Support NeoGAF

[TheExodu5]

Yeah when I got into higher end music I found out quickly how many crazy bastards are out there. I will say, that for a fact, vacuum tubes are better than transistors for audio amplification. But really, for less than $1000 you can get a headphone setup that will rival anything at any higher cost.

Even my dad thinks my AKG K702 are more accurate than his B&W 800D. You can truly get remarkable sound quality with comparitively fairly cheap headphones. You do lose the imaging though, which is a pretty big deal for some people.

 

[SuperÑ]

I love my BOSE sound system.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The article in the OP, sure, but there's any number of other well-known studies that electronics are equally useless after a certain point. See the article already posted in this thread about the audiophiles who couldn't tell the difference between extremely expensive speaker wire and coat hangers in a blind listening test.

I don't even know who these people are buying uber speaker wire, but yes that read was entertaining.

T
"but this thread and this OP sure as shit isn't it."

Ooooohkay. The topic is titled "Let's talk about how dumb audiophiles are." You really think I'm off topic by mentioning electronics?

Here's what I think: there's enough in the OP to discuss. Let's discuss that. The OP's title seems broad, but his post makes it clear that the subject to be discussed is regarding audio files. Bringing in things that are completely separate issues clouds the discussion and lets people off the hook for not reading the OP in the first place, which is a great read and deserves to be focused on. But you know what? Do you. I am by no means an audiophile, but I do like the quality in which the equipment I have reproduces my music.

To that degree, we could have a thread entitled, "Let's talk about how dumb ___________ (fill in the enthusiast group) are." After all, there are people buying $300 HDMI cables and $100 component cables, spending $3000 on their projector screens, $20,000 for their sets of standing floor speakers, $4,000 for laptops, $3,000 to get 10HP extra out of car engines they'll never race...etc. etc. I find that most enthusiast things have significant value lost due to diminishing returns and thus can be considered silly expenditures of money. They're worth it to someone, though. Since we're on the subject of cables for the moment...though I know very little about different kinds of speaker wire, I know that changing out the cables on headphones can make a ton of difference. The primary differnce AFAIK between the Denon D5000 and D7000 headphones is the cable. I owned both for awhile as I was deciding which to keep and it's amazing how much cabling can change the sound signature of headphones. Where the D5000s were soft at the top and heavy on the bass, the D7000 had obviously crisper highs, mids that were louder (or, "forward") and more control to the bass. In the end, I picked the signature I liked and went on my merry way. Headphones from Sennheiser that come with detachable cables have a number of popular alternative cables available. Can the thousands who've bought them all be wrong about how it impacts the sound? It's possible...but seems kinda unlikely.

So maybe different kinds of wire don't matter as much with floor speakers as they do with headphones. Or, maybe headphones are more sensitive to those changes. Or, perhaps when dealing with $50,000 worth of speaker equipment, the speakers themselves override any weaknesses in the wires...something that may not be true in more modestly-priced systems. Maybe it's all of these things. Who knows? The Monster cables vs hanger wire wasn't exactly scientific either, though it was an enjoyable read.

All that said, I think the depth of the article in the OP is long enough and deep enough to warrant a full discussion on its own, and should be read by all. Moving it off the topic in the first 15 posts just makes it seem like people didn't read the article at all.

I love my BOSE sound system.

Nothing wrong with that at all. But the fact of the matter is that for the same amount of money spent, you could have assembled a decidedly superior sound system. Nevertheless, you've spent your money so enjoy what you have. When you're ready to upgrade your shit, ask for advice.

 

[Always-honest]

People who can do stuff i can't are stupid.

 

[Alucrid]

Oh, I totally agree. I actually have a somewhat decent headphone setup myself, Beyer DT880s and a decent amp. I don't really consider myself an audiophile though, because I think almost anyone would prefer my setup to Apple earbuds if they did an A/B test. I get what you're saying but when I hear audiophile I basically only think of the crazies.



So that's where I'm coming from. With a nice but practical setup, in my mind you're not an audiophile, you're a guy with nice speakers. If you self-identify as an audiophile I can see why you'd be offended by the topic, but it's clear no one is talking about people like you when they're saying someone's dumb.

As for not caring about other people's business, I hate to be the one to give the typical retort, but you could, you know, not post in the thread if you're not interested in the discussion.

When it gets on GAF it is my business


supern whatever make you happy. Bose for some, hand wired cords and stones that help amplify the signal for others.

