More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t
Discussion
THX said:
I recently put my sixty quid Sony in-ears through the wash, killing them (they'd actually survived a couple of previous washes)
So now I'm having to make do with my forty quid Sony's.
In all honesty, the difference is... Actually massive. The cheaper pair sound s
te; same volume but screams at you, no clarity, poor bass response.
Just to offer some balance to this thread. I'm a big fan of putting down audio snobs, but when it comes to inner-ear headphones, there's a real difference.
Oh and BTW... My sixty quid Sony's sounded a st ton better than my £300 Shure's. Which currently reside in a box under the spare bed. Waste of money.
Hang on though. The £60 were better than the £40 ones, but the £300 ones are terrible? How does that prove anything?So now I'm having to make do with my forty quid Sony's.
In all honesty, the difference is... Actually massive. The cheaper pair sound s
te; same volume but screams at you, no clarity, poor bass response.Just to offer some balance to this thread. I'm a big fan of putting down audio snobs, but when it comes to inner-ear headphones, there's a real difference.
Oh and BTW... My sixty quid Sony's sounded a s
t ton better than my £300 Shure's. Which currently reside in a box under the spare bed. Waste of money.The Hi Fi in my car was wired up with the mains cable from a Flymo.
Bullett said:
You mean some sort of hi-fi-wi-fi?
I don't know how anyone can use ordinary wi-fi, it's like browsing with a blanket over your head. Harsh, scratchy jpegs and horribly muddied flash animations. After installing high definition air (£2000 per litre) between my router and my laptop the difference is night and day, it's as though the web designers were in the room next to you.S6PNJ said:
Whilst looking for some headphones, I came across a website offering a 13A fuse for a standard plug - only £59.99! I'll take a dozen and do the whole house! http://www.analogueseduction.net/category-699/syne... and they use quantum tunnelling!
at this price how can you re-fuse!
THX said:
<snip>
My sixty quid Sony's sounded a st ton better than my £300 Shure's.
<snip>
If you're using a phone or MP3 player with your headphones, that'll be why.My sixty quid Sony's sounded a s
t ton better than my £300 Shure's.<snip>
Good headphones require a good source.
Also, higher quality headphones often tend to need a good quality headphone amplifier to get the most out of them.
Try plugging those same Shures into a decent quality headphone amp, with a decent source, and you may well be surprised.
Oh, and forget listening to 128k / 192k mp3s through them as that'll sound crap too.
Mr2Mike said:
Bullett said:
You mean some sort of hi-fi-wi-fi?
I don't know how anyone can use ordinary wi-fi, it's like browsing with a blanket over your head. Harsh, scratchy jpegs and horribly muddied flash animations. After installing high definition air (£2000 per litre) between my router and my laptop the difference is night and day, it's as though the web designers were in the room next to you.
Mr2Mike said:
Bullett said:
You mean some sort of hi-fi-wi-fi?
I don't know how anyone can use ordinary wi-fi, it's like browsing with a blanket over your head. Harsh, scratchy jpegs and horribly muddied flash animations. After installing high definition air (£2000 per litre) between my router and my laptop the difference is night and day, it's as though the web designers were in the room next to you.Most people can't stop laughing as soon as they notice the improvement in sound quality.
THX said:
I recently put my sixty quid Sony in-ears through the wash, killing them (they'd actually survived a couple of previous washes)
So now I'm having to make do with my forty quid Sony's.
In all honesty, the difference is... Actually massive. The cheaper pair sound ste; same volume but screams at you, no clarity, poor bass response.
Just to offer some balance to this thread. I'm a big fan of putting down audio snobs, but when it comes to inner-ear headphones, there's a real difference.
Oh and BTW... My sixty quid Sony's sounded a st ton better than my £300 Shure's. Which currently reside in a box under the spare bed. Waste of money.
I wonder if it's just down to your personal preference rather than any correlation between quality/price/brand name.So now I'm having to make do with my forty quid Sony's.
In all honesty, the difference is... Actually massive. The cheaper pair sound s
te; same volume but screams at you, no clarity, poor bass response.Just to offer some balance to this thread. I'm a big fan of putting down audio snobs, but when it comes to inner-ear headphones, there's a real difference.
Oh and BTW... My sixty quid Sony's sounded a s
t ton better than my £300 Shure's. Which currently reside in a box under the spare bed. Waste of money.Isn't it a bit like saying red is better than blue but not as good as magenta?
Chimune said:
Mr2Mike said:
Bullett said:
You mean some sort of hi-fi-wi-fi?
I don't know how anyone can use ordinary wi-fi, it's like browsing with a blanket over your head. Harsh, scratchy jpegs and horribly muddied flash animations. After installing high definition air (£2000 per litre) between my router and my laptop the difference is night and day, it's as though the web designers were in the room next to you.Analogue vs packets of data.
Wireless or wired each piece of information is broken down into small chunks called packets. These could be parts of pictures, audio, spreadsheets etc etc. They then get fired down the line a re-assembled at the other end. Now, the clever bit is that each packet doesn't just contain the data it also has check sums and information on what is inside the packet. So when it gets to the other end if it doesn't contain what it should it throws it away and asks for that packet again. So the file is identical at both ends.
Wireless or wired each piece of information is broken down into small chunks called packets. These could be parts of pictures, audio, spreadsheets etc etc. They then get fired down the line a re-assembled at the other end. Now, the clever bit is that each packet doesn't just contain the data it also has check sums and information on what is inside the packet. So when it gets to the other end if it doesn't contain what it should it throws it away and asks for that packet again. So the file is identical at both ends.
Countdown said:
Many a true word said in jest......I would assume that computer data is far more complex/"sensitive" than simple audio waves and that IPads /PCs etc are far better at detecting anomalies in data transmission than the Mk1 Earhole. So how can people tell the difference between different audio cables but IT equipment can't?
