• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Rubycon whaddya think about...(audio related)

Mar 11, 2004
19,497
1,886
126
MQA?
Really interested to hear your thoughts on this one. The initial stuff I was reading made this sound like it was a power grab by the recording industry, essentially forcing a sorta DRM (only without it explicitly being DRM in the traditional sense, meaning it would require you to pony up for MQA certified hardware, which of course would be licensed out), as a means to try and force people to pay up for the quality version of recordings. It'd force a sub-CD quality version if you didn't have that (but you'd at least still have access to a version of it, hence not typical DRM). So it'd be sorta like SACD all over again (which oddly enough DSD is seeing a surge in popularity for some reason?), only focused on like streaming or something? Even after further reading that most of the alleged sound quality improvements is due to some new shaping. And it's apparently lossy (but somehow that not only isn't a problem but won't prevent it from curb stomping Redbook and of course MP3 in fidelity).

Trying to sort through this for instance:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/index.php?app=cms&module=pages&controller=page&path=ca/ca-academy/A-Comprehensive-Q-A-With-MQA-s-Bob-Stuart

DSD and newer PCM (they're pushing 32bit 352.8/384/even 768kHz and I forget what DSD rates they're at these days)? Isn't this going way overboard? I could almost even understand it in the production space, wanting to eliminate technical roadblocks, but even there, is there any real benefit of this (so say you have a whole chain that can do all of that without any converting, is there any realistic benefit as isn't that level of sampling mostly sampling frequencies far out of human hearing, and even typically get filtered? I saw some about pushing the noise into inaudible frequencies, helping to lower the audible noisefloor?), or is it marketing spec numbers to sell newer and better products? DSD samples different from PCM, but a lot of DACs (even older ones) can do both without much issue it seems. There's some debate about which is better, but DSD seems to be gaining steam (especially now that it's not locked to SACD format).

Object based audio (Dolby Atmos and whatever DTS are calling theirs)? Granted, despite their claims to the contrary, this seems more about just adding some extra channels (either higher up or in the ceiling) to give some extra positional queues/altering the sound field to add "height".

The idea behind it though actually seems the most interesting to me, as I've thought for some time now that basically changing things so that there's spatial data that could then be processed depending on your setup (or even preferences) and so in theory they could place things as desired, and your system, be it headphones, stereo speakers, surround, etc, it would sound "right" (and then you could tweak it if you wanted, like if you want a certain instrument to be more pronounced, then you could, you could widen the sound field, change the "venue" etc, similar to the type of processing a lot of stuff already has, only this way you could do an "accurate" mode and so they'd push a calibrated reference aspect where you could get what the artist intended).

A lot of my interest in this (object based) is multi-part. I feel like it would help alleviate issues in mastering/mixing (poor mixes could be adjusted) and maybe it would help make the initial recording get retained but in a tidier way (so recordings would be better archived for the future, meaning remasters would have better source to go on, and it would be neatly contained, where they have the data all contained). This would also be able to deliver on the "studio source" that we keep getting promised but never actually receive (and that MQA seems to be more of; same with Neil Young and Pono). The next is that I'm a headphone listener, and while there are a lot of crossfeed designs and things that try to help adjust it to sound more like speakers, most of those have noticeable flaws and rarely live up to the potential, so I feel like it could be better (without hurting speaker setups, plus it would scale well with 2 channel speakers or whatever new surround they try to do). Next, I think it would help set standards for gaming audio (that again, would be more forward facing, so that it wouldn't depend on junk like EAX/etc). And, regardless of the environment being "real" or imagined, good VR is highly dependent on audio for immersion, and so it will help with that. It would also, although certainly more wishful thinking, put a stop to Dolby or Creative or whomever dictating stuff.

I was going to try and find the discussion about DACs and looking for a newer way that could be objectively and subjectively better, but I can't remember where I found it, seems to have gotten lost in the noise of discussion about all this other stuff. It got into various things like what is the important parts of sound that aren't being accounted for in objective measurements.
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,497
1,886
126
Yep. Definitely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDzdM53j41E

wtf is this LOL.
Did you lose your ability to read?

The audio industry is pushing for new stuff in various ways, and wanted to pick Rubycon's brain on the technical nitty gritty. Especially with MQA where I'm trying to figure out exactly what is going on there as I'm not fully understanding the technical parts of it.

It's not the equipment that matters, it's what connects it. You need to use Monster cables. Accept no substitute.
Monster is nothing. Damn, was going to link to the one really weird guy that was buying like $10,000 power cables and special rocks to isolate them, but can't remember what the names of that stuff was.
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
43,908
1,934
126
Back in the day, my buddy had a killer SACD setup. One of the best audio setups I've ever heard in person, just really really great.

I got into high-end headphones for awhile, topping out with the Sennheiser HD-650 & a Headamp amplifier. It revealed too many flaws in the music, however...it was too high-end for my tastes. I downgraded to the HD-280's (which I still have today!) & went back to MP3's (and now Spotify, primarily).

Atmos is pretty neat. What you really want is an Atmos setup with a good room correction system like Dirac from MiniDSP. The XMC-1 from Emotiva is worth looking into if you have a few grand burning a hole in your pocket:

https://emotiva.com/products/pres-and-pros/xmc-1
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
Derek Smart, Derek Smart, Derek....

Calling @JSt0rm to explain this in easy to understand words

Thank you
I can't really address that entire wall of text. Lol. 48khz is good enough for home. Object based is great. Don't expect upmixing to sound good.

As for vr nobody is dictating anything. Most sounds are mono and pan around as you turn your head. Stereo sounds will sit static and not move in the vr space.

Anyways there are a bunch of thoughts about a bunch of different stuff. Some related some not.

I record in 96khz or 192khz. I do this to pitch stuff down. Working sessions are at 48khz.
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,497
1,886
126
Back in the day, my buddy had a killer SACD setup. One of the best audio setups I've ever heard in person, just really really great.

I got into high-end headphones for awhile, topping out with the Sennheiser HD-650 & a Headamp amplifier. It revealed too many flaws in the music, however...it was too high-end for my tastes. I downgraded to the HD-280's (which I still have today!) & went back to MP3's (and now Spotify, primarily).

Atmos is pretty neat. What you really want is an Atmos setup with a good room correction system like Dirac from MiniDSP. The XMC-1 from Emotiva is worth looking into if you have a few grand burning a hole in your pocket:

https://emotiva.com/products/pres-and-pros/xmc-1
Just about any audio would likely sound good on such a system, SACD almost certainly had little to do with it (although it may have been the impetus behind him putting the system together).

SACD was fine in theory. The problem is, it was really just a method for the music industry to try to force people to pay a lot more money to get decent quality recordings, and have to jump through hoops (buying special hardware, that wasn't being used for anything else; compared to even just DVD-Audio for instance) in order to get said sound quality. Most of the benefits in sound quality came from applying advancements in technology to do better transfers (and for newer ones, recording) and had little to do with the SACD methods, meaning if they'd put the same transfers on CD, people would have gotten most of the quality without having to spend anything extra (and the disc itself would have been cheaper to boot). In some ways they were trying to up the reference quality level, but made too many choices that just made it a turnoff for all but audiophiles, and the cost and hassle was not worth the extra quality over CD. Sadly it seems instead of trying to resolve those issues, or just pushing for CD, they chose to become almost outright hostile, making CD perform worse than it is capable of (Loudness War) and refusing to change for consumers.

Probably the best physical format for audiophiles today is actually probably Blu-ray. They're cheap, prevalent, it scales (can reap the better quality on cheap stuff, but better stuff will bring out the full potential). There's a lot of good recordings (especially live ones).

I find it interesting how the industry seems to be using mostly the same chips for PCM and DSD (in fact it seems that these new high PCM sampling rates are just a byproduct of going through the hassle of enabling DSD). There's a ground swell of products with DSD support, but, and I admittedly haven't been doing thorough search, content is still very much an issue. I think some of the audiophile targeted sites have added it as an option (along with the requisite usual PCM options), but I think playback is still somewhat of an issue (have to use a special plug-in on Foobar for instance), and you also have to hope that your equipment isn't having issues (seems like I've seen a lot of products having issues with DSD output over USB). And a lot of products are apparently just converting DSD to PCM (although that doesn't seem to actually matter that much either, although you'll certainly find converts of DSD that say PCM stuff converted to it sound better, just the usual near impossible to actually support audiophile claims).

Overall just seems like solutions to problems that people weren't really having. And MQA seems like more of the same, with some of it's own issues.

Ooof, you went from 650s to 280s, really? Ouch, and doubly so at you saying the 650s were too revealing. I really cannot fathom anyone saying they'd prefer just about any listening on 280s over 650s. The 280s are plenty revealing of poor sources. Plus comfort alone would be a major reason to prefer the 650s. I get not wanting to spend all the effort (and money) getting the right setup for the 650s, but you have plenty of options of getting a more enjoyable sound from them. My better headphones make even simpler audio more enjoyable for me (I regularly listen to video game music, and I get all the qualities of the nice headphones and never feel like I wasted anything going this route and then listening to something that technically a PC speaker from the 80s likely could playback, and likely would actually be more true to what the person making the audio intended it sound).

Object based audio has a lot of potential I think. I just don't see how Atmos is realizing it. Just seems to be more of the same slow progress off adding a couple of extra speakers, working towards being completely surrounded in all directions by speakers, with some new Dolby/DTS spec to check off to get you to keep buying newer equipment. And a lot of the surround effects have the complete opposite affect for me, it kills my immersion and brings me out of whatever I'm watching, as I'm paying attention to how things pan and that making sense or not. Kinda like CGI, where I can go that was a cool effect, but still have my immersion killed. To say nothing of how some of it is overused (and in a very bad way), like for instance LFE (between Nolan's repetitive LFE to add near constant tension, and crap like Paranormal Activity that gave away when things were or weren't going to actually happen by the LFE).

That is one positive thing is how stuff like room correction, and how they're looking at DSP as a way to be able to make reference levels (which can find out how to make objective aspects meetup with subjective enjoyment), thereby making everyone be able to get their stuff calibrated and setup better. I actually think that is a much bigger deal than maybe all of the Dolby formats, as it has a bigger impact on the listening experience (but average end user wouldn't be able to easily tell, measure, and fix). I'm glad they're trying to push fidelity, but seems like they're more interested in marketing aspects (not unimportant certainly, but missing why they're stuff fails). This DSP and calibration stuff, to me, has the potential to be able to bring the wow from high end gear, and make it much more accessible.

And I feel like they should be looking longer term with their technological developments. I think for some people a quad speaker setup (one in each corner) makes a lot of sense and would be the best method of sound dispersion, especially with bigger and bigger displays. But headphone listening is huge now too. Instead of putting out specific mixes for different ones (which even that would somewhat be an improvement for headphone listeners), just figure out a way of setting spatial data, and then let the audio system making it sound right. Games already have been working to do this, and that's for basically on the fly rendering that has to adapt to all the potential changes (not saying it's necessarily done great, as I don't know that there's a lot of processing, like factoring physical materials and how sound bounces off them, etc, I know they try, but not sure how robust it actually is these days, it's often quite convincing or at least quite immersive). And for the immersion offered (could argue, required) by VR, discrete encodes of audio just seems like it's going to cause more and more issues. It seems like they have the leap ahead in audio they're trying to market/push staring them in the face, but want to try and do weird baby steps to get there, which is going to hamper things down the line (compare it to the issues with the early mono Beatles recordings for instance). We have the technology now to make robust audio archives that could hold up better in time, and provide better audio now, while also not necessarily requiring major changes for consumers (meaning, we already have devices that could do a lot of this, so people wouldn't have to buy new stuff, and then they can decide from there if they prefer headphones, speakers, etc, and then focus towards building a quality system that won't require potentially overhauling it every few years).
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,497
1,886
126
I can't really address that entire wall of text. Lol. 48khz is good enough for home. Object based is great. Don't expect upmixing to sound good.

As for vr nobody is dictating anything. Most sounds are mono and pan around as you turn your head. Stereo sounds will sit static and not move in the vr space.

Anyways there are a bunch of thoughts about a bunch of different stuff. Some related some not.

I record in 96khz or 192khz. I do this to pitch stuff down. Working sessions are at 48khz.
Absolutely. We're where there's a lot that is "good enough" (one of the reasons a lot of new audio stuff kinda fails, is that average people cannot perceive much if any noticeable difference that can be solely put on whatever aspect they're trying to sell) but we're being presented with a bunch of things, often with ridiculous claims. Sound is now in HD, didn't ya know? Oh, but we can show that these super high frequency sound might impact lower sound, that's why you need it, nevermind that we apply a filter at 22kHz so your speakers never produce those frequencies!

