Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › LOL at all the Beats bashers........
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LOL at all the Beats bashers........ - Page 20  

post #286 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Analog recordings are still bandlimited, moreso than your standard digital file. Way more than a 192kHz digital file. They have quite a bit of treble rolloff. 

 

The distortion would arise when a headphone is trying to reproduce a frequency that it is not really engineered to reproduce, which a 192kHz file is capable of producing. Really a worse case scenario though I think.

 

What does sample rate have to do with frequency limitations? Wouldn't that be caused by bitrate?

post #287 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

 

What does sample rate have to do with frequency limitations? Wouldn't that be caused by bitrate?

Sample rate has everything to do with frequency limitations. Sample rate divided by two is the max frequency that can be reproduced.

 

BItrate is simply a ratio of time and file size. In an uncompressed file, since these are raw PCM data, it consists of the product of sample rate, bit depth, and channels in an uncompressed file. For example 44.1kHz * 2 channels * 16 bit depth = 1411kbps for your standard CD quality file.

 

In a lossless compressed file it is meaningless. It's really only useful in lossy compressed files.

post #288 of 353

Ah, I actually meant bit depth, but I think that actually has more to do with maximum volume than frequency range. That all makes sense now, and I can actually picture it in my head how what you're saying works. Thanks for clearing it up. tongue.gif


Edited by Tus-Chan - 3/15/13 at 8:35pm
post #289 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

Ah, I actually meant bit depth.

That deals with dynamic range. 16bit = 96dB, 24bit=144dB. 6dB per bit. 

 

Which directly effects the noise floor from my understanding.

post #290 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

That deals with dynamic range. 16bit = 96dB, 24bit=144dB. 6dB per bit. 

 

Which directly effects the noise floor from my understanding.

Correct. But a properly dithered 16bit signal can drop the noise floor to as low as -120dB

post #291 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

Ah, I actually meant bit depth, but I think that actually has more to do with maximum volume than frequency range. That all makes sense now, and I can actually picture it in my head how what you're saying works. Thanks for clearing it up. tongue.gif

Bit depth has nothing to do with volume or how loud your music sounds. The higher the bit depth, the greater the dynamic range capabilities.

 

Although, at a bit depth of 16, the dyanmic range has a limit of 96dB which no recording ever takes full advantage of anyway, rendering 24bit audio useless on a final master.

 

Why people think 24bit sounds better than 16bit, i'll never know.

post #292 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound Quest View Post

Bit depth has nothing to do with volume or how loud your music sounds. The higher the bit depth, the greater the dynamic range capabilities.

 

Although, at a bit depth of 16, the dyanmic range has a limit of 96dB which no recording ever takes full advantage of anyway, rendering 24bit audio useless on a final master.

 

Why people think 24bit sounds better than 16bit, i'll never know.

 

It isnt like that...

 

apparently in some older equipment 24bit reduced the likeiness of THD being heard without differing i did see a video on this that talked about waves etc.

 

but in theory, the noise floor in 16bit shouldnt be visible unless its pushed to be visible...

post #293 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake120 View Post

 

It isnt like that...

 

apparently in some older equipment 24bit reduced the likeiness of THD being heard without differing i did see a video on this that talked about waves etc.

 

but in theory, the noise floor in 16bit shouldnt be visible unless its pushed to be visible...


I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

 

Reducing the bitdepth from 24bit to 16bit (dithered), should not introduce any harmonic distortion at all on any equipment.

 

If you could send me a link to the video, it would be much appreciated. I may just be misunderstanding you.

post #294 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound Quest View Post


I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

 

Reducing the bitdepth from 24bit to 16bit (dithered), should not introduce any harmonic distortion at all on any equipment.

 

If you could send me a link to the video, it would be much appreciated. I may just be misunderstanding you.

 

hey,

 

i checked it out and it looks like Chewy4 had posted te video link in this thread (the https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml).

wouldnt mind your impression even if i did get it incorrect i think the video is well explained but i might have confused myself :)

post #295 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

 

How exactly does a higher sample rate, when converted to an analog electrical signal, cause distortion or overwhelm a headphone? That doesn't make any sense. Applying that logic to a pure analog recording, which would theoretically have a sample rate of infinity (because there is no sampling) would mean that all analog recordings are equipment killers.

 

 

what chewy said lol, wouldnt be able to explain better myself

post #296 of 353

............I can't be the only one thinking this was a troll thread.

post #297 of 353

I actually think Beats are a great gateway into the higher level of listening world. I used to always think that my little earbuds would do me fine. Then one day I walked into a Best Buy and there was the beats stand, so I tried em on. Fell in love with the way they sounded (at the time) and went home and started doing some research. I came across head-fi and obviously came across the truth, but am still grateful for the day I tried on those beats.

post #298 of 353

Atleast beats sound better than skullcandy

 

I remember paying 50$ for a pair of skullcandys because i beleived id get value

After that I thought the headphone world was a load of crap

 

Skullcandy should get shut down and sued

post #299 of 353
W
Quote:
Originally Posted by MellonCollie View Post

Atleast beats sound better than skullcandy

I remember paying 50$ for a pair of skullcandys because i beleived id get value
After that I thought the headphone world was a load of crap

Skullcandy should get shut down and sued
Well the commercial part of the world has a lot of crap, at least much more than the audiophile part.
post #300 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by MellonCollie View Post

Atleast beats sound better than skullcandy

 

I remember paying 50$ for a pair of skullcandys because i beleived id get value

After that I thought the headphone world was a load of crap

 

Skullcandy should get shut down and sued

 

Beats don't cost $50's though, do they?
 

Skullcandy are poor quality headphones in their price range, just as the Beat Solos are poor quality sounding headphones in their own price range. (The only exception being the "Skillcandy Aviators" which are surprisingly decent for their price).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › LOL at all the Beats bashers........