no audiophile thread?

File: wpid-11327015_400326086835315_2085245824_n.jpg (101KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x640px

>>60232408
To test loudspeakers do not use music, voice is superior testing material.

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/library/mp3files/Alan_Shaw_Derek_HughesV2BBCJune07_%28C%29_HarbethUK.mp3

>>60232408
low ceiling, hard floor, no curtains

>>60232587
why care about acoustics when you can spend money rolling tubes and finding the perfect power cable for each part of you chain?

>>60232408
What's with that Behringer amp being all sensible in the corner over there? Like someone a moment of clarity once.

>>60232745
yeah, I've seen the behringer a500 and it's predecessors pretty often in audiophile context, one of these rare hyped things they pull out of their asses like the ps1 dac

>>60232799
Guess there is no other plausible explanation than this. Audiophiles are fucking weird.

File: jbl JBL 2226H.jpg (96KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x681px

bump

>>60232408
>not audiophile-grade plant in the corner

might aswell listen to 96k mono mp3 with $2 earbuds.

>>60232551
no it isn't, voice is an easy thing for speakers to do

>>60232551
>wat is vocal music
>>60236135
Usually, but it depends on voice, a powerful soprano backed by a full orchestra sounds like ass on the wrong speaker. Solo/unplugged vocals are piss easy though.

>>60237175
ayyy lmao wtf even is that?

File: mbl.jpg (350KB, 1100x731px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1100x731px

>>60237331
multi directional tweeter

File: stuff.jpg (299KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1280x720px

>>60232551
I rather use a mix of sounds and music tones.
https://u.nya.is/kzuyrr.mp3

But then again, I'm not an audiophile with $1000+ speaker cables.

>>60237875
>put the tweeter in a corner
>you now have a tweeter for all of the directions that matter

>wh*te people

What's the point of such elaborate and expensive setups? Are there people out there who literally just sit and listen to music in their house?

>>60238493
Yes, there are

True audiophiles spend the bulk of their spending on building the listening room. spending silly money on placebo-tier source/amp/speakers and plonking them in the middle of their living room is beyond retarded, even for audiophiles.

If you've got a room set up right, you don't need to spend more than a few hundred dollars on amps & speakers

>>60237875
what are the bulb things though

>>60238650
multidirectional midrange :3

>spend tens of thousands of dollars on audio equipment
>house looks like shit with cables trailing all over the place

>>60237175
That's a hotel room. I think at the Mirage. Why drag all that shit in to a hotel room?

>>60237175
Are those tesla coils?

>>60238613
>True audiophiles spend the bulk of their spending on building the listening room.
this
>1,300USD spent on my audio chain from soundcard to speakers & subs
>mulling over if I want to do a 2,500USD bedroom reno
worst part is the hole in the wall can cost as much as the room
http://isostore.com/shop/product/isodoor-hd-sound-isolation-door/

Looking to sperg out on one of those headphone boxes and a quality pair of headphones. I have a pair of steelseries now (liked the old Icemats when i was a kiddo) but want something real comfy for listening to my vinyl flac rips of IAOTS.
Give me babbys first gestalt.

File: estimate.png (72KB, 907x843px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 907x843px

>60238871
nothing crazy here, just adds up.

>soundcard
using separate channels for dps

>>60236135
It's about your brain being good at recognizing voices you dense piece of shite.

>>60238777
>Why drag all that shit in to a hotel room?
I'm thinking convention and stuck with a small display booth so they set up in a room.

File: tmp_2633-14891506457451519869412.jpg (61KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x525px

Fuck op, QUICK POST TECHNO SNECKS

>>60237875
please explain why there is a motherfucking reel to reel

this some advanced level analog faggotry

File: 4kJzYpy.jpg (184KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1280x853px

>>60239066

HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

If I had even a quarter of the money these people use on their setups I'd invest it all in music production equipment instead.

>>60239081
cause muh analog
>>60239716
>>60239066
Madness...

>>60239066
>>60239716
What the fuck are these cables?

>>60239754
they carry super cooled audio plasma into the tubes which then vaporize the audio into airborn lossless particles

File: 13.jpg (164KB, 598x477px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 598x477px

>>60239754
It's for a better musicality goy

>>60239754
the leviathan prophecied to rise at the end of the age of windows desktop and consume all iphone models 7 and up

>>60232408
You mean audiophool?

I respect ricing. It's A E S T H E T I C. Nobody claims to be more productive with their loli waifu background and pink i3 theme.

I respect battlestations. There is an art to case design, and again, it's about looks and comfiness. Nobody thinks that the red LEDs in the case make it go faster.

Audiophilery is idiotic stupidity for cock sockets with more money than sense. You can't hear the difference between 320KCBR and FLAC, and if you think you can, you are a moron who doesn't know how sound works. And you sure as fuck can't tell the difference with your $100 cable lifters and monster cables and all this other foolishness.

>>60236022
you need to put this speakers on some stand
one foot height at last

>>60239843
I don't see it like that necessarily.

I see it at the natural tendency of people to refuse an "upper limit" to anything.

if there is a good, then they seek a higher good. it doesn't matter how subtle the improvement, they still seek it.

they never want to believe that they've truly attained the "best sound possible", there's always another tweak to be made

that is what all technology is about, improving what may not be able to be improved. but then all progress would halt, and where would there to be to go? suicide?

File: ph.gif (692KB, 500x298px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 500x298px

>>60232408

File: day-of-the-tentacle.jpg (23KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 225x225px

>>60232408
Anyone else reminded of Day of the Tentacle when they see that speaker?

File: 20170423_145043 - Resize.jpg (3MB, 5047x2839px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5047x2839px

This is good enough for me and about as far as I want to progress down this path for quite awhile.

>>60239754
shielding cables from electromagnetic noise

File: hanszimmer.jpg (338KB, 1204x851px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1204x851px

comfy studio

File: RVG.jpg (95KB, 800x827px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x827px

This Guy Is A God

File: SP_BS22_LR.jpg (262KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1600x1600px

Just dropped 400 on a new setup for my pc. Got a pair of Pioneer SP-BS22-LR Andrew Jones speakers up front, a Polk Audio PSW10 sub, all running through a Yamaha Rx-V377 receiver, sounds great!

>2017
>not buying your own private electricity connection for $40k for improved audio quality

https://gizmodo.com/obsessed-audiophiles-in-japan-are-installing-their-own-1785291714

>>60232551
Voice is a much more limited frequency range than music.
Using just voice would be retarded.

File: tesla-powerwall-solaredge-inverter.jpg (53KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1000x584px

>>60241697
Tesla power inverter

>>60241371

That looks like the sort of room where you watch extremely violent and deviant pornography while sipping a glass of port and nobbling o na cheese selection.

File: Migi.png (582KB, 1000x648px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1000x648px

>>60240698
yes , but also that Parasyte mango/animu

>>60241739
Yes, but only highest quality systems can reproduce real naturalness of human voice

>>60241760
solar power changes the sonic tonality to a much brighter color.

File: oh_my.gif (3MB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 426x426px

>>60232408
that's a big horn

>>60241863
That's nice but unless if reproduces the real naturalness of instruments as well then it's worthless.

>>60232408
all that audiophile shit in this threas
and I'm sitting here listening to dubstep on my 15$ bluetooth over ear headphones

>>60241697
Times like this I regret not having semitic genes.

>>60232551
Classical music will always be the GO TO in terms of testing material

You can't beat that

>>60243142
Unquestionably high quantity of redditry in this post.

>>60238493
t. philistine

I bet you play music as "background music" for your exciting, movie-like life

>>60236022
garbage midrange
metal head

File: liquido-75000-antes-130-mil-full-range-akai-fostex-D_NQ_NP_20810-MLC20197583971_112014-F.jpg (163KB, 675x1200px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 675x1200px

single (fostex) driver transmission line (quarter wavelength) enclosures
Moving mass ot driver is only 2.7 grams!

>>60241639
Bought a pair of those Pioneer speakers at a black Friday sale for $100.
Very happy with them, esp for the price.

File: 1470778154953.jpg (2MB, 1208x2144px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1208x2144px

>>60244211
Are they low sensitivity/ hard to drive?

