[Bradan]

YouTube - Audio Myths Workshop

Very interesting and informative video that allows some level of participation. I'm sure there will be contreversy, but I think it's a pretty eye-opening video.

 

[HeyItsBattleKid]

I think someone posted this in the Sound Science forum. It is a great watch/listen! It really reveals some of the psychology involved in audio. I always encourage people to take some interesting psychology courses when in college. They can be a lot of fun and you learn to think in a totally new way.

Great post though, as I'm not sure this video will get enough exposure in the Sound Science forum. It's worth a second watch

And here a link to the Sound Science thread if anyone is wanting to contribute to the progress of the discussion there:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/v...on-aes-468533/

Quote:

Originally Posted by n3rdling /img/forum/go_quote.gif It really should be made a sticky in all the audio forums

Ahhh, YES, definitely will second that. There are still many stickies I have not even looked at, now that you mention sticky.

 

[n3rdling]

It really should be made a sticky in all the audio forums

 

[mesasone]

I'm not sure some of the Head-Fi sponsors would appreciate that. I am allowed to say that?

 

[Bradan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mesasone /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure some of the Head-Fi sponsors would appreciate that. I am allowed to say that?

Banhammer says no.

 

[El_Doug]

The problem with the video, is that it covers the same exact topics that have been used over and over again.

Though correct in every way, there is no hope that it will convince any audiofool that their $5,000 power cable isn't making a "night and day" difference to the sound

 

[andreiru]

Watched with great interest.

Thanks, Bradan & Mr Winer!

 

[Amarphael]

I've also enjoyed the crash-course, though ther's much technical stuff that's beyond me some things are plain self-explanatory like the reverse playback of the Led Zepplin STH song and the fact that it can be proven that 2 tracks sound the same if you can "nullify" them.

He's not just an auido geek but also a very accomplished musican it seems:
Amazing Video of a Song Composed Entirely of 37 Cello Parts

 

[aimlink]

I enjoyed all of it. Quite informative.

 

[AmanGeorge]

Very cool, although I started to tune out later on as it got super technical. First 10-15 minutes were great though.

 

[aimlink]

Although I didn't understand the technical stuff, the general points were there in that a lot of reasons for sound degradation that we are so rabid about and that audio outlets will say separates one component from another, are largely inaudible unless really severe.

The one that had me going was the 24 vs 16bit recordings. Apparently, there's not much audible difference between 24 and 16bit. It may well be the same as 320Kbps mp3's vs lossless.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif The one that had me going was the 24 vs 16bit recordings. Apparently, there's not much audible difference between 24 and 16bit. It may well be the same as 320Kbps mp3's vs lossless.

Well, speaking on the codecs it very much depends on what track you're listening to. There's some where 320CBR isn't coherent, and then there's old recordings where 128CBR can even suffice in DBT.

Both of these examples are rare though. 256CBR (and even 192CBR a lot of the time) can be transparent for many people on a lot of tracks. The ones where lossless show their colors are quite rare for me, so rare as to not justify it in fact (for me).

That's just my .02 though.

 

[wali]

Mr Winer's company sells acoustic treatment material, his message is simple, spend all the money on room acoustics and less on gear (watch his other videos).

He also gets a lot of publicity for his business by being this heroic figure who's out to save audiophiles from snake-oil salesmen.

Once again, its all business.

trust your own ears and stay rational.

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

I'm so glad he brought up the point about how audiophiles describe music as "warm" or "resolving" not making any real sense. This should definitely be stickied.

 

[aimlink]

Not to mention PRaT.

That one always boggled my mind. Could that be anything but a psychoacoustic effect??