|
EDIT: Some stuff in this post is pretty outdated. 256 kb/s mp3 for example is dumb and bloated. go 192 or lower. ogg vorbis on many DAPs will consume more power than mp3, so it is worth weighing that against its freeware pros. DAPs do vary, but not among known brands. Cheap chinese brands like HiSound are scams built with the worst parts possible, even though they are expensive as hell. Headphones can sound different from one another, though not necessarily better. When I talk about amps, I mean dedicated separate amps, since of course all DAPs have a built in amp. That about covers it, I guess.
---- Original Post ----
The following is some advice for getting the most out of your listening sessions. Some of it will seem obvious to some people, some of it won't. Hopefully there is something new in here for everyone. In any case, it's the condensed version of everything I've learned that is relevant to the experience. We'll start from inside and progress to the exterior.
The BrainIn case you don't know where your brain is, there's a picture of it. That bright, little fiery spot is someone's artistic interpretation of joy.
The important thing to remember about your brain is that you need to keep it open, but not so open that it falls out. Learn about new concepts, but don't immediately accept them. This is REALLY important to keep in mind because there are a tonne of idiots in the world of 'audiophilia' and if you don't have an overactive sense of cynicism or skepticism, you'll waste a lot of money.
The EarHere's a picture of some guy's ear. Don't worry if yours is a different colour, they basically work the same.
While not strictly necessary, ears are pretty useful for listening to music, and it's hard to find replacements. So take care of them.
Don't use Q-Tips. Q-Tips push and build up wax in your ear, making it very dense. It's a bad idea to be poking around your ear drum anyway, so just stop. Seriously. You may take out some wax, but the wax you don't get gets compacted in your ear and causes problems which you may eventually need to see a specialist for.
So how do you clean your ears? It's actually really simple. Pour water into them. While you're in the shower, or just with a cup of water, direct the stream of water to the inside of your ear. If water stays in your ear, turn your head upside-down to drain it. Don't worry about your ears somehow being damaged from water... Humans are aquatic creatures. We swim. Water is supposed to be able to go there. Don't wash the insides of your ears too often, because we have earwax for a reason, but every once in awhile cleaning out your ear is fine and will help you hear a lot more clearly especially if it's been awhile.
Remember what I said about your brain? That was pretence for this. Audio equipment, especially "audiophile equipment" is probably the most frustrating area to learn about, and most dangerous to get involved in. Follow my guidance, and maybe you will make it out alive without feeling like an idiot. I'll try to be brief, but I really want to warn people about the garbage surrounding this scene.
Some preliminary advice: Don't trust anyone on Head-fi.org. They don't know what they're talking about, and they waste hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on equipment that doesn't enhance anything. Also, just because someone works at an audio retail store, or reviews equipment, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Trust me on this, and trust no one who starts talking about audio equipment as if it were food at a restaurant.
Headphones
Or earphones, or IEMs, or whatever. When looking to buy new ones, you should be judging the following characteristics: Comfort, convenience, and to a far lesser extent, power consumption. Comfort just means do you feel okay with them being on your head. If your headphones aren't comfortable after an hour of listening, they're probably not very good. You want to be able to wear them long enough to at least listen to the entirety of an album. In general most headphones and earphones and whatever you can get used to... But you should know if you do spend a decent amount you won't have to get used to them, they'll just be nice to wear. IMO that's what expensive headphones offer most. Convenience is pretty obvious... Get whatever you want for whatever purpose you need them. Earphones for transit, big headphones for home. Simple. Power consumption is a bit more complicated, but really pretty negligible. Silver connects on the jacks are more conductive, and thus it will take less battery power to run. Gold connects aren't as conductive, but they are longer lasting because silver tends to oxidize quicker.
Headphone Cable
And cables in general. Don't spend insane amounts of money on this. Unless you're buying super duper cheapo crap cables from a guy in an alley, they all reproduce music as effectively as the other. The only thing to know about cables is that most cables will transmit noise if you tap them, which is mildly annoying, and if you pay just a little bit more you can get a cable that won't. It doesn’t cost you more than 30 bucks, and even that is kind of a lot. You certainly don't need to pay 200 dollars (and there are really dumb/ignorant people who seriously do that).
Amplifiers
Unless you're powering full sized speakers, DON'T BOTHER. There will be a lot of people who tell you that you need an amplifier for headphones to sound good. This is just not true. An amplifier will not make your music sound better; it'll only increase the amplitude of the signal. That's what an amplifier does, it increases amplitude. So if you are hearing your music at a volume that satisfies you, you don't need an amplifier. I have HD650s which anyone on head-fi will tell you need an amplifier to be any good. And I can tell you they're wrong, they're powered just fine by my iPod.
DAPs
Digital Audio Players. Basically get whatever fits your needs, and PLEASE ignore any claims about sound quality people make. Cowon does not sound better than Apple, Apple doesn't sound better than Sony, and Samsung, and HiSound, and whatever other brand. Digital Audio Converters have been figured out, and they're not horribly expensive to make. Music is not going to sound better. That said, something less obvious to think about when buying a DAP: What formats does it play? Ideally you want a DAP that plays Ogg Vorbis, and maybe flac, which are excellent and pretty popular FREEWARE formats. I'm not going to tell you Mp3 is bad, because on the whole it isn't, but it is proprietary. Mp3 is good because it's convenient for listening to samples of bands, since it is HUGELY popular, but really it should be replaced with freeware stuff that has shown itself to be just as good. Other than that... Your concerns are battery life and whatever will be convenient for your uses. NOT SOUND QUALITY cause they all do it the same. You want features like gapless playback (no pauses between loading tracks), but you don't want to take advice from people who tell you the sound quality of a device is like eating a juicy steak.
Audio Formats
For ripping CDs, use FLAC. FLAC is a lossless codec, and therefore the best kind of file to use when converting tracks to what is actually convenient. You shouldn't, however, use FLAC files for general listening. They are HUGE, they have insanely high bitrates (good-bye battery life), and they don't improve the sound you're hearing one iota. These files have only one purpose, and that's so you can convert them to lossy formats (since converting from one lossy format to another can have disastrous effects on quality). Again, ideally you should convert to OGG, but it doesn't really matter. If you like mp3 that's fine, mp3 can handle almost all files pretty well. I've heard 192 kb/s is the lowest a file can be without hearing a difference, but I play it safe with 255 kb/s. Either way, you're not going to win an abx test against flac with those files, so save your DAP's space and battery life. In case you're wondering, FLAC files play at about 1000 kb/s on most modern rock albums, and 500 on Jazz and classical albums. That's A LOT harder on your DAP. The only thing you don't wanna do is start converting your files to 128 kb/s or lower, because then the artifacts WILL be very noticeable, and it's just generally not asking that much to move up to 196. Right now formats are competing to make 160 kb/s flawless, but I don't think they're there yet.
Exact Audio Copy cd ripper
Listening EnvironmentOkay... We made it... Ooo! Pillows! =D
This is where I get pretentious and start saying things that you may or may not already do, think is bloody obvious, or whatever. But keep reading, because maybe there is something you didn't think of.
Time
It's my opinion that music is best enjoyed in the complete absence of other worries. So save music for a quiet day, or after you don't have anything more you need to do. Give yourself enough time to listen to a whole album. One of the worst things people do these days is listening to single songs by themselves. That's fine for when you're on the bus and just looking for some sound, but I really think when you first get an album you should listen to it all the way through, without interruption. If you're used to downloading songs, and you hardly ever obtain full albums, try this because it will give you a whole new appreciate of the artist. Lots of songs don't sound very good on their own, but in the context of a complete album are great. Not only this, but you will miss out on any genre with long slow songs, because YOU'RE LIVING YOUR STUPID FAST PACED LIFE AND AREN'T STOPPING TO SMELL THE FLOWERS! GOD YOU'RE SUCH A NOOB AT LIFE! No! I don't gotta skate you fucker! Slow down!