In fact high speed data transmission via radio such as wi-fi is almost never error free, and data can be corrupted to a significant extent. However the data is formatted in such a way that these errors can be detected and fixed at the receiving end, or in the worst case the receiver can request that the transmitter re-sends a packet of data if it has uncorrectable errors. This all happens at a low level inside the router and network adapters, so your applications just see nice clean data.The main problem with the Mk1 Earhole is that it's connected to the Mk1 brain, a primitive device that can be easily persuaded that there are differences when none exist. It's far more likely to malfunction in this manner if said brain has recently helped to deplete a bank account.
S6PNJ said:
Whilst looking for some headphones, I came across a website offering a 13A fuse for a standard plug - only £59.99! I'll take a dozen and do the whole house! http://www.analogueseduction.net/category-699/syne... and they use quantum tunnelling!
That is absolutely fking hilarious!I wonder if they have ever sold any??
Bullett said:
Analogue vs packets of data.
Wireless or wired each piece of information is broken down into small chunks called packets. These could be parts of pictures, audio, spreadsheets etc etc. They then get fired down the line a re-assembled at the other end. Now, the clever bit is that each packet doesn't just contain the data it also has check sums and information on what is inside the packet. So when it gets to the other end if it doesn't contain what it should it throws it away and asks for that packet again. So the file is identical at both ends.
Iirc cd doesn't include error correction which is why you can get software like eac to rip CDs and run manual check sums that it compares to a library on the Internet of similar rips. Cd is a pretty poor digital media Once ripped, and so long as there is buffering, I agree, it's hard to see how error can be introduced if designed right.Wireless or wired each piece of information is broken down into small chunks called packets. These could be parts of pictures, audio, spreadsheets etc etc. They then get fired down the line a re-assembled at the other end. Now, the clever bit is that each packet doesn't just contain the data it also has check sums and information on what is inside the packet. So when it gets to the other end if it doesn't contain what it should it throws it away and asks for that packet again. So the file is identical at both ends.
Jon1967x said:
Iirc cd doesn't include error correction <snip>
Yes it does. Reed–Solomon error correctionWiki said:
Reed–Solomon codes have since found important applications from deep-space communication to consumer electronics. They are prominently used in consumer electronics such as CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, in data transmission technologies such as DSL and WiMAX, in broadcast systems such as DVB and ATSC, and in computer applications such as RAID 6 systems.
Bullett said:
Analogue vs packets of data.
Wireless or wired each piece of information is broken down into small chunks called packets. These could be parts of pictures, audio, spreadsheets etc etc. They then get fired down the line a re-assembled at the other end. Now, the clever bit is that each packet doesn't just contain the data it also has check sums and information on what is inside the packet. So when it gets to the other end if it doesn't contain what it should it throws it away and asks for that packet again. So the file is identical at both ends.
True enough for computer file transfer.Wireless or wired each piece of information is broken down into small chunks called packets. These could be parts of pictures, audio, spreadsheets etc etc. They then get fired down the line a re-assembled at the other end. Now, the clever bit is that each packet doesn't just contain the data it also has check sums and information on what is inside the packet. So when it gets to the other end if it doesn't contain what it should it throws it away and asks for that packet again. So the file is identical at both ends.
But now factor in having to play the music/film in real time. If the link between the two ends is poor there will be more transmission errors and more fixes will have to be requested and sent. If time is not a consideration then this is not a problem, but when playing the file in real time the choice is either to stop play whilst you wait for the fixes or reduce the quality of what you do play, either by allowing the errors through or reducing the size of the file you are sending so that errors can be handled within the bandwidth/time constraints.
Piersman2 said:
True enough for computer file transfer.
But now factor in having to play the music/film in real time. If the link between the two ends is poor there will be more transmission errors and more fixes will have to be requested and sent. If time is not a consideration then this is not a problem, but when playing the file in real time the choice is either to stop play whilst you wait for the fixes or reduce the quality of what you do play, either by allowing the errors through or reducing the size of the file you are sending so that errors can be handled within the bandwidth/time constraints.
Correct - but most stuff is buffered before live play begins, to allow for correction.But now factor in having to play the music/film in real time. If the link between the two ends is poor there will be more transmission errors and more fixes will have to be requested and sent. If time is not a consideration then this is not a problem, but when playing the file in real time the choice is either to stop play whilst you wait for the fixes or reduce the quality of what you do play, either by allowing the errors through or reducing the size of the file you are sending so that errors can be handled within the bandwidth/time constraints.
It's only when the connection is really bad that the buffer empties and then the stream is paused.
Countdown said:
Chimune said:
Mr2Mike said:
Bullett said:
You mean some sort of hi-fi-wi-fi?
I don't know how anyone can use ordinary wi-fi, it's like browsing with a blanket over your head. Harsh, scratchy jpegs and horribly muddied flash animations. After installing high definition air (£2000 per litre) between my router and my laptop the difference is night and day, it's as though the web designers were in the room next to you.Hopefully the gov can get BT to upgrade it and then sell off the old air to pay for
NinjaPower said:
S6PNJ said:
Whilst looking for some headphones, I came across a website offering a 13A fuse for a standard plug - only £59.99! I'll take a dozen and do the whole house! http://www.analogueseduction.net/category-699/syne... and they use quantum tunnelling!
That is absolutely fking hilarious!I wonder if they have ever sold any??
Apart from the fuses, they're offering:
"Cable burn-in service" - they connect your interconnect cables to a magic box for a few days and charge you £34.25.
10ml of electrical contact cleaner for £19.95
This turntable dust cover for a mere £450:
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff