Audiophile cringe general /acg/

>Humans are most sensitive to (i.e. able to discern at lowest intensity) frequencies between 2,000 and 5,000 Hz. Individual hearing range varies according to the general condition of a human's ears and nervous system.
youtube.com/watch?v=bjTxEwlypA0

Attached: QuickConcernedCurassow-max-1mb.gif (217x122, 950K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cIuNZAQIoEE
youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4
audioholics.com/editorials/bose-conundrum
youtube.com/watch?v=zXV513UC8Ms
youtube.com/watch?v=8CTD6EgKG5s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Attached: uzPoDew.jpg (700x525, 61K)

Attached: 1520212722754.png (1280x960, 871K)

Attached: 1493005451228.jpg (800x600, 174K)

Attached: 9221c13f3.png (3000x1600, 287K)

Attached: bJ0I9Ps.jpg (486x660, 91K)

Attached: 450653d1424026289-170-00-reeses-peanut-butter-cup-brilliant-pebbles.jpg (1016x682, 174K)

youtube.com/watch?v=cIuNZAQIoEE

I don't know if all this retarded shit you're posting is supposed to offend us, but it doesn't.

Everyone is an objectivist here.

I see you're new here, we used to have these threads all the time.
youtube.com/watch?v=m7ERMu825m4

Attached: 3t74nP1.png (940x999, 381K)

>>Humans are most sensitive to (i.e. able to discern at lowest intensity) frequencies between 2,000 and 5,000 Hz. Individual hearing range varies according to the general condition of a human's ears and nervous system.

then you should know that this doesn't mean only this spectrum is important for sound

Attached: 15455274889341.jpg (604x402, 51K)

Attached: 15451224329960.jpg (1638x921, 256K)

Attached: akdaps.png (1267x1164, 261K)

Attached: akust.oformlenie1.jpg (500x333, 58K)

Attached: 1525164208276.png (456x465, 417K)

Another general to filter

Amazing.

>I can't hear above 20Ghz, therefore nobody can
Earlets everybody

>20Ghz

REMINDER AUDIOPHILE TECH IS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GARBAGE. ACTUAL DOUBLE-BLIND STUDIES HAVE PROVED THAT THERE IS NO DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE IN SOUND QUALITY FOR HIGH END EQUIPMENT. "WARM" SOUND IS ACTUALLY JUST DISTORTION. AUDIOPHILES WILL NEGATE ALL MENTIONS OF DOUBLE-BLIND STUDIES BECAUSE IT REMOVES THE POWER OF SUGGESTION AND DELEGITIMIZES THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS OF HAVING SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON LITERAL USELESS SHIT

Attached: Bisexual_wiring.png (491x338, 21K)

Guys, I think I'm going with the Sony Z1R.

Attached: based_tyll.jpg (865x526, 108K)

Go for it my nigger

Well it's easy to take this video put of context. It looks like he is fancying those headphones in this clip but when you watch the complete video it becomes clear that he just can't stand the ear raping treble of this 2749$ headphone.

You're right infra bass (f22kHz.

Not even an audiophool myself, but finding yourself appreciating the recording quality of a song that's otherwise unremarkable or not your cup of tea happens all the time with half-decent equipment.

This. Pic ans text are spot on.

musical
analytical

>can hear the difference between 320kbps and flac
i guess my ears must be too strong

Attached: 1543505726260.png (643x600, 74K)

Even through the compressed youtube shit I could tell 1 and 3 were mp3 and 2 was flac.

@7:49
>for all intensive purposes

Read his lips.

underrated picture

audioholics.com/editorials/bose-conundrum

did he also edit the video and not hear the white noise in the background?

im glad you fags could tell the difference. i thought the 320kbps sounded better, but i know im a bit of a nigger faggot when it comes to sound.
that said, you should download a couple 320 kbps and 320 vbr mp3 and blind test yourself. if you can't guess 5/6 as FLAC then you're memeing yourself.

If this is true the mp3 encodes you are testing with are fucked up somehow

>People who claim to be audiophiles but buy stuff made by pic related.

Attached: trash.png (4000x945, 44K)

if that faggot used the video like me, maybe he just got lucky. how the fuck can you use a different encode than the video? what kind of autistic fuckbag would google up the songs and the right files and then download them and then blind AB test that shit then pick it right?
so i think he just got lucky, but i'm a faggot who thought FLAC and picked 320.

>used the video

All youtube audio is lossy though you literally can't do this test on a youtube video

>vinyl can sound better than cd but flac cant sound better than mp3
>unbearable white noise in the background
>meme tube amps
at least theyve got the the part right about cables not making a diffrence

well, if i use a mixture tech jesus' words and Jow Forums's faggotry for a moment.....
>i'm an internet faggot and i can always tell the difference between 320 and FLAC
>it doesn't matter if i use youtube or my dick or my grandma or whatever. i can tell the difference.
>i used youtube and i can tell the difference!
>fuck you faggot
basically, giant nigger faggot internet commentators will always claim ability to spot the difference.
thanks for pointing out an obvious difference.
also, this reminds me of something. about 10 years ago, youtube really did shit up audio quality. i remember a video which had 2 "canonrock" videos and one was the left ear, and the other was the right ear, but youtube (at the time) would mix'em into monaural, as testified by the guy who uploaded the videos. i'm around 95% sure that has changed. so the audio quality has most likely improved, but that doesn't mean it was a big improvement.

Retarded on so many levels. Do they believe that the electricity is magically generated and clean from the outlet? I need to get into this business.

bs audio boomer is one of my favourites.
youtube.com/watch?v=zXV513UC8Ms

and italian sam hyde too.
youtube.com/watch?v=8CTD6EgKG5s