 

[FirewalkR]

So this thread is kind of about the electronic equivalent of homeopathy and the such?

*runs*

 

[Dhx]

I love my BOSE sound system.

7/10.

Fake edit: 8/10 because people are responding. I cannot go any higher because the BOSE troll is older than dirt at this point. Still, a classic.

 

[gohepcat]

Of course they can never detect a single difference they claim to in a double-blind test.

This...a thousand times this.

This is where audiophiles fall apart. When I was recently looking for a new turntable and speakers I was dumbfounded by the lack of blind tests of anything.

If seriously sucked. It's nearly impossible to get a simple answer out of anyone.

Ugg

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I would post an angry reply putting right all the wrongs committed against audiophiles but the ions in my fingers are misaligned and the sound they make when they hit the keys is terribly off-putting.

 

[Dhx]

So this thread is kind of about the electronic equivalent of homeopathy and the such?

*runs*

I'd say germaphobes may be a better analogy. There is certainly a level of fidelity to be attained but the biggest problem is shit mastering which will hopefully change in the next several years. Unfortunately, no equipment makes a shit master sound great.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

This is a Furutech SK II electrostatic brush. It costs 200 USD. Audiophiles are crazy.

They must be dumb too.:

Using disk cleaners, we wash and wipe them with cloths, but in doing so we inadvertently electro statically charge our media. Not to mention the resulting static charge from the simple action of removing them from their protective cases or covers. In the case of CDs 500~1,500V of frictional static electricity and ten times that for LPs, 3,000~20,000V.

When disk media is played in the statically charged state, generally sounds are clouded, vowel sounds become thin and lower range sounds cannot be heard to their full potential.

With regards to LPs the adding to the scratch noises, the noise from the sparks caused by static charge can be heard through the speakers during pick up.

By using the SK-II and lightly brushing the surface of LPs, CDs or DVDs in a circular motion, the sound quality of LPs and CDs will be improved and the image quality on DVD replay will also improve.

Yes. It claims that your CDs and DVDs, which are read by a laser, will sound and look better without the static electricity present.

Lasers...How do they work?

 

[Joates]

And the audiophiles are probably laughing their asses off at the stupidity of shit like 30fps vs 60fps, everything is relative.

 

[Amagon]

Beats by Dre for life!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I'd say germaphobes may be a better analogy. There is certainly a level of fidelity to be attained but the biggest problem is shit mastering which will hopefully change in the next several years. Unfortunately, no equipment makes a shit master sound great.

an important point, and one the article in the OP mentions. This article was not meant to make people feel secure with your Apple earbuds and $50 headphones, tough no doubt some will use it to try to do so (undoubtedly failing to read the article)...it was meant to draw attention to some of the fallacies employed by "audiophiles" to determine the best bit rate and bit depth for audio files. Good equipment is still the best way to get the most out of the music you have...and the better mastered the file you're listening to is, the better it will sound on your good equipment.

They must be dumb too.:



Yes. It claims that your CDs and DVDs, which are read by a laser, will sound and look better without the static electricity present.

Lasers...How do they work?

but Pristine! It's on the internet...therefore people must be buying it! Because there's nothing on the internet for sale that is going unbought.

And the audiophiles are probably laughing their asses off at the stupidity of shit like 30fps vs 60fps, everything is relative.

que? there is a significant difference between games made at 30fps and those at 60fps. same with film.

 

[KHarvey16]

And the audiophiles are probably laughing their asses off at the stupidity of shit like 30fps vs 60fps, everything is relative.

Huh? How is 30fps vs 60 fps stupidity?

 

[Pristine_Condition]

And the audiophiles are probably laughing their asses off at the stupidity of shit like 30fps vs 60fps, everything is relative.

That's not relative at all. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is universally recognized. The audiophiles are trading in utter nonsense.

DO you understand the meaning of the word "relative?"

 

[Alucrid]

7/10.

Fake edit: 8/10 because people are responding. I cannot go any higher because the BOSE troll is older than dirt at this point. Still, a classic.

Maybe he does have a Bose system he loves I ain't just gonna tell him to buy other stereo equipment

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Maybe he does have a Bose system he loves I ain't just gonna tell him to buy other stereo equipment

I'll tell him that. I've been down that road before and learned the hard way and would that others don't make the same mistakes if they can be prevented. I found out what was up AFTER the money was spent. A problem that was corrected after I got a chance to hear better. Problem is, better is rarely found in big box stores where people do most of their shopping. So when opportunities arise to help steer someone towards equipment they will enjoy more for the same or less money, I'm happy to do so. I would hope others would do the same for me.

