>Maybe YOU can't hear the difference, but I am an audiophile.

>>55767222
this desu

>>55767222
basically all of >>>/mu/

File: quality Logitech fr.png (17KB, 960x543px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 960x543px

>there is no such thing as better speakers over $100, its just placebo
>my Logitech z294902029910209 has lasted me years and sounds amazing and it was only $25 from walmart
>I can't imagine anything sounding better ;)

File: image_12.jpg (41KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x480px

>>55767418
+1 my fellow audiophile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTRKFkE32XE

>>55767418
Buying proper speakers makes a difference that much is not bullshit.

>>55768557
LMAO evrytime

itt people who don't know what an audiophile means

>>55768557
topkek

>You can see from the "Measurements" sidebar that I could find no significant effect that the JitterBug had on the analog signals output by three of the DACs I had to hand. Yet with those DACs and others, I heard an improvement in sound quality that I can attribute only to the JitterBug.

>>55768684
what does it mean anon

>>55768612
But why buy more expensive speakers when my Logitech sound just fine?
Your move ;)

>>55767301
What are you on about /mu/ isn't audiophile in the slightest

>>55768822
Do your Logitechs sound just fine or do you just not know any better?

File: covered in feces.jpg (255KB, 1196x1600px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1196x1600px

>>55768839
/mu/ unironically claims that vinyl sounds better than digital audio

pic related, an average /mu/tant

Dynamic range, balance, frequency response, resolution and setup acoustics are all placebo
>>55768884
That isn't even true its just better to collect you idiot

>>55768868
They sound good
Nice crisp highs and great bass. I just can't imagine a speaker sounding better ;)

>>55768822
I'm using two forward facing speakers with 1 1/2 inch tweeter and 8 inch speaker. As well as a 10 inch subwoofer. All in a small space. So tell Me how your 4 1 inch tweeters and 4 inch mid are anywhere near my studio monitors?

>>55768909
You ever feel like a faggot for putting emoticons in every one of your posts?

my 2 speakers cost more than your entire setup

>>55768903
Thats not what vinyl fags think, they always fall back on "MUH WARMTH/ MUH ANALOG" or shit like "MUH DYNAMIC RANGE" and they get so pissy when you back up your shit with facts. They tend to respond with "ITS TRUE TO THE RECORDING" and "ITS BETTER THAN SHITTY MP3S" when its been shown that its extremely difficult if not impossible to distinguish a properly coded mp3 and a flac file

File: magico-ultimateiii.jpg (45KB, 790x531px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 790x531px

>>55768868
Of course he doesn't know any better, he's a poorfag with no proper audio knowledge.

>>55768909
Poorfag.

Pic related it's me.

>>55768920
>>55768928
You know I'm just fucking with you?
Im just posting the shitty replies from people who like Logitech speakers that piss me off

>>55768983
You hate them so much, yet you actively and willingly became them as a "joke"

File: 1461096340001.jpg (678KB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 3192x2124px

>>55768928
>>55768909
True, this is not facebook and we are not your fucking crush. Unless you stop acting like a emoticon-using faggot I suggest different website. I have a feeling reddit is the one for you.

File: catcall-waveform.png (9KB, 939x298px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 939x298px

>>55768969
The dynamic range on Vinyl is objectively far superior on the majority of modern albums especially hip-hop and rock because they fucking brick wall limit the fuck out of CDs which is impossible on Vinyl

>>55768983
I have Logitech speakers, never heard better.

>>55769014
I just like to point out how stupid and ignorant they sound

>>55768977
hahaha what a retard you spent all that money on those speakers and I am just as happy with the quality from mine

>>55769030
You should probably stop bragging about being poor.

File: hampus2.jpg (863KB, 2301x1834px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 2301x1834px

>>55769027
>hip-hop and rock
Not a problem with Type 2 and higher music.
My classical CDs are not overly compressed.

>>55769027
They brick the original digital files and then they record them on Vinyl. The vinyls add noise that simulates dynamic range. Vinyl fidelity is objectively worse.

