20kHz source back into a good oscilloscope, you WILL NOT be able to tell the difference between the original analog-generated sine wave and the digital recording. There is NO DIFFERENCE.

Anyone who still thinks that digital audio consists of "bar charts" or "stairsteps" or whatever need to educate themselves and read up on the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem as well as the method by which analog-digital and digital-analog converters work.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Tesseraction posted:

Uh... I know? I wasn't agreeing I was explaining the audiophile delusion?

Good.

But please put in a disclaimer next time. My blood pressure can't take that kind of punishment

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


"DIY build quality", my rear end. I would be ashamed to have anything that badly constructed anywhere near my outlets.

More like "Bodge job build quality".

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Pudgygiant posted:

oh god here's how audiophile rumors get started

Even better: http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3#post_8267530

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Hammer Floyd posted:

I've never heard a set of headphones that I get enough bass definition from. I know it's there, but I often find it hard to discern what the bass player is doing.

IMHO, Bass needs room to develop.

There is plenty of bass in good headphones, as in you're getting all the right frequencies delivered straight to your ears with precision. But what's lacking is the tactile feeling in the rest of your body.

Ain't no way to get that outside of a set of speakers big enough to drive your neighbors mad, or a bass shaker on your chair.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Well, I had a vinylizer-type plugin back when I used Winamp, but all it did was add scratches, wow, dust and narrowed the frequency band a bit. It was never proclaimed to be an audiophile plugin, just a bit of fun to play around with and fiddle with the settings.

But I am dead certain there are people out there who would pay money to have their sound quality degraded like that.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jun 26, 2012

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Ron Burgundy posted:

Oh god, I thought that all the threads I read about the low serial Playstations having an OUTSTANDING D/A chip only found in $8000 CD players was just a bad dream. It's all coming back!

It's even better than that. The Playstation is a mediocre CD player at best. You have to use the game controller or an addon DVD remote kit to control it, you have no track or time information unless you hook up a TV and frequency response rolls off on both low and high frequencies.

But because some whack-job audiophile once proclaimed it to be the bestest CD player EVAH, people are going crazy for 1st-generation Playstations with the RCA outputs.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Khablam posted:

I actually have 2 of these ferreted away at my parents place. What are they going for? I was going to get them recycled, but if I can make money off lunatics instead, I'll chose that option.

I bet you could get at least $50, according to eBay. Probably more if it's modded:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Twilmods-PS...=item416dfe7804

SCPH-1001 and SCPH-1002 seem to be the magic models.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Khablam posted:

Dark Side will endlessly be held up as a "benchmark of music production", but there's nothing special about it in 2012 that warrants all the adoration it receives today, not when progressive artists have since far surpassed the audio quality of the work, let along Floyd themselves doing so.

Personally, I consider Boston's first album as much more important in the context of music production. Not necessarily as a benchmark today, although it still sounds pretty drat good. More as a significant milestone and an example of what you can achieve with the right equipment and a good understanding of multitrack recording and overdubbing (and Tom Sholz at the wheel). It's a shame it's been so severely overplayed on classic rock radio, though.

quote:

As a related piece of irony, Alan Parsons (producer of DSoTM) has previously claimed that Audiophiles waste money chasing diminishing returns on equipment (and don't know what they're doing WRT room acoustics), that Vinyl sound-quality falls behind a well mastered CD, and that high-street-bought sound systems are usually "good enough."

Wasn't it Alan Parsons who said that audiophiles listen to their equipment, not the music?

I've always liked the production on his albums, they're slick without being overproduced and it's easy to pick out every instrument in the mix.

That's another thing stuff like Black Sabbath got right. The music is heavy, but the mix is perfectly balanced so you can actually hear the drat bass guitar. Most modern rock/metal records fail that test and it sucks.

quote:

On the plus side, people make decent money marketing music based on the quality rather than the content: http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7114434&style=music (theres loads of examples) - which must be nice.

As a previously-aspiring musician, and roadie/sound technician for my dad's spare time rock band, I think it's perfectly OK to listen to a piece of music purely for the quality of the recording and production. I like picking out the bass lines and rhythms in music I might otherwise not listen to. I admire the ultra-slick production of modern pop music, but it's not something I'd be able to lose myself in. It ceases to be a piece of music as art and more of a technical exercise.

I guess you could call me an audiophile because I tend to pick out certain little soundbites and passages in music and focus on them because they just hit me in a certain way, even if I find the rest of the song a bit meh.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Nov 22, 2012

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Khablam posted:

When I think about this, I think some people spergs just like to massively fetishize tech specs, even when it seems rather mundane.

It's just a man thing, we like to measure ourselves against our rivals in any way possible.

Tech specs, horsepower, weightlifting, house size, clothes, watches, head hair, height, significant others etc. etc.. When you break it down, it's all just a dick measuring contest.

And men happen to really like lists of stats. Check out every car review, every tech review, every piece of sports coverage ever. Stats, stats, stats. If item A has 20 more whatsits in stat X than item B does, it's automatically 20 more better.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 23, 2012

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Boiled Water posted:

If you have to break-in electronic equipment wouldn't it make most sense to buy used?

But then you couldn't be sure that it was broken in with the correct sequence of white noise and Hansi Hinterseer schlagerhits

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Ultimate Mango posted:

In other news I fully expect to be banned from Head fi for suggesting that people listen and decide on what to buy for themselves rather than go on charts and graphs.

No, that's actually pretty much in line with standard audiophile reasoning. According to them, science and measurements are not to be trusted because your ears are much finer instruments for determining sound quality than some fancy piece of test equipment.

Apparently, measuring sound takes all the 'feeling' and 'emotion' out of it.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


piratepilates posted:

Sure I'm saying I can't tell the difference and it's not worth it, but don't you want an improvement you won't even notice?!??!

I also don't remember where I saw it so I can't quote it but I also saw someone say how FLAC sounded better than ALAC, I really want to know what these people think happens when they play music because it just baffles me.

I rip to FLAC for archival purposes. No matter how good MP3 at 320kbps is, it's still lossy. FLAC lets me recreate my CDs 1:1, should I ever lose them.

Regarding the FLAC vs. ALAC thing, those are the same people who think using a different USB cable on their external hard drives will make an audible difference, and the people who think digitally stored music degrades when you play it.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Combat Pretzel posted:

Unless you intend to re-encode ALL your music every time a portable playback device comes with a newer generation audio codec, there's zero use in lossless archiving.

Actually, if you're listening to the compressed versions all the time, it may just be the actual version to you, anyway, with no need to keep an archival version. And considering how hosed up the masters are when they hit the markets (loudness wars), I think bit-perfect archiving is silly to begin with.

That's precisely the point of lossless archiving, it's a perfect copy of the original, it's my backup if anything should happen to my CDs. Backups should be perfect copies of the original, warts and all due to questionable mastering. Anything else is missing the point of a backup.

Storage space and CPU power is cheap, so I rip my music once to FLAC and transcode it on the fly if needed. My PC music player handles it seamlessly for me. Even if it didn't, my portable players all happen to play FLAC and have plenty of space.

Keeping my music in a lossless format allows me to use whichever lossy codec I want, with no cumulative loss in quality.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Combat Pretzel posted:

If that's true, it's a plus.

But anyway, if the encodings are transparent, there's economically nothing gained by keeping bit-perfect FLACs. Because it's sure as hell a pain in the rear end, whenever I have to do a full backup of my poo poo, and it's only around 35GB of compressed music. It'd be 3-4x that in FLAC.

Transcoding into every new codec of the month is also silly. If the current contemporary codec did well/transparent enough, you can keep the file in that format. Says already enough that MP3 is still prevalent, even after AAC been made mainstream years ago thanks to Apple. Don't even begin hoping that CELT goes anywhere, IETF RFC or not. Vorbis didn't manage, either.

I think my collection is only 80GB or so in FLAC. I have an external 500GB NAS that does nightly backups to my ISPs servers. Even if you do your own local backups, 2TB external drives are cheap as hell these days.

And I still have all my CDs stashed away, so while my FLAC files are backups of my CDs, my CDs are backups of my FLAC files, in a way

I am fully aware that LAME V2 MP3 is transparent, at least I can't hear any difference. I'm also the guy who transcodes any 24bit/96kHz music I come across (mostly vinyl rips of stuff not on CD) to 16bit/44.1kHz because dammit, noone can hear the difference anyway.

But I like having the best possible backup of my own CD collection, for peace of mind.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


There are a bunch of albums where I vastly prefer the vinyl rip, but that's only because the CD master has been brickwalled to death and back and to death again.

RHCP's Californication is a prime example.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


quote:

A Linux operating system just can't do what we want, doesn't sound anywhere near as good, and lacks expandability.

That's rich. More like "we were too lazy to do any kind of customization to the OS and just threw a standard Windows 7 installation on there with a hastily-made custom theme".

Actually, I take that back. Apparently, they "removed 1.5GB of audio-destroying fluff" from the standard Windows 7 installation. As someone who's worked with Windows since 3.11, I have absolutely no clue what the hell they're on about.

Luckily, the base model is only $6000!

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


88h88 posted:

"Oh, er, I'm er, busy and stuff yeah..." *incoherent mumbling*

That's usually the response.

Either that or "the cold clinical setting of a double blind test masks the difference in emotion that I can detect with my magic elf ears".

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Saving in a lossless format also allows you to transcode your music into as many different formats as you want, with no loss of quality.

MP3 is probably here to stay, but imagine that Ogg Vorbis or AAC or Musepack suddenly gained massive amounts of traction and displaced MP3 as the lossy format of choice for everyone. You'd have to transcode your files from the lossy MP3s to another lossy format. And if a format change happens again, you'll have to do another lossy transcode. It's either that or rip every single CD you own all over again, provided they are still readable.

I know the situation I described is quite unlikely, but by ripping to FLAC, I have ripped my CD collection for the last time. And I plan on keeping those same FLAC files for the rest of my life, so who knows what'll happen?

E: vvvv off-site backups, bro

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 15, 2013

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Neurophonic posted:

A spectral analysis of the output of a speaker in test conditions would be somewhat acceptable, surely?

Not really. While there will be detectable difference in the spectral analysis, that is not the point. Actually I'm not even sure if there would be a difference once you get to the actual speaker output. The THD on even the best speakers is miles and miles higher than even the most cheap-rear end amplifiers. The point is that MP3 at a decent bitrate (128 ABR for most music, 192 ABR for virtually anything else) is completely indistinguishable from the original to even the most sensitive human hearing.

This has been proven again and again with double-blind tests and yet audiophiles insist they can hear (or "feel") a difference. None of them have been able to back this up with a double-blind test.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


cheese-cube posted:

So I just read an album review and the reviewer used a bunch of audiophile-like terms to describe the music, such as "lush/lushness", "detailed", "soundscape", "palette", "scenery", "bright, "piercing midrange" and "brittleness". This got me to wondering, is it valid to use such terms to describe actual music as opposed to describing the noise produced by a bazillion dollar "audiophile" sound system?

I'd say that yes, they are a whole lot more valid when talking about music than when talking about equipment. All of the adjectives you list are basically results of the mastering process. It's about the interplay between instruments, you can have a "rich" sound without going being overwhelming, just as you can have a "sparse" or "delicate" sound.

They're completely useless when talking about CD players, amplifiers or cables, though.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


The only valid place for that kind of descriptions is with speakers or headphones, since they are by far the biggest variables in the quality of sound output you'll be getting. For amps, cables, CD players etc., those same descriptions are completely meaningless.

You have your "flattering" speakers, the ones that generally make most music sound "nice". Most people want this kind of speaker. They don't want to analyze the timbre of every little hi-hat hit in detail, but they want their rock music to sound full of energy while still being able to bring out the acoustic guitar and vocals on softer tracks. They put a little more "oomph" in the bass and generally soften the treble a bit, for instance using silk dome tweeters rather than metal dome tweeters. I guess you could call these "fun" speakers or "party" speakers or "everyday" speakers.

Then you have your "analytical" speakers, the ones that have a completely ruler-flat frequency response, studio monitors strive towards this ideal. You'll hear every little detail of a bad mix or bad compression, which is why they're no good for actually listening to your music for enjoyment's sake. Brilliant for studio work and mixing, but most studios run their mixes through a cheap set of Radio Shack speakers before sending out the master, though, to make sure it sounds good on radio. It's the target market after all.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


bigtom posted:

And then we run it thru about $15k of processing gear ourselves to tailor the sound to how the Program Director or station engineer likes it. Not as much fun processing audio for radio lately with everything looking like a square wave - all the brickwall limiting used in pop/rock music makes for a mess to process, so much so that de-clippers are being built into some new processing gear to try and clean things up.