 

[Machine]

Oh my...I don't want this to be true!
EDIT: After reading about the SUPER INTELLIGENT CHIP, it's pretty obvious this is for those older, gullible-but-insanely-rich-for-whatever-reason audiophiles out there. The language reminds me of those "Cure All" medicine salesmen. Plus all of the Looney Tunes references and copy-paste website design is a dead give away. Whoever buys anything from these guys absolutely deserves them.

Super Intelligent Chip is amazing. The description says "Any optical disc will be automatically upgraded when it is exposed to the Super Intelligent Chip for 2 seconds while the disc is being played." WHAT KIND OF MAGIC IS THAT?

 

[icecream]

The OP himself is rather confusing. The initial diatribe is in relation to how there is no improvement in using 192kHz/24-bit audio formats compared to the standard we use now, 44.1-48kHz/16-bit. The article presented a convincing arguement, and it's probably really only the fringe audiophiles that really are up in arms over the difference. The vast majority of people with audiophile-grade equipment are mostly happy with the current standards and do not claim otherwise.

Next, he attacks some random study about FLAC degradation and the people who claim that it exists and that they can perceive it from a lossless format. Fine, more crazies. Again, the majority of people who enjoy FLAC do not at all claim nor subscribe to this idea.

So up until now, there are two attacks against fringe claims about audio formats.

The strangest leap in logic that is made now is when the OP starts attacking people who buy expensive grade equipment (Monster cable and stone/cheese/cork op-amp zionists notwithstanding), when the first article itself states the significant impact of high quality equipment in improving the listening equipment in a perceptible manner, moreso than niche audio formats. And everyone else follows suit, criticizing 'audiophiles' on their own personal biases rather than in regards to the original topics presented.

 

[Geneijin]

Every single bullet point is amazingly stupid, but my god, they are judging the audio quality output of DIFFERENT RIPPING SPEEDS AND BLANK CD BRANDS. Also it is very odd that the more expensive something is, the better it sounds! Weird!

To be fair, have you ever burned using a random, off-brand DVD, a middling brand like TDK and Memorex, and a good brand like Taiyo Yuden? The worse quality the CD was, the worse the degradation and reproduction of data was.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The OP himself is rather confusing. The initial diatribe is in relation to how there is no improvement in using 192kHz/24-bit audio formats compared to the standard we use now, 44.1-48kHz/16-bit. The article presented a convincing arguement, and it's probably really only the fringe audiophiles that really are up in arms over the difference. The vast majority of people with audiophile-grade equipment are mostly happy with the current standards and do not claim otherwise.

Next, he attacks some random study about FLAC degradation and the people who claim that it exists and that they can perceive it from a lossless format. Fine, more crazies. Again, the majority of people who enjoy FLAC do not at all claim nor subscribe to this idea.

So up until now, there are two attacks against fringe claims about audio formats.

The strangest leap in logic that is made now is when the OP starts attacking people who buy expensive grade equipment (Monster cable and stone/cheese/cork op-amp zionists notwithstanding), when the first article itself states the significant impact of high quality equipment in improving the listening equipment in a perceptible manner, moreso than niche audio formats. And everyone else follows suit, criticizing 'audiophiles' on their own personal biases rather than in regards to the original topics presented.

glad it's not just me who has noticed this. not just from the OP but from others who have commented...and who did so obviously without reading the article in the OP.

At one point, I admit to wondering if the OP himself had read the article, because his comments seemed to go so quickly off the proposed topic. I agree with you...this is a thread that addresses the fringest of fringes of "audiophiles". And in the end, the article justifies FLAC and good lossy formats, good headphones and speaker equipment, and good masters. it's an odd thread and I've noted as much multiple times now.

 

[scy]

glad it's not just me who has noticed this. not just from the OP but from others who have commented...and who did so obviously without reading the article in the OP.

Replying without reading the OP is like ... tradition or something.

 

[Joates]

That's not relative at all. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is universally recognized. The audiophiles are trading in utter nonsense.

DO you understand the meaning of the word "relative?"

Arguing over mundane shit that the other 99% of people living today could not give two shits less about? Yeah Id say its relative.

