Audiophiles are literally retarded.
>buy $5 handheld compact disk player from thrift shop
>get audiophile friends over for a test
>play same song on vinyl and cd (vinyl player is 800$ pro-ject gift from dad)
>mfw they all agreed the disk sounds better
>tfw they assume i was playing it from my main stereo system
Audiophiles are retarded
Any $5 handheld compact disk player from thrift shop should have a transparent DAC, can't any perceivable better quality than transparency independently of how much money you spend and better specks you have.
Audiophiles can't understand this simple concept.
nice blog post, when do you post the airpods review?
t. Audiotard
I bet you think bluetooth audio is indiscernible too
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
based strokeposter
A thread died for this.
are the Celts a naturally aesthetic people
>buy $5 handheld compact disk player from thrift shop
>get audiophile friends to come over
>they invite some new additions to the crew, this dude Tyrone and his sister
>play same song on vinyl and cd (vinyl player is 800$ pro-ject gift from dad)
>they all start to agree the disk sounds better
>yell out, I'M FINNA BOUTTA DAB ON THIS NIGGA
>Tyrone goes, "u aight white boy"
>his sister: "he cute"
I knew vinyl was just a meme.
very based and redpilled
Xd
Please delete my picture. I didn't agree to this usage.
>blind test audiopedophiles with a youtube rip and a 300 kbps file
>none can tell the difference
>test consists of using phone speaker @ 100ft turned to max distortion
>no one can tell the difference
>frogpost.jpg
>friends pull a train on my hole as planned
Your friends are retarded
but any audiophile will tell you that CDs and other digital media are objectively better than vinyl, which has physical flaws and is more susceptible to vibration and EMI
>what are the inherent irresolvable divergences of the Analog and Digital domains and what are their respective implications for signal output?
In practical terms, CDs give the most accurate audio, vinyls give an approximation that some people might objectively say sounds better
im not an audiophile with respect to its inherent nature, but i will say that vinyl just sounds more honest than its digitized bastard brothers
it may come as a surprise to you but some people do have better ears than you and can appreciate the intricacies that analog media brings with it
if digital audio files are essentially thin slices of the waveform read at very near intervals some real information from the original signal is unavailable and gets substituted by algorithmic interpolation... { honestly just pulling this out of my ass as I have never properly studied this} so at what sample rate can you attain as true a reproduction as you get 100% of the time with analog its inherent noise not withstanding.
For instance I have always found a clear loss of the sense of ambience or dimensionality aka space in digital audio.. something about the life of vibrations and their interplay with the 3D location where it originated seems to be unavailable in digital copies of the same [analog] source
Shit that never happened for $500. Also the headphones/speakers could easily be a bottleneck.
>Audiophiles can't understand this simple concept.
Substantiate your claim. Almost everyone on head-fi would agree with you. You can keep pretending you're the keeper of some ancient knowledge others refuse to accept, but let's agree it's roleplay.
Mate songs are samples at 40,000 hz. In a waveform graph, the line is infinitely stepped that it’s practically curved.
Humans hearing range maxes at 20,000 hz
In practical terms, the digital recording is as close as it gets. Your theory would be correct if audio was sampled at a really low frequency
itt: brains attuned to different frequencies complaining what sounds "better"
i'm a "warm" audio/video boomer, fite me
>is as close as it gets
you seem to me to be slightly overlooking what I consider the main import of my post. That digital seems to lack the same sense of space I find in analog recordings.
if the digital is being more accurate in recreating the original signal I can accept that but the original signal doesn't exist inside a solid or in 2D it existed in 3D and that is something I can perceive and conversely its absence is perceived when I hear a digital copy of something I first heard and was originally recorded in an analog process. Does anyone find this phenomenon?
I asked a guy named Charlie Miller who had released thousands of Grateful dead concert recordings he's been given over the years. Mostly Soundboard s the band let be made .. I asked him once about a recording I originally had on a cassette that had probably been duped from n original reel as cassette pathes weren't the norm in the 70's .. I later downloaded a redbook digital copy of this show made from a master reel and I at first didn't like it even though it was appreciably cleaner. I described my complaint in the above fashion. There seemed to be no sense of space. His reply was if it gets mastered in 24/96 that ambience will be there but there are so many shows he wasn't planning on doing this any time soon...
Most are in their late 30s and their hearing according to their age and human physiology is shit.
Only kids should be audiophiles since they have the most sensitive hearing which degrades significantly with age.
"Educated hearing" is literally 100% placebo.
They are literally retarded and mad.
the 20hz-20khz thing is a bit of a meme. Some people can absolutely hear higher pitches than that. But your sample rate should be double what you can hear: if you can hear 20khz but no more, then 40khz is the highest rate you'll actually get any use from. 1 tick on-> 1 tick off.
CDs are typically either 44.1khz or 48khz, so you'll have enough overhead.
you're talking out of your ass dude
Format doesn't make a difference here, you can have an indistinguishable copy of an analog recording in a digital format, and if there's a difference in your GD recordings then it's because somebody was lazy when they digitized the reels.
Soundwaves are soundwaves, faggot. You are fooling yourself with mind tricks.
What the fuck am I watching here?
>Also the headphones/speakers could easily be a bottleneck.
t. buys a $2,000 pair of Stax cans to listen to music recorded in studios that use $200 headphones
>That digital seems to lack the same sense of space I find in analog recordings.
You can't quantify that you dumb African ape.
Audiophiles are the only people on the planet who will tell you you're listening to music wrong.
A rich retard reacting to sound.
>>That digital seems to lack the same sense of space I find in analog recordings.
That’s literally what i meant by shbjective differences. Nigga im talking hard concrete facts and youre talking like a modern art critic
Digital reproduces analog audio perfectly, with two exceptions:
1) anything above the nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) gets thrown away. Humans can only hear to 20KHz anyway, so sampling rate of 44.1KHz is good for listening (if you're editing the audio, you might wanna have bigger headroom)
The "interpolation" works in such way, that there's 1-to-1 mapping between any band-limited analog waveform and a sequence of samples. So as long as you're okay with throwing away ultrasound, you can consider 44.1KHz or 48Khz digital audio lossless compared to the analog.
2) Quantization introduces noise. The more bits you have, the less noise there will be. The noise from 16 bits is completely inaudible. Analog equipment usually doesn't reach the equivalent of 16 bit noise, so there no loss in quality here either.
As for your claim that analog sounds "ambient" or whatever, it might be placebo.
>CDs are typically either 44.1khz or 48khz
They are 44.1kHz, DVDs are 48kHz. Look up Red Book before any more BSing.
Good job with those tags, fag.
Excuse me, what? First of all headphones don't matter on the final sound quality of a recording if that's what you mean, but I'm not sure about it.
Second, your statement is false. The most popular headphones found in recording studios are dt770, m50x and mdr 7506 which are roughly around 100-150bucks. But usually many sound engineers use ultrasone signature headphones to mix songs, those are pretty much industry standards and costs around 500-600 bucks depending on the model, look them up.
Kek'd so fucking hard
Do you know the meaning of the words subjectively and objectively?
>Hint: if you say 'some people' that's subjective
I meant subjectively you stupid nigger
I get that most people read human hearing cute off above 20khz and so if a digital process discards anything above that you won't hear it but what you will experience is a kind of unnatural silence which doesn't exist in reality... vibrations above and below human hearing exist and in analog recording are not factored out so they allow for the sound to be more naturally re-created, naturally as in the way it occurred when recorded and closest to the hearing experienced in the living moment by the listener. I grew up in the 70's and 80' I was an audio consultant before CD's came around.. I have that long standing experience to recall when comparing the different methods of reproducing sound. How recently, often or over how long a period of time have any ITT who discount what I've been saying about the sense of space being absent in digital listened to analog sourced whether tape or vinyl.
I use this CD player with a 24/96 coax input for my listening run off a laptop and an external up-sampling USB card and I like it fine enough. I don't kill my buzz all day thinking I am missing something which amounts to literally nothing anyway but I experience this perception and wanted to discuss it.
"Which sounds better, this expensive record player played through my shitty thrift store speakers, or this cheap CD player through my shitty thrift store speakers?"
is that guy having a stroke
or is he properly whacking it
I came to this thread purely because I knew someone would post this and I wanted to watch it.
>audiophile friends
I think you're the retard here
I have always decide to come far to even look more like than decided before than I like.
>so at what sample rate can you attain as true a reproduction as you get 100% of the time with analog
double the rate you watch to sample (if you want up to 20Khz, sample at 40Khz)
see; en.wikipedia.org
yes, a 40Khz digital sampling is mathematically identical to the original analog signal up to 20Khz, and since humans have an upper limit of hearing, as long as you have enough samples to cover that, you're good
> has records
> has CD's
> has flac, mp3, streaming, etc
I just listen to what I like.
If anything, records cured me of my musical ADD.
JEJKd
The easiest way to prove audiophile retardation is just watch what the people that create the sound, the professionals, musicians, engineers etc do the opposite of what audiophools do.
God, I hope he's listening to a recording of his own rape.
reply to this post with Yes or No;
Have you ever owned analog recordings and playback devices so that you have recall of the impressions made by them or no, you have only ever owned and listened to digital playback whether digitized copies of analog sources or digitally recorded music.
As I said b4 I only ever listened to analog recordings and playback equipment from age five to age 40 when I finally obtained CD playback gear in 2003. I have 30 years of analog impressions on which to compare. If you've only ever listened to digital music you can not claim my impressions are limited to my imagination.
>born in or aound '63
>doesn't get a CD player until 2003
>analog vs. digital discernment master
You're an idiot, you asshat.
Audiophiles are like ganoo/loonix users. The only difference is they are the niggers of music.
This
The only reason "audiophiles" will claim to like vinyl more is they like the pops and bangs so to speak, common to all vinyl no matter how good the pressing or the player. If you like that sound characteristic then vinyl is for you, if you actually want good sound though go digital
>they like the pops and bangs
>having at best low-mid range turntable
>doesn't meticulously clean the disc before and after each play
multiple citations needed on all of this
>audiophiles
>playing a vinyl record more than once
>not taking a digital recording of the first playback so you can play that instead and hear the best possible quality each and every time, rather than a slightly degraded version each time you play the record
>lawyer larping as electrical engineer
>old fart that doesn't bother to go to the doctor to test his hearing to see if his hearing is sensitive enough
would it not have been easier to just buy one of those things like an extension cord that does that
What part you don't get about my post? You can easily into any recording/mixing studio in you area and see this stuff for yourself.
>Retards are retarded
Good thread OP
Based autistic jap
I actually own a pair of DT990s.
I bet you studied music for 40 years.
>Only kids should be audiophiles since they have the most sensitive hearing
Yeah those dog whistle frequencies are really important.
>Yeah those dog whistle frequencies are really important.
Yea well you don't need equipment worth thousands of dollars that reproduce those frequencies.
ITT: assblasted audiotards
I don't get where you assume certain headphones are popular. Which is why I need citations. I need citations of headphone usage
As I said you can easily visit any recording studios in you area and see for yourself. But if you can't for some reason, go on Google and do some research, it's not hard. Hell, you can even see the headphones used to track in lots of "making of" videos. This is if the first that pops to my mind: youtu.be