Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions? - Page 13

post #181 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

A good way to understand the differences is to look at how NTSC reception differs from ATSC reception - one has a very wide spectrum of "works" to "snow" and the other goes from basically crystal clear to a blank screen.
 

 

Yeah, thats a perfect example.

post #182 of 201

Topic....

post #183 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Topic....

Somewhere back on page 10 before talk of Bentleys, and digital transmission protocols? ph34r.gif

To be completely fair though, I think the discussion on digital relates to a common misconception, although perhaps this isn't the venue for *dispelling* such misconceptions.
post #184 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

Also the analog output section of the DAC has to be considered pretty seriously, and I feel like in a lot of discussions about digital almost always center on the DAC chip itself (or themselves, if a multi-chip design), or the interface from the digital source to the digital sink. And basically ignore that big'ol analog output stage, the power section that feeds all of that, and the quality of the data that's being sent digitally. That's kind of a pet peeve I guess too.

Yup - once you get back into the analog domain, then all the "normal" rules apply.
post #185 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
Also the analog output section of the DAC has to be considered pretty seriously, and I feel like in a lot of discussions about digital almost always center on the DAC chip itself (or themselves, if a multi-chip design), or the interface from the digital source to the digital sink. And basically ignore that big'ol analog output stage, the power section that feeds all of that, and the quality of the data that's being sent digitally. That's kind of a pet peeve I guess too.

 

I almost forgot about that!

 

A lot of the time, I see a lot of "X sound card has better sound quality than Y sound card" posts based solely on the DAC chip used, and its theoretical best-case-scenario spec at that. There is far less discussion on whether the actual analog circuitry is improved or not. (Either that, or they say one's better than the other simply based on those two dreaded words: "ohm rating".)

 

Maybe it's better, maybe it's not, but I get the feeling that something's being overlooked the whole time.

post #186 of 201
BTW, if you want to talk about Bentley, and their benefits and shortcomings, feel free to post here.


My favorite misconception is the "more expensive always = better" thing. Also, there's one that's related which states "you can have a perfect system if you throw enough money at it".
post #187 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenja View Post

The fear of equalizers. Also lack of of acknowledgement that it's really easy to delude the auditory perception.

 

 

Good ones! I agree with both, as evidenced by my signature. Some audiophiles have this idea that the artifacts left by EQ are worse than the thing you're trying to EQ away and that they can't stand audio that's been processed by any form of EQ, hardware or software. First off, I'm not going to say that these artifacts don't exist (at the electrical level), nor will I say that there probably isn't an EQ out there that's bad enough that its artifacts are audible (the one in Foobar is supposed to be pretty bad, for instance, but I haven't used it enough to comment).

 

But where are the tests and proof that, with a reasonably transparent EQ, anybody can reliably hear these artifacts? I'm still waiting, and even if you find somebody who can, so what? I can't. And whether or not you've found that magical person who can hear it, that doesn't mean you can, either. And if we can't hear something (and are willing to admit this to ourselves), then as far as we should be concerned it doesn't exist.

 

Plus, here's a knotty point. Everything--and I mean everything--we listen to, every single recording (excepting a very few that make it a point of eschewing processing of any kind) has been processed with some form of EQ. Do these artifacts bother anybody then? Why is it that only once we've introduced it into our own signal chain that it becomes a problem?

 

As far as deluding auditory perception, headphones by their very nature are one big honking collection of delusion. There is nothing natural about listening to anything through headphones, and yet somehow our brains sort it out. That same adaptability is responsible for our ability to get used to different sound signatures and presentations and our ability to imagine that two separate, almost completely isolated channels of audio beaming directly into our ears is a performance by the RPO.

 

Somehow, after my brain manages all that, I think it can ignore a little ringing or phase distortion from a band notch filter.

post #188 of 201

I think I wouldn't have looked further if the ksc-75 was my first headphone pair. You can spend insane amount of money in best headphones , and you can still manage to be bored. Perhaps the "hardest" part is just to have some fun while listening to music.

post #189 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

 

Good ones! I agree with both, as evidenced by my signature. Some audiophiles have this idea that the artifacts left by EQ are worse than the thing you're trying to EQ away and that they can't stand audio that's been processed by any form of EQ, hardware or software. First off, I'm not going to say that these artifacts don't exist (at the electrical level), nor will I say that there probably isn't an EQ out there that's bad enough that its artifacts are audible (the one in Foobar is supposed to be pretty bad, for instance, but I haven't used it enough to comment).

 

But where are the tests and proof that, with a reasonably transparent EQ, anybody can reliably hear these artifacts? I'm still waiting, and even if you find somebody who can, so what? I can't. And whether or not you've found that magical person who can hear it, that doesn't mean you can, either. And if we can't hear something (and are willing to admit this to ourselves), then as far as we should be concerned it doesn't exist.

 

Plus, here's a knotty point. Everything--and I mean everything--we listen to, every single recording (excepting a very few that make it a point of eschewing processing of any kind) has been processed with some form of EQ. Do these artifacts bother anybody then? Why is it that only once we've introduced it into our own signal chain that it becomes a problem?

 

As far as deluding auditory perception, headphones by their very nature are one big honking collection of delusion. There is nothing natural about listening to anything through headphones, and yet somehow our brains sort it out. That same adaptability is responsible for our ability to get used to different sound signatures and presentations and our ability to imagine that two separate, almost completely isolated channels of audio beaming directly into our ears is a performance by the RPO.

 

Somehow, after my brain manages all that, I think it can ignore a little ringing or phase distortion from a band notch filter.

the benefits would outweigh the almost 0 artifacts that could even possibly be caused by it, (only way to sound bad is to clip it or just tune it wrongly)
also i kinda found the foobar one a little hard to use, the knobs are too sensitive but i think after some getting used to i can use them properly


Edited by streetdragon - 10/14/12 at 11:19pm
post #190 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

the benefits would outweigh the almost 0 artifacts that could even possibly be caused by it, (only way to sound bad is to clip it or just tune it wrongly)
also i kinda found the foobar one a little hard to use, the knobs are too sensitive but i think after some getting used to i can use them properly

 

From what I understand, the Foobar EQ produces a stepwise pattern instead of a smooth curve. In other words, it looks like those explanatory diagrams for how an analog signal is digitized. When I searched, I got a thread on Head-Fi with a picture of it in action. Here's the post:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss#post_7504006

 

That would explain why it's touchy. It's not describing a curve so much as arranging a series of squarish notches in coarsely-defined amplitude steps.

post #191 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

 

From what I understand, the Foobar EQ produces a stepwise pattern instead of a smooth curve. In other words, it looks like those explanatory diagrams for how an analog signal is digitized. When I searched, I got a thread on Head-Fi with a picture of it in action. Here's the post:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss#post_7504006

 

That would explain why it's touchy. It's not describing a curve so much as arranging a series of squarish notches in coarsely-defined amplitude steps.

oh thats pretty bad D:no wonder it sounds as such...
i think even poweramp on android does a much better job at this

post #192 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

 

From what I understand, the Foobar EQ produces a stepwise pattern instead of a smooth curve. In other words, it looks like those explanatory diagrams for how an analog signal is digitized. When I searched, I got a thread on Head-Fi with a picture of it in action. Here's the post:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss#post_7504006

 

That would explain why it's touchy. It's not describing a curve so much as arranging a series of squarish notches in coarsely-defined amplitude steps.

 

That's the short definition of a Graphic EQ. All modern GEQs behave that way, and it's an actual feature that was considered an upgrade in most cases when it came out.  Analog EQ's that advertise "constant-q" circuitry behave that way. Digital EQs will sometimes call it things like "true response" versus "uncorrected response" or some other patent pending terminology.

 

The idea is if it did it smoothly the "graphic" representation of looking at the row of fader handles, where the name "graphic EQ" comes from would give you a false representation of the actual EQ that's set...."uncorrected" responses usually cover a full octave or so, and so each knob affects the positions around it and just looking visually whouldn't show you the real interactions across the octave.  "constant-q" (in analog EQ terms) limits the EQ's effect of each knob to 1/3 octave (or less) meaning the sweep created by the knob positions is much more visually accurate for the resulting FR response curve. 

 

Foobar emulates a constant-q type EQ.  If you want smooth, I'm sure there's other EQ modules with an uncorrected response, and there's always parametric....    It shouldn't be fully stepwise, but very tight, peaky curves centered around each fader for about 1/3 octave or so.  The idea is the curve of the resting points of your faders should create a fairy accurate picture of the curve of the adustments...if you want to taper, use the knobs next to it.  If you need a really steep but narrow bandwidth adjustment but want to feather it out without creating a spike or plateau, that's what parametric is for.

 

Edit: Before anyone shouts me down, there's a lot more to "constant-q" than just that....it just happens that constant-q EQ's also have the bandwidth restricted settings which improves the graphic-ness of the EQ.


Edited by IEMCrazy - 10/15/12 at 8:15am
post #193 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

 

From what I understand, the Foobar EQ produces a stepwise pattern instead of a smooth curve. In other words, it looks like those explanatory diagrams for how an analog signal is digitized. When I searched, I got a thread on Head-Fi with a picture of it in action. Here's the post:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss#post_7504006

 

That would explain why it's touchy. It's not describing a curve so much as arranging a series of squarish notches in coarsely-defined amplitude steps.


That looks like they used a bunch of notch filters for the eq. Probably not the best design but I dont think the foobar eq sounds particularly bad but the only other eqs I've had experience with (outside of DAWs) is the one on my clip+ and on a cowon s9.

post #194 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

 

From what I understand, the Foobar EQ produces a stepwise pattern instead of a smooth curve. In other words, it looks like those explanatory

I don't care of the foobar EQ. I just look at the best equalizers available today.

Here's a 2011 poll, where DMG  equality has the more votes, at gearlutz forum:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/648686-digital-plugin-eq-poll-2011-a.html

And it's the not the most expensive too (unless pirated).

post #195 of 201
Didn't xnor (he's a member here) write a better EQ for foobar, that doesn't screw up so badly? I vaguely remember seeing it posted a while ago, but I don't know the URL for his site (or if it indeed was xnor).

But yeah, I think the EQ thing has a dualistic peeve - first that all EQs are created equal, and second that all EQ is bad because some EQ are bad.
Edited by obobskivich - 10/15/12 at 10:16am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions?