Anyone else find speakers incredible?

[Fenixgoon]

I dunno, I find computers and programming more incredible

this.

lots of technologies i can understand, or at the very least, appreciate. but circuitry and programming i have no f'in clue where to start.

 

[spidey07]

this.

lots of technologies i can understand, or at the very least, appreciate. but circuitry and programming i have no f'in clue where to start.

Believe it or not but digital is a whole lot easier to understand than analog. Speakers are analog and crossover design is analogous to wizardry.

Our ears are not digital and sound is not on or off. This is why CDs sound like shit and MP3s are even worse.

 

[Rubycon]

Our ears are not digital and sound is not on or off. This is why CDs sound like shit and MP3s are even worse.

CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic].

 

[spidey07]

CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic].

Don't start with me. Nyquist was wrong.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I'm sure after a certain bitrate digital can sound like analog to our ears. I can imagine it's very high though. I'm sure if records were still in use, but simply improved to today's standards they'd be better then any format we know today. From my understanding the vibrations of the recording are basically etched to a record in real time, so when you play it back you get a molecular accurate representation of what was recorded, at least in theory.

 

[Fritzo]

I though the OP was going to say he was a fan of Tony Robbins or something.

 

[nerp]

I dunno, I've been studying theoretical physics and things like speakers are no longer all that amazing to me anymore.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's still just a single waveform.

That's true, but that's looking at it things in simplest form. I'd rather look at it in a broader sense, physics delivering art to our minds, and all that is involved in it.

Here, have some.

 

[Fenixgoon]

CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic].

to some degree, wouldn't continuous vs. discrete signal make a difference (as far as audio goes)? i suppose if your sampling rate is high enough the difference is negligible or zero, though. see why i "love" electronics so much? although that's a bit more of mathematics, which i *can* appreciate


obviously it's the compression on a CD that makes it shittacular.

 

[Gothgar]

can i hit that shit too?

lol


puff puff pass

 

[sdifox]

Loudspeaker is from the 1860s...

 

[Rubycon]

to some degree, wouldn't continuous vs. discrete signal make a difference (as far as audio goes)? i suppose if your sampling rate is high enough the difference is negligible or zero, though. see why i "love" electronics so much? although that's a bit more of mathematics, which i *can* appreciate


obviously it's the compression on a CD that makes it shittacular.

The problem is with the source not the medium. Yes 16 bit sampling is not precision enough to reveal quiet passages accurately.

That gets to the second part of your post. Compression. Compression (reducing the difference between softest and loudest passages) kills ALL formats regardless of sample depth and frequency. This is NOT to be confused with lossy compression (MP3 etc.) whose purpose is to conserve storage space.

Once you get to 192kHz 24 bit the difference between the finest analog boards and digital boards is very hard to distinguish. This is in the studio environment not the home which is far inferior as far as noise and other factors derogatory to the playback experience.

This of course does not address the factors of CD transfers which can vary from album to album as well. Quality always goes downhill from the master. The higher you start the higher you CAN end but it's unfortunate that so many mistakes are made along the way.

 

[Number1]

Today, I replaced my home theater speakers with 4 much older but much better sounding box speakers. WHAT A DIFFERENCE! I should have done this years ago.
It's not pretty but boy does it sound good..

 

[Raduque]

I'm still in awe at wall bending power of modern subwoofers. The volume and depth that well designed subs can hit is literally breathtaking.

Went to a small concert a while back at Bayfest here in town and the bassist for Diamond Rio was improvising and he went "dun DUN DUN" and I have no idea what note, chord or whatever he played on that last one, but it literally shook the ground and almost made me fall over. It was awesome, the whole crowd cheered like crazy after that hit.

I love bass.

 

[Banzai042]

The problem is with the source not the medium. Yes 16 bit sampling is not precision enough to reveal quiet passages accurately.

That gets to the second part of your post. Compression. Compression (reducing the difference between softest and loudest passages) kills ALL formats regardless of sample depth and frequency. This is NOT to be confused with lossy compression (MP3 etc.) whose purpose is to conserve storage space.

I'd say that this is the greatest enemy of audio quality in modern music. One of my favorite albums to listen to is Jethro Tull's "Songs from the wood", because not only is the music itself good, but the mix is one of the best I've heard. A balanced sound an actual dynamics make for a quick way to determine just how good a speaker really is at accurate reproduction.

For modern music, look at the stuff Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree has mixed, just because some modern music has been compressed to hell and back by engineers with the "Louder is better" mentality doesn't mean all of it has been killed.

 

[Howard]

Don't start with me. Nyquist was wrong.

Yeah OK. I'm tired of hearing that bullshit. If you want to sling around elitist-sounding phrases, you'd better be prepared to back up your statements.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Once you get to 192kHz 24 bit the difference between the finest analog boards and digital boards is very hard to distinguish. This is in the studio environment not the home which is far inferior as far as noise and other factors derogatory to the playback experience.

But... but...

 

[n7]

But... but...

Bwaahhahaa :awe:

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Bwaahhahaa :awe:

 

[0roo0roo]

i find the lack of consumer information in speaker markets to be the incredible bit.
from total lack of objective measures/reviews to exaggerated funny numbers.
made a mess of it all.
and lets folks like bose get away with quite a bit.

 

[JEDIYoda]

LOL! You rock.

And Rubycon, you're right. Electrostats/planars can't be beat for tone and accuracy. Their con is dynamic and outrageous SPL. Although this probably overcomes that limitation just by sure panel size.

it`s nice dreaming that you own something that nice, huh spidey...hahahaaaa

 

[JEDIYoda]

Don't start with me. Nyquist was wrong.

CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic]. CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic]. CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic]. CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic].CDs being digital has nothing to do with them sounding like shit [sic].

 

[QueBert]

My Polk Momo subs had Kevlar cones, they might not have sounded the best, but they sounded damn good. And were BULLETPROOF! that means Momo's > *

 

[Colt45]

I had this same thought when i was 5 or 6 years old.

It's passed, though.

 

[yhelothar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxXD9WQWZck&NR=1