File: 61jdkuqt3mL._SL1500_[1].jpg (81KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1500x1500px

Anyone know anything about the stinky chinky Duronic stands on Amazon?

Cheap af but might be shitty quality control.

File: 82199517.jpg (100KB, 400x594px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 400x594px

>>60244260
I have a 50 euro set that look more stable than that and are height adjustable.

>>60244247
85 db/w/m, so not what you'd call very efficient. But they are pretty easy to drive. Tried them with a few different amps, and even my little Yamaha AX-330 was enough to get convincing volume out of them.

Does anybody have problems with computer noise?

I have an external DAC, but I can still hear clicking that gets louder when I move my mouse.

>>60232408
Audiophiles are the laughing stock of the consumer electronics world

File: 1452722169468.jpg (47KB, 445x488px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 445x488px

>>60244562
usb dac?
powered how?
anything in syslogs about usb losing sync or otherwise erroring out?

>>60244612
It is a USB DAC, but I also get the same noise if I just use the 3,5mm on the motherboard.

Any non private tracker where I can download lossless classical music?

>>60244663
USB DAC that is USB powered.

>>60244682
There's that one Russian one.

>>60244699
link?

I'm new to all this

>>60244819
rutracker, get Google Translate ready

File: rs_DSCF2602.jpg (2MB, 2144x1608px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2144x1608px

>>60244685
Things I'd try:
-use another source to make sure there is no noise
-hang the dac off another port, try a (powered) hub
-is the motherboard jack noisy if you use headphones on it?

>>60244841
>use another source to make sure there is no noise
No noise as soon as I unplug the PC from the rest of the stereo.
>hang the dac off another port, try a (powered) hub
Noise on all ports.
>is the motherboard jack noisy if you use headphones on it?
No

>>60244827
thanks!

>>60244879
Ground loop maybe? If so can be hard to ferret out.
You could try disconnecting everything (peripherals, modem) not needed to get sound, using only one wall outlet for pc and amp.

>>60245029
It's definitely not a ground loop (no hum). It's digital noise of some sort.

>>60245059
Does the way the noise sounds change when you stress your cpu?

>>60245163
I'll need to test that.

File: lifestyle model 5 acoustimass 900.jpg (152KB, 1126x744px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1126x744px

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but my parents have an old Bose surround sound system (yeah I know, fuck Bose) that I'm trying to set up and I'm wondering if this thing even supports real surround sound. Every one of the inputs on the receiver seems to just be for a pair of RCA cables. Doesn't that mean this thing can only really carry two channels, aka stereo? Is there any way to give it 5.1 channel surround sound? Does it encode the surround sound signal into two-channel stereo like Dolby Pro Logic?

My TV only outputs audio through a little 3.5mm headphone jack and through a digital optical audio output. Could it correctly interpret a digital 5.1 signal if I bought an optical audio -> stereo RCA adapter? Would it be a lot better sounding than the headphone jack? Because right now I've got it sort of working via a headphone -> stereo RCA adapter

>>60245862
>two channels
difference between channels => surround
concordance => center

They called it Dolby Surround.

>>60239066
How much do the stands holding up the technopython cost?

File: optical to analog RCA.jpg (107KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x1000px

>>60246099
>Dolby Surround
Okay so that's like Pro Logic then.
Should I use something like this with it instead of the 3.5mm to 2x RCA?

>>60246654
I don't think it would make a difference.

File: quality.jpg (147KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 800x600px

Are there any good speakers that can be built into walls? I'd like to have surround setup, but there's no space :(

hey /g/

beginner in audio here
i want to purchase speakers and i guess a sound system for decent price, probably like 600$ CAD or something like that

any advice ?

>>60246923
> google in-wall speakers
> google on wall flat speakers
Too many to list. Figure out your price range and go from there.

I don't know how much longer my iPod has before it dies for good. Is there a superior brand to use for portable music players? I really don't want to support Apple but I'm so used to the damn thing by now.

>sold 3 pairs of speakers yesterday as I didn't use them
>for some reason I feel regret
what is this disease? I have a better pair of towers, yet I wish I kept the older speakers

>>60232408
>all that fancy shit in front of a giant window that will rattle like crazy ruining any advantages of all that crap

>>60246955
https://www.cnet.com/products/pioneer-sp-pk52fs/prices/
https://www.cnet.com/products/yamaha-rx-v379/
A little over $600 (~$750) but about as good at you can get at this price point.
Other option is to go second hand. But that takes more time and research.

>>60239081
Lot's of audiophiles, especially older ones, like their analog gear. Reel to reel is highest fidelity analog audio storage format.

>>60237331
Omnidirectional loudspeaker.

>>60238493
>Are there people out there who literally just sit and listen to music in their house?
I do that sometimes. Music can be captivating.

>>60241863
Nonsense. Just cover the frequency spectrum required with sufficient linearity. Half decent budget setups can do voice well. Loudspeaker and room interaction is still a much more realistic concern and this is

>>60244583
The term is broad. /g/ doesn't seem to realize it ever.

>>60246955
LSR305 and some audio interface like Steinberg's or Scarlet's affordable ones.

File: Zuluferdig.jpg (75KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x768px

>>60247383
>Half decent budget setups can do voice well.
What the fuck are you smoking and can I have some as it must be some potent shit!

File: typical audiophile.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>60232408

>>60247429
Human voice is a complex sound but that doesn't make it hard for a loudspeaker to play it back.

>>60247429
It's funny you should take that position when you're posting TPQWP garbage which is literally only useful when listening to Diana Krall shitmusic

Crossovers exist for a reason, friendo

>>60247506
You have low standards.
We're not talking about comprehensible.
It's about the illusion the actual person is in the room and speakers have disappeared.

>>60241371
looks very patrician

>>60247499
>autists take this seriously

>>60247499
>my logitech powered speakers work just fine!
lel

>>60245059
I've had a ground loop problem that was only audible in certain CPU actions, such as moving the mouse.

>>60247534
I absolutely do not. I just hate how regressive some ideas audiophiles have for sound quality are. There's nothing hard in human voice for it to be a challenge to reproduce accurately from a recording. Getting hung up on simple stuff like this or say amps and DACs really just hinders people from tackling actually meaningful issues in sound reproduction which there are plenty.

I'm not talking about comprehensible either. You don't need much of a loudspeaker to cover human voice range with good linearity and play it back loud. Room interaction is the hard part to control. Good pair of loudspeaker design can help in that by maintaining good directivity over the band of interest but you'll still need to pay a lot of attention in the listening room itself. Mainly the positioning of loudspeakers, listening spot and how you want the sound to be absorbed and reflected. This is largely outside of the domain of loudspeakers and makes a massive impact on how things actually sound.

Illusion that the person is in the room requires the content to be mixed as such in addition to just having a decent setup. However you'll never get that sort of illusion from a two channel recording. The radiation pattern of a person singing in front of you in the room would be vastly different to that what loudspeakers can reproduce. How loudspeakers interact in the room also differs from the single point of a singer. Binaural recording played back through good in-ears or headphones would be the only way to get "in the room" experience. With stereophonic recordings and loudspeakers you get a soundstage.

File: foldedHorns.jpg (241KB, 1224x1632px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1224x1632px

>>60247786
Ye, he says there's no noise when using headphones directly from the motherboard.
-change wiring/ routing, or
-usb galvanic isolator, or
-go optical

>>60247871
>There's nothing hard in human voice
It's about your brain being good at parsing voices you moronic shitstain.

Audiophilia is the art of remaining ignorant in the face of a centurys worth of R&D of audio production and reproduction.

>>60247927
What a reply.

>>60247944
better than you deserve, sheister

>>60244685
does the DAC have SPDIF input? if so, power it from a USB charger and try the SPDIF, it should eliminate any noise from the PC.

What kind of DAC is it? maybe it is just bad.

>>60245862
If it has no actual surround input, you can't get actual surround out from it. It doesn't seem to have any 5.1 input, nor does it appear to have a digital input (optical TOSLINK or S/PDIF). Any surround sound it outputs is probably going to be fake (Dolby Surround and shit like that) and you can't actually feed it real surround as far as I can see.

File: b.jpg (196KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 640x480px

Simply beatiful.

Also, with a SUMA 10

>>60239843
>You can't hear the difference between 320KCBR and FLAC
But the thing is, lossy formats are affected by a phenomenon called rotational velocidensity. These include mp3, aac, and ogg.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the music community regarding the differences between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC format. It is true that 320kbps is technically as good as FLAC, but there are other reasons to get music in a lossless format.

Hearing the difference now isn’t the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

File: 1455687281173.png (141KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 439x290px

>>60248502

> rotational velocidensity

File: Now this is shitposting.jpg (39KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x329px

>>60248502
I havent seen this on 4chan but I have seen it elsewhere, good pasta.

File: 6777b6ff-d0d9-4c43-9a6e-487a344a4b90.jpg (60KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 540x720px

r8 my stack. Yes, I know about the stickers.

>>60248695
I like the VFD spectrum analyzer, is that a hi-fi equalizer or what? Also your picture is for ants and dogshit quality.

you can't hear difference between mp3 320 and flac if you listen on shitty desktop speakers
but on higher quality systems difference the is very noticeable

File: pi-2-design-503hta-i2s-dac-hybrid-tube-amp-for-the-raspberry-pi-VOLUMIO.jpg (32KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x452px

>>60248695
that's not 19"

>>60249117
However, bedding John Romero...

>>60248148
dolby surround / pro logic is still surround sound, it's just analog surround from before the days of digital. The signal is muddier than digital surround, but it's not like the thing just plays stereo out of five speakers positioned all around you.

>Dolby Surround/Pro Logic is based on matrix technology. When a Dolby Surround soundtrack is created, four channels of sound are matrix-encoded into an ordinary stereo (two channel) sound track. The centre channel is encoded by placing it equally in the left and right channels; the rear channel is encoded using phase shift techniques, typically an out of phase stereo mixdown.

>>60248746
Yup, it's a Sony SEQ-D705
It's connected to the third tape loop on the preamp, so I can switch it in and out of the signal chain just by pressing the tape monitor button. Sorry for the picture quality, there's not much light in my room and I don't have money for an SLR.
>>60249147
>2017
>not having a T H I C C gf

>>60237875
>multi directional
Shouldn't they be put in the middle of the room, then?

Also, dalek_speaker.jpg

>>60249255
I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how it worked, but from my own use I remember Pro Logic was used to encode a 5.1 signal into a DD stream which could be sent over S/PDIF. It was lossy encoding due to the bandwidth limitation, but it was actual surround, as in a stream containing encoded 5.1 was sent from the source to the device.

That thing which was initially posted didn't have any digital input, so no DD 5.1 streams or DTS equivalents, nor did it have a 5.1 analog input. So you're saying there's an analog format which encodes 5.1 into a 2-channel analog signal, which is then decoded by the device? That would require support both on the source to do said analog encoding/mixing and on the playback device too, do modern TVs actually support anything like that? I'm kind of doubtful. Now I've seen plenty of devices which take plain stereo and "expand" it to 5.1, but that isn't really legitimate surround.

>>60249392
>Yup, it's a Sony SEQ-D705
I've been thinking of getting an EQ for the VFD spectrum analyzer alone, but I keep stopping myself since I don't have room for it or any actual need. My source is a PC anyway, I could do all the eq I wanted from the get go anyway.

>>60249712
>So you're saying there's an analog format which encodes 5.1 into a 2-channel analog signal, which is then decoded by the device?
Not him, but yes. VHS tapes had Pro Logic soundtracks with real surround encoded into the Hi-Fi stereo audio track. The Gamecube and the Wii did output Pro Logic too. Hell, even some SNES games managed to pull it off.
Another example of analog matrix encoding is SQ, a quadraphonic system for records. Which actually doesn't sound half bad with modern decoding, I have listened to Mike Oldfield's Boxed using a modern receiver and it's surprisingly decent.

>>60241697
A fool and his money are soon parted.
At some point it just becomes a pissing contest..

>>60249831
With pro-logic, surround is really only one channel fed out of phase to the two surround speakers isn't it?

>>60249896
No. The signal that's fed to the speakers is phase-correct. Did you know that audio processing can be analog? You know, we've been recording and editing sound long before digital electronics were even a thing.

>>60249943
Have a source for that? Because you're wrong, you know.

File: 125000539272.jpg (93KB, 640x755px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x755px

What's a good, dedicated portable media player? I was looking at the Fiio X5 and it's dual SD card slots.

>>60247871
just wanted to say I agree 100% with this post and that the guy you're arguing with is the kind of delusional snob that makes people think all audiophiles are like this guy: >>60247499

>>60249958

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic
>Dolby Surround/Pro Logic is based on matrix technology. When a Dolby Surround soundtrack is created, four channels of sound are matrix-encoded into an ordinary stereo (two channel) sound track. The centre channel is encoded by placing it equally in the left and right channels; the rear channel is encoded using phase shift techniques, typically an out of phase stereo mixdown.

>A Pro Logic decoder/processor "unfolds" the sound into the original 4.0 surround—left and right, center, and a single limited frequency-range (7 kHz low-pass filtered[1]) mono rear channel—while systems lacking the decoder play back the audio as standard stereo.

It is encoded out of phase, but that gets reversed by the receiver.

>>60250015
You agree with that nonsensical word salad? Idiot.

>>60250027
That says what I stated and you denied. Try activating a brain cell before you post something next time.

>>60232551
>test loudspeakers
>provides mp3

>>60249831
I see, I didn't know that was a thing. Back in the day when VHS was a thing we didn't have any sort of audio gear beyond the (mono) TV. After that I pretty much switched to digital.

>>60239066
>>60239716

These phools really don't get it, do they... Unless the inner sections of their amps and the speakers where the banana plug sockets are connected to the circuits are wired with at least with the same ridiculous ((("""gauge"""))), their gay looking anacondas are doing NOTHING AT ALL.

>>60250260
>h-h-how dare someone spend more than my entire yearly income on one thing, dont they know that unless they do x or y it wont doo anything?
How sour are those grapes?

>>60238777
Is it Mirage or Venetian?

Probably during CES, these companies sometimes rent suites to display. Interesting How It's Made on these.

>>60250339
I don't know. How are those new Van den Hul cables you bought the other day because the salesman convinced you they provide a better soundstage?

File: $_85 (10).jpg (59KB, 545x726px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 545x726px

>>60248502
Good times

>>60244247
WTF is this?

File: 212573245595.jpg (98KB, 1192x795px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1192x795px

>>60250651
Just a couple fullrangers, stacked. I wanted to hear what it would sound like.
VOICE DID SOUND VERY LIFELIKE!!!

>>60246955
Can you build stuff? That's what I did, best value by far.

File: 72c.jpg (18KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x450px

>>60250339

>>60250724
Oh, thought you were legit trying to make a speaker array.

>>60250864
Where is that ugly buff guy flexing without a shirt in grey dress slacks, like late 70s early 80s era?

I envision the rest of his house looking like this.

>>60250042
This is nonsensical:
>only highest quality systems can reproduce real naturalness of human voice

>>60248940
It has very little to do with your playback gear.

>>60250152
Doesn't really limit anything here.

>>60250408
>Low hanging fruit is indicative of everything in a field interest or hobby
If that's the case then that virginity must be going well for you.

>>60250969
Christ you're dense.
It's about your brain (if you have one) being able to discern subtle differences. Voice is superior material because your brain has evolved under evolutionary pressure to be very good at this.
Music came much later.
Fucking idot.

>>60251188
Yeah sure, it makes for some of the better music listening test material for what that's worth. It's still a spectrum that is easy to reproduce in very high fidelity, our perception notwithstanding. You can train the perception part.

And who tests loudspeakers by ear anyway? With music and in stereo, too I bet? You couldn't get more inconclusive results if you tried.

>Fucking idot
>you dense piece of shite
>What the fuck are you smoking
>you moronic shitstain
>more than you deserve
>sheister
>about your brain (if you have one)
>Idiot

Forces you to cogitate indeed.

>>60251188
lol, the autism of this guy... why are you so hostile and defensive anyway, in every single post? Is it because you're afraid deep down that these "differences" you think you're hearing are all actually just placebo, from so desperately needing confirmation that your wasting of thousands of dollars on ridiculously overpriced audio equipment was not completely pointless? This guy is absolutely right when it comes to people like you: >>60244583

>>60237175
This was setup as a display in a hotel room, lots of these were.

>>60251533
>who tests loudspeakers by ear
Ermm, any serious manufacturer?

>>60240625
Except all these tweaks dont even fucking help, no scientific instrument can detect a difference

>>60251539
So first you call someone an autist and then you complain about their tone?
Oh, and as you seem to be a mindreader I won't bother replying to the rest of your rant.

>>60251634
Supplementary to carefully conducted measurements I hope. Listening tests are hard if you want some meaningful, repeatable data out of them. It has to be double blinded, level matched and with listeners that are discriminating and experienced/trained. I doubt many manufacturers are going through the hassle of all that. Some audiophile brands still vouch and market their gear of being "tuned by ear":

>>60251714
Ok, how about the other scenario.
Do you really believe JBL would release a new model without it actually having been listened to by humans? Really?

>>60251791
No.
>Supplementary to carefully conducted measurements I hope.

>>60251791
>Do you really believe JBL would release a new model without it actually having been listened to by humans?
>JBL
Yes.

I only power my audio gear with the finest locally sourced electricity from small artistian generators. Using anything else and you might as well be listening to nickleback on AM.

>>60252044

>nickleback on AM

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

File: c-cute box 3.jpg (221KB, 1357x848px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1357x848px

Isn't that thing cute, CUTE!
>>60247871
What about omnidirectional speakers?
>>60250015
Don't bully Tyll, he is only 'audiophile' that makes sensible reviews and has shit loads of measurements on headphones.

So I've always had open back headphones, never used speakers. This makes listening to music in the car AWFUL. What are some good speakers that can be put in a car? I know it won't be possible to match high-end headphones, but what's the closest I can get?

File: 327de6ae769a2427ec2420adea27b6d2.jpg (58KB, 736x490px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 736x490px

>>60252383
>What about omnidirectional speakers?
Repost of a comment about the MBL Radialstrahler. Pic related

---------------
The amplitude is flat and smooth, and the directivity is totally uniform. An even directivity is one the top things to look for in a speaker, so would an omni be best? Most tests and surveys aren't performed with anything that could be called a high-end omni, and an omni interacts more with the room than the usual. Basically, omnis require a lot more careful attention to room treatment than a normal speaker, something that already is underappreciated as it is.

A lot of the speaker's power is wasted by being radiated into the room and absorbed, rather than being aimed at the listeners. The MBL's sensitivity tends to be low for it.
Room acoustics is more delicate of an issue that usually discussed. People do have certain preferences here, but some reflections are good in that they provide additional information that can be used by the brain to figure out the sound. Room reflections are a balancing act; the delayed reflections can smear the source localization if not reduced in level enough or kept within a small enough delay to the direct sound impulse.

The problem here is that there is always going to be more sound being fed into the room and walls than into being aimed at the person, no matter the frequency.
---------------

File: Image2.jpg (180KB, 1266x1266px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1266x1266px

My surround speakers.
Dual 8" woofers faced inward and a coaxial mid and tweeter in the top, faced upwards at a cone. Sound comes of all 4 sides.
They don't sound great as fronts, but are the best surrounds I've ever used.

>>60232551
Sometimes I don't understand the TV in the background if theres some noise. Its not that I can't hear it, I don't understand it. I guess I'm used to quality headphones.

File: 1475244244753.jpg (22KB, 746x616px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 746x616px

I got an Sony mdr-v6 in 2013 and really enjoyed it. So i wanted to upgrade and get another pair of nice headphones. I went with the hd600 and a o2 amp. They got both those for $300. Good deal? They arrived today. Waiting for the silly Sennheiser cable to arrive tho.

>>60250753
I can kinda build stuff, i got tools and a bit of knowledge

>>60254715
Neat design

>>60253667
I don't like working principle of this radialstrahlers.
Voice coil pushing ribs and flexing them and flexing of ribs producing sound. Dynamic range and max SPL is probably very limited and that's why it need so big units.

File: 4fgq6ep.jpg (318KB, 996x1474px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 996x1474px

>>60254715
and also there is no point of omni directivity in room when standard directional speakers always sound better than omni's !

Horns only amplify specific harmonics and it is impossible to make them have a flat response. The whole point of a horn is to steal energy from certain harmonics in order to amplify others.

Audiophiles who are into horns are not audiophiles

File: Ohm-F.jpg (148KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 600x900px

>>60254715
is that Ohm-F ?
it's very elegant and smart design

>>60251837
Looks like you don't know anything about the harman group jbl of the last 20ish years and people like sean olive

File: Astell&Kern AK70 Oriental Red.jpg (263KB, 456x640px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 456x640px

today you can have complete high-end audio system in the pocket

>>60259474
Hopefully she loves piercing treble

>>60259567
that's not a 990

>>60259575
If that's a Beyerdynamics, it's not much different.

>>60259596
nicely meme'd

File: RD-horn_sub.jpg (51KB, 640x412px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x412px

>>60241981
This is a big horn

>>60232408
sufficiently advanced downmixing > spending 10K on speakers

on the end you still listen shit with only two ears

>>60259802
what are you downmixing? 99.8% of all music is in stereo

>>60259442
Half the time I know someone who has A&K (mostly Jrs) they listen to it through some Beats headphone. baka

>>60257154
I wish they were Ohm with the Walsh drivers.
These are Noresco 5870's.

>>60241697
>work for electric company
>literally no idea how they'd be able to do this
Seriously that shit wouldn't fly in my state

>>60250864
Holy shit my nose is clogging just from looking at the carpet.

File: halp.jpg (44KB, 266x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 266x400px

I have a general question:

I have a receiver that takes as input RCA cables. In the past I used my MBP -> Toslink DAC -> Receiver fine.

But now I can't use my MBP to play music.

What's the best option for me to play music on my receiver. I have a lot of FLAC albums that I would like to take advantage of. Having an DAP/ CD+DAP would be the best but I'm having a hard time finding a DAP that will play FLAC and have Toslink (or similar fidelity) DAC

Thanks :)

File: ö.jpg (213KB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1800x1800px

Would you build/buy a sealed or vented loudspeaker cabinet for exclusively music playback? Let's say it's a simple and inexpensive floor-standing design with 1" tweeter and either 6½ or 8" woofer.

Pic from DDG

>>60257007
cool posters

>>60263995
I prefer ported.

Audiophiles are as mentally ill as trannies

yeti is making this high pitched noise during recording all the time.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1DFz4oHMw8f

lower pitch is just fans. wire is not running along other wires and i'm using headphones so no feedback loop. any help?

File: 96.jpg (1MB, 1920x950px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x950px

Have you ever seen a 96khz flac as pretty as this??

File: FLAC.png (3MB, 1920x950px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x950px

>>60266561

>>60266647
delete this

File: linkwitz-transform-curves.png (25KB, 650x302px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 650x302px

>>60263995
Depends. You can tune a vented box for 8" drivers low enough that I don't really mind, but if you're okay with sacrificing volume you can get better and lower-going bass with a closed box + linkwitz transform. I've used LT with software crossovers on my computer with excellent results, but having my crossovers in software is a bit fiddly and gives me sometimes unacceptable extra latency.

>>60266687
Also Linkwitz transform is at its best when you want really small boxes that go really low and you have powerful amps to make up for the lost volume. Linkwitz's own pluto sub is only 15.4 liters and goes to 20Hz with a Q of 0.5! www.linkwitzlab com/Pluto/subwoofer.htm

If you don't mind larger boxes that don't quite have a corner frequency of 20Hz with super low Q, vented is fine.

>>60238660
interesting, thanks for letting me know

>>60232551
(pic) What a fucking monster scrub, not using a portable Reel-to-reel.

>>60254715
Looks like speakers from Ohm.

>>60246923
This can be avoided by connecting your audio gear to an UPS.

>>60269617
Wish they were. They're Noresco 5870's.