Space
Be somewhere comfortable. A nice sitting chair, or a bed, or whatever. Just make sure it's not somewhere that's going to distract you from the music. Sometimes it can be really nice if you find some nice art to look at while you listen to music, but everyone's done that. However, something that might be neglected is listening to music in the dark. You know how they say that a blind person's hearing is greatly enhanced because they need it that much more? Well I like to imagine that when the lights are turned off it's a similar effect. Not because we need to listen closer to get around (we're completely obstructing that ability with the music), but because without visual stimulation, our brain can concentrate a whole lot better. So try listening to an entire album in the dark, especially if it's an ambient genre. You might find it that much better, especially if you let your imagination run wild and start picturing the music.
Flux
Not really. But try to be in an area you're not going to be interrupted, or tempted to leave. So maybe the middle of the day when you're the only person with the day off, or late at night when it's too late for anyone to call. Naturally, in a room people aren't walking in and out of all the time.
MusicIt... It... Just makes me want to... Get up and dance like a retard!!!!
The first rule to enjoying music is to ALWAYS be trying to expand your horizons. If you haven't already, stop dismissing genres. Don't listen to a few raps songs, or a few country songs, and decide they're all awful. Don't look down on electronic music because it's done in front of a computer. Don't stop listening to something because it sounds weird. ALL music sounds weird at first. It's when we get used to it that we start liking it. But we shouldn't ever get too used to it, because then music gets boring. So always search for new songs and support innovative works. Most people reading this are hopefully scoffing and saying 'well duh!' but for you kids who haven't made the leap into maturity, there is no art form that is inherently bad. No matter what the instruments used, you will be able to find something you like, and you will be glad you did.
Other fun things...
Listen to ambient music when you're writing or drawing. Sometimes it can really inspire you.
Listen to relaxing classical music when studying. When you're relaxed you will absorb information into memory more easily.
Listen to exciting songs or Rocky Theme songs before a test. I listen to all the Rocky Theme songs before every final and not only does it get my pumped to kick its butt, but it works as a conditioner so that whenever I hear those songs, I'm ready to perform and I'm happy. IE Application of Pavlov's Dog study.
Listen to music when preparing food... It makes you feel classy.
One thing you SHOULDN'T do... Compliment people on their music taste. Why? Cause it makes you look really dumb. Don't apply subjective terms to it, just say "We have the same taste in music!" because that's all it is. You don't say "Oh, you have good taste in food!" when someone eats the same flavour of potato chips as you, so don't say it about music.
An AlbumSpirtual Machines, by Our Lady Peace
Just for fun, I'll end this guide with my favourite album. I always hesitate to declare a favourite album, because then I start thinking of all the other great albums I've heard (which tends to send me off to music land for a few hours  ), but really I love this one, and I've loved it for almost a decade so maybe it does deserve it.
Regardless, it's an alternative rock album 'about' a future where Artificial Intelligence has become so advanced that moral concerns become a major political issue. That's what the cool little 10 second intermission tracks are about. The tone is very sorrowful and about regret. Raine Maida's singing is absolutely incredible as usual, and the recording is excellent. It's rare to see vocals become the forefront of music while the music remains complex and interesting, but it's worth it. Maida really knows how to move his voice, and it conveys the varied emotions of his lyrics perfectly. Imagine the voice of a terrible argument with a loved one and then storming off... Then imagine having no reason to feel upset, but mimicking that voice. Raine Maida can do that. An actor among singers. Heavy bass, fun guitar, solid drumming. Check it out.
+ Show Spoiler [EDIT:] + Note
This guide has provoked a few posts about my section on equipment. All I'm saying in those sections is that there is no reason to believe the equipment makes a difference, because there are no studies or proof or whatever. Anecdotal evidence is not enough for me. If it's enough for you go ahead and waste you time. I'm not discussing this anymore.
On amplifiers: I don't like to think I have exceptional hearing, but apparently other people who don't own HD650s think that an iPod won't give them enough volume, so maybe I do just have amazing hearing because I don't need an amp. Regardless, there are exceptions to headphones and amps. If you headphones have something insane, like 600 ohms of impedance you probably will want an amplifier... and at 300 ohms if you're one of those people who needs to have volume high enough that it damages your ears, you'll want an amp too. My advice is for safe listening, and based on my own hearing ability which I assume is average (though because I practice safe listening, if you don't you might have worse than expected hearing for your age).
  
|
On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
You don't say "Oh, you have good taste in food!" when someone eats the same flavour of potato chips as you, so don't say it about music.
actually i do say this 
going to read the rest of article now
|
You're right Chef this is pretentious  Good info though.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
[QUOTE]On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
[QUOTE]
That's simply not true.
|
I didn't read all of it since it seems kinda obvious tbh, but I definitely have to agree with this:
On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
The first rule to enjoying music is to ALWAYS be trying to expand your horizons. If you haven't already, stop dismissing genres. Don't listen to a few raps songs, or a few country songs, and decide they're all awful. Don't look down on electronic music because it's done in front of a computer. Don't stop listening to something because it sounds weird.
I can't count the amount of people who have listened to 5 seconds of a single song I like and dismissed the entire genre as 'horrible' or 'shitty' or 'hipster garbage'.
|
There is a difference between good and bad taste in music. It doesn't have anything to do with genre or supposed objective quality in music, but the breadth of a listener's horizon.
If one person has exahustively studied across all ranges of music and listen to thousands of albums and can tell me exactly what they do or don't like about any particular music, I respect it far more than somebody who listens to whatever is on the radio and defends liking kelly clarkson and kanye west because they haven't heard outside what they've been exposed to in pop culture.
|
|
|
Belgium6771 Posts
On December 19 2009 12:14 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
That's simply not true.
Can you prove your statement?
|
Expanding your horizons needs to be capitalised, put in bold and repeated 89 times imo.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On December 19 2009 12:25 Espers wrote:
Expanding your horizons needs to be capitalised, put in bold and repeated 89 times imo.
I disagree. Why should someone be forced to expand their horizons if they're happy and fine listening to what they know and like? Forcing people to experience other genres is just as bad as people who blindly reject genres.
|
On December 19 2009 12:20 Xeofreestyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:14 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
That's simply not true. Can you prove your statement?
Of course he can't. But he's right.
|
On December 19 2009 12:15 Sunny Afternoon wrote:I didn't read all of it since it seems kinda obvious tbh, but I definitely have to agree with this: Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
The first rule to enjoying music is to ALWAYS be trying to expand your horizons. If you haven't already, stop dismissing genres. Don't listen to a few raps songs, or a few country songs, and decide they're all awful. Don't look down on electronic music because it's done in front of a computer. Don't stop listening to something because it sounds weird. I can't count the amount of people who have listened to 5 seconds of a single song I like and dismissed the entire genre as 'horrible' or 'shitty' or 'hipster garbage'.
Definitely, everyone should give every song a chance before they bring in any loaded prejudices.
|
United States12607 Posts
I have been strongly considering HD650s (have HD595s now) but have been put off by all the talk that they must be used with an amp. How can it be that so many "experts" are wrong about this?
Also can you comment on the HD650s vs. any other decent/high-end headphones you have tried out? I am only interested in laying out for them if they would be a pretty good step up over my 595s.
|
United States12607 Posts
Thanks for this guide btw, useful infos here!
|
What are people's experiences with IEMs? Are there any particular brands/models you'd recommend?
On December 19 2009 12:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:25 Espers wrote:
Expanding your horizons needs to be capitalised, put in bold and repeated 89 times imo. I disagree. Why should someone be forced to expand their horizons if they're happy and fine listening to what they know and like? Forcing people to experience other genres is just as bad as people who blindly reject genres.
It's my experience that giving an album an whirl that I've had in my media library for ages is usually a lot more enjoyable than listening to the same select artists.
|
ob(thumbs-up) Chef. As an audiophilist and music enthusiast, I applaud you for providing such a detailed guide to snobbing music. I personally bought a Cowon player because it plays flac and mp4/acc, booya.
|
It's boring to argue about boring things
|
I agree with this so much... The parts that I didn't know, I thank you for potentially saving me money in the future.
|
On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
Give yourself enough time to listen to a whole album. One of the worst things people do these days is listening to single songs by themselves. That's fine for when you're on the bus and just looking for some sound, but I really thing when you first get an album you should listen to it all the way through, without interruption. If you're used to downloading songs, and you hardly ever obtain full albums, try this because it will give you a whole new appreciate of the artist. Lots of songs don't sound very good on their own, but in the context of a complete album are great. Not only this, but you will miss out on any genre with long slow songs,
Wow there are other people my age who still do this? Awesome! I pretty much only listen to albums all the way through, and I thought I was just a dinosaur in an ipod age. Btw, great guide! I got lots of good stuff from this guide, thanks for contributing it!
edit: + Show Spoiler +also, somebody star this man 
|
awesome article.
5/5 as always
|
I liked your sections on equipment, too many people listen to everything on iPod buds and can't hear shit. I have a question though, how come classical music is always "relaxing"? If you're going to sit and listen critically to music you can get a ton out of doing that with classical, and most good classical music isn't remotely relaxing in any way.
|
I highly recommend audio-technica ATH-AD900.
![[image loading]](http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/audio_technica_ath_ad900.jpg)
|
|
|
On December 19 2009 14:53 oatboy wrote:
I liked your sections on equipment, too many people listen to everything on iPod buds and can't hear shit. I have a question though, how come classical music is always "relaxing"? If you're going to sit and listen critically to music you can get a ton out of doing that with classical, and most good classical music isn't remotely relaxing in any way.
It isn't. I meant 'relaxing' to be a qualifier, because sometimes Classical music is brutally distracting and hard to listen to while doing something intensive.
|
|
|
On the topic of flac, it seems incredibly useless to rip albums in flac when the artist used/uses poor recording equipment. I know mp3 is still lossy, but i don't think it makes much of a difference when the sound is already somewhat lo-fi.
Most of my albums are produced by artists who don't have access to extremely high quality recording equipment, and since I already own the album and can re-rip it if I ever feel the need (no need for elitist archiving on my hard drive) I don't really see a point to keep them in flac after transcoding to something smaller unless I'm sending the music to someone else. But I guess this doesn't really apply to much mainstream music since I'd guess they can afford to record with high-quality equipment.
|
I see, I"m just a little touchy about it becuase I'm a classical musician and most times I tell people that they always say "oh i always listen to classical when i'm studying" which is missing the point entirely. I also have no ability to tune out classical music at all so I can't listen to it at all when I'm attempting something else.
|
and to fucking think... ive been doing it wrong the whole time.
thanks for the guide.
|
On December 19 2009 15:12 oatboy wrote:
I see, I"m just a little touchy about it becuase I'm a classical musician and most times I tell people that they always say "oh i always listen to classical when i'm studying" which is missing the point entirely. I also have no ability to tune out classical music at all so I can't listen to it at all when I'm attempting something else.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/09/01/108-appearing-to-enjoy-classical-music/
The link's a bit old, but.. this guy hits the nail on the head
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On December 19 2009 15:17 Sunny Afternoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 15:12 oatboy wrote:
I see, I"m just a little touchy about it becuase I'm a classical musician and most times I tell people that they always say "oh i always listen to classical when i'm studying" which is missing the point entirely. I also have no ability to tune out classical music at all so I can't listen to it at all when I'm attempting something else. http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/09/01/108-appearing-to-enjoy-classical-music/The link's a bit old, but.. this guy hits the nail on the head
I agree with these two posts so much.
If you think classical music is nice and relaxing and light, you're doing it wrong :<
|
On December 19 2009 15:12 oatboy wrote:
I see, I"m just a little touchy about it becuase I'm a classical musician and most times I tell people that they always say "oh i always listen to classical when i'm studying" which is missing the point entirely. I also have no ability to tune out classical music at all so I can't listen to it at all when I'm attempting something else.
I definitely sympathize. That stuffwhitepeoplelike blog is so true too hahaha. That's why I wrote the qualifier though, because I thought if I just said 'classical' people would be offended T.T
|
Classical music is like the worst music genre to study with, imo. There's way too much going on in most of it, it's very distracting. I know there are some exceptions, but not many. Tried to study with tchaikovsky's pathetique once, couldn't make it through the first side of the album.
That I myself listen to hardcore punk while studying is somewhat besides the point, though.
|
I find Glenn Gould pretty relaxing... But I don't want to be suddenly labeled one of those white people who pretends to know what they're talking about, so he refers to a relatively recent work! So pretend I didn't tell you that.
Glenn Gould Edition Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier I... Tell me that's not relaxing.
|
chef you make a lot of great points but some of your claims are exaggerated or just plain wrong. It's true that many people on head-fi, audiogon, and etc. are money wasting idiots, but they aren't universally wrong.
For one thing, your hd650 really do need an (high quality) amplifier and there is very good reason why they do. I'm sure you don't care for a technical explanation, but the short story is that amplifiers change the signal that you feed it. Bad amplifiers will change the signal a lot more than good amplifiers.
Headphones also have technical specs based on the properties of their drivers (i.e. resistance), and you need to match those specifications otherwise you are fucking with the power circuit and your sound (and possibly your equipment) will be affected. Low sensitivity headphones need a lot of current to achieve higher volumes. If your amplifier cannot provide enough current, you will get clipping in your sound, which is VERY bad. High resistance headphones need a lot of input voltage swing to effectively move their drivers and achieve high quality detail/dynamics. If your amplifier can't output high enough voltages, then your headphone's drivers wont react properly to small/rapid changes in your sound waveform (i.e. fast or complex music)
If you want to ignore the opinions of experts and use hd650s straight out of an ipod, thats fine. What you are doing is the equivalent of putting a $1000 graphics card into a $500 desktop computer. But if that makes you happy, then so be it
Also, I won't say that you are wrong about mp3s being just as good as flac, but for audiophile purposes there is a huge difference between the two, especially if you are comparing lower bitrate mp3s. I do believe that there is a difference between even the best mp3s (i.e. LAME encoded 320kbps or VBR-0) and FLAC files. However, the difference is small enough that you can ignore it if you don't listen too critically. The biggest problem I have with mp3s is that not all of them are encoded properly. Poorly encoded mp3s are extremely distracting, and that alone justifies switching to FLAC imo (at very least, so that you can use the flacs to encode mp3s YOURSELF to ensure that they sound good).
|
No, I do care for the technical explanation. The problem is it doesn't exist because it's not true.
Show me the abx studies that prove otherwise. Those don't exist either. Trust me. I spent fucking months looking for them.
mp3s only have trouble on rare occasion with some songs. Those songs are mentioned on hydrogenaudio.org and have been abx tested.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On December 19 2009 15:46 Chef wrote:
I find Glenn Gould pretty relaxing... But I don't want to be suddenly labeled one of those white people who pretends to know what they're talking about, so he refers to a relatively recent work! So pretend I didn't tell you that.
Glenn Gould Edition Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier I... Tell me that's not relaxing.
I do not approve, in general, of Gould's unorthodox tempos. >_>
|
On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
Not only this, but you will miss out on any genre with long slow songs, because YOU'RE LIVING YOUR STUPID FAST PACED LIFE AND AREN'T STOPPING TO SMELL THE FLOWERS! GOD YOU'RE SUCH A NOOB AT LIFE! No! I don't gotta skate you fucker! Slow down!
Hahaha, love this passage! Chef you're awesome.
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 16:03 Chef wrote:
No, I do care for the technical explanation. The problem is it doesn't exist because it's not true.
Show me the abx studies that prove otherwise. Those don't exist either.
mp3s only have trouble on rare occasion with some songs. Those songs are mentioned on hydrogenaudio.org and have been abx tested.
ABx studies for amplifers
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
mp3s I really shouldnt need to prove anything. Take any flac file that you have and compress it to 128kbps mp3. now compare it to the original
|
As a composer and musician, I have to object to a few things you write.
Not _everyone_ on head-fi.org is an idiot. There are a lot of people with a lot of experience there. Mixed in are people with no experience and violent opinions, and people who don't realize that the placebo effect is what's making their $10,000 amp sound amazing. If you are good at critical thinking, it can be a valuable forum.
Cables aren't _completely_ irrelevant, but they don't matter in every circumstance, and they're definitely not worth paying snake-oil salesmen insane amounts of money. That said, replacing my stock HD580 cable with a $60 cable that was a much heavier gauge increased the bass response, which makes sense, because the super-fine gauge of the old wire has different electrical characteristics than the much heavier gauge wire in the new cable. I would not, however, expect to hear a difference between my cable and one of the same gauge but made with oxygen-free copper and nitrogen injected teflon-coated doohickywhatevers. There's a reason those don't sound better in double-blind tests, it's called "buzzwords for gullible people".
Headphone amps are also not irrelevant, but their effects depend greatly on source, headphone, volume, and musical style. If you put high-impedance headphones on a low-powered portable device and play hard bass hits at high volumes, you will probably be able to hear some distortion. As your ear becomes more finely tuned, you can probably hear more things in more circumstances. But most headphones can be very enjoyable on most sources with most music, and an amp can be anywhere from a nice improvement to not really discernable.
The final rule, which you don't mention, is that in the end, what's best is what sounds right _to you_, not what someone else tells you is better. If you don't hear any difference, it's not better. Of course, it's definitely possible to train your ear to hear more precisely, and thus notice stuff. And most people would be able to hear the difference a nice pair of headphones makes over their $10 earbuds, and be surprised at how much they've been missing. But in the end, the best thing is what makes you happy.
P.S. If you're claiming to be pretentious, why are you recommending OGG? Recommend MPC, for heavens' sake. Faster to compress, sounds better at lower bitrates, open standard.
|
On December 19 2009 16:08 Wangsta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 16:03 Chef wrote:
No, I do care for the technical explanation. The problem is it doesn't exist because it's not true.
Show me the abx studies that prove otherwise. Those don't exist either.
mp3s only have trouble on rare occasion with some songs. Those songs are mentioned on hydrogenaudio.org and have been abx tested. ABx studies for amplifers http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htmmp3s I really shouldnt need to prove anything. Take any flac file that you have and compress it to 128kbps mp3. now compare it to the original
In spec talk it might be called flat +/- 0.9 dB over the 20 Hz to 20 kHz range. Passable, but this is not good enough to pass an ABX test.
And the other tests give out 50% results.
I said in my OP 128 kb/s is not good enough.
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 16:11 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 16:08 Wangsta wrote:On December 19 2009 16:03 Chef wrote:
No, I do care for the technical explanation. The problem is it doesn't exist because it's not true.
Show me the abx studies that prove otherwise. Those don't exist either.
mp3s only have trouble on rare occasion with some songs. Those songs are mentioned on hydrogenaudio.org and have been abx tested. ABx studies for amplifers http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htmmp3s I really shouldnt need to prove anything. Take any flac file that you have and compress it to 128kbps mp3. now compare it to the original Show nested quote +In spec talk it might be called flat +/- 0.9 dB over the 20 Hz to 20 kHz range. Passable, but this is not good enough to pass an ABX test. I said in my OP 128 kb/s is not good enough.
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
|
chef, I won't argue with you about cables/formats/etc., but do you really believe that all amplifiers are the same? its not a matter of hearing a difference. its a matter of there being measurable differences in electrical properties.
think about it this way, if you try to power a $10000000 loudspeaker with an ipod, will you hear high quality sound? just at a low volume?
|
On December 19 2009 16:14 Wangsta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 16:11 Chef wrote:On December 19 2009 16:08 Wangsta wrote:On December 19 2009 16:03 Chef wrote:
No, I do care for the technical explanation. The problem is it doesn't exist because it's not true.
Show me the abx studies that prove otherwise. Those don't exist either.
mp3s only have trouble on rare occasion with some songs. Those songs are mentioned on hydrogenaudio.org and have been abx tested. ABx studies for amplifers http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htmmp3s I really shouldnt need to prove anything. Take any flac file that you have and compress it to 128kbps mp3. now compare it to the original In spec talk it might be called flat +/- 0.9 dB over the 20 Hz to 20 kHz range. Passable, but this is not good enough to pass an ABX test. I said in my OP 128 kb/s is not good enough. 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
Can't you just take the precaution of confirming it's a good encode before downloading the mp3s? I know on many trackers people are forced to mention how they encoded it with what programs and the bitrates and the formats.
|
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 16:26 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.
You don't need some crazy, expensive audiophile amplifier. Do you know why those are so expensive? It's because they aren't mass produced. A lot of them are even hand built, theres a very small market for ultrahigh end amplifiers. So you are right, theres no point dealing with those kinds of amps unless you feel like dumping cash
However, you DO need an amp that matches the voltage and current requirements of your headphone. An ipod is designed to drive earbuds dude. Look at the size of the hd650's drivers and use some common sense. Does your ipod's battery provide enough power to drive those things? Maybe if you crank the volume to near max, you'll get audible sound, but dont expect to get your money's worth in terms of sound detail/dynamics. You'll probably notice some weird sounds too if you listen to bass heavy music or complex/fast songs. That's called clipping, and its really bad. If you are using an ipod as an amplifier, a $50 grado sr60 will sound very nearly as good (if not better) than a $200-300 hd650.
|
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.
|
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.
I don't understand your argument. Why did you buy hd650s then? Did you hear a difference between them and cheaper senns like the hd555 (which works fine from an ipod) or high quality budget headphones like low end grados or audiotechnicas? Why do you think hd650 are rated at 300ohms, when normal earbuds/headphones are usually 8ohms or lower? Do you think that number is just some made-up bullshit that means nothing?
I'm not saying that you need some exotic high end amp, I'm saying that you need an amplifier that outputs enough power to satisfy the needs of an electrical component. It doesn't matter if this amplifier costs $5, as long as it meets the power specifications, you will be getting 90% of what you need to get from an amplifier. Just because your headphones "work" with less power than they need doesnt mean that they are working at close to 100% of their potential.
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.
|
|
|
Ideally one would want perfectly matched impedance from amplifier (ipods and whatnot have amplifiers in them) to headphones, but in reality I think you'll generally be fine as long as the headphone impedance isn't too low, which will load the amplifier too much. Higher impedance headphones do need a higher voltage signal to deliver the same power (volume). I'm sure that the amp in a typical media player is designed to suit any typically set of headphones.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic.
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.
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.
|
On December 19 2009 16:06 R04R wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Not only this, but you will miss out on any genre with long slow songs, because YOU'RE LIVING YOUR STUPID FAST PACED LIFE AND AREN'T STOPPING TO SMELL THE FLOWERS! GOD YOU'RE SUCH A NOOB AT LIFE! No! I don't gotta skate you fucker! Slow down! 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?
I'm currently leaning towards HA-RX700, but feedback would be helpful.
|
On December 19 2009 17:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic.
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.....
Nowadays, the technology is very advanced, to the point that a very cheap system will perform nearly as well as a very well designed one. If you are willing to put the time, effort, and money into buying that expensive one, then kudos to you. But what is the point of spending a considerable amount of extra money on something that will, ultimately, not improve the experience by a considerable amount?
|
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.
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.)
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On December 19 2009 17:14 lMPERVlOUS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 17:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic.
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.....
I always read that comic as poking fun at products being disguised through marketing and labeling as opposed to actual effect. But now I can see how you read it would make sense too...
|
On December 19 2009 17:18 ZeroDPX wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.)
Hearing is trainable. That's not proof amplifiers improve sound. What is your point?
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) and then not backing it up at all. I don't need to put the volume so high it is disruptive. Headphones divers are really not that hard to move. Unless you're listening to your music at dangerous levels, you're not going to hear distortion with an iPod. It shouldn't even be possible, because the iPod caps its volume. In any case I said in my OP that if the volume is not satisfying, then there is a reason to get an amplifier. All I said about the HD650 was that my iPod creates a satisfying volume for them, they're some of the highest impedance phones you can get, so it's unlikely most other people will need an amp for whatever headphone they get, apart from snob appeal.
|
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.
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.
You're making a claim (amplifiers are needed for certain tracks on modern DAPs with high impedance headphones)
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.
|
Hey, not bad, and I approve the outing of the audio nuts that tell you you need 50 000 dollar equipment to fully experience music.
|
On December 19 2009 17:42 ZeroDPX wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +You're making a claim (amplifiers are needed for certain tracks on modern DAPs with high impedance headphones) 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.
Sorry. I interpreted finely tuning my ears to mean that I wasn't hearing a difference in amps because my ears aren't 'finely tuned.' It was a misinterpretation. I agree 100% there are situations where you need an amp, and I said so in my OP (which is why I misunderstood you). I'm just trying tell people don't buy an amp thinking it'll make all your music sound better, buy it because you have a special need for more amplitude. I think the situation headphones would need an amp is extremely rare. Maybe for someone who has very bad hearing.
It's one of those cases where I think a post means something else because what it really means seems pointless to mention.
|
Doesn´t everyone already know how to enjoy music?
Don´t we get it in birth or something...
At times you sound like a huge snob too but it´s an okay article still: 4/5.
|
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.
|
I absolutely agree about the listening to a whole album thing. I don't get to do it often enough, but when I do it is awesome. I'm an atheist, but listening to ziggy stardust and the spiders from mars from start to finish is a religious experience imo.
|
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.
|
On December 19 2009 17:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic. Show nested quote +
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.
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.
|
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
|
kind of unsure as to which post i should address first so this might be a bit mixed up.
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. 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 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.
|
|
|
ok, this was... pretentious indeed
Good job nonetheless, nice article
|
i like the guide except for how chef blows off all expensive equipment...
|
LOL. I'm such a noob at life...
edit: And the front page caption is hilarious with context to this "guide."
|
nice guide, good read and I agree with pretty much all of what you say
|
I don't want to derail the argument about headphone amplifiers too much, but what about buying expensive DACs to replace the integrated sound in computers?
|
On December 19 2009 19:59 Wangsta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 17:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:The xkcd comic, though amusing, has no real relation to this topic.
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.
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.
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').
|
I know for classical music I can certainly tell the difference between a FLAC taken from a modern recording and an mp3 at 256k, the entire low string section sounds markedly different to me. Now I've spent my entire life playing classical music full time so perhaps I'm a bit more attuned than normal folks but I'd imagine most people could hear it if they tried. I can't hear any difference between OGG and FLAC though.
|
It may be just that particular mp3. mp3 encoding is far from perfect on particular files. However, I'd still encourage you to try and pass an abx test (you can use foobar2000 for this) and load the flac and mp3 file you think you can perceive a difference in.
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
|
As a swimmer, I recommend people just rolling up a corner of a tissue and sticking it into your ear to dry it. If you ignore it, it could lead to swimmer's ear which is really painful.
|
chef, you might want to add weed to your list. realy helps you enjoy music more.
|
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.
|
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
|
All these arguments about audiophile equipment is stupid unless you've spent a considerable amount of time actually demoing all the equipment yourself which few people in the general population have. I don't trust anyone who hasn't actually listened to the equipment they have an opinion about ... and there tends to be a TON of people like this everywhere in all parts of the internet.
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)
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
Sick shit, ima go read it all now.
|
On December 20 2009 08:31 lac29 wrote:
All these arguments about audiophile equipment is stupid unless you've spent a considerable amount of time actually demoing all the equipment yourself which few people in the general population have. I don't trust anyone who hasn't actually listened to the equipment they have an opinion about ... and there tends to be a TON of people like this everywhere in all parts of the internet.
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)
If you read what I said, I don't advise any specific headset. I said the headset I own only as an example of something that's typically claimed to require an amplifier, but really doesn't.
Doing random full sight demos is worthless. It's like answering a math test with all the answers on a second page right beside you. That's why I advise people to look for palpable characteristics like comfort and convenience, as apposed to fooling themselves with reviews or 10 minutes demos. I never said to buy any kind of equipment, I just said to be wary of myths about equipment.
|
I should clarify ... it's more about the banter between Wangsta etc. Your article is fine in itself.
|
On December 19 2009 12:14 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
That's simply not true.
for example, poetry.
|
No one?
Are expensive DACs worth the money?
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On December 20 2009 11:11 Loser777 wrote:
No one?
Are expensive DACs worth the money?
This is really up to you decide. Will you be able to perceive enough of a difference to justify spending X dollars? If yes, then yes. If no, no. It's a question that only you can answer :\
|
If you do extensive research on what DAPs do in relation to the capacity of the human ear, and don't find anything, I'd say don't spend your money. My guide is based on what I've found, but of course I'm not omniscient. I haven't found anything except anecdotal evidence, so at this point in time I'd say it's negligible. I've been told many times that it isn't the DAC that matters. But then again, those same people told me it's the amp that matters, which further research suggest against (especially when I entered realms outside financial interest).
I broke my rule about replying to my own threads, and I really regret it. The realm of my knowledge is basically contained in my OP... If you misunderstand it I can't help you.
|
which artforms are inherently bad?
|
On December 20 2009 10:48 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:14 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
That's simply not true. for example, poetry.
Apparently you haven't read any of Trozz's posts.
|
To Chef: DACs have not been "figured out". Even the highest end $5000+ DACs are between 21-22bit (yes, with any combination of multi-million dollar equipment, more than 24bit is useless for playback). I have enough trouble with your assumption that people should use headphones to listen to music. This is so wrong. I will admit, headphones are a low-budget solution better than <$200 speakers, but if you want to be pretentious, use my setup (Adam S2A speakers, Apogee Electronics Mini-DAC, M-Audio Audiophile 192 sound card. Cabling is mid-high end stuff). Be a proper snob.
On December 19 2009 12:20 Xeofreestyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:14 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
That's simply not true. Can you prove your statement?
Fecal sculpting.
On December 20 2009 11:11 Loser777 wrote:
No one?
Are expensive DACs worth the money?
Depends - if you have a sound card with a digital output, good speakers, and quality cabling, then yes... but try them out first. I can recommend Lavry's DACs, but balancing out the "feel" of the components of your audio chain is critical. If your audio equipment sounds overly clinical, than a warmer DAC might help offset that. This is no easy decision, as the good stuff starts at around $800.
|
Not going to get into the audiophile discussion going on this thread but I have to say that I enjoyed this OP immensely. I don't consider myself a hardcore audiophile but I do enjoy music and listen to it everyday, and have spent a decent amount of money on stuff.
As far as speakers go, do you have anything to say with regards to orientation/positioning of satellites? Any positioning with regards to walls or anything like that? I have no idea about that sort of stuff but I think things like that might have a difference.