>>55767418
Man that midrange dip looks nasty.

>>55768612
I agree.

>>55768822
Because you're not a trained listener and you don't care about sound quality.

>>55768884
Vinyl is inferior to digital but sometimes better masters are found on vinyl.

>>55768977
Fun fact: Most audiophile speakers are garbage, studio quality is where it's at.

>>55769027
Its impossible on vinyl, because it has a very limited dynamic range. About 60db or so of dynamic range

Digital has an effective dynamic range of(I think) around 120db

A Dolby S cassette can have a dynamic range of over 90db

But you only see brick walls on shitty mastered albums. Old hip hop from the 90s were extremely well mastered, i have some Houston hip hop albums on cd, and they can reach up to 20db of dynamic range(these are the songs themselves, not the format) and thats pretty good.

>>55769042
I bet Somalian would be pretty happy eating shit. As you and many people are disgusted by shit eating Somalia, so am I, the audio enthusiast, disgusted with people like you using mediocre speakers/headphones without tube AMP and proper DAC. Also this thread should be renamed to /poorfag/ general.

>>55769147
>But you only see brick walls on shitty mastered albums
Which begs the question, why has the music industry gotten worse at mastering albums?
We have digital, we have digital content delivery, but so many albums are poorly mastered.

File: lmaoing at poorfags.jpg (80KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x425px

>>55767222
I take it that this is the poorfag containment thread?

>>55769067
Too bad you brought it up in a discussion about /mu/ so that shit is irrelevant

>>55769221
*smcaks lips togheter*
UH SO LOUD ON MY BEETS
*turns on Beats™ audio"
[BASS RESPONCE INCREATES]
UH UH THAT THE SHIT MUH NIGGA

>>55769213
at least the somalian isnt retarded enough to pay thousands of dollars for the same piece of shit that you use lmao.
I bet you wouldn't even get 70% on this test:
http://mp3ornot.com/ (do at least 20 tries for a good sample size) you obnoxious hipster faggot

>>55769221
>Which begs the question, why has the music industry gotten worse at mastering albums
BECAUSE MUH LOUDNESS GETS MOAR PEPLES TO BUY MUH ALBUM

But don't think that a more quite is better than a louder album, it should belong in between and have certain things(like bass) be the loudest thing in a recording

>>55769286
That would phase so badly in that small room and sound like shit lol

>augh, a headset? How gauche. I use a lapel mic, it's much cheaper without that stupid gaymur tax!
>clickity clackity clack click I THINK SOMEONE'S AROUND THAT CORNER click ci clux clack

File: green.jpg (19KB, 543x469px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 543x469px

For you.

File: Memed.jpg (27KB, 439x266px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 439x266px

>>55769421
Its not even that hard problem is there is only two songs and both are horrible acoustic recordings that sound like shit on that test

>>55767273
>>55767296
>>55767301
based poorfags

>if I can tell the difference, no one can

File: Capture.png (6KB, 248x155px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 248x155px

>>55769564
lmao and i have never spent more than $50 on audio equipment

>>55769786
I got it wrong the first couple of times but I got it after a while of listening to that shitty twang noise
Basing audio quality off human hearing is dumb anyway when you can measure objectively

Isn't it better not to be an audiophile, so that you can enjoy music, even if it's low quality?

File: Untitled.png (13KB, 417x362px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 417x362px

>>55769421
on a laptop with a pair of cheap pioneer in ear heafphones. not willing to do more. personally i'm fine with mp3 vbr, but anything less than 192 CBR is shit

>>55769910
>Basing audio quality off human hearing is dumb anyway when you can measure objectively
This.
The human brain (yes, brain, not ears) is not infallible. It can be tricked and it can even insert imagined input.

It matters little to me if what I hear sounds better or worse, but whether it is measurably better or worse.

>>55768745
Means someone who would stick his penis in soundwaves

should i be able to tell the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps mp3s if im using shitty unresearched £20 headphones i bought years ago?

>>55770306
Yes.

>>55768903
>Dynamic range, balance, frequency response, resolution and setup acoustics are all placebo
No they're not, you idiot. They matter, but not in the way audiofools think they matter.

File: Screenshot_2016-07-27_00-18-54.png (47KB, 619x322px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 619x322px

>>55769421
>>55769564
>>55769786
>>55770000

That site literally plays the same sample 3 times.

>>>/Trash/

>>55769286
That has to be the worst demo room I've ever seen.

>>55769421
The difference between 320kbps and 128 isn't as apparent as most people think it is.

>>55767301
No definitely not.
They have no idea how audio works at all.
They have good tastes in music imho. Some of it is a bit outlandish though.

>>55768884
This they do, which I do not really understand why they shill LP's so much. Sure the sound is a bit warmer and brighter and sometimes there are some decent masters found on LP's. However, from an audio engineering and mastering standpoint LP's are terrible compared to good masters in SACD or other formats.

Source: I browse /mu/ occasionally and know a femanon who browses /mu/ very often.

>>55771109
It sticks out massively when I'm watching films

>>55769421
>320kbps vs 128kbps
>not superior V0 MP3
Woah so this is the power...of listening to music on youtube.

>>55771258
>>55771274
>>55771325

pls no

File: 1436630439734.gif (48KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x600px

>>55767222
>been shopping for new speakers recently
>my hearing is not all that refined but sensitive
>flat or metallic sound somehow manages to physically mess with me
>went to the store, listened to all simple set of 2 speakers+subwoofer they have
>bought the one that sounded the most "right"
>use it half a day
>voices sound flatter
>listening to music suddenly gives me ear aches over time

I CAN'T EVEN HEAR MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE
BUT THE NEW ONES FUCK ME UP
I am forced into semi-audiophile territory to make sure I don't hurt myself because I clearly have no idea what I'm doing.

>>55767222
Super tasters at least exist

>>55771346
is he having an orgasm or a stroke?

File: iDAC2 Results.jpg (63KB, 905x547px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 905x547px

>>55771109
>>55771173
Here are my results I took with my iDAC2 and Fidelio X2's

I may try again with the crack and hd600's later

>>55771176
Depends on the quality of the master, the quality of the rip, and the quality of the playback devices.
Some guy probably does a real shitty job and compression or ripping audio when you watch your films.
Plus, aren't most films in 6 channel DTS or other multichannel Blu-Ray audio formats?

>>55769014
know your enemy...

>>55771443
Oh and the website title is misleading
It is all in an mp3 codec kek

>>55770511
why cant i?

File: 1445456313336.jpg (51KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x640px

>Blind test? Sure, let me open my spectrum analyzer first

>>55768903
Have you listened to Deth Magnetic by Metallica? They even have audible clipping on their CD because they cranked up the loudness all the way beyond max. There's no dynamic range whatsoever, of course it matters, you dip.

File: 1459143318590.webm (3MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x480px

>>55771346
I like this edit.

>>55771348
I only regret not having a picture of those audio pebbles.

>>55771348
as an ignorant anon what am I looking at that is bad in those pictures

>>55771511
>cant handle people can easily tell the difference between a proper encode and his shitty youtubetomp3 since he isn't on what.cd

If you can't abx v2 and v0 you should off yourself

File: 1468607152968.png (199KB, 361x360px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 361x360px

>>55772249
>but all mp3s are missing auper high frequencies
*posts shitty 320kbps encode that cuts off at 15khz*
>HA, TAKE THAT. Now I'm off to listen to my superior weeaboo music in FLAC.

>>55767222
audiophile here you can here the difference spent about 10k on my setup

>>55768557
haha i see this for the first time. thanks man

>>55767222
I literally work as an audio engineer. If I couldn't tell the difference, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.

How are you enjoying the HTC 10 my fellow audiophiles?

>>55767418
Still using whatever the hell Chinese speakers came with me Gateway DX4200-09 when it was new, sound great to me. Still using the built in speakers in my HP vs17e, sound great too. Still using the single mono speaker built into my Compaq Evo D500 and 510SFF, sounds great. Still using my Sony MDR-ZX100 I got from my grandparents years back, sound great too.

>>55769910
What's the point then? It's not like you're making audio for dogs. Anything outside the human range of hearing is essentially a waste of time.

>>55771325
THICC

File: monitoraudio_pl200.jpg (41KB, 720x455px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x455px

I think it's pretty much agreed (except for audiophiles) that, to a point, the more you spend, the more you run into the law of diminishing returns and it becomes less about actual audio quality and more about aesthetic.

I own a pair of PL200's and I've heard premium flagship stuff from MA and KEF and while it was great, it honestly wasn't worth the extra for it, even if I had the money at my disposal. Going from a shitty headset, a pair of harman kardon computer speakers to my MA's was like night and day. Considering how much I use them and enjoy working with music, it was totally worth it.

At the convention I went to, they seemed to really be more focused about cabinet materials, artistry, and shiny glossy paint rather than the driver technology and component design.

>>55768969
you can only tell the difference from shitty mp3's and lossless on higher quality speakers and head units. I never thought there was a difference until I bought my network receiver setup. lossless is the only way to go for me from now on.

File: stock-photo-male-smoking-a-vapor-cigarette-as-an-alternative-to-tobacco-236258128.jpg (30KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x320px

>>55767222

heh, twas me.

Just processing tunes on my t420.

>>55771245
v0 is just a variable bitrate setting that targets around 256kbps. It isn't superior to 320kbps aside from lower file sizes and it cuts off sooner than 320kbit does.

>>55767222
Audiophiles have the highest form of autism known to man!

File: 1416195406948.png (37KB, 567x703px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 567x703px

>>55769570
Xd wasting money is cool *tips fedora* *reloads reddit*

>>55775131
and somehow have the most money

>>55768884
>Buy vinyl
>Fun novelty
>If you don't buy shitty pressings it does actually sound good on a good table
>Value of collection can appreciate like fucking crazy.

Why the salt.

>>55768903
and why cant a 24 bit per sample 128khz digital file record those features?

>>55771615
A bunch of placebo cables that people advertise as "improve sound quality" and such, and sell them for a few grands.

>>55771407
Probably a stroke. I think that he might just as well collapse right after that gif.

>>55773562
Too fucking expensive, would not buy.
I'm a fan of HTC's design and build quality, but I wouldn't accept such premium price for that kind of spec.

>>55769570
what the fuck are you even talking about azpie

File: serveimage.jpg (3MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5000x5000px

>>55767222
>maybe YOU cant notice the difference, but I am a gamer.

>>55776802
You don't need to be a gamer to notice the difference between a good mouse and a $3 knock off.

>>55776848
>You dont need to be an audiophile to notice the difference between good headphones and a $3 knock off.

>>55776896
That much is a given, but past a certain point it's all placebo effect.
Just like a mouse, $40-$50 is the right range for a good mouse, anything past that is placebo.

I don't have any experience with expensive headphone, but my current pair of M50 serves very well and I don't see any point to spend more than that.

>>55768745
Merely means someone who is enthusiastic about audio, nothing more.

>>55771325
what the utter fuck

It's true for me though, I went to the ENT the other day for tinnitus and they did a standard hearing test and the overseer was amazed enough at my hearing to compliment me

>>55771325
>dedicated wire for each individual 1 or 0 to make sure there's no mingling between them for the CLEAREST SOUND

File: speakers.png (3MB, 2244x1004px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2244x1004px

rate

File: retard.jpg (26KB, 448x344px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 448x344px

>>55779839
>"hey doctor, give this retard a high five and compliment him, we need to distract him for this flu shot"

>>55770630
kek

File: old time pepe.jpg (46KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 499x499px

>>55767222
>tfw Yamaha hs50 + HS10W sub
>tfw RME Fireface 400
>Mostly listen to flac files

Just perfect. Everything beyond is just overkill

File: 1464879371562.png (767KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 700x700px

>>55779948

Kek

>>55767222
I did a double blind test on chiru.no and determined I can hear the difference, nice trips though

File: fake_hdr.png (39KB, 829x816px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 829x816px

>>55769027
In most cases the vinyl has the exact same mastering as the CD version. Don't be fooled by filtering artifacts. The 2nd waveform in this image is the 1st one high-pass filtered at 10Hz. It looks better but it sounds identical. Vinyl naturally applies this kind of filtering.

>>55771325
Ok so I know the boa constrictors are just heavily insulated wires, but what is the rest of that shit? I thought setups only really had a source, an amp, and speakers. There is like 6 things there.

>>55768884
you've never been to /mu/. Most listen to music in a digital format, vinyl is really for a collection.

File: JUST.png (2MB, 1920x975px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x975px

>>55769221
I have some albums that straight up burn MP3s to their CDs.

It's not that I can't notice the difference in audio quality between normal and expensive headphones/speakers (200$+ is expensive).

It's that I don't care since normal sounds good enough.

File: JUST 2.png (200KB, 624x389px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 624x389px

>>55769221
>>55782797
Another one

>>55769221
>>55782797
>>55782813
I forgot to mention these aren't transcodes, they're just a few odd tracks that were mastered like fucking shit and the rest are fine.

>>55769067

most pretentious image i've ever seen, fukken saved

*tips fedora*

File: SP099CL_18065_800x800.jpg (81KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x800px

>>55782827
how do i read those charts?

>>55782797
>>55782813
these were ripped from a CD you purchased???

In the '30s singers would try to imitate the thin, tinny sound they heard coming out of the horn on their wind Victorolas when they played the '78s of their favorite recording stars.
Now they're imitating the repetitive non-melodic compressed sounding beats they hear coming out of their earbuds.

>>55776896
Which is literally true, you retarded fuck. We are on this thread to make fun of elitist cunts who pay extra cash for placebo, not of people with common sense, go shill your chinese knock offs somewhere else.

File: alright spectro.flac.png (2MB, 1920x975px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x975px

>>55782991

>>55782797 is a track from a CD album, and the production/mastering is complete utter shit. The rip itself is not a transcode, but is a "proper" lossless rip.

>>55782813 was a web store lossless. It's a remix so the production/mastering is going to inconsistent with the rest of the EP. Here's another track from the same EP, and it's relatively well done, proving that the other one wasn't just a fake transcode.

>>55782337
So is there just clipping noises above 10khz?

Why do the dynamics look better?

>>55784125
10Hz, not 10kHz. It looks better because the flat clipped peaks become sloping lines, but it sounds identical.

>>55775268
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
tl;dr: vinyl a shit

There are definitely huge diminishing returns when it comes to audio but let's not pretend that there isn't a noticeable difference if you invest a few hundred bucks into decent equipment and listen to higher bitrate files.

Im working on making a python util that does the following:
1 go through mp3 library and grab supposed bitrate of each file
2 perform spectral analysis on each file and expected frequency depth for that bitrate with actual frequency depth
3 depending on user selected options, either log or straight up delete all lying transcodes
Would you guys find such a program useful?

>>55784278
Sure, but I don't want it to delete anything without asking me for permission first.

>>55784232
The biggest non-placebo money sink is speakers. All speakers have bad performance, very expensive ones are somewhat less bad. Very expensive speakers will be bottlenecked by room acoustics if you don't have expensive room acoustic treatment too.

But pretty much all cables/amps/dacs are good, so there's no reason to spend much money there.

Headphones are somewhere in the middle, where moderately expensive ones are worth buying but very expensive ones are placebo.

File: image_1.jpg (55KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x375px

>>55767222
>I roll trips while I veil audiophile threads with shitposts

>>55767222
>bothering to argue with retards

I just pretend to be defeated by their superior knowledge.

Same goes for MacFags, anti-state "capitalists", "muh terrorism invade iraq" morons etc

>>55784316
I will put the auto delete mode in as a joke

>>55767222
I just make people listen to one of my tracks with their headphones first, then with my BAs(ATH-IM02, best bang for buck). One even claimed I played two different tracks, that complex background sound becomes fucking incomprehensible on anything but BAs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwMPbA6B8Ew
Speakers are a total meme though.

>>55784207
not an accurate tldr by any means

>>55769102
>Man that midrange dip looks nasty.
"I'll buy 2 grand monitor speakers and then fiddle with the curve myself" ending up with a curve that's almost exactly like that.

>>55784346
Yeah, I spent $300 USD on a pair of Philips Fidelio X2 with a cheap FiiO amp/dac and everything I listen to sounds beautiful.

>>55784435
make a better one

>>55784207
where in the article does it say vinyl is shit?

It argues correctly that the theoretical max db and frequency range in pcm audio is higher than vinyl.

But does it say vinyl's db and freq range are so shitty that they cant be transparent, or in many cases equivalent to their digital counterparts? Nope.

>>55784571
>dynamic range and frequency range are the only things that matter
lmao fucking retard

>>55784626
degradation over time? The pops and clicks? These are such a non issue I didnt feel the need to rebut them.

>>55769421
So what does it mean if I can tell no difference whatsoever.
(using some mid-priced sennheiser headphones)

>>55784626
instead of making us guess why dont you clarify your position you coward?

Impulse response of vinyls is fucking garbage. It's perceived as muddy(or, as some people innuendo it, warm) sound.

>>55784666
It means you havent been spoiling your ears and average quality sounds the same to you as super quality sounds to audiophiles

>>55784841
I take this as a good sign.

>>55768822
Hearing impaired poorfag detected

Just going to pretend this is an actual audiophile thread for a minute.

Are there any issues with building your own tube amp? The electronics seem pretty straight forward my only concern is that it will sound like complete shit, and be way more expensive than just buying one. If it actually has the potential to sound good though, that could be a fun project.

File: DSC_3474.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>55785482
Go for it. You can find some premade designs and just put them together. Or you can design one yourself which is much more difficult obviously. One thing to keep in mind the tools you'll need are going to be more expensive than what you're creating. Oscilloscopes, multi-meters, soldering machines, etc

If you do go the way of the DIY you can make some very competent gear for the fraction of the cost. Of course it'll take a lot of effort to make, though.

>>55769027
do you even know how a vinyl works you imbecile

File: Untitled.jpg (16KB, 256x264px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 256x264px

>people ironically listen to music on hardware costing less than $100

>>55776802
G502 is legit good though, I don't even play games but it's just such a good mouse. It also costs less than 100 bucks, unlike audiophile "equipment".

>>55786594
I listen to music.
From my phone.
Using the cheapest earbuds you'll find in stores.
With lots of software equalizing.
Because that makes my 128kbps MP3s sound best.
They're ripped from YouTube.

>>55784070
Maybe its just samples and instruments they used

Alot of old electronic albums have this

>>55784635
Vinyl has alot of distortion
This is what vinyl fags call "warmth"

/hpg/ should be banned from /g/. Since they practically forbid talking about headsets and wireless, it is strictly about music-oriented headphones and not just headphones. These autists are monopolizing a large topic and restricting its discussion according to their personal preferences. They belong on /mu/. A thread about headphones on /g/ should be about the headphone technology at large, not just audiophile toys.

>>55784397
You have defeated me with your superior knowledge.

>>55786942
There is not a single quality "headset" in the market.
It's like saying "Why can't a I talk about my Razer Deathadder mouse in some mouse thread or my leet gaming laptop in the laptop general or my thinkpad r series in the thinkpad thread"

You're pants-on-head retarded for even thinking about buying any of those products.

>>55786942
>/hpg/ should be banned from /g/
No.
>Since they practically forbid talking about headsets and wireless
Just a few autistic individuals who are quick to make a new OP with those stupid "frowned upon" -lines about headsets or wireless products. It's dumb and plenty of anons seem to agree in the thread.
>it is strictly about music-oriented headphones
Eh, what are those?
>and not just headphones
But it is. The problem is how poorly documented most headsets and wireless headphones are. Can't recommend something we don't know about. The recs people give in /hpg/ aren't based on gut feel and "hey it sounded great to me(tm)" /cgs/ -level reviews.
>These autists are monopolizing a large topic and restricting its discussion according to their personal preferences.
This while board is full of egoistical know-it-alls who can't think for anyone but themselves. Personal audio or personal computer aren't concepts, anyone who disagrees or does something differently is ridiculed. Also there's very little to actually discuss about headphones most of the time.
>They belong on /mu/
Absolutely not.
>A thread about headphones on /g/ should be about the headphone technology at large, not just audiophile toys.
Yes I agree and that's what /hpg/ is already. Few rotten apples doesn't change that.

>>55787050
I actually own a quality headset. You are just another /hpg/ headphone Nazi. Pull your head out of your ass. Your little microphone with Velcro get up makes you look like a retard.

>>55787080
Nobody but trolls respond to queries about headsets or wireless headphones. It is impossible to approach this subject in your jerk off circle because you enable and foster the elitist culture that makes those subject taboos.

You are not entitled to using /g/ as the host for your jerk off circle so stop being so defensive and resorting special pleading to pretend the problem isn't that big. /hpg/ is an audiophile cult and you are toxic to this board. You do not care about technology. You care about sound quality. This is about music and nothing else so fuck off.

>>55787181
>Nobody but trolls respond to queries about headsets or wireless headphones.
Sometimes you get a better response. Most regulars just can't be arsed to reply I bet because of the constant flood of requests and likely also because they actually don't know a good product to fit a headset request.

>It is impossible to approach this subject in your jerk off circle because you enable and foster the elitist culture that makes those subject taboos.
Had you been in the threads long enough you'd see how regulars don't agree on anything. There's elitist culture all over /g/ and multiple different "camps" even in /hpg/. It isn't a hive mind just like this board isn't.

>You are not entitled to using /g/ as the host for your jerk off circle so stop being so defensive and resorting special pleading to pretend the problem isn't that big.
Literally what the fuck? Entitled? What jerk off? I'm not being defensive. I'm someone who actually lurks, posts and I'd like to say contributes to /hpg/ and have been doing so for years now. I gave you my view on how things are in there and why you might feel as you do about that thread right now. If you are the one who has posted about this same shit to /hpg/ multiple times, I'm the one who has responded to your "go to /mu/" -post twice recently with a proper response. Never got a reply.

>/hpg/ is an audiophile cult and you are toxic to this board
/hpg/ is audiophile alright but don't associate that term as something inherently bad. It's a thread for audio enthusiasts of many kind, many of which don't agree with each other.

>You do not care about technology.
I do. Many people who go to /hpg/ most definitely do but I'm sure there are those who don't.

>You care about sound quality.
This can be and often is related to technology and in the case of /hpg/ it very much is. Sound quality isn't /mu/ domain.

>This is about music and nothing else so fuck off.
Point out me the last time music as an art form was the topic on /hpg/ will you.

>>55787181
Too bad I don't bad you're wrong since the only audio equipment I currently have in hand is a pair of Apple EarPods and a $10 zalman microphone.

Tell me more about that "quality" headset and feel free to read the rest of damn post (see the fucking other examples) without resorting to as hominem

flac vs aac ?

File: surfing bboy.jpg (641KB, 1605x2198px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1605x2198px

What are some good headphones that are not more than 100 dollars?

>>55787950
One is lossy, the other isn't, what's there to compare.

>>55787950

if youre asking here, you wont notice any difference

ITT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCumH8LRo1A

160kbps Opus is transparent
128kbps Opus is near transparent (like V2 MP3)

>>55786812
I understand what you're saying, but low low quality samples don't look this fucked up.

>>55769570
>>if I can tell the difference, no one can
Yup, pretty much sums up why nobody takes you seriously.

>>55788012
https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50x-Professional-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B00HVLUR86

Spend the extra $70.

>>55790517
I thought 50x were just slightly above $99? What happened?

>>55790775
The m40x are $90-100.

>>55767418
>the human eye cannot see more than 30 fps.
I imagine people can tell a cheap chinese 100 dollar audio device from something with real craftmanship