[headwhacker]

Did I get it right that you think an iPod is not for you after you listen to your SE425  driven by your LG G2? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[FFBookman]

you guys are starving yourselves.
 
10% files played on $4 signal chain is most definitely not the same thing as 100% files played on properly designed signal chain.
 
i know you are consumers but do you really think a $4 integrated circuit is the best audio available?  do you think an iPad is the same thing as a $50k mixing board and is the iPhone mic the same as a $5k mic?
 
it's basic cost.  apple spends about $4 to give you all of those audio features. since most people play 10% files that are highly degraded the $4 signal chain has no problem playing back such limited bandwidth.
 
but your iPhone or other 2015 stock gear sounds worse than a 1998 discman, a 1988 cassette walkman and probably even a 1978 record player.  that's progress for you.

 

[maverickronin]

Do you have anything better to do than troll old threads?

 

[FFBookman]

i didn't know it was old, it's in my notifications. i haven't been here in a few weeks.
 
do you have anything better to do than decide i'm trolling and make a post about that?

 

[maverickronin]

Maybe if you could come up with a better argument than "Price=Performance" you wouldn't look like a troll.

 

[StanD]

  Maybe if you could come up with a better argument than "Price=Performance" you wouldn't look like a troll.

But he is trolling. He enjoys annoying the technically aware.

 

[FFBookman]

"technically aware" is not the term i'd use for people that believe 320k = 5800k audio signal bandwidth.
 
"technically aware" is not the term i'd use for people that think $4 of commodity apple hardware sounds the same as custom designed audio circuitry.
 
"technically aware" is not the term i's use for people who think their ears, bodies, and brains can only detect about 320k of vibration data.
 
the only people i'm debating are the types that believe nothing exists beyond 320k lossy audio.  they need to be stopped for the good of mankind. I'm a resolution super hero!
 
the people who say there's nothing beyond 16/44 are less of a nuisance, since downsampling and dithering is a different kind of loss than mpeg compression. if they were all listening to 16/44 lossless it wouldn't be an issue, but most of them listen at 320k too.
 
I mix music and I know that recorded music is an art form. It is under attack by these continual restrictions to bandwidth, and I hate it, and have hated it for decades now.

 

[StanD]

Technically Unaware are those that think they can hear what is not humanly possible.

 

[FFBookman]

This "not humanly possible" concept is the worst. You have no measurements for what is humanly possible when it comes to hearing details in sound.
 

Get into a recording studio and listen to 24bit mixes and then tell me this again. See if they'll downsample and dither to 16/44 for you and then listen again. If you can't hear it at that point, sorry about your senses and lack of understanding. You are missing an entire layer of the recorded music that is amazing and very fulfilling.
 
Ears can be trained. They can also be ignored and degraded.
 
You might want to go to a symphony performance and really listen to the depth and layers of sound, that might whet your appetite for higher recorded sound quality.
 
Or get the Beatles in 24bit and compare that with lesser versions.  Those are even in 24/44 which blows the stupid sample rate argument out of the water since 24/44 sounds better than 16/44.  
 

---

So let me get this straight -- are you accusing Abbey road, The Beatles, Jimmy Page, Bruce Botnick, ProStudioMasters.com and every other legendary artist and producer that is selling 24bit files as con-men?
 
Are record labels conning themselves when paying to re-digitize classics from tape at 24/192?
 
Is Apple conning people when garageband lets you record and output 24bit files? (maybe sorta with that poor built-in ADC)
 
Are Korg, Nord, Roland, Sony, Yamaha, and other digital instrument makers conning us by using 24/96 as the new standard for their synths?  Fooling themselves?
 
You people are ridiculous.  How far will you take this bad science built upon ABX tests?  ABX tests are the worst for mixed music, you can't compare side by side so there's no point in trying to compare a memory with a real thing, not with instant recall only. The results are garbage but that doesn't stop some from basing an entire concept on their results.
 
Show me a single ABX test that can prove anything sounds better than anything. All they can "prove" in this regard is statistical mush because they are a flawed test.

 

[RRod]

 
Get into a recording studio and listen to 24bit mixes and then tell me this again. See if they'll downsample and dither to 16/44 for you and then listen again. If you can't hear it at that point, sorry about your senses and lack of understanding. You are missing an entire layer of the recorded music that is amazing and very fulfilling.
 
Given your music examples, it's doubtful you listen to anything that has the dynamic range where dithering would even be necessary to produce audible improvement in the final product.
 
Ears can be trained. They can also be ignored and degraded.
 
You might want to go to a symphony performance and really listen to the depth and layers of sound, that might whet your appetite for higher recorded sound quality.
 
Some of us have been to them, and listen to orchestras on recordings all the time. What we need are good speakers in a well-treated room, not more bits or samples/sec.
 
Or get the Beatles in 24bit and compare that with lesser versions.  Those are even in 24/44 which blows the stupid sample rate argument out of the water since 24/44 sounds better than 16/44.  
 
Beatles don't have anywhere near the dynamic range to tax 16 bits, so enjoy paying more $$ for nothing.
 
So let me get this straight -- are you accusing Abbey road, The Beatles, Jimmy Page, Bruce Botnick, ProStudioMasters.com and every other legendary artist and producer that is selling 24bit files as con-men?
 
They aren't allergic to making $$, evidently
 
Are record labels conning themselves when paying to re-digitize classics from tape at 24/192?
 
Again, they see hype among people like you and see a chance to make a quick buck.
 
Is Apple conning people when garageband lets you record at 24bit? (maybe sorta with that poor built-in ADC)
 
Are Korg, Nord, Roland, Sony, Yamaha, and other digital instrument makers conning us by using 24/96 as the new standard for their synths?  Fooling themselves?
 
One must separate things that facilitate easier recording/synthesizing versus the audibility of the end product.
 
You people are ridiculous.  How far will you take this bad science built upon ABX tests?  ABX tests are the worst for mixed music, you can't compare side by side so there's no point in trying to compare a memory with a real thing, not with instant recall only.
 
Sorry you can't ABX the stuff you say is so easy to hear.

 

[StanD]

@FFBookman keep on singing the same song. Human limits are just what they are, we have defined limits for FR and DR, you get older or damage your hearing they decline. Perhaps one day one can get implants or go wireless, although that might overload one's CPU.

 

[RRod]

  @FFBookman keep on singing the same song. Human limits are just what they are, we have defined limits for FR and DR, you get older or damage your hearing they decline. Perhaps one day one can get implants or go wireless, although that might overload one's CPU.

 
Blasphemer! Humans have no limits. We are all star-children. We hear the cosmic rays and see the CMBR.

 

[FFBookman]

Have fun with your "human limits" tied to 1978 digital technology.  Amazing. 
 
Have fun at the symphony. Your body is picking up much more than 1Mbs/sec of vibration data coming from that orchestra and room.  So are the microphones and computers recording it.
 
Have fun with tests that tell you everything is false.
 
Have fun with your VHS in a HD world.

 

[RRod]

 
Have fun with your "human limits" tied to 1978 digital technology.  Amazing. 
 
Have fun at the symphony. Your body is picking up much more than 1Mbs/sec of vibration data coming from that orchestra and room.  So are the microphones and computers recording it.
 
Have fun with tests that tell you everything is false.
 
Have fun with your VHS in a HD world.

 
Actually the test gives a pretty good positive if I filter the music below my hearing abilities or the dynamism of the music. Enjoy paying more money for stuff. Maybe we'll start putting you in orbit instead of these fancy telescopes and sensors.

 

[StanD]

 
Have fun with your "human limits" tied to 1978 digital technology.  Amazing. 
 
Have fun at the symphony. Your body is picking up much more than 1Mbs/sec of vibration data coming from that orchestra and room.  So are the microphones and computers recording it.
 
Have fun with tests that tell you everything is false.
 
Have fun with your VHS in a HD world.

Now what, your skin is a radio receptor? Your imagination is without bounds, unfortunately, I doubt that it has any wind in its sails. I wouldn't want to borrow from your extensive VHS HD collection.