Also I bought the Bose QC15 headphones a short while ago. I've heard countless times that bose is a terrible company for headphones, what do you think? I pretty much only bought it because I was going to be on an overseas flight a week later and I tested out the sound cancellation and it worked awesome. What headphone would you recommend (anything up to $500 or so), as a standalone (no noticeable need for an amp or anything like that)? Earphones? (with priorities being sound quality, sound cancellation, comfort, i.e. I hate the ones that are just bulky and weird like some bang and olufsen ones).
One more thing, I have lower-end Shure earphones and have had them for about a year now. I always wrap them around my ipod and now they're slightly broken. I think basically where the cable starts after the input plug has been bent or stretched too much and now i get static or only half sound (i.e. instrumental but no vocals, very very choppy etc.) unless I physically push in the cable or something. Was wrapping the cable a really bad idea and something I should never do or is this like natural cable wear and tear? In any effect, the earphones come with a two-part cable piece (one direct input + earphone cable, another is an extension cable) and so only the extension is affected. Would you know off hand how much it would be to replace it and the ease of replacement, or would you recommend just getting a newer pair of earphones anyway (which is also why I asked your recommendation for earphones).
|
There's absolutely nothing wrong with bose, other than the fact that they are overpriced (way overpriced). Bose also tends to be bass-heavy which isn't something that audiophiles like (they want neutral sound) which is why there are so many anti-bose posts. But if you can afford them, and if you like that kind of sound coloration, then they are great.
The sennheiser PXC250 and the audiotechnica ANC7 are the best sounding noise canceling headphones that I've heard (they both get really good reviews so it's not just my opinion). They're cheaper than equivalent Bose headphones and have better build quality too. Honestly though, you really should avoid noise canceling features in the first place, they are bad for sound quality and cause all kinds of hassles (having to replacing batteries, being easily breakable, etc.). I've never really liked the idea of a headphone ADDING sound to my music. The technology simply hasn't been perfected yet, they can't produce close to a 100% perfect inverse sound wave, thus there WILL be audible, unwanted noise artifacts.
The sennheiser hd25 is another option. It's not noise canceling, but it isolates so well that it's almost as good at blocking out ambient noise. On the other hand, the sound quality is considerably better than with any noise canceling headphone. AFAIK, the hd25 is sennheiser's flagship, highest model for portable headphones, but they are now dirt cheap (they recently went for $99 on sale on newegg, so you might find another deal like that soon)
If you want the highest quality sound in noisy environments, your best bet are IEM monitors, which will block out more sound than the best noise canceling headphones can. The extension cable for your Shure's can be replaced on ebay or by calling Shure and they are pretty cheap (should be under $10). Shure can also recable your IEMs for a fee (which might just be S+H if you have warranty).
If you buy the high end Shure IEMs, they have detachable cables so you shouldn't ever have that problem
|
Thanks a lot that was really helpful :D
|
As far as speakers go, do you have anything to say with regards to orientation/positioning of satellites? Any positioning with regards to walls or anything like that? I have no idea about that sort of stuff but I think things like that might have a difference.
I don't have the much knowledge on this area, but I've heard you need a really big room.
http://theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/
Is a great site that focuses pretty much entirely on speakers. They do ABX testing as much as possible, they do it legitimately (sound matching, no cheating) and they tell you criticisms of their own testing. Unlike some of the twats in this thread who have buyer's guilt, they don't need to satisfy any personal desire to think their stuff is better than everyone else's stuff.
On Bose... I don't know a thing about them, but if they're overpriced, it is a huge problem. Same reason you stay away from apple earbuds and SkullCandy and Dr. Dre.. You can get the same stuff for cheaper, because you're basically paying for fashion on top of what they are. With Sennheiser, you're probably paying for the name a bit too, but at least you know you're getting something that's built to last, and has had the R & D to support it.
Honestly though, I really don't like listing off specific headphones or brands or telling people what to get. If you want to read that, go to Head-fi and you'll get it in spades. What does it really tell you when you hear 50 different names of headphones? "Oh these have more bass then others" "This one has a 'veil!'" "IT WAS LIKE AN EARGASM THE FIRST TIME I HEAR THEM" "IF YOU DONT LIKE THEM AT FIRST, GIVE THEM 400 HOURS OF BURN IN LOL" Ahhhh! My recommendation is to try headphones out, and if you like them then okay. Try not to ask the price or let the person tell you what they're great at before you listen. My second recommendation is not to listen to anyone who lists their settup like it's bragging rights. Those people tend to have a hobby in audio equipment, not listening to music.
This is an excerpt of a PM I sent someone asking for advice on earphones awhile ago.. Generally the same as my advice on headphones, except less condensed.
+ Show Spoiler +My favourite earbuds were the Sennheiser MX550, but they don't make those anymore. I use the newer model, M560 now since my old ones befell tragedy.
There's a few things you should think about when you buy earbuds.
First is comfort. Your ear will adapt to most styles, but some are just so badly made/suited to your ears they will just fall out and feel bad. Some ear buds ONLY feel comfortable with foam ear pads, which kind of sucks since those deteriorate pretty quick, and you have to be careful just to make sure they don't fall off in your pocket. MX550 didn't need earpads, and I was grateful for that. MX560 does, and honestly I got screwed (some were supposed to come in the box) so I had to find some other ones that were already used... I got them to last a few months but not my ears are trying to adapt to the phones without pads because I can't find any.
The second is general sound quality. If you spend 10 dollars you're going to get crappy earbuds that start getting very distorted at some frequencies. You don't need super awesome sound quality that some idiots will brag about... You're using these earbuds on the bus and on the go... The noise of traffic and the city is going to make paying 200 dollars for earbuds ridiculous.
The third is the type of plating the jack has. Silver is best, because silver has the most conductivity of any metal. However, silver is not good for longevity especially if it's being plugged in and out a lot. So if you're spending like 40 bucks, Silver is ideal and you should just expect to replace it in a few years. If you spend a lot (on something like fullsize headphones) you want a gold plated jack. It's slightly less conductive, but it lasts A LOT longer and doesn't corrode very easily. FYI more conductivity means more volume at a lower output from your devices amplifier, which means less chance of hiss, and less chance of distortion.
Fourth... General build quality. This is something I can actually praise the MX560 for. The jack is protected by a very sturdy rubber that is not directly in contact with the cable the whole way (the cable goes into a little hole). It's really never given me trouble. The earbuds feel kind of cheap, but they're a pretty sturdy plastic. If you cover them up with those little foam pads like you're supposed to, they don't look bad. In general though... You get about what you paid for when it comes to build construction. 30 bucks is enough.
Fifth... Decision between In Ear Monitors (those cone things you jam in your ear) and regular earphones. In ear monitors often have noise cancellation... which is good. You won't hear people around you, and they won't hear your music on the bus. BUT... For a lot of reasons they're bad. They push and build up wax in your ear which will affect your hearing negatively and is hard to clean (there's a special place with vacuum). If you do go this route, you also need to excersise discipline with the volume. In a noiseless environment it's hard to tell what relative noise is, and it's tempting to turn the volume to dangerous levels (especially when you know you're not bothering anyone else). If you go earbuds, you need some discipline, but it's really easy. Just make sure you can still hear the bus and traffic normally in addition to your music, and you won't be damaging your ears or bother other people. Or at least, you won't be damaging more than a bus would (which I think needs like 10 hours to start getting dangerous... why I assume long distance buses have such good noise control, also trains).
|
On December 20 2009 03:16 Chef wrote: At least they put out a product with fucking working firmware, unlike Cowon which audiophiles seem to lose their nuts over.
Wait what?
