EPTChef's Pretentious Guide to Enjoying Music - Page 4
| Blogs > Chef |
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On December 19 2009 19:18 jon arbuckle wrote: good article. i'm curious what you might say about vinyl records versus other formats and, if possible, what equipment is needed to get the best sound output out of a vinyl record. that's probably where audiophilia goes off the deep end in terms of people spending the most exorbitant amount of money for fringe benefits and/or people making dubious claims about sound quality/output. Vinyl is kind of like a genre all it's own. You really have to kind of enjoy the pops and cracks that vinyl makes while it plays, because those are just unavoidable. In my opinion that's undesirable and has nothing to do with what the artist and the person who did that mastering wants you to hear, so it doesn't make sense. Do it if you want to, but I wouldn't. Not many artists are making music with vinyl in mind these days. Take this with a grain of salt, because I really know nothing about vinyl. | ||
|
Wangsta
United States776 Posts
On December 19 2009 17:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic. I've found that many (no everyone, of course, but a decent amount) of people who shell out a few hundred dollars for audio equipment can't actually seem to perceive any real difference. I'd tend to agree with Chef that the placebo effect plays a large role here. And also because people who spend a large amount of money are naturally inclined to think there's something special there when that may or may not be the case for them. That's true. However, most people are also tone deaf, and have little or no musical ability. Does that mean people should stop making expensive instruments? Audiophile gear isn't meant to appeal to normal people. It's meant for people who love sound, or more specifically, people who love detailed, high-fidelity sound And you guys are still missing the point of my earlier post. Regular headphones do NOT need another amplifier, you guys are right. There is *almost* no difference between an ipod's amplifier and a dedicated amplifier (other than raw power output). The signal is probably more than 90% as clean as the best amplifiers in the world can produce. The point I was making, though, was that Chef did not buy a regular headphone. 99.9999% of headphones work fine running from an ipod. However, Chef bought a headphone that falls in that 0.0001% group of headphones that really, honest to God, should be paired with a dedicated amp. It benefits so much from an amplifier that people generally say it REQUIRES an amp. Why would people say it requires an amplifier if it "works" fine from an ipod? because the hd650 costs $200-300 used and up $400 new. If you use the hd650 without an amp, then you are wasting your money because there are headphones that cost WAY less and sound just as good (if not better) when running from an ipod. The drivers on an hd650 are really high quality and they are capable of revealing the minute differences between bad amplifiers and good amplifiers. That's the biggest reason why sennheiser charges so much money for them. Think about it. Either chef is right (in which case, sennheiser has scammed him) or he is wrong (in which case he needs to spend at most $50 to get a sufficiently powerful amp). Ideally you want to match your amplifier to your headphone synergistically, but honestly, ANY dedicated amp made in the last 50 years will be an improvement over an ipod Beyond a basic dedicated amp, you can always spend more on a better amp, but that's getting into the real "audiophile" territory and even I would recommend against it unless you know what you're doing. | ||
|
Wangsta
United States776 Posts
On December 19 2009 19:18 jon arbuckle wrote: good article. i'm curious what you might say about vinyl records versus other formats and, if possible, what equipment is needed to get the best sound output out of a vinyl record. that's probably where audiophilia goes off the deep end in terms of people spending the most exorbitant amount of money for fringe benefits and/or people making dubious claims about sound quality/output. vinyl is outdated and offers zero (0%) benefit over CDs. Not even 1%, but 0%. The reason why audiophiles like vinyls is purely due to mastering issues. in some cases, the mastering is MUCH better on the original vinyl version. When old bands re-release their albums on CD, their tracks usually get remastered, and modern studio engineers sometimes fuck up the album. See "loudness war" on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war Thus, sometimes, you have no choice but to find the original vinyls if you want to hear the original mastering A good example is albums from The Beatles prior to the new 2009 remasters. The 1990s/early 2000s remasters of the beatles albums on CD were almost ALL terrible | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On December 19 2009 19:44 Chef wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2009 19:18 jon arbuckle wrote: good article. i'm curious what you might say about vinyl records versus other formats and, if possible, what equipment is needed to get the best sound output out of a vinyl record. that's probably where audiophilia goes off the deep end in terms of people spending the most exorbitant amount of money for fringe benefits and/or