Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › My almost daily laugh - PC Authority's new focus on reviewing headphones and related gear
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My almost daily laugh - PC Authority's new focus on reviewing headphones and related gear - Page 2

post #16 of 23
3/18/10 at 5:00pm
128 kbps WMAs + CAL!S = nice
128 kbps WMAs + less forgiving headphones = less than nice

Also we do not posses the highest knowledge of the sound of music, yet listening to the sound of music at a higher level is a joyful pastime.
Reply
post #17 of 23
3/18/10 at 6:20pm
I'm tired of the bashing of folks who don't care about sound quality that much. Their ears aren't "broken," they just don't care. To each their own. To 99% of the population, 128kbps is perfectly adequate.
Reply
post #18 of 23
3/18/10 at 8:44pm
128 kbps is fine, I thought so until I discovered 320 kbps and WAV and FLAC. Still 128 kbps is fine if you're satisfied with the sound. To quote Chuck Brown, "It's all in your mind."
Reply
post #19 of 23
3/18/10 at 9:22pm
128 kbps is not ok by any measure. The treble distortion (low-treble emphasis) alone is unbearable. It's pretty much unlistenable to me. To simply ridicule pc authority seems silly though, as I hear a lot ridiculous things on head-fi too.
Reply
post #20 of 23
3/18/10 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolink24 View Post
I'm tired of the bashing of folks who don't care about sound quality that much. Their ears aren't "broken," they just don't care. To each their own. To 99% of the population, 128kbps is perfectly adequate.
This is right on. It's not that people can't tell the difference, it's that they don't care.

And furthermore, once they have a pair of Bose headphones, they really don't care about the difference between those and something even better.
Reply
post #21 of 23
3/18/10 at 9:36pm
128kbs AAC is quite good, MP3 is just ok on an mp3 player. I went on month long holiday once when mp3 players didn't have gigabytes of memory (this one had 256MB), so I crammed a few albums on at 96kbps, sometimes you just have to deal .

I read the articles, and this lack of depth is par for the course I would say. Is it reasonable to compare an article in a magazine to head-fi, especially on something as esoteric as hifi audio?

These PC magazines can barely cover the details of new PC technology at the same level as visiting Engadget and the HardOCP forums would give you, so hey, of course the HD800 and K701 both get a score of 6/6, they'd have to fill half the magazine to get properly specific.
Reply
post #22 of 23
3/22/10 at 9:56pm
Meh, it's made for a different audience so you're going to get different results; although I do NOT think that makes up for the horrible reviews that are made here.

Things like this are IMO not properly informing the public of what they are missing. 128 being adequate? Phsss yea I bet it is to people who don't know any better; but WHY stop there? Why not instead SHOW people that higher bitrate songs sound better?

But hey not everyone cares about music as much as we do.
Reply
post #23 of 23
3/22/10 at 11:58pm
CNET is a much bigger offender of "we have no idea" reviews.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › My almost daily laugh - PC Authority's new focus on reviewing headphones and related gear