/tech/ - Technology★

audiophiles are good. they have alot of disposable income that gives engineers jobs.

Why yall hatin? Electrons have weight and they flow easier from high to low.

>>1035926 (OP)

>OP doesn't know the principle of waves

>>1035926 (OP)

Yeah, and audiophiles also prefer FLAC over once encoded 320kbps mp3 for listening and not archival purposes. They're the saddest bunch.

Fun facts about electricity:

* Closed circuits start and end at the same height

* Electrons move very slowly and with a large degree of randomness through copper wire

* Lower resistance does not mean higher "quality" of signal

>>1035945

>Electrons

>s

>implying there is more than one electron in the universe

>>1035940

why would i listen to a worse version if i already have the best? even phones have enough storage these days for more than enough flac albums.

Post https://numeralnine.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-brief-guide-to-audio-for-the-skeptical-consumer/ on head-fi to get banned easily.

To be honest, I'm an "audiophile", just not dumb; so I bought studio monitors and use an ODAC or a cheap Focusrite and a Sansa Fuze+ with Beyerdynamic DT250 on the go instead of this kind of snake oil. I use FLAC on my desktop but Vorbis q4 on my portable gear.

>>1035945

Fun fact: Information and energy are transmitted by the electric field, not the movement of electrons.

>>1035940

That's one part of audiophilia that actually makes some sense, even if the difference is impossible to tell practically. I have no issue with a good free format being used over an aging lossy format that used to be in patent hell, and FLAC is an improvement over having giant wav or PCM files lying around on your drives. It also basically turns every audiophile nut that isn't some vinyl only luddite into archivists.

Anyway, MP3s are just bad form when we have much better options for lossy these days like Opus and WavPack.

>>1035966

>WavPack

Are you okay, m8? It's lossless, except a useless LossyWAV like mode. Say Vorbis or Opus, at least.

>>1035926 (OP)

I believe this is humor.

>>1035938

>literally Elvis' energy, sound waves are energy

I don't know why this pissed me off like it did. No, that's not literally Elvis' energy. It's a representation of his energy that was stored and replicated.

>>1036068

I believe you are correct, number 68. However, the autism is strong in these parts...

>why are [large diverse group] so retarded?

no u OP

>>1035951

Sinle electron universe hypothesis is simply an interesting thought expirement and nothing more.

>>1036517

That's a very bold claim, Maxwell. Care to back it up?

>>1035926 (OP)

Audio went full retard when people started saying anything over 1g tracking force would destroy your vinyl.

>>1035938

>hand made on a per order basis

>from locally sourced parts

>cast metal and solid wood

>lol why's it expensive though

>>1036625 Only retarded people can be audiophiles so they willingly wanna pay ten times or fifty times higher price than normal people.

>>1035940

mp3 is nigger tier audio.

>>1035941

What is that pic about, I don't speak communist.

Audiophiles are correct but for the wrong reasons. These things do make music sound better to them because they cost more or silly gimmicks. Why does this work? Same reason you can tell someone ketchup is worth $100 or $5 when it comes from the same bottle and the $100 will taste better to them. Humans value status, as such their brain will tell them status gaining activities are superior to non-status gaining ones. The ketchup will taste better, the music sill sound better, the placebo effect works and we don't know why, but it does.

>>1035926 (OP)

>autist can't get the simplest of jokes

>>1036687

You're wrong though. The weakest link in the chain is almost always the speaker; even if you use stuff like vinyls or tubes.

>>1036720

>Same reason you can tell someone ketchup is worth $100 or $5 when it comes from the same bottle and the $100 will taste better to them.

Wrong. It's a special kind of stupid that this works on repeatedly. The rest of us realize that the $5 ketchup is just as good, and buy that instead.

>>1036720

placebo effect works because it's reality change via unconscious willing, and can also be from subliminals etc. You can make it into conscious Intentional change, using, pardon the redundancy of repetition, Intention.

>>1035963

The whole part about tube amps seems a little unwarranted. I don't think anyone who is a tube fanatic is trying to argue that they produce an objectively and scientifically superior sound when compared to resistors, just that they enjoy the slight distortion that tubes bring. Just like how not everyone is wanting the most neutral sounding headphone they can get their hands on and like the sound signature to put more emphasize on a certain frequencies. Also people may like FLAC for stupid reasons but just like losseless video it's great for archival purposes much like video masters but unlike them you don't take up half of your hard drive space with the file. The price per GB for hard drives nowadays is so cheap I can't see any reason to not prefer FLAC. The argument for tubes is the same for vinyl, people just like the sound of vinyl and not for "the superior sound quality" that they believe to be true. I remember seeing that faggot Beyond ARTV on youtube making a video calling the whole cassette tape resurgence stupid and the people participating to be trendy sheep when he collects vinyl himself. He's to braindead to realize he collects vinyl for the same exact reason someone would want to collect cassettes.

>>1036986

>resistors

>>1036988

Transistors, my bad.

>>1036833

>>1036720

Actually, you can make a lot of deductions about the price of ketchup for its taste. After all, you're not going to pay a lot for a few ounces the neon-red, sweetened Heinz Ketchup that you'd find at a fast food restaurant, are you? Not because Heinz Ketchup is aesthetically bad, but the market is such that the kind of sweet-salty ketchup that has a very one-dimensional signature is always going to be so abundant that it'll always be the ketchup of the 5.00 USD price range. Which isn't to say that all 5.00 USD ketchups are simplistic ketchups like that; but, Heinz Ketchup is always going to be 5.00 USD while other ketchups can be nuanced and not have that nice, nostalgic flavor like that of Heinz's but still be of the same price.

And I think, within a culinary scope, it's important for a chef to keep their mind open when it comes to dressings like ketchup, because, while Heinz Ketchup isn't going to have the broad scope of applications as nicer ketchups due to its boldness despite relative simplicity, it does deserve a place in fast food-like meals or whatever you're serving to children--except hot dogs. Fuck anyone who uses ketchup on hot dogs.

>>1037024

>very bad music for comedic effect.

Yeah, that's kind of what always bugged me about audiofools. They spend thousands of thousands of dollars on stuff that can actually be useful, and then all they listen to is the Interstellar OST and weeb shit. They don't even listen to good weeb shit like Shinsei Kamattechan, Xinlisupreme, Mus.hiba, or Fishmans, they listen to fugging anime soundtracks. And not the good ones like Mawaru Penguindrum or OS Uchijan. And as for the audiofool fodder like the Interstellar OST with good mixing or whatever, there's so much 'good' audiophile albums out there, like Random Access Memory or even Panda Bear vs the Grim Reaper that are really expensive (expensive to produce, that is) big studio albums but still authentically good, and they just keep masturbating to the same euphoric bullshit. It's ridiculous.

>>1036986

I collect some cassettes, but it's mostly just to support bands in my local scene. They're really cheap to buy and cheap to manufacture, and I don't like shitty graphic t-shirts filling up my closet, although we have a kind of popular textile-ish studio that makes really good prints for all the big bands around here.

>>1036986

Imo, vinyl is better than cassette tape.

>>1035938

(((bloomberg)))

what makes audiophiles think they understand signals theory and music theory when they aren't engineers or musicians?

it is a thread common to all hobbies -- the pop scientist, the fag that reads/watches WIRED, bazinga BBT fans, low self esteem mid-range iqs that are so desperate for social status they are manipulated into being covert marketting agents (shills) and will outbid the last goy for membership.

just examine the trends in game collecting over the last decade.

audiophiles don't realize muscians, producers, engineers create art that is meant to be experienced in as many different settings as possible.

My Bloody Valentine's Loveless is meant to be played on broken, distorted, lofi systems as you get a new "remix" each time.

>>1035926 (OP)

It's a sad day when autism has become so prevalent nobody on imageboards can identify shitposting anymore.

>>1048867

You don't know audiophiles enough if you think this is obvious shitposting.

>>1048867

Butthurt audionegro detected, there's a ton of this bullshit crap on audio discussion forums, jacking off about cable/tonewood shit. Many are the same type of people that believe/perpetuate shit like HDMI cable "video quality" myths

>>1048889

Shit cables either make packetized connections drop packets or make continuous connections drop bits. There is a minimum cable quality for digital signals.

>>1048895

>There is a minimum cable quality for digital signals.

Yes and the miniumum requirements are already met very easily without an issue, no matter how much "degradation" of a set digital signal, hdmi, usb, optical(useslight to transmit data instead of electricity) will ALWAYS deliver its original payload unless there’s something very very wrong with it physically.

>Shit cables either make packetized connections drop packets or make continuous connections drop bits.

NO FAGGOT

Stopped getting fooled by fucking false marketing faggot liar scammers like this dude: https://www.audioquest.com/cables/digital-cables/usb-a-to-b/diamond

>>1048908

>yes you're right but NO YOU'RE NOT YOU FAGGOT

Bipolar much?

>>1048914

<Shit cables either make packetized connections drop packets or make continuous connections drop bits.

Your stupidity is fucking annoying, you'd think in the currentyear with the internet people like you would know better.

>>1048931

can confirm lossless i.e flac is legit

>>1048931

>that pic

that's not just some ivan, that's medvedev

>>1048931

mp3s are only decent if you did it yourself. anything on internet will be vbr and have joint stereo so it will sound like shit. something like ffmpeg -i some.flac -b:a 320000 some.mp3 will produce a decent mp3.

I don't know I think I should be asking you that question considering you sound like one

>>1049092

>cbr over vbr

>joint stereo is bad

Kill yourself, you waste of air.

>>1048895

>Shit cables either make packetized connections drop packets

Even the shittiest chink cables you can find are supposed to work on much much longer distances than the ones in your system, so nope.

You need serious idiocy to fuck up digital cabling.

>>1049093

What song?

>>1049141

no u. the scene releases that do those things sound very bad. its like a completely different track if you compare it with the lossless version. you cant just randomly smash the channels together and the smaller size that vbr produces means that it does much more than just cuts some frequencies. a 320cbr mp3 is usually about half of the flac but the vbrs are much less and its very audible.

>>1049156

you probably wont like it. i just used something so i could get the graphs.

>>1049162

Content matters and extremely so. You're not going to notice much difference using something like Anesthesia (Pulling Teeth), while using one of Bach's compositions is going to be pretty clear which is which, even if you cut the graph at 20kHz.

Reminds me of wow player when I tell them bandwidth does not cost $5 per GB anymore

>>1049161

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you stop lying to yourself and shut up while actually learning how modern digital audio works.

Protip: "scene" releases sound like shit because they use shit encoders, as opposed to a recent enough Lame.

Protip2: Only normalniggers care about mp3. Vorbis and AAC are the future, Opus is too hard to decode in software compared to these

>>1049168

are you sure its not just a ripple in the passband?

I definately hear a difference but my intuition tells me 10-14khz is being attenuated.

not a dsp pro, not sure what an elliptic filter is but seems extremely steep.

electronic musicians sure love music conspiracy theories, here RDJ echoes the whole 440hz=nazi mind control myth and asserts that sub/super-harmonics are still felt (without any science to back up his claims)

http://item.warp.net/interview/aphex-twin-speaks-to-tatsuya-takahashi/

>>1049179

i know that mp3 is so bad that there can be completely missing sounds in them. its a very big difference when a mp3 and flac is compared when there are completely new instruments in the flac that somehow was not in the "no audible difference" mp3.

>>1049187

I bet you were devastated when what.cd got shoahed.

>>1049184

>are you sure its not just a ripple in the passband?

Yes there is some ripple (1 dB max. to be exact), but that's the trade off for steepness. I was mainly interested in anything above 16 kHz, to see how much difference it makes. If you ignore what's happening in the low end and focus on the synth there is some loss of "crispiness". At least that's how I perceive it.

>>1035926 (OP)

I bet the sound quality should be superior than 99.99999% of all audiophile equipment if it's on space due to the vacuum and 0g.

That jap though who even went that far to get himself a private electric line when he could have just used batteries to eliminate every potential from ground loop.

>>1035941

>JBL

>spending that much when you could have the leading and superior dolby and their actual sound engineers

>>1049189

I bet you're still sad you could never get into our secret club

>>1049096

>muh scientific statement 20khz inaudible anyways

Retardthink™

Human ears still could feel it. Like how people who lost hearing could still play pitch-perfect music through vibrations from their feet or on singers through their nose when they can't even hear their own.

>inaudible frequencies

>doesn't know how hearing works

>how higher frequencies influence the speaker diaphragm like low frequencies make shit quality speakers rattle.

20khz and above are essential as it gives information to the sound stage and OR prehistorically the location of your predator or a poisonous giant man-eating spider.

>>1049184

It sounds deranged, try to listen to classical music like piano nowadays, it SOUNDS FUCKING DERANGED. Like a horror film. Most pianos before were tuned A435 before Hitler Rothschild (jew) and Rockefeller (jew) decided it's A440 and confiscated all a435 tuning forks

Not even joking he is illegitimate son and belong to Red Shield family tree as half-blood.

440Hz tuning is somewhat useful since hearing the sound from anywhere will feel like it's awfully directly right beside your ears or eardrums even at a distance - annoyingly so singers can still sing properly even when it's loud on concert or so that you can hear the car beep the while anything less than few semitones less would feel like the sound is on your heart/spine.

On classical concerts today, the standard is A444 as the sound stage, humidity and damping would lower it back to A440 - still sounds DERANGED if you ask me.

Audiophiles are tards but once you acquire a really nice pair of speakers or headphones, you can start to hear the difference between different input sources including amplifiers, CD players, computers, phonographs, and other equipment. It's not autism and this can be objectively measured. Taking it to an insane level as a way to flush cash down the toilet IS autism though.

>>1049270

better use that money before he dies. it wont be useful when hes dead.

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

>>1049217

>Like a horror film. Most pianos before were tuned A435 before Hitler Rothschild (jew) and Rockefeller (jew) decided it's A440 and confiscated all a435 tuning forks

How does that make a difference to someone without absolute pitch? In fact I think even for those people it wouldn't sound too different. Just a bit flatter.

>440Hz tuning is somewhat useful since hearing the sound from anywhere will feel like it's awfully directly right beside your ears or eardrums even at a distance

Why does that specific frequency do that?

>Like how people who lost hearing could still play pitch-perfect music through vibrations from their feet or on singers through their nose when they can't even hear their own.

If they're deaf they can't hear those frequencies the same way they can't hear anything in the audible range. And if they could "feel" frequencies above 20,000 Hz they could feel frequencies below that threshold too. In fact the lower the frequency the more likely they'll be able to get a tactile sensation from it.

>>1049281

The 435 sound is more harmonious to a natural pitch scale than 440. 440 in its divisions is not a good method as it produces odd fractions.

https://attunedvibrations.com/432hz/

https://attunedvibrations.com/432hz-healing/

https://www.432player.com/

In the 1990's, the 432 pitch made a major comeback. I saw a video demonstrating a trademarked method of computerized tuning with 432Hz that showed how the vibrations visibly differ in the pitch scale. I can not seem to find it. If someone has this video, I'd be appreciative.

>>1049282

dude come back with an A/B test with you actually being able to tell the difference between random songs in 432 vs 440. If you can do that someone might actually give a shit.

>>1037024

>>1035941

goood posts

>>1049282

>The 435 sound is more harmonious to a natural pitch scale than 440

I don't see how they would produce better fractions given their prime factorizations.

435 = 3 * 5 * 29

440 = 2^3 * 5 * 11

Not to mention that what "fractions" they produce are irrelevant, since all that matters is the relative pitch between two notes. A perfect fifth is a ratio of 3:2 between two note frequencies, and that won't change or sound different if it's a 440Hz A or a 435Hz A. Without perfect pitch you probably couldn't tell if something was 440Hz A or a 435 Hz A, but given either of those notes you could tell what a perfect fifth is relative to them, and be able to tell if the fifth is a bit sharp or flat.

Some people with relative pitch might still be able to tell you if something isn't a 440A, just because they're used to hearing 440Hz so many times.

>>1049285

If you played them side by side it'd be easy since one would sound flatter than the other.

>>1049282

>440 in its divisions is not a good method as it produces odd fractions.

>an even number apparently produces more odd fractions than an odd number

Please learn basic math before posting, nigger.

>>1049259

>including amplifiers

Thanks for outing yourself as a retard. See https://numeralnine.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-brief-guide-to-audio-for-the-skeptical-consumer/

>>1049447

If you can't notice the difference between a class A and a class D amp you're the retard here

>>1049282

i hate to promote this redditors channel, but counter this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKTZ151yLnk

>Why are audiophiles so fucking stupid?

materialism and over-attachment to the sound of soy

>>1035926 (OP)

>no post count

>no context

can't tell if troll

now why are videophiles^Wpeople who talk about video so retarded? look on any shit like "hard"forum, extremewhateverthefuck, anandtech, and all you get is:

>i looked at a picture on this monitor and it looked vibrant, therefore this monitor has STUNNING CONTRAST

>the human eye can't see more than 30FPS

>we took pictures of this projecture side by side with the computer to calculate the input lag

>refresh rates only matter for CRTs because the phosphors need to be illuminated often enough to stay lit

>LCDs don't use raster scan

>here's a demonstration video of judder, filmed at 30fps out of sync with the TV

>vsync is bad because it caps your game at 60FPS

>vsync is fine because i cant feel 1 frame of input lag, it's only for "hardcore" gamers

>motion blur doesn't matter

>240Hz LCD has no motion blur!! especially if i run the game at 60Hz!!1

>the monitor's menu was a bit annoying [is a complete piece of shit], but it doesn't matter so much because you only configure the monitor once! [literally, i've used the monitor with worst menu ever made, and looked up reviews for it and found a guy saying it was "slightly annoying"]

>the ghosting on this LCD [30ms] was fine for games

>wew, look how thin that movie is, time to upgrade my screen [16:10 -> 16:9 -> 21:9]

>SUPERB viewing angles! i could read text even from standing up over it [on a screen that looks like a holographic pokemon card]

>the human eye can't see less than 30ms

>i didn't notice any ghosting on this monitor [which is sample-and-hold]

>>1049454

t. it's real in my mind

>>1049506

I understand pretending to be retarded but there are limits to that too

>>1049509

Show me a credible A/B/X result. Of course, you can't.

>>1049516

I see you haven't experienced the difference firsthand. That's okay. Try a class A solid state amp when you can, preferably with your usual speakers/headphones and a known good lossless file you know by heart.

>>1049518

I heard Yamaha's current class D and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Please show me at least measurements proving your point.

Who cares, you should use active studio monitors with a passive crossover anyway.

>>1049531

Active crossover*

>>1049447

see:

>>1049454

Anyway your link is shitty, you can analyze the issue from an engineering point of view and prove that crappy amps driving limited range speakers from cruddy sources is objectively worse. Listening tests are horse shit too unless you're doing the listening yourself, and you know HOW to listen.

>>1049546

No, retard. You can prove that some stuff is indeed worse than others (that's what "high end" cable sellers use), but most of the time you can also prove that the difference is audibly negligible.

>>1049454

a class amps are also good space heaters. d class amps cant do that if the load is not very high

>>1049278

Is hope this is bait

>>1049894

newfag detected

>audiophiles who need the cleanest sound but set the volume at mouse level

makes me seethe

>>1049894

hownew.ru

>>1035940

If I'm going to download a higher quality file that can be listened to as-is, of course I'm going to use that. Storage is dirt cheap now. I can't tell a difference between FLAC and 320 kb/s mp3, but at least a FLAC is less likely to be poor quality than an mp3. If I convert it myself I at least know it's a good quality mp3.

>>1049092

I've never seen VBR mp3s anywhere. I always see CBR, and who knows what bitrate they compressed to until after you've downloaded the file. More places are offering 320 at least, but lower bitrates are still more common unless you're actively searching for higher quality files.

>>1050035

many old albums are only 128-192kbps and collector kikes want way too much money for the cds.