people making dubious claims about sound quality/output. Wangsta below notes that remasters tend to boost the mastering level to compete with the current standard and take part in the Loudness War, and oftentimes these remasters aren't conducted with the original band, producer, engineer, etc., resulting in a product that might not resemble the original and might do a disservice to the original. You can also work around the pops and cracks by keeping your records clean and safely stored and properly weighting your stylus (if it's too heavy, you'll damage the grooves and the sound output will have a perpetual scratch on it; if it's too light, the needle will pop around in the grooves, not just damaging the grooves but skipping and just not picking up the sound properly). Also note that vinyl records have made a small comeback, but it's more fashionable than audible because a lot of new releases on wax were recorded digitally (thereby negating most benefits that vinyl records have to begin with). I'll explicate the advantages of vinyl records in my reply to Wangsta below. On December 19 2009 20:04 Wangsta wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2009 19:18 jon arbuckle wrote: good article. i'm curious what you might say about vinyl records versus other formats and, if possible, what equipment is needed to get the best sound output out of a vinyl record. that's probably where audiophilia goes off the deep end in terms of people spending the most exorbitant amount of money for fringe benefits and/or people making dubious claims about sound quality/output. vinyl is outdated and offers zero (0%) benefit over CDs. Not even 1%, but 0%. The reason why audiophiles like vinyls is purely due to mastering issues. in some cases, the mastering is MUCH better on the original vinyl version. When old bands re-release their albums on CD, their tracks usually get remastered, and modern studio engineers sometimes fuck up the album. See "loudness war" on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war Thus, sometimes, you have no choice but to find the original vinyls if you want to hear the original mastering A good example is albums from The Beatles prior to the new 2009 remasters. The 1990s/early 2000s remasters of the beatles albums on CD were almost ALL terrible Yes, older vinyl records aren't boosted to the modern digital standard, but also: because vinyl records reproduce sound through vibrations, vinyl records retain their quality at louder levels and retain their low-frequency sound output (i.e. the bass). This is partially why DJing still retains the vinyl record over some digital alternatives and it's definitely why vinyl records are still popular for drone/sludge/doom metal communities. afaik, the 1990s CD remasters of the Beatles were the golden standard for audio remastering. Especially with how their early mono output was translated into stereo. The American boxed set some years back basically just doubled the output for stereo, meaning it sounded like you were listening to "Love Me Do" in one ear and another, rather than the actual synthesis that goes on with a proper stereo production (i.e. panning, dubbing and placing voices, etc.). By which I mean: you don't seem to know what you're talking about, Wangsta. | ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
| ||
|
538
Hungary3932 Posts
 Good job nonetheless, nice article | ||
|
madnessman
United States1581 Posts
| ||
|
Triple7
United States656 Posts
 edit: And the front page caption is hilarious with context to this "guide." | ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
| ||
|
Loser777
1931 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On December 19 2009 19:59 Wangsta wrote: That's true. However, most people are also tone deaf, and have little or no musical ability. Does that mean people should stop making expensive instruments? Audiophile gear isn't meant to appeal to normal people. It's meant for people who love sound, or more specifically, people who love detailed, high-fidelity sound And you guys are still missing the point of my earlier post. Regular headphones do NOT need another amplifier, you guys are right. There is *almost* no difference between an ipod's amplifier and a dedicated amplifier (other than raw power output). The signal is probably more than 90% as clean as the best amplifiers in the world can produce. The point I was making, though, was that Chef did not buy a regular headphone. 99.9999% of headphones work fine running from an ipod. However, Chef bought a headphone that falls in that 0.0001% group of headphones that really, honest to God, should be paired with a dedicated amp. It benefits so much from an amplifier that people generally say it REQUIRES an amp. Why would people say it requires an amplifier if it "works" fine from an ipod? because the hd650 costs $200-300 used and up $400 new. If you use the hd650 without an amp, then you are wasting your money because there are headphones that cost WAY less and sound just as good (if not better) when running from an ipod. The drivers on an hd650 are really high quality and they are capable of revealing the minute differences between bad amplifiers and good amplifiers. That's the biggest reason why sennheiser charges so much money for them. Think about it. Either chef is right (in which case, sennheiser has scammed him) or he is wrong (in which case he needs to spend at most $50 to get a sufficiently powerful amp). Ideally you want to match your amplifier to your headphone synergistically, but honestly, ANY dedicated amp made in the last 50 years will be an improvement over an ipod Beyond a basic dedicated amp, you can always spend more on a better amp, but that's getting into the real "audiophile" territory and even I would recommend against it unless you know what you're doing. Start posting on HydrogenAudio.org and prepare to be educated. You're just repeating the same myths that are repeated over and over again by people who never bothered to do research. Personally, I don't like spending a lot of money unless I know exactly what I'm getting. You act as if I don't have amplifiers at all, or as if I never used them with my headphones. I did and they don't matter. They were 'free' because they aren't for my headphones, they're for speakers which need a dedicated amp. I initially thought there was a huge difference in the quality between my headphones with an amp, and without. BUT IT WAS IN MY HEAD. As I read more and more and started talking to audio engineers about what an amp actually did asking "does an amplifier really improve sound?" and getting "... why would it..?" in response, I began to realise I enjoyed using my desktop amp because it forced me to sit down and listen to music for a long time, instead of just listening to some random catchy song. Then I stopped using the amp, and I starting thinking critically about my music without it, and I realised it sounds pretty drat good and I don't perceive any decrease in quality. That's my experience. It's like people who needlessly listen to flac over high bitrate lossy formats, and claim the flac's are 'crisper.' If you think a track is crisper while you're playing it, it'll sound crisper. If you take an ABX test you'll still fail though, and at that point you have to decide whether you've been foolish, or whether you want to somehow deny the legitimacy of double blind testing. The 'tone deaf' and 'audiophiles are not normal people' thing is what I mistook poor Mr ZeroDPX for saying and berated. Please pretend I was talking to you. And honestly, stop banging on the iPod. I know it's popular, and a lot of people who don't know a thing about music use it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad device. Just because apple is really popular now doesn't automatically make everything they do garbage. At least they put out a product with fucking working firmware, unlike Cowon which audiophiles seem to lose their nuts over. Bigger hassle doesn't mean better sound. It just powered by a lot of people who want to feel like their better than everyone else because only they 'really get music.' Which is an entirely different kind of pretentious than the one I put in my OP (which is basically constantly saying 'I feel like a dick for telling you this, but I want to make this guide complete'). | ||
|
oatboy
United States198 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
PS because vinyl records reproduce sound through vibrations, vinyl records retain their quality at louder levels and retain their low-frequency sound output (i.e. the bass). This is partially why DJing still retains the vinyl record over some digital alternatives and it's definitely why vinyl records are still popular for drone/sludge/doom metal communities. That's very interesting, thank you for sharing :D | ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
| ||
|
esla_sol
United States756 Posts
| ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
On December 19 2009 20:04 Wangsta wrote: vinyl is outdated and offers zero (0%) benefit over CDs. Not even 1%, but 0%. Classical music disagrees. Of course being vinyl doesn't automatically make it better, but there are quite a few classical recordings where vinyl embodies the richness of the sound much more clearly. To automatically dismiss vinyl as obsolete seems over the top to me. | ||
|
skronch
United States2717 Posts
On December 20 2009 04:30 esla_sol wrote: chef, you might want to add weed to your list. realy helps you enjoy music more. lol this really should have been step 1 edit: and LOL about what you said about head-fi. i checked out that forum for a while when I was looking to make my first IEM purchase and it seems like the entire point of being part of that community is buying the most shit that other people approve of and putting it in your sig. That being said, they do have some useful things to share, especially about lower end purchases. Just take what you read with a grain of salt. I ended up getting the sennheiser cx200's for $30 based on their recommendations a few years ago and they've been great. Unfortunately the left earbud just went out....do you have any recommendations for IEM's ~$50-$80? Looking to upgrade | ||
|
lac29
United States1485 Posts
Simply reading about stuff and trying that one Shure E530 flagship IEM once in your life, and impulse buying that Senn HD650 doesn't make one/you an expert in all things audiophile. Thus I think these articles are silly. Just tell people to actually try the audio equipment and make all our lives easier that way. (and yes, it's hard to demo everything, but just tell them to do their best ... there are certainly ways to try out headphones, amps) | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
| ||
| ||
