>>52581340 DACs can be useful for computers assuming your using something better than iPod headphones. Not sure about amps but I hear if you want to listen at above 5% volume with something costing more than $250 then you'll need one.
Not him but don't DACs reduce or entirely eliminate electrical interference from other components.
I mean I remember having a computer a few years ago that was so bad that I literally couldn't wear headphones with it. You just ended with all kinds of low volume noise when certain USB-ports were active or when the graphics card did it's thing and so on. I think a DAC would have eliminated that problem entirely.
>>52582876 That's not how that works. Price stop correlating to quality so well even a little of the way in, the glut of incompetent speaker sellers have seen to that.
Mastering level speakers usually go for 10-15k USD or so. These are good and measure very well, but you could take the cheaper way with bookshelf/nearfield/small floorstanders reinforced by subs for much, much less.
Audiophilia is a condition - like autism - thjat can be controlled with proper diet and sensory control.
However most audiophiles are aging middle-aged men (do grills even into audiophilia?) with disposable income and thus are far beyond the point of salvation. Due to the reporduction of audio being very well understood companies resort to buzzwords, taglines and high prices to attract such a wealthy and stupid consumer base. As ITT shows your own hearing is the limiting factor once you get beyond peanut spending so spending thousands of shekels on gear is pointless as only a few percentage of people can hear such frequencies in their prime, let alone when they are 40+ years old.
>>52582805 Sometimes, there is a difference. It's never really much if you do notice it at all. No, I'm not about to go converting ~130gb of MP3 320 to FLAC, but if you have an above-average set of equipment (I don't even bother with DACs or any of that shit) you will be able to hear more, even 320kpbs sounds worlds better.
>When you start using tubes in your main system because of the "sound quality", and not just because they look cool as fuck and tube amp kits are fun to build. >When you buy a phono cartridge for over $100 >When you buy prebuilt cables that cost over $10 >When you buy a DAC other than the Behringer UCA202/222 >When you pay a shitload for studio monitors instead of just using a hardware EQ on consumer speakers >When you spend more than $100 on headphones >When you spend more than $300 on a brand new amplifier >When you buy a pono >When you buy vinyl because "it sounds better than digital" when the mastering is done digitally anyway, and the record was probably cut from the same master as the CD version, which is 16/44.1
>>52581340 >cables, dacs, amps, etc. instead of speakers.
How are you supposed to convert a digital signal to an analogue signal without a DAC? How are your speakers supposed to play that signal without an amp? How do you get that signal from your DAC to your amp without cables?
cost isn't the best indicator since there's a lot of good used equipment on the market if the buyer is sufficiently well informed
the most important component is the speaker set, since moderate-quality amps/preamps are usually good enough for most people, and many kinds of speakers, if purchased from sane audiophiles, are very well taken care of, and they may be very inexpensive compared to original cost
>>52584567 >This is almost true for anything. Except cars, computers, home appliances, televisions, watches... shit, pretty much everything. At least that grill is cute and your post wasn't a complete waste.
>Spending more than £40 on headphones >Buying an amp/dac >Buying vinyl because it "sounds better" instead of it just being nice to collect >FLAC and all other lossless formats >Literally spending all your time listening to your equipment for any difference instead of the music Put all that money towards music you want instead
>>52591663 How is that not true for cars? A bugatti is 1.5 million, for 20% of that which is 300,000 you can get plenty of cars that have 80% the performance of a veyron. Also watches even more so after 500 dollars they become a status symbol. So yeah it applies fine.
>>52583055 >>52586184 People just use them for the wrong damn thing, they think that since pros use them, then they must be good universally. 7506's were designed with audio monitoring in mind, that is, hooked up to a device with a live unprocessed feed from a microphone, and not listening to music. Their entire sound signature is modeled around making it easy to pick up discrepancies in this type of sound source, hooked up to a nice recorder and microphone(s) they sound great. Comparing them to a pair of $500 phones I use for music, the 7506 just fall flat: weak muddy bass, distant sound, almost no soundstage, and hyped mids. But I'd also never plug my better phones into a recorder, they just wouldn't work.
>>52592125 I'm sure CD players have stopped being shit sometime by the turn of the millennium and don't matter anymore.
...But at what price point would you consider a headphone amp to achieve best performance before becoming a blatant milking of audiophiles? The highest-end DAC/AMPs I've seen in the professional space top out at $2000. I'm guessing anything over $800 is overkill for a pure headphone DAC/AMP.
>>52592375 Those are apparently the tweeters. It's a part of the speaker that's usually one of the most over-designed aspects, since higher audio frequencies are more difficult to reproduce accurately. As a result you often see exotic designs and materials being applied in their construction.
>>52597708 for regular computer use: something used for 10 to 50 dollars
for audio if you don't really care about quality: 150 dollars used
for high fidelity: either tower speakers, or bookshelf speakers+subwoofer: from $300 to $1000 used
in the latter case, sometimes you get lucky - there is some really good equipment on craigslist at times - owner just wants to get rid of it - usually tower speakers at 1/2 to 1/10 msrp - a huge deal if you already have the amp and preamp to drive them properly
>>52589862 >I've been doing weird stuff and less weird stuff to stereo equipment ever since I had stereo equipment. Lots of these things make a difference, not always for the better. Least obvious to me was proper supports for solid state electronics. I bet there's people out there still arguing that a SS amplifier isn't affected by what it sits on. I hate audiophiles.
>>52579885 I feel like there are people who had money to try out high end stuff and actualy heard more than regular fags. It is well known thing pro musicians can hear more, so why not believe high end gear can deliver more, I think anything beyond of what you can spend for something that is really a gamble is fine. I dont see an issue buying even cables if they say it sounds better, most gamers buy games they never play or play very little, most chinpkad collectors never actualy used their hardware for more than installing meme distros and ricing them. its all personal preference what you are going to waste money on, its snake oil as soon as you ask someone who has different taste for money wasting
>>52598388 If you get some superconductor electromagnet powered by a couple gigawatts of electricity, maybe, just maybe, you can have a tiny tiny effect on a beam of light. Of course, even that won't effect the sound reproduction because even the best audio equipment aren't that sensitive to light fluctuations.
>>52580112 >Vinyl Records(unless you like collecting them) Very true. I have a small collection and I can't notice the difference between vinyl and 320CBR mp3, let alone flac. Records are about the experience. The quiet pop of the needle is sort of ASMR inducing. They're something to talk about when you have company over.
So in other words, pure hipster bullshit, but actually quite nice.
>>52591633 I like braided cables because my kittens are fucking retarded and liable to chew on them. longer cables tend to cost more. when the cable carries an analog signal, I'm willing to spend a wee bit more. however, those going on about $50+ cables for anything under 30 feet are retarded.
>>52591663 >Implying it isn't true for computers might not be exactly 20%/80% but still. Spending $1000 on a Titan is not going to get you anywhere near 5x the performance of a $200 960. >appliances >implying you shouldn't spend as little as possible on all of your appliances except for your oven and range
>>52599986 huh? 50Hz flat is pretty fucking good for a slightly-larger-than 1 sq. ft. unit that goes up to 30Khz at about -6dB. I mean, if you wanted bass response you could just sacrifice some volume and EQ down all your other frequences to -10db to bring your bass response up to 0db at 38Hz.
>>52604826 ehh, I think you need to be more specific. DACs I've never really found that important (shitty motherboard one vs $500, heard no difference), so I agree there
amps on the other hand can vary widely. while I've never purchased an amp for $600, I've bought used ones for $200-300 which went for three times that new. the more wattage (with low distortion) will cost you more, the more features etc will increase price as well. that being said, if you're ONLY doing audio, I don't think most people could tell the difference between a Yamaha A-S501 and a A-S301. but if you want a high powered amp to drive inefficient speakers, you're gonna need a power amp and preamp, which almost always exceed $600 combined
headphones I completely agree
speakers again, depends largely on the type and their applications. I can't understand how people can pay $1000 for a pair of speakers smaller than my head with 2" woofers with an efficiency of like 63dB. who cares how accurate they are when you have to feed them so much power your amp starts distorting? but good floor standers range from $800 to $2000, so that's justifiable
If you're going to compare something like $50 headphones to $500 headphones, you better have owned or done extensive listening to both. Of course somebody with $50 headphones is going to think $500 headphones are pointless, if he were to own both he'd change his mind real quick.
After a certain point things are mostly placebo but that point doesn't exactly have to be at the $50 mark.
>Hey guys thanks for coming to my party. Can everyone please talk real low. My speakers... they don't play that loud. Well they do, but I want bass so I suppress the entire spectrum to match the c.uc.k bass response and... guys..... guys ... .. .
>>52579885 When it is demonstrable that the gear has absolutely no impact on the sound or its quality.
I have heard plenty of higher end audio equipment that sounds amazing, but costs a king's ransom. Not everyone can hear. Not everyone wants to pay those prices. Most of my everyday needs are met by lower end gear.
There is no shortage of nonsense and snakeoil on the market. I'm not sure where they attempt to sell the stuff. Any reputable hi-fi store (what few are left) wouldn't even think of pushing that nonsense when the real gear is pricey enough.
Thing about audio is that it often brings out the culture clash between the satisficers and the maximizers. Satisficers really don't give a shit about audio as long as it hits their personal "good enough" mark. Maximizers really will want to get the most out of their experience and run risk of being duped if they aren't informed.
Your approach is reasonable. You have to take into account the unreasonable factors. Some people make a lot of disposable income and have nothing to do with it. There is a certain feeling associated with "audiophile" products that is seductive. It has a chance of bringing greater order or clarity to something ephemeral. Even though it does nothing in reality, it feels great. It's much like the Mac aluminium body meme. Or the new car feel. Some people pay $3000 more for an amplifier with good trade show word of mouth for being innovative, and for shiny or edgy appearance. Sane people stay the fuck away from this fringe, but its the part of the market that touts cables costing more than my work vehicle.
>>52604826 >>52606004 >>52606532 >>52606597 Really depends on the application. $600 for a headphone amp is fucking ridiculous. $600 for speaker amps really isn't. Like, what if you have some 7.2 dolby atmos home theater? Bare minimum for the receiver/amp right there is $600, and those aren't even very good.
>>52606838 This. I'm so sick and tired of hearing people with bad headphones and even worse gaming headsets just saying shit like it's pointless to have more expensive ones or it doesn't matter or other bullshit. If they've ever tried them theyd realize how much of a difference there is and how nice it is to have stuff that sounds good. Granted money isn't the determining factor in how good headphones sound either, expensive headphones such as the HD800s arent perfect and because of that someone might prefer a different sound signature on headphones that are much cheaper, like the 150-300 dollar range and so on.
Point is audio is subjective but people are retarded for saying there's no point in having nicer headphones.
>>52613216 >hearing frequencies that aren't even on the master recordings >hearing all those extra bits of depth on a recording with a noise floor of about -70db made with bog standard equipment and noisy main power
>>52598192 >It is well known thing pro musicians can hear more
I think it's just that musicians listen to music very differently People who listen to music casually while doing other things, such as playing games, excercising etc don't pay that much attention to finer details. They listen to the main melodies, lyrics and all that basic stuff that essentially is the song. They listen to the song as a whole and don't try to separate different elements in music.
Musicians, producers and other people who are interested in audio and music production listen and pay attention to different layers of the music, listen to the production, arrangement, perhaps what equipment was used to achieve a certain sound, mic techniques etc. Some of it you just can't hear when listening through a cheap pair of headphones or speakers.
TL;DR "pro musicians" listen to music differently and require a bit better equipment than your basic iPhone earbuds to do so
>>52616184 Musicians probably have worse hearing than most people. I've been heavily into making music for a number of years, have spent hours wearing headphones and now have tinnitus and moderate hearing loss in one ear.
>>52617481 I'm not saying that musicians have better hearing, just that they listen better. They sort of "search" for elements in the song that could easily be looked over by someone who isn't really interested in them. It's sort of like wine tasting; someone can take a sip, say "yeah that's wine" but a wine critic notices all sorts of different notes and hints of flavour.
Yeah man my hearing is great otherwise, but I have a slight tinnitus in my right ear. Probably from singing and playing in a band for 5-6 without earplugs. I know, dumb as shit. But what is strange that I saw two live shows a week apart from each other other. One was really loud and I was in the middle of the crowd without plugs, the other I had bought earplugs for. After the first show I had a slight ringing in my ear but the next day it was gone. Then after the second show I went back to the studio where I had already spent around a month, I did some vocals for three days and at the end of the third day when I went to sleep I noticed a ringing. For me it's strange that nothing major happened after the live shows or adter 5 years of band practice and gigs but then recording vocals and wearing headphones on moderate volume like I've done countless times before triggered this.
I read that tinnitus can be amplified or caused by neck and shoulder issues. I'm hoping it's not permanent and that it's caused by my stiff shoulders, since it gets more noticeable and annoying when my shoulders are really messed up. I rarely notice it when my shoulders are better.
Alot of musicians have a loss of hearing or tinnitus that is true. Tom Arya, Neil Young and Will I am to name a few.
Thread replies: 181 Thread images: 22
Thread DB ID: 475348
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.