Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Beats Are Magical! And Other Nearly-Criminal Marketing Schemes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beats Are Magical! And Other Nearly-Criminal Marketing Schemes - Page 17

post #241 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by CashNotCredit View Post

This times a million. If a song has 2822 kbps and is in 24-bit wav, yet only has 4dB of dynamic range and is hard clipping on the master, it's going to sound like garbage. Plain and simple.

+1. It really depends on the content as to how much you can deflate the 0s out and make it sound alright. Also, at least in the US, OTA does not use mp3, it uses AC-3, which is quite different (and I'll challenge anyone to legitimately pick a good AC-3 stream from an MLP stream; codec fanboyism is silly and the second I see DTS mentioned I stop reading because it usually degrades into foamy hype). SPEAKING OF, this is the criminal marketing thing, and I think DTS (not Datasat) should get a nice big knock on the head, based on how insane the hype claims surrounding their "magic" are. wink.gif
post #242 of 436

Yes a really simple song that is just plinky plonky cymbals or something it is difficult to tell between high and low bitrate but and complicated music or music with high dynamic range it is blatantly obvious... Infact I would say about 75% of songs it is BLATANTLY obvious when it is at 128kb... Eg. it sounds thin, compressed, sibilant, harsh, low dynamic range etc etc. You dont even need high end headphones to tell this... A pair of £100 headphones will easily show up how ***** 128kb MP3 is it just depends on the sound signature of the headphones...

post #243 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

Yes a really simple song that is just plinky plonky cymbals or something it is difficult to tell between high and low bitrate but and complicated music or music with high dynamic range it is blatantly obvious... Infact I would say about 75% of songs it is BLATANTLY obvious when it is at 128kb... Eg. it sounds thin, compressed, sibilant, harsh, low dynamic range etc etc. You dont even need high end headphones to tell this... A pair of £100 headphones will easily show up how ***** 128kb MP3 is it just depends on the sound signature of the headphones...

not really, since all instrument sounds have subtle nuance and extensions and low rez compressed files tend to create dithering and artifacts especially in those subtle areas.. if you always use low end equipment and or low bit rate files there will be parts of you music that you may never ever hear and will just think is not there..

post #244 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvmusic View Post

not really, since all instrument sounds have subtle nuance and extensions and low rez compressed files tend to create dithering and artifacts especially in those subtle areas.. if you always use low end equipment and or low bit rate files there will be parts of you music that you may never ever hear and will just think is not there..

 

Yes precisely even a simple cymbals cannot be reproduced on 128kb properly... I was trying to give an example of those songs which are used in the online bitrate test where you have to guess.

post #245 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

partly the reason i feel that people find high end cans unappealing to them is the fact that most non audiophiles stock up with 128 kbps songs from itunes or some youtube rips (my friends do so) so when they take my headphones to test on their system they are unimpressed, when i hered my own pair through their system i was unimpressed too, beats just covers up the compression artifacts with their special magical feature of 'returning lost quality of mp3 compression' :D

im sorry that was just a joke, beats just covers and masks the artifacts by loading it with so much bass the people also think more bass impact means more energy means better sound quality,
on the other hand most high end cans are very picky about the music file quality being pumped through it, and will actually make beats sound better than $1000 flagships just because beats covers up the flaws while the flagship models just show you the flaws in the compression in utter most detail

Someone listened to my 681's (they're pretty revealing I guess) on their old flip phone and said they sounded great. But he wasn't a beats user (though he had heard beats)

post #246 of 436
Thread Starter 

On a similar vein, X-Fi enhancements tend to be a little magical in description, bordering on the Beats' claim of restoration of lost bitrate. It's essentially just EQ.

post #247 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parall3l View Post

lol "studio quality", that junk is for little kids living in their parent's basements. That stuff can't even touch the X-Fi Experience.jecklinsmile.gif
1000

 Is this what you're referring to?

post #248 of 436
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saoshyant View Post

 Is this what you're referring to?


That's precisely what I'm referring to. I know there's many members in here who will sing to its glory all day long, but in the end the marketing for it (as your example proves) is complete distortion.

post #249 of 436

Hehe, I still use one tho.  Just felt too lazy to crack open the case to put a soundcard in, so just went with a USB version.

post #250 of 436

Another example of extremely misleading marketing... They get away with it by using subjective terms which cannot be measured... In that example it would be : "experience"

post #251 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssrock64 View Post

On a similar vein, X-Fi enhancements tend to be a little magical in description, bordering on the Beats' claim of restoration of lost bitrate. It's essentially just EQ.

It's not quite an EQ, it's a proprietary DSP-based exciter/expander. IXBT has more:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi-part2.html

It has a dynamic component that an EQ lacks. You can't quite replicate it with just a graphic or para EQ - you can get pretty close, but not 1:1. Just like the BBE Engine; you can get close, but not 100%. Watch Creative back-peddle their marketing claims in their reply to IXBT too! "We never claimed it produces DVD-Audio mastering quality!" rolleyes.gif

I think where it's "magical claims" is that they didn't just come out and say "dynamic EQ" or "intelligent dynamic EQ" - they put out that "studio quality with X-Fi" trash. I think it's a neat toy, and encourage people to try it (or other exciter/expander effects, like BBE, Pioneer, etc) but have no delusions that it's doing whatever that marketing graphic says.

Another fun one to knock on is high bitrate digital content in general - anyone else read the Xiph post on it? I also used to have this really nice AC-3 vs DTS vs MLP resource, but lost the link; basically there's a lot of magical claims about what silly high bitrate/lossless/etc data gets you, that isn't validated by actual studies or in real world practice.
post #252 of 436
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


It's not quite an EQ, it's a proprietary DSP-based exciter/expander. IXBT has more:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi-part2.html
It has a dynamic component that an EQ lacks. You can't quite replicate it with just a graphic or para EQ - you can get pretty close, but not 1:1. Just like the BBE Engine; you can get close, but not 100%. Watch Creative back-peddle their marketing claims in their reply to IXBT too! "We never claimed it produces DVD-Audio mastering quality!" rolleyes.gif
I think where it's "magical claims" is that they didn't just come out and say "dynamic EQ" or "intelligent dynamic EQ" - they put out that "studio quality with X-Fi" trash. I think it's a neat toy, and encourage people to try it (or other exciter/expander effects, like BBE, Pioneer, etc) but have no delusions that it's doing whatever that marketing graphic says.
Another fun one to knock on is high bitrate digital content in general - anyone else read the Xiph post on it? I also used to have this really nice AC-3 vs DTS vs MLP resource, but lost the link; basically there's a lot of magical claims about what silly high bitrate/lossless/etc data gets you, that isn't validated by actual studies or in real world practice.


That reminds me of the whole controversy over SACD, with AES concluding from a test study of audio engineers that it was indistinguishable from red-book CD format.

post #253 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssrock64 View Post


That reminds me of the whole controversy over SACD, with AES concluding from a test study of audio engineers that it was indistinguishable from red-book CD format.

Yeah, same with a lot of other formats, but that doesn't stop people from drawing battle lines.
post #254 of 436
Thread Starter 

Speaking of which, does the SACD promotional literature claim it's an audible difference?

post #255 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssrock64 View Post

Speaking of which, does the SACD promotional literature claim it's an audible difference?

Yeah, they claim it handles higher frequencies better because of DSD's sampling. I don't think Sony very aggressively pushes SACD anymore, having said that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Beats Are Magical! And Other Nearly-Criminal Marketing Schemes