Its misrepresentation plain and simple, any reporter knows this when covering a story about something with multiple angles, and we geeks should at least try to be unbiased in our representations of facts if we're going to be taken at face value.
When you leave out details that matter and pretend the article claims something it does not, you're just throwing away any credibility you had.
I have a pair of Beyer Dynamic DT770 studio headphones that I use with my Yamaha receivers. They also work very well attached to my PSP when gaming at night due to their screw-in 1/8" to 1/4" adapter.
I stood in a local music shop for about half an hour listening to music on each set of headphones there until I found a set that sounded both incredible and that I could afford, and this was them. YMMV.
Indeed, when you start discussing actual psychoacoustics research with either group they get all upset it seems. Arguing against high fidelity audio for a niche market seems utterly stupid, and arguing against testing is stupid too. Of course, neither group admits that we know very little about the brain's processing of input data.
My usual AC response issues aside, you don't understand audio signal interference, do you? You're better off using an external USB-attached quarter inch audio box than using *any* internal sound card due to the high levels of EM interference in the PC.
I love a good strawman -- next time there's a major gas crisis, remind me to point out that nobody had cars a couple hundred years ago and things haven't gotten that much more important.
With changes in available technology come changes in expectations, reasonable or not.
Many people would be not just shunned but fired without a cellphone available all day. Sure, we lived differently fifty years ago, but many people can't live that way anymore and remain part of the society they're a part of.
This is actually similar to a point I often make about re-encoding video with x264 etc. Re-encoding a compressed video is not the true test of a codec, compressing the original full quality video is.
Except some of us have tested our hearing well up to 24kHz. Trust me, its annoying more often than pleasant. Things that are thought to be inaudible simply aren't (excuse the double-negative).
I'm reminded of the science of vision... and how eventually it was discovered that in fact various colour cones could detect light from neighbouring colours, making RGB reproduction of cyan for example impossible. Then the fact that some people (almost always women) have twice the red sensitivity, and see colours quite differently than others.
The science of hearing hasn't even come close to our understanding of vision, and neither is perfect.
If you believe that mathematically eliminating data then faking it again later is the same thing as preserving the original data, you're a bit lost here.
Yes, for many purposes, its good enough. But its obviously not perfect.
To add a point, I love being able to hear the dry or wetness of the mouth of the singer as they enunciate... the proper pop and crackle of a low simmering fire in a movie too.
As I posted earlier, that's a false summary of that document. Feel free to re-read it. The difference is audible, just not at what was considered normal volumes.
They don't care. Ironically the idiots pushing for lower standards don't understand psychoacoustics at all. For those with proper hearing, do a double-blind test of the same music samples in a variety of encoding qualities and rate them on a scale of both how good they sounded and how they made you feel. When you've finished, you now have proven only one thing -- your own preference. Enjoy that. I have mine.
You misquoted the article. But thanks for the link.
You seem to have purposely left out "and students" in the test group, that only someof the testing was done on high end equipment, and that the noise *was* perceptible but normally only at very high volumes.
Your evidence actually speaks against you, especially when you lie about it.
You're like a woman at the Olympics claiming that men aren't naturally stronger than women. Of course she's stronger than most men, but the statistic is still true on average.
You may be one of the few, but how many people of your age group honestly value even a CD quality track on a real stereo system over an MP3 with high distortion earbuds? No matter your personal experience, I think the poster's point was valid in general, don't you?
No offense, but what was the THD rating on the equipment you used for listening? It really does make a difference. If you listened with a sound card in a PC, you probably lost most of the difference to EM noise.
No amount of evidence will convince people like you -- every time they end with "that's fine for you, but most people..." even if the evidence/is/ provided.
The last live gig I went to (I'm not the parent your replied to) was at Hugh's Room in Toronto, and you could hear someone put their glass down. The room was nearly silent aside from the band, because they were there to hear the band.
Amen. I own some really good Jazz and Swing recordings, and the difference between the well-encoded and poorly-recorded variety is night and day. Sadly I love live recordings, but they're often terrible.
I've flipped between audio inputs for several people while watching movies without telling them; often starting the movie at the lower audio quality, sometimes at the higher -- and they have all said, even totally non audiophile normal people, "what happened?" or "oh wow that sounds much better, what did you do?"
To be fair, this is usually 24bit 96kHz audio, not 192, but it really does make a difference -- everyone claiming otherwise probably has terrible speakers or a horrifyingly high THD rating on their stereo equipment (you should check).
My Yamaha has 0.02% THD and I use 14AWG plain copper speaker wire fyi -- headphone listening is with a beautiful pair of DT770s.
Not wanting to go deaf, I use high quality devices with low THD percentages so I can listen at lower volume with maximum impact. Most people don't realize that high volumes are much less necessary as noise is removed and SNR goes up. With a very low noise level, you can play music at relatively low volumes that sounds incredibly good, whereas the high THD injection from a pair of crappy headphones or terrible stereo will cause you to turn up the volume repeatedly to counteract the noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop posting AC to avoid being karma-bombed and stand up for your statements with an account if you want a real response.
Its misrepresentation plain and simple, any reporter knows this when covering a story about something with multiple angles, and we geeks should at least try to be unbiased in our representations of facts if we're going to be taken at face value.
When you leave out details that matter and pretend the article claims something it does not, you're just throwing away any credibility you had.
I have a pair of Beyer Dynamic DT770 studio headphones that I use with my Yamaha receivers. They also work very well attached to my PSP when gaming at night due to their screw-in 1/8" to 1/4" adapter.
I stood in a local music shop for about half an hour listening to music on each set of headphones there until I found a set that sounded both incredible and that I could afford, and this was them. YMMV.
Indeed, when you start discussing actual psychoacoustics research with either group they get all upset it seems. Arguing against high fidelity audio for a niche market seems utterly stupid, and arguing against testing is stupid too. Of course, neither group admits that we know very little about the brain's processing of input data.
I paid $0.75/m for my cables at Home Depot. Read my post again AC.
My usual AC response issues aside, you don't understand audio signal interference, do you? You're better off using an external USB-attached quarter inch audio box than using *any* internal sound card due to the high levels of EM interference in the PC.
I love a good strawman -- next time there's a major gas crisis, remind me to point out that nobody had cars a couple hundred years ago and things haven't gotten that much more important.
With changes in available technology come changes in expectations, reasonable or not.
Many people would be not just shunned but fired without a cellphone available all day. Sure, we lived differently fifty years ago, but many people can't live that way anymore and remain part of the society they're a part of.
This is actually similar to a point I often make about re-encoding video with x264 etc. Re-encoding a compressed video is not the true test of a codec, compressing the original full quality video is.
Except some of us have tested our hearing well up to 24kHz. Trust me, its annoying more often than pleasant. Things that are thought to be inaudible simply aren't (excuse the double-negative).
I'm reminded of the science of vision ... and how eventually it was discovered that in fact various colour cones could detect light from neighbouring colours, making RGB reproduction of cyan for example impossible. Then the fact that some people (almost always women) have twice the red sensitivity, and see colours quite differently than others.
The science of hearing hasn't even come close to our understanding of vision, and neither is perfect.
When I listen to music, its not for the data -- its for the feeling. You should try listening to music for the feeling too ;-)
My opinion.
If you believe that mathematically eliminating data then faking it again later is the same thing as preserving the original data, you're a bit lost here.
Yes, for many purposes, its good enough. But its obviously not perfect.
To add a point, I love being able to hear the dry or wetness of the mouth of the singer as they enunciate ... the proper pop and crackle of a low simmering fire in a movie too.
As I posted earlier, that's a false summary of that document. Feel free to re-read it. The difference is audible, just not at what was considered normal volumes.
They don't care. Ironically the idiots pushing for lower standards don't understand psychoacoustics at all. For those with proper hearing, do a double-blind test of the same music samples in a variety of encoding qualities and rate them on a scale of both how good they sounded and how they made you feel. When you've finished, you now have proven only one thing -- your own preference. Enjoy that. I have mine.
You misquoted the article. But thanks for the link.
You seem to have purposely left out "and students" in the test group, that only someof the testing was done on high end equipment, and that the noise *was* perceptible but normally only at very high volumes.
Your evidence actually speaks against you, especially when you lie about it.
You're like a woman at the Olympics claiming that men aren't naturally stronger than women. Of course she's stronger than most men, but the statistic is still true on average.
You may be one of the few, but how many people of your age group honestly value even a CD quality track on a real stereo system over an MP3 with high distortion earbuds? No matter your personal experience, I think the poster's point was valid in general, don't you?
No offense, but what was the THD rating on the equipment you used for listening? It really does make a difference. If you listened with a sound card in a PC, you probably lost most of the difference to EM noise.
No amount of evidence will convince people like you -- every time they end with "that's fine for you, but most people ..." even if the evidence /is/ provided.
Get over yourself.
Why are people marking every post by those with both taste in music and proper hearing as trolls? Its not trolling to post an opinion.
The last live gig I went to (I'm not the parent your replied to) was at Hugh's Room in Toronto, and you could hear someone put their glass down. The room was nearly silent aside from the band, because they were there to hear the band.
Pick your venues better.
Amen. I own some really good Jazz and Swing recordings, and the difference between the well-encoded and poorly-recorded variety is night and day. Sadly I love live recordings, but they're often terrible.
Brick compression is the bane of my existence -- luckily it hasn't happened to quality movies yet.
You got marked flamebait and yet I can prove the same thing double-blind using Blu-Rays and uncompressed audio as well (cf. http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php).
I've flipped between audio inputs for several people while watching movies without telling them; often starting the movie at the lower audio quality, sometimes at the higher -- and they have all said, even totally non audiophile normal people, "what happened?" or "oh wow that sounds much better, what did you do?"
To be fair, this is usually 24bit 96kHz audio, not 192, but it really does make a difference -- everyone claiming otherwise probably has terrible speakers or a horrifyingly high THD rating on their stereo equipment (you should check).
My Yamaha has 0.02% THD and I use 14AWG plain copper speaker wire fyi -- headphone listening is with a beautiful pair of DT770s.
Wealthy? 500GB is the smallest retail hard drive size worth purchasing these days, even with the stupid ramped-up pricing these last months.
Not wanting to go deaf, I use high quality devices with low THD percentages so I can listen at lower volume with maximum impact. Most people don't realize that high volumes are much less necessary as noise is removed and SNR goes up. With a very low noise level, you can play music at relatively low volumes that sounds incredibly good, whereas the high THD injection from a pair of crappy headphones or terrible stereo will cause you to turn up the volume repeatedly to counteract the noise.