 

[pj]

The OP himself is rather confusing. The initial diatribe is in relation to how there is no improvement in using 192kHz/24-bit audio formats compared to the standard we use now, 44.1-48kHz/16-bit. The article presented a convincing arguement, and it's probably really only the fringe audiophiles that really are up in arms over the difference. The vast majority of people with audiophile-grade equipment are mostly happy with the current standards and do not claim otherwise.

Next, he attacks some random study about FLAC degradation and the people who claim that it exists and that they can perceive it from a lossless format. Fine, more crazies. Again, the majority of people who enjoy FLAC do not at all claim nor subscribe to this idea.

So up until now, there are two attacks against fringe claims about audio formats.

The strangest leap in logic that is made now is when the OP starts attacking people who buy expensive grade equipment (Monster cable and stone/cheese/cork op-amp zionists notwithstanding), when the first article itself states the significant impact of high quality equipment in improving the listening equipment in a perceptible manner, moreso than niche audio formats. And everyone else follows suit, criticizing 'audiophiles' on their own personal biases rather than in regards to the original topics presented.

I don't see what's confusing about my trajectory. I started at an article, went to some forums to see reactions, saw a thread discussing another article. The link between them is that they all demonstrate the dumbness of audiophiles.

Also I don't think it's fair to label the second article as a "random study." It is a large article in a series of articles in a very popular audio magazine that aims to be taken seriously. It's not some dude on myaudioblog.com.

The specific claims are just examples of the underlying issue which is audiophiles that completely disregard logic and evidence to justify spending huge sums of money for gains that are marginal at best and imaginary at worst.

The topic is the dumbness of audiophiles. I started out the thread with some examples, other people added other dumb things audiophiles do, and a discussion ensued. That is how forums work. Are you very new to the internet?

 

[cyberheater]

I read a good article

Thanks for the article link. Very informative.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Arguing over mundane shit that the other 99% of people living today could not give two shits less about? Yeah Id say its relative.

Not relative at all...

LOL

Look! Magic wooden hockey pucks...

 

[KHarvey16]

Arguing over mundane shit that the other 99% of people living today could not give two shits less about? Yeah Id say its relative.

The issue with audiophiles are the products and methods they promote often have no perceptible impact, measured either aided or unaided. The difference between 30fps and 60fps, while perhaps unimportant to some, is readily perceptible.

 

[scy]

I don't see what's confusing about my trajectory. I started at an article, went to some forums to see reactions, saw a thread discussing another article. The link between them is that they all demonstrate the dumbness of audiophiles.

Also I don't think it's fair to label the second article as a "random study." It is a large article in a series of articles in a very popular audio magazine that aims to be taken seriously. It's not some dude on myaudioblog.com.

The specific claims are just examples of the underlying issue which is audiophiles that completely disregard logic and evidence to justify spending huge sums of money for gains that are marginal at best and imaginary at worst.

The topic is the dumbness of audiophiles. I started out the thread with some examples, other people added other dumb things audiophiles do, and a discussion ensued. That is how forums work. Are you very new to the internet?

The issue is that it's about a segment of the whole thing, not all of them. You may mean the former but the latter is what it comes across as. It'd be akin to "those silly dieters are dumb!" because some people think crystals make them lose weight faster.

 

[pj]

The issue is that it's about a segment of the whole thing, not all of them. You may mean the former but the latter is what it comes across as. It'd be akin to "those silly dieters are dumb!" because some people think crystals make them lose weight faster.

Of course I'm not talking about everyone, I am generalizing. I do however think most people who self identify as audiophiles are delusional to some degree about their ability to hear things that don't atually exist. The guy who buys an unnecessary $300 power conditioner isn't as entertaining to talk about as one who buys a $10,000 power cable or thinks two exactly identical files sound different.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Audiophiles are pretty awful. And I say that as someone who collects records and listens to music all around the clock. Do I hear the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps? Maybe barely. If it does not have digital artifacts or other crap I don't care at all. My hearing isn't the best anyway and as someone who really enjoys lo-fi aesthetic I don't know why would anyone would want to go for the cleanest sound possible. Most recordings (that I enjoy, or maybe even in general) weren't/aren't aiming that either.


If I had to choose between a record I have played to death, with some hiss but without skips vs. a "perfect" FLAC file, I'd say I'd pick the record 100% of times. I have reached a point where my speakers, amp and turntable are pretty damn good (for vintage stuff) only pretty much them breaking would make me want to spent more money on the equipment (outside of replacing the needle every now and then).

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Not relative at all...

LOL

Look! Magic wooden hockey pucks...

I want to see their financials. i refuse to believe they've sold more than one.

Audiophiles are pretty awful. And I say that as someone who collects records and listens to music all around the clock. Do I hear the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps? Maybe barely. If it does not have digital artifacts or other crap I don't care at all. My hearing isn't the best anyway and as someone who really enjoys lo-fi aesthetic I don't know why would anyone would want to go for the cleanest sound possible. Most recordings (that I enjoy, or maybe even in general) weren't/aren't aiming that either.

yes, clearly your hearing isn't good if you can only "barely" tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps. either that or you're listening to music through Apple earbuds around the clock. I know it every time I'm listening to a low-quality audio track.

 

[cajunator]

hey man, an audiophile just sold me on some nifty headphones. Theyre cool folk.
There are always the crazies in every following.

 

[Witchfinder General]

I guess as an "audiophile" I should feel insulted but I've never believed that when it comes to digital that anything above Redbook is needed. Ditto on the difference on FLAC/WAV, etc.

At work I always tell people who are concerned about playing "high res" files that it's a wank and if they want true "high res" sound they should buy a decent record player.

But hey, that's just me. I guess that with my high-end set-up at home that I'm a deluded snob according to people here.

 

[IceCold]

Are these crazy audiophile the same people that spent thousands of dollars on hdmi cables?

 

[Krabardaf]

Well there are crazy people and the ones who appreciate the difference between FLAC/CD/Vynils and MP3. A difference that is very measurable given the right setup.And that doesn't cost thousands of bucks.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

I want to see their financials. i refuse to believe they've sold more than one.

Oh, they have. They've sold a lot of them. That's why I knew about them. The things got a glowing, multi-page review in Stereophile back in the 90's.

Then when people balked, they printed this in response...basically calling everyone who balked at the idea of tuning your room with a dozen $50/ea. magic wooden hockey pucks a closed-minded bigot:

It seems that any system treatment or add-on can be justified as long as its purported benefits are expressed in the patois of Western rationalism. For example, the Combak Harmonix tuning devices have been promoted, auditioned, reviewed, and discussed in what appears, superficially at least, to be within the wide perimeters of audio science. Thus, they acquire a degree of respectability, even though they appear to have no more basis in logic than any of Peter Belt's famous innovations (footnote 3).

Shun Mook's products are being summarily rejected because the belief system they're based in is different from traditional Western thought. This isn't fair. Until we become familiar enough with the belief system in which they were developed to have a "feel" for what they can or cannot do, we cannot really evaluate them. Out of this same belief system came acupuncture and herbalism---healing practices from traditions which were fully developed before Western medicine existed. When acupuncture began making inroads in North America, it was rejected by Western physicians as "meaningless," "impossible," and "preposterous," because it was outside their sphere of reference. Now that it has been subjected to enough controlled studies to document and verify its benefits, acupuncture enjoys widespread acceptance in modern medical practice, especially in California. On the other hand, this same belief system holds that drinking a potion of powdered rhino horn will improve one's virility. But virility, like a baseball player's batting average, is in part a function of belief.

...

At the WCES---see my report in this issue---I spent approximately 20 minutes in the Shun Mook suite. I examined all the products they had to offer, and was given a demonstration. I didn't hear anything which I could attribute to their products, but that doesn't mean the products didn't perform; I just didn't hear whatever it was they were supposed to do. The noise from the hallway and adjacent suites was quite high; a demo at the CES is perhaps the worst place to evaluate something as subtle as the possible sonic effects of a small wooden disc. I have many doubts. The rational part of me says:

1) Any object (which, according to physics, must have resonant properties) introduced into the listening room will have some effect on the sound;

2) Any object (weight/mass/resonance) placed on a turntable (which must convert mechanical vibrations on the order of a few millionths of an inch into a stable audio signal) will have an effect on the sound;

3) Any wood, no matter how common, with a mass and density similar to African ebony root will produce similar effects if similarly machined and treated;

4) There's no way to verify the supernatural properties of African ebony root, except by faith alone; and

5) The audible effect of a single small wooden disc placed atop a loudspeaker will be overwhelmed to the point of inconsequence by the combined ambient noise of all other resonances in the room, unless its specific resonant frequency is excited.

But that's my belief system talking. Western science doesn't have all the answers, or even all the questions. I'm willing to allow that I, like a novice tasting wine for the first time, failed to perceive the performance because I lacked the necessary background. I didn't get it in Las Vegas; back home in New York, with a system he knew intimately, Jonathan obviously did.

My Internet-surfing friend also said that, among Asian audiophiles, Shun Mook devices are very highly regarded. I suggest we subject them (the devices, not the 'philes) to the same scrutiny, or lack of it, that we apply to all those products which sneak in the door and into our systems masquerading as the latest work of a Nobel laureate. We like to delude ourselves that the purpose of audiophilia is to achieve the Ultimate in Realism. If that were the case, we would spend our disposable income on concert tickets, not on recordings or things associated with getting the information off them. What we're really after is the Convincing Illusion, and both the power of belief and the practice of ritual magic help make that illusion real. High-end audio is simply another vessel into which we pour our persistent religiosity. If a few more mystical objects make that exercise a bit easier or more rewarding, well then, why not?

 

[poppabk]

Arguing over mundane shit that the other 99% of people living today could not give two shits less about? Yeah Id say its relative.

Your missing the point. One is science, one is bullshit.
Some people think that truth and scientific method are important and get especially bent out of shape when hucksters use 'sciencey' concepts to sell crap as it has a tendency to diminish the credibility and authority of real science.

 

[Subprime]

320 isn't particularly high or anything. Its just that when apple auto rips my cds are 128 its seems pointless. V0/320 mp3s are fucking tiny already, theres no point in compressing them further. I cant tell the difference between flac and mp3, and I listen to vinyl because I like analog/physical media, but the people who say theres no difference are just fuck wits. one big issuie is that the different just isn't apparent when you listen on most peoples stereo sets. They need to actually be positioned correctly for stereo. If its not at ear level you lose a huge amount of the treble information.

also: love the power cable fools. Its great when the inventor of your tech cant do a blind ABX test correctly. Even better, is when audiophiles admit that they know the placebo effect, but accept it anyway because it still sounds better to them.

 

[FafaFooey]

I guess I'm partly an audiophile because I despise overcompressed masters and refuse to buy shit like that. Death Magnetic by Metallica for example.

But I laugh at people who say vinyl sounds better than CD's. First of all, if you think record companies are willing to spend a shitload of money to create a separate analog vinyl master in this day and age, you're wrong. If you're listening to an album that was recorded somewhere in the past 20 years, chances are extremely high it's the exact same master as the CD. Sure, it may sound different to your ears, but that's because some frequencies just come across better (or worse) on vinyl. It has nothing to do with a superior recording.

Second of all.. the further you get to the middle of a vinyl record, the smaller the "rings" get and the sound gets much tighter and compressed. Ever notice how the first couple of songs on an LP sound MUCH better than the last songs on a side? It's the reason a lot of bands during the vinyl-age put their least favourite/bombastic/energetic/popular songs on the end of record side.

 

[whitehawk]

Placebo is amazing. Although I suppose I'm a bit of an audiophile if that means "getting the best possible sound", but at one point it just becomes ridiculous. And although FLAC is pretty nice for archiving purposes (and LP-rips with insane bitrates for larger e-peens) you can't really hear much of a difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a flac file. Heck, even between 128kbps and 320kbps there isn't that much of a difference, at least with good compression.

That test isn't exactly fair. The samples they use have very few instruments playing at a time, 128kbps can handle that pretty easily. If you listen to rock music, 128 will sound terrible.

 

[mescalineeyes]

So I got these BOSE earbuds for my birthday.

I want to spend the same amount of money. Can someone recommend me a better pair?

It's not that I don't like them, I am just genuinely curious if I can get more bang for my buck. (€130 / approx. $ 170) I love music, I listen to it all the god-damn time and I want to treat myself to something.
iPhone clicker not necessary but a plus.

 

[SleazyC]

So I got these BOSE earbuds for my birthday.

I want to spend the same amount of money. Can someone recommend me a better pair?

It's not that I don't like them, I am just genuinely curious if I can get more bang for my buck. (€130 / approx. $ 170) I love music, I listen to it all the god-damn time and I want to treat myself to something.
iPhone clicker not necessary but a plus.

Probably best to ask your question here - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417447&page=161

I regard myself as an audiophile of sorts, I definitely don't spend thousands of dollars a year on audio equipment but I have no issue doling out a couple hundred dollars every couple of months to pick up something or upgrade something if the price is right. Since I listen to music about eight to ten hours a day at work (only thing that keeps me sane) I would like to do that with the best possible conditions possible. I don't really subscribe to the cables argument but to each his own. I think the OP calls out a very specific (small) subset of the audio lovers/audiophile community that are in the extreme.

 

[Consul]

OP. I'm not quite sure whether i understand what you are getting at here. Maybe its due to the fact that i haven't slept or maybe its because you are more intelligent than me...

What i can say with certainty is that from personal experience.. when i mix tunes - electronic music with a great emphasis on production values, not recorded instruments burned onto and then ripped from their physical format; wav & flac's straight out of the mastering studio.. they always sound noticeably louder and clearer than 320kbps MP3's. Through my headphones, through my desktop monitors and through large sound systems.

I can tell when my friend drops a flac/wav of a tune i have in a lower bitrate and he can tell when i have acquired a flac or a wav of a tune he has an mp3 off as-well. Especially when we have a mixing sesh back 2 back. Hundreds of times we have called them out.

I'm open to the suggestions of this article and i will re-read it to try get a grasp on it once I'm fresh headed but yeah, that's my input.

Oh & btw, i wouldn't consider myself an 'audiophile'... I'm too poor for that nonsense.

 

[Valnen]

All I know is I can definitely tell the difference between a 50 dollar pair of headphones and a 120 dollar pair.

 

[pj]

OP. I'm not quite sure whether i understand what you are getting at here. Maybe its due to the fact that i haven't slept or maybe its because you are more intelligent than me...

What i can say with certainty is that from personal experience.. when i mix tunes - electronic music with a great emphasis on production values, not recorded instruments burned onto and then ripped from their physical format; wav & flac's straight out of the mastering studio.. they always sound noticeably louder and clearer than 320kbps MP3's. Through my headphones, through my desktop monitors and through large sound systems.

I can tell when my friend drops a flac/wav of a tune i have in a lower bitrate and he can tell when i have acquired a flac or a wav of a tune he has an mp3 off as-well. Especially when we have a mixing sesh back 2 back. Hundreds of times we have called them out.

I'm open to the suggestions of this article and i will re-read it to try get a grasp on it once I'm fresh headed but yeah, that's my input.

Oh & btw, i wouldn't consider myself an 'audiophile'... I'm too poor for that nonsense.

That's not really the point. Differences between wav/flac and mp3 must by definition exist, since mp3 compression is lossy. The audibility of those differences depends on a lot of variables, but is not really part of what I talked about in the OP.

The two main things in the OP are that: 1) A reasonable article claiming that 192khz sampling is at best pointless, and at worst detrimental to the sound when played with modern equipment, 2) some audiophile "journalists" think there is a difference between flac/wav, which is essentially saying mypic.bmp and mypic.rar will look different.

 

[Consul]

Ahhh okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I should have read the OP a few more times to try get a better grasp of what you were conveying. If anything this thread has served to remind me of how little i actually know about sound production/engineering. Not good for someone who tries to manipulate waves himself for want of some good vibes eh, haha. Oh well, i will still take pride in at-least being able to mix in key >_<. Sorry i don't have much to add to the discussion at hand, shits beyond me.

 

[Hari Seldon]

People prefer tubes because they find the distortion they add to be pleasant. Measured on the basis of the accuracy of their sound reproduction, tubes are inferior.

You are pretty incorrect here. The advantages transistors have over tubes is purely heat, power, ruggedness. and cost.

This is what the IEEE has to say about it.

The number 1 reason they are better from an audio standpoint is that when a transistor clips, it cuts off the signal like the corner of a square. When a tube clips, it allows the signal to overshoot and is much less harsh. If you remember your Fourier series, a harsh clip produces lots of harmonics in the frequency domain (it takes a lot of overlapping sine and cosine waves to add up to a function that looks the corner of a square, versus a function that is a smooth curve).

 

[J-Rod]

This is kind of interesting to me, because I can't hear very well and just buy crap that gets the job done. I never knew how far people took it.

 

[B!TCH]

That OP made me fall to my knees and cry. It is a thing of beauty. Bravo, my friend. Bravo.