I've been with Cowon since 2006 (own a D2 and an S9), and every new firmware release is fucking fantastic. By the way, have you ever played with JetEffects on a Cowon player before?
edit: I think you should have put this in the general section.
|
I never heard much bad about the S9, and I heard they eventually fixed the D2 which wasn't very good when it was first released. The O2 has been out a year now and everyone still says it doesn't do anything it claims to. My point was that Cowon uses its customers as beta testers. I'm only annoyed because I was super excited about the O2, given it's supposedly great compatibility, but all the reviews I read that weren't paid for say that it doesn't handle MKV properly (the most appealing format) and that the videos sometimes lag, and that the music portion of the player is awful since it has huge pauses between every song and isn't easy to navigate.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
Cowon is god, Chef you're crazy :[
|
On December 21 2009 00:22 Kazius wrote:
I have enough trouble with your assumption that people should use headphones to listen to music. This is so wrong.
Why is it wrong? A good headphone setup can be had for something like 1/10th the price of an equivalently good speaker setup (on average), and you also don't have to worry about room acoustics, listening position, etc.
if you want to be pretentious, use my setup
I agree with you that the most insane audiophile nuts I have seen are speaker nuts with multi-hundred-thousand-dollar systems rather than headphone nuts. I don't know that that's appealing.
On December 21 2009 01:18 PanoRaMa wrote:
As far as speakers go, do you have anything to say with regards to orientation/positioning of satellites? Any positioning with regards to walls or anything like that? I have no idea about that sort of stuff but I think things like that might have a difference.
It makes a significant difference but recommendations depend completely on your room. If you are really, really serious about this sort of thing there are people who can help you set up a room as a great listening environment. Otherwise, there are a few things generally true, like if you place subwoofers in corners it strengthens the bass response compared to placing them along walls, and if you toe the speakers in toward each other you'll produce a smaller "sweet spot".
Also I bought the Bose QC15 headphones a short while ago. I've heard countless times that bose is a terrible company for headphones, what do you think? I pretty much only bought it because I was going to be on an overseas flight a week later and I tested out the sound cancellation and it worked awesome. What headphone would you recommend (anything up to $500 or so), as a standalone (no noticeable need for an amp or anything like that)? Earphones? (with priorities being sound quality, sound cancellation, comfort, i.e. I hate the ones that are just bulky and weird like some bang and olufsen ones).
I have listened to the Bose QC series cans. All of them have the problem that they simply sound bad. There is Bose equipment that is good (some of their standalone line array speaker/amp units are pretty rad), but those particular headphones are not; they're harsh and have a very uneven frequency response. I think that point of view is fairly consistent with what I have seen others say about them.
IEMs are the way to go for noisy environments if your ears can stand them (they take getting used to, and some people just never do). I have a pair of Etymotic Research ER-4Ps that I picked up used for about $120 that work fantastically; they block about 23 dB worth of noise, which is enough that even on plane flights right next to the engine, I can listen to music at non-deafness-causing levels.
If you just cannot adjust to having things in your ear canal, there are some full-size closed cans that isolate OK. And, surprisingly, I've heard decent things about the "Beats by Dr. Dre" cans as a noise-cancelling option (though like all noise-cancelling headphones they suffer in quiet environments).
One more thing, I have lower-end Shure earphones and have had them for about a year now. I always wrap them around my ipod and now they're slightly broken. I think basically where the cable starts after the input plug has been bent or stretched too much and now i get static or only half sound (i.e. instrumental but no vocals, very very choppy etc.) unless I physically push in the cable or something. Was wrapping the cable a really bad idea and something I should never do or is this like natural cable wear and tear?
Any sort of repetitive stress on headphone cables can eventually begin breaking the wire filaments inside. Try to avoid tightly wrapping, bending, folding, tugging on, or otherwise straining your cables. Even with care they'll probably go out eventually, but it can be the difference between a year and ten years.
Oh yeah. This is a great magazine and everyone should read it, I'd forgotten about it for a while. For example, in http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf , lie #10 from the opening "the ten biggest lies in audio" article says much better what I was trying to say, and Chef got on my case about: hearing can be trained, and you can learn to notice/identify/appreciate details, but most people (including most audio nuts) haven't trained it, and beyond physical damage (e.g. tinnitus) and a few things (e.g. perfect pitch) that are somewhat genetic, everybody has pretty similar abilities. Be suspicious of "golden ears" claims until those making them demonstrate actual auditory acuity in a verifiable form. Unless you like wasting money.
|
Personally I got a pair of Sennheiser CX 300-II for around $18 on amazon. Best purchase I ever made. These things really make listening to music a much more enjoyable experience.
|
Again, I'm sorry about that I think trained ears exist more in jobs with people in monitoring environments, that need to hear very faint sounds, rather than people just enjoying music, who will train themselves to listen to whatever they enjoy most. It's like people who say "I can hear him moving his fingers up and down the strings with these headphones!" Well... you could pretty much hear that with most headphones, it's just that you only started listening for it when someone told you 'you'll hear things in tracks you've never heard before.'
Anyway... All I wanted to say with my audio equipment section is don't spend money unless you've got a good reason to. My information about DACs comes from audio E.E.'s I've talked to and trust (ie, not people on the internet). I might be wrong, but again... The point is assume it's worthless until you've seen proof. I'm just saying I didn't find any, and anyone who tells me now better have the facts I've been looking for.
On December 21 2009 08:35 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Cowon is god, Chef you're crazy :[
Cowon seems like a hipster brand to me... I mean, it looks really cool, and all their stats are amazing on paper, but I haven't seen them make anything that justifies replacing a 3 year old ipod, which is kind of disappointing. Their A3 looks super cool, and I didn't hear any complaints, but they've discontinued it... I don't understand. This is the review I read on the O2 that really put me off, when I was practically planning to walk out the door and buy it that day link That was when it first came out... I looked to the forums to see if after a year of firmware updates it had been fixed, but it looks like it's still malfunctioning. S9 on the other hand I haven't read anything bad about... It just doesn't offer anything I don't already have or better. Less capacity, less responsive interface... You watch people doing reviews of touch players on youtube and it's almost funny how they're holding their tongue as they hit an icon once... then again... then 5 seconds later the menu finally changes, or scroll to the next album art, or whatever. I don't really care for the cowon version of the nano, iaudio, because I don't care about the nano version of the nano...
In any case... I tried to be very neutral in my OP about brands. If you like cowon and you can deal with them, then fine. Cowon just doesn't seem right for me, especially after being interested in the AMP3 so long which has a similar philosophy of using it's customers as beta testers (thankfully I just eventually asked for a refund after reading 100s of posts say "It's amazing sound quality! but it hisses... please fix! and the menus suck... and the interface is generally crap... and it's dying" hahaha... so much denial. I have a million times more confidence in Cowon than hisound, but I just don't want to go thru the agony of paying 350 dollars for something that doesn't work exactly how I want it to.
|
I'm getting JVC HA-RX700 as my first pair. Did extensive online comparisons with other models in my budget range. These were the most positively reviewed pair I found. Hopefully going off other people's opinions won't disappoint me, seeing as I couldn't find a way to test them out in person.
|
On December 21 2009 01:18 PanoRaMa wrote: What headphone would you recommend (anything up to $500 or so), as a standalone (no noticeable need for an amp or anything like that)? Earphones? (with priorities being sound quality, sound cancellation, comfort, i.e. I hate the ones that are just bulky and weird like some bang and olufsen ones).
I have the Head-Direct RE0 ($79 at head-direct) and they're freakin' great. Some head-fiers think it's better than Shure's SE530 and E500, but I don't really know anything about those IEMs. Still, the RE0 is a steal with great, great sound for that price.
|
Thanks again everyone Sooo much info in this thread, haha
|
Hearing is trainable
Not in the way you are thinking of.
Long story short, "hearing training" has to do more with the integration and processing of sound (from one or more sources) at a neural level than what is being stated. What is being suggested falls in line with behavioral stuff more than hearing.
This thread has the nocebo effect all over it, props for doing research Chef on a often misunderstood topic but don't let it blind you.
|
On December 19 2009 12:48 Straylight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:20 Xeofreestyler wrote:On December 19 2009 12:14 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:
there is no art form that is inherently bad
That's simply not true. Can you prove your statement? Of course he can't. But he's right.
New Age Music
I can't prove it, cause that would imply that I know ALL new age music. But, show me your best new age music LOL.
Oh, also on topic I think that besides the ear, your body feels the music too. That's why I never can fully appriciate music just trough headphones. I need to feel it in my tummy (with which I don't mean obnoxious basses)
|
The best was when he said different kinds of plating on the connector can make your battery last longer and change the sound. Funny article, bro.
|
On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:MusicIt... It... Just makes me want to... Get up and dance like a retard!!!!
You dance like a retard on Chopin 1st piano Concerto? Ouch.
|
On December 21 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:
Anyway... All I wanted to say with my audio equipment section is don't spend money unless you've got a good reason to. My information about DACs comes from audio E.E.'s I've talked to and trust (ie, not people on the internet). I might be wrong, but again... The point is assume it's worthless until you've seen proof. I'm just saying I didn't find any, and anyone who tells me now better have the facts I've been looking for.
I did a double blind test between M-Audio Delta66, RME Fireface and RME Fireface + a Lavry Blue DAC with a few friends of mine (two audio engineers and a techno musician). All said that the Delta66 was terrible, and thought that the Lavry setup was the most detailed. We used Dynaudio BM15As in a studio environment for the test. This is NOT the average home, and everything was top-notch, without which I doubt the difference would be noticed.
|
If you are interested in the theme of that Spiritual Machines album, you should check out the works of Paul Virilio.
|
On December 23 2009 01:09 TimmyMac wrote:
The best was when he said different kinds of plating on the connector can make your battery last longer and change the sound. Funny article, bro.
I said silver and gold have different conductivities, which is absolutely true. The only thing it will change is the amplitude of your sound given the same power, which is also absolutely true.
And there's nothing wrong with dancing like a retard to Chopin 1st piano Concerto Maybe you're picturing club dancing in your head, but imagine yourself wandering and spinning around like a 1950s musical to music.
On December 23 2009 03:58 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:
Anyway... All I wanted to say with my audio equipment section is don't spend money unless you've got a good reason to. My information about DACs comes from audio E.E.'s I've talked to and trust (ie, not people on the internet). I might be wrong, but again... The point is assume it's worthless until you've seen proof. I'm just saying I didn't find any, and anyone who tells me now better have the facts I've been looking for.
I did a double blind test between M-Audio Delta66, RME Fireface and RME Fireface + a Lavry Blue DAC with a few friends of mine (two audio engineers and a techno musician). All said that the Delta66 was terrible, and thought that the Lavry setup was the most detailed. We used Dynaudio BM15As in a studio environment for the test. This is NOT the average home, and everything was top-notch, without which I doubt the difference would be noticed.
That's very cool :D I hope you spend the time to put the details in writing, because I'd very much like to read it if you don't mind. Don't keep your studies a secret!!
Oh, also on topic I think that besides the ear, your body feels the music too. That's why I never can fully appreciate music just trough headphones. I need to feel it in my tummy (with which I don't mean obnoxious basses)
You're absolutely correct. Headphones will never achieve perfect reproduction of a live experience because of that fatal flaw. An insane speaker set up would be needed for that, and I can offer no advice but to check out theaudiocritic if you're interested.
|
On December 23 2009 05:31 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 01:09 TimmyMac wrote:
The best was when he said different kinds of plating on the connector can make your battery last longer and change the sound. Funny article, bro. I said silver and gold have different conductivities, which is absolutely true. The only thing it will change is the amplitude of your sound given the same power, which is also absolutely true.
Over the few microns that connectors are plated with? Please. Unbelievable that you argue for 6 pages about how an amplifier in no way affects sound (which is false) but make a post about connector plating. And if it's affecting your battery life noticeably, I can guarantee it sounds absolutely horrible.
|
I think it's pretty consistent, actually, given how much electricity you're wasting using a dedicated amplifier (probably class A) if you're wrong.
Anyway, you're probably right, the difference is negligible in low voltage applications. I only mention it because that is literally why they don't make them all gold.
|
The difference is negligible in pretty much all applications. Gold is used where you want things not to corrode, and silver/iridium/rhodium/whatever is used where you want to advertise high conductivity to audio-idiots. Plain silvery-looking connectors on your average ibuds are chrome-plated.
I hardly consider myself to be wasting electricity with my amp. 100% of it goes to heat, and I heat my home with electricity anyway. Consider it taking a little load off your furnace, eh? Besides, my computer only draws 25W or so, might as well squander the rest somewhere.
Really though, there's no question that there is a difference between an ipod and a nice headphone amplifier. The differences are real and measurable, not just subjective.
|
E Sures brand, are really really good, and over all are pretty moderately priced.
|
On December 23 2009 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:01 Chef wrote:MusicIt... It... Just makes me want to... Get up and dance like a retard!!!! You dance like a retard on Chopin 1st piano Concerto? Ouch.
LOL
|
On December 23 2009 05:31 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 03:58 Kazius wrote:On December 21 2009 11:23 Chef wrote:
Anyway... All I wanted to say with my audio equipment section is don't spend money unless you've got a good reason to. My information about DACs comes from audio E.E.'s I've talked to and trust (ie, not people on the internet). I might be wrong, but again... The point is assume it's worthless until you've seen proof. I'm just saying I didn't find any, and anyone who tells me now better have the facts I've been looking for.
I did a double blind test between M-Audio Delta66, RME Fireface and RME Fireface + a Lavry Blue DAC with a few friends of mine (two audio engineers and a techno musician). All said that the Delta66 was terrible, and thought that the Lavry setup was the most detailed. We used Dynaudio BM15As in a studio environment for the test. This is NOT the average home, and everything was top-notch, without which I doubt the difference would be noticed. That's very cool :D I hope you spend the time to put the details in writing, because I'd very much like to read it if you don't mind. Don't keep your studies a secret!!
It's no secret - it's just that I make music at my home studio, and noticed that somehow the sound got a bit tighter in my mixes the moment I switched to an external DAC. I didn't notice a massive improvement or anything like that. But I had results proving that the smaller details of my sound were more accurate with less work. Hence, I took a friend (the techno musician), knowing he disbelieved DACs being of any influence, and two guys we both trusted as audio freaks, and made a bet of it. I made $100. I will not send you the bill as proof
|
Hmm... I was hoping for something more along the lines of documentation, not an anecdote T.T Otherwise it's impossible to reproduce your experiment.
EDIT:
It bothers me a bit, so I went looking again, and asked a question directly. Again, people who claim Amps will somehow make your music sound better are making completely unsupported statements. They will argue with you for many pages (see this thread) essentially call you an idiot, but they will never actually put forth a proper experiment. Yeah, a really badly built/broken amp will sound bad, but it won't be tolerable at all if it's bad. You'll know there's annoying feedback or cutoff where there shouldn't be. Any decent amp (including the one in your iPod) will sound just as good as any other amp. You music will not sound more vibrant or better or whatever crap people like to spew.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=77466
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=77416
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071017_Medicine_whitematter/Photos/head_and_brain.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.cutoutandkeep.net/steps/6486/6486.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.freewebs.com/wboz102-5/Audio%20Equipment,%20front%202.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.radisson.com/rad/images/hotels/ONTORONT/room2_450.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://minuet.dance.ohio-state.edu/~lerose5/Images/Words/Rhythm/Music_Circle.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.uulyrics.com/cover/o/our-lady-peace/album-spiritual-machines.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/spinal_tap_amps.png)