I know, and I hate that mastering techs are basically being forced into murdering the dynamics for the sake of radio, something you guys are more than capable of doing yourselves, probably with better results.

I wish they would master the originals as good as possible, with rich dynamics and a full sound and let the end users (radio etc.) make the final adjustments to fit their usage profile. After all, you can always further compress a track, but it's impossible to "uncompress" it.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Socket Ryanist posted:

Depends on what kind of music you like. A lot of more artsy electronic music has a lot of "weird" content in the low end that can sound terrible if it just happens to line up badly with the frequency response of your speakers.

Like this track for example: [Télépopmusik]

On cheap speakers, you can barely hear that bassy synth in the background sliding all over the place until the filter opens up in the second half of the track. The first time I listened to it on headphones it blew my mind that it had been there all along.

Obviously, if all your music is really well-mastered, you'll absolutely love speakers that bring out every little detail, that's really they way it should be.

"Flattering" speakers aren't cheap or bad, though, there's an art to flattery without overemphasis. I've got a set of Audiovector C2s, and while they hide most of the warts of modern music production, they still bring enough detail to the table to be interesting. A lot bad mastering that I can easily pick out on my headphones, the speakers just sort of gracefully gloss over. It's still there, but I have to concentrate a lot more to find it. So if I'm listening to something that's got iffy mastering, listening on the speakers is a lot more enjoyable. Tracks like the one you posted go through really well both ways.

I should have added at third category of speakers, the "crap speaker". Basically anything make of plastic, silver-colored plastic in particular. Bonus points if the speakers have lights in them for some reason. For instance, my sister has one of those cheapo 5.1 "1200 watt" systems (powered by a teeny-tiny wall wart) and you literally cannot hear the kick drum in the beginning of Iron Man by Black Sabbath. It simply isn't there, it's absurd. That is the lowest common denominator, and the fact that music is being mixed for something that cheap and crappy pains me.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Feb 16, 2013

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


When they market them with phrases like "people aren't hearing all the music" and claim that Dr. Dre uses them in his own studio, they're basically claiming that their headphones are all about the sound quality.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Khablam posted:

Yup. Awesome in theory. However, most pop-music consumers aren't going to care / think they care enough about this, or lack a player that can do this properly. So when given different pieces of music to listen to they will genuinely prefer the version that is more compressed.
As much as I agree with you, it's done for very real reasons that consistently test to be true.

Considering how cheap DSPs and EQing is these days, both in cost and computing power, it's about time that we do something about the solitary volume control that's a part of every amplifier and music player in production.

Replace it with two controls, one marked 'volume' and one marked 'loudness'. The volume control should function exactly like it does today, raising the overall volume of the music. The loudness should function like a compressor, changing how loud the music sounds without altering the volume, in effect applying more and more "radio sound processing" or normalization the farther your turn it up. For simplification, implement it as a "party mode" button on mass-market stereos.

This would also be awesome for watching movies without disturbing neighbors. Turn loudness to max and volume way down, turning down the loud sound effects and turning up the speech track.

Why isn't this part of every stereo made for the last 5-10 years? We have the technology and computing power to make it happen. I know a lot of people have talked about something like this, in this thread too.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Shadowhand00 posted:

There're images out there where Dr. Dre is shown using Sony MDR Studio headphones. I doubt he's looking for a headphone that's coloring his sound when he's in the studio.

That pretty much says everything about the quality of his Beats "studio" headphones.

The headphones I have are called "studio" because actual musicians and sound techs use them in actual studios for actual music production. Fancy that

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


longview posted:

That reminds me of my favourite 80s stereo feature, the Loudness button. It's pretty funny when literally all it does is apply +10 dB to 60 Hz, especially when the stereo also has bass/treble knobs that already do +-10dB adjustments.

I think it boosts treble as well.

My nearing 2 decades old Pioneer amp has a loudness button, of course. But it also has a 'direct' button which bypasses it and the bass, treble and balance knobs completely. Since I never use any of those, I've probably had the 'direct' button permanently on for like 10 years now. Does it make a difference? Hell if I know!

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Hippie Hedgehog posted:

You mean like the "night mode" (or similarly named feature) which is present in almost every AV receiver sold in the last few years? The mode that applies a bass boost on lower volume settings, along with applying dynamic compression to give a "louder" sound. It sounds almost like your invention?

Well poo poo, looks like I'm behind the times again. Consider me schooled.

So uh... How about them wooden volume knobs? Audiophiles

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


longview posted:

Fake-e: I have schematics for a Pioneer SA-410 and it implements the Loudness in basically the same way as the Technics.

Do you have one for a Pioneer A-305R, too? Now I'm curious, it says in the service manual that it boosts both low and high frequencies.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Feb 18, 2013

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


LeftistMuslimObama posted:

You act like I can't possibly like pop music and orchestral arrangements at the same time.

There's got to be a technological solution. Maybe an audio format that includes some kind of compression profile in the file header. Portable devices could read the compression profile and do all of the EQ automatically when the track begins. Higher-quality systems would just ignore the compression profile.

Sort of like replaygain on steroids, then?

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


jonathan posted:

I've listened to all of these lately on lovely Samsung headphones that came packed with my phone, with my EQ settings "flat". These albums sound loving great, and Henry Rollins can't sing to save his life! Then I listen to something released within the last few years which probably had a fairly large recording budget, recorded at a top tier studio with some of the best engineers at the controls and we get loud muddy lovely drums with no definition. It's like each band member hired their own mix engineer and then told them to make sure THEIR portion of the song was the loudest.

I want to know who it was that decided the bass should be completely impossible to pick out in just about every single vaguely popular recording released in the last 10-15 years.

Instead of a nicely defined bass line where midrange is a huge part of the sound (think The Who, Black Sabbath or Deep Purple), you get this vague warbling that has no midrange and doesn't even hit bass frequencies particularly well. And the kick drum is reduced to single-frequency thumps.

Goddammit, both the bass guitar and kick drum have significant midrange content when recorded properly. As someone who used to play the bass and whose dad is a drummer, it pisses me off to no end when both of these instruments are completely neglected in the mix. They're the spine of the music, they make it "danceable" and rhythmic and fun. But nooooooo, let's just add another couple of rhythm guitarists instead of bothering with an actual rhythm section.

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


The real beauty of this is that you implement all of these functions with a basic DSP box.

You'll obviously need some tubes sticking out of the cabinet in a ridiculous fashion for the tube saturator, though.

KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Feb 25, 2013

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Here's a link someone posted in AI, it's a glowing review of the Bose 901. Let's play "spot the bullshit":

http://www.tonepublications.com/review/we-review-the-bose-901/

I'll start out easy. The author states that he really wants to experiment with "cable placement"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

KozmoNaut
Apr 23, 2008

Happiness is a warm
Turbo Plasma Rifle


Founded by Dr. Amar Bose, who's definitely no idiot, make no mistake. He's just sort of misguided. His reason for founding Bose was that he bought a stereo in Radioshack based purely on specs, found that it sounded horrible and decided that he could do better. Note that he admits that he only found out how horrible it sounded when other people told him after he'd played some records for them.

So Bose tried out a bunch of different ways to create "better sound through research", like the 901, various wave guide, 4th/6th order bandpass systems, replacing large woofers with huge numbers of midrange speakers, that sort of thing. Plenty of interesting stuff and loved by many people, but not really as fantastic as their marketing would have you think.

Then, they really got into the Wife Acceptance Factor thing, that you could have great sound from tiny speakers your wife wouldn't mind having on her bookshelf. This created the Acoustimass series of speakers and arguably the whole trend towards tiny satellite speakers and hidden subwoofers. This is where the "no highs, no lows, must be Bose" thing comes in. The satellites have two completely ordinary 2,5" paper cone speakers, the sub has 2 (or more, in some cases) 5-6" woofers in a 6th order bandpass design. Treble tops out at around 15-16kHz, bass bottoms out at around 50Hz and you get severe directionality issues, since the crossover is at around 250Hz because the satellites completely lack low midrange/upper bass response. Not to mention that pretty much all the bass energy is centered around 50-60hz and generally just brings one big tubby bass note to the table. My dad has an Acoustimass set. The plastic casing on the sub creaks like you wouldn't believe when it has to put in some actual work.

With Bose, you pay for the brand name and the hyperactive marketing towards people who don't know better than what Bose's glossy ads and extremely well-trained salesmen tell them.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply