Chef's Pretentious Guide to Enjoying Music - Page 3

On December 19 2009 16:11 Chef wrote:



I said in my OP 128 kb/s is not good enough.

On December 19 2009 16:14 Wangsta wrote:


In my post I said the problem with mp3s is that they arent always encoded properly. a 320kbps mp3 can be lower quality than 128 kbps mp3 if the encoder was retarded. I prefer not to deal with it since it takes about 10-20 seconds to encode mp3s myself with a proper flac source

On December 19 2009 16:26 Chef wrote:
Why would you spend extra money on something you can't hear a difference in? Taking arbitrary measurements from an amplifier is like measuring the density in the headband's plastic to determine sound quality.

More money doesn't mean better sound. It just means you're paying for things the human ear isn't capable of discerning.

I'll admit that very badly build amplifiers WILL sound different. But the amplifiers in modern DAPs are generally well built. If you'rer about to show me a bunch of Tube amps that people can hear the difference in, I'll believe it, but that's because tube amps are an awful and outdated technology that only continue to exist because of 'audiophiles.'

Something audiophiles have trouble admitting is that amps and DACs are just about perfect right now. They're never going to get any better, and they don't cost a fortune.

On December 19 2009 16:49 Chef wrote:
What can I say but you're wrong. I really don't think the burden of proof is on me. I looked a long time for legitimate studies to justify the purchase of expensive audio equipment, but in the end I couldn't find shit. I REALLY wanted to by something frivolous and silly just for that "last 10%" All I found out was the last 10% doesn't exist. Tonnes of dumb graphs that don't mean a thing, but no last 10% Everything is as good as it's going to get. Amplifiers are for speakers, not headphones. The only thing modern headphones are missing is the impact of sound waves hitting your chest. Otherwise it's pretty much the intended experience, and dependent on the recording equipment.

There's no clipping on my headphones. I don't notice any 'weird' sounds even when I listen really carefully. There's no loss of bass or complexity. All of this is bullshit, and it's the bullshit that gets repeated over and over at head-fi. Post this kind of garbage on hydrogenaudio and your thread will get closed along with a nice little PM explaining to you their best rule "all claims must be backed up. No subjectivity allowed." Which thankfully includes your own interpretations of what specs mean. It's kind of like the strategy forum here, actually.

It really annoys me that you do this so nonchalantly when I'm trying to warn people about this kind of absurdity that's become the shame of all audio engineers.

Also, do you really think everybody who spends more than $200 on audio equipment is getting nothing for their money? Maybe the difference isnt worth the extra money to you, but to say that there is NO difference is just plain wrong.

On December 19 2009 16:06 R04R wrote:

I've been looking for my first pair of headphones, so nothing high-end. My budget is at most $40 and I want closed headphones. So far I've narrowed it down to JVC HA-RX700, Sennheiser HD202, or Sennheiser HD201. Any other suggestions someone?

On December 19 2009 17:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic.

On December 19 2009 16:11 Chef wrote:
Zero, this sort of golden ears shit is the stuff you hear on head-fi all the time. "Oh, you don't hear it? That must mean you don't have as good hearing." All it does is make people imagine differences because they don't want to be the guy without a golden ear.

On December 19 2009 17:14 lMPERVlOUS wrote:


Are you sure?

They're debating the ability of an amplifier. Just because it costs more, and has a dial that goes to 12 instead of 11 doesn't make it any more effective..... which is what Chef is arguing.....

On December 19 2009 17:18 ZeroDPX wrote:


When did I say "golden ears"? The general statement that over time it's possible to become more attuned to some particular kind of sound is insanely obvious. It happens with _everyone_. (This is part of why studies show more and more people actually _preferring_ the particular kinds of distortions that MP3 compression produces.) The statement that some people can hear certain frequencies better than others is also measurable physiology. Run a simple auditory test and see what frequency your hearing goes up to.

You are so committed to overstating your point (that much of what "audiophiles" say is crap) that you're denying even basic biology. I have never denied the placebo effect, the legitimacy of double blind testing, or the general sentiment that much high-end audio talk is complete garbage. It is. In return it would serve you well not to deny that, for example, my music theory profs in college, who trained their ears full-time for decades, could hear fine gradations of tuning that many students could not perceive. Hearing, like most things, is trainable. It's a fact. Deal with it.

(I'm just waiting for you to say that HD202s and HD650s sound exactly alike, because heaven forbid we admit that anything can ever sound any different than anything else.)

On December 19 2009 17:31 Chef wrote:
Hearing is trainable. That's not proof amplifiers improve sound. What is your point? Just to make me look like I am arguing something I'm not? The only thing I was stating is that saying 'oh, you can't hear it? The problem is with YOUR ears" every time someone questions the legitimacy of a devices sound reproduction claims, is not helpful to intellectual discussion.

You're making a claim (amplifiers are needed for certain tracks on modern DAPs with high impedance headphones)

On December 19 2009 17:42 ZeroDPX wrote:


Now who's setting up strawmen? When did I ever say anything like "if you don't hear it the problem is with your ears", OR say that that was a legitimate full-time strategy for other people to argue? In fact I said the exact opposite, and I quote: "If you don't hear any difference, it's not better."

My point was that you attacked me for saying something I didn't say. And coming after a post in which _I_ "questioned the legitimacy of a device's sound reproduction claims" (quote: "There's a reason those don't sound better in double-blind tests, it's called 'buzzwords for gullible people'"), that's pretty disingenuous.



No, I was absolutely not making that claim. I was making the claim that it was _possible_ to create a scenario in which an amp mattered. I was also claiming that, in specific cases, some people might notice more than that. I don't believe most people need any kind of an amp, ever. I do believe that for some people in some circumstances they may be useful.