Right, which is good and bad. Actually I don't know that I would say no one is dictating anything, as I think there's a potential patent minefield, between the stuff Creative has patents to, Dolby, Bose, and various other companies (lots of groups have crossfeed, HRTF, channel mixing, etc). Which is why I'd like for there to be an industry standard to try and sort this stuff out and hopefully prevent a complete mess from happening (and more format war nonsense). But also for there to be a concerted effort in realizing the potential of object based audio (so the people producing audio can know what to target and try to maximize what they make for it, and end users can buy equipment and set things up properly to get the best sound).

I know they have reference standards and things, but a lot of that stuff is very focused usually (and not sure there is one for headphones, where they're still debating on objective/subjective frequency response curves and the like). If they want VR to be successful (granted, audio focused companies probably don't care too much either way), it is basically essential that they figure dimensional audio (which object based enables) out.

Yeah, I think that's why they need to sort this stuff out, as right now it's simple audio, but knowing how to get better listening experiences will inform how to get better recordings (of events, but even if you just want to make audio effects for games or movies, maybe using different mics to get a more complete recording of just a single sound can add immersion). Another thought is, is there an optimal mic setup? For instance should there be a dummy head with dual mics to mimic human ears? Or would it make sense to have a whole bunch of mikes surrounding the audio event and then somehow getting the data to be able to be like a point cloud (this mike recorded this and was placed here, this one over here got this difference in sound). What about if we get neural interfaces, where we bypass our ears (and gain access to the tactile affects that audio has on our body and skin). Obviously there would be diminishing returns, and there's equipment cost (lots of cheaper mics, fewer but higher quality ones, more specialized mics).

This is stuff they ware toying with decades ago, and yet, it doesn't seem like we made that much progress. And for all the technological advancements, it seems like we keep running into things that cause things to not live up to the potential (Loudness War, format junk, DRM stuff, and even just being able to keep having access to content you paid for, in a modern convenient method).

And from what I've read that all makes total sense and is even ideal (I think there's been studies that showed 24/96 is about the optimal quality that enables extra headroom before diminishing returns gets insane with regards to file sizes and the like; the diminishing audible advantages already having kicked in pretty hard compared to redbook 16/44.1).
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,497
1,886
126
Just saw that Neil Young is killing off Pono (the player and the store I believe) and now instead is going to do a streaming service, called, I kid you not, XStream.

https://www.cnet.com/news/pono-is-probably-dead-long-live-xstream/

Oh wow, didn't know the store had already been down for months.

I do like this:
"All songs should cost the same, regardless of digital resolution", Young wrote. "Let the people decide what they want to listen to without charging them more for true quality. That way quality is not an elitist thing. If high resolution costs more, listeners will just choose the cheaper option and never hear the quality", he wrote.
Finally, I think he's getting it. If instead of trying to get people to pony up a bunch more money for marginal sound quality improvements, they should just be giving people better quality as means to get them to buy in the first place. Not have to buy special players, software, etc.

Treat it as you're buying a license to that song (or that recording/mix of that song), and so then you can use it wherever you want, and then hopefully let the consumer control the quality as they see fit. And not care where they're getting the song from (so if they change from being an Apple user, they don't then have to either figure out how to store/stream it or buy another copy of it which they won't do for most music, but can just transfer the license between whatever).

That would be an interesting idea. Create a company who's job is just cataloguing licenses to content. Not sure if that would be a good idea (a neutral 3rd party), or enable some new DRM hell. Probably the latter.
 
Feb 4, 2009
24,392
5,289
136
I can't really address that entire wall of text. Lol. 48khz is good enough for home. Object based is great. Don't expect upmixing to sound good.

As for vr nobody is dictating anything. Most sounds are mono and pan around as you turn your head. Stereo sounds will sit static and not move in the vr space.

Anyways there are a bunch of thoughts about a bunch of different stuff. Some related some not.

I record in 96khz or 192khz. I do this to pitch stuff down. Working sessions are at 48khz.
Thank you
 

nakedfrog

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
49,290
2,232
126
Just saw that Neil Young is killing off Pono (the player and the store I believe) and now instead is going to do a streaming service, called, I kid you not, XStream.

https://www.cnet.com/news/pono-is-probably-dead-long-live-xstream/

Oh wow, didn't know the store had already been down for months.

I do like this:


Finally, I think he's getting it. If instead of trying to get people to pony up a bunch more money for marginal sound quality improvements, they should just be giving people better quality as means to get them to buy in the first place. Not have to buy special players, software, etc.

Treat it as you're buying a license to that song (or that recording/mix of that song), and so then you can use it wherever you want, and then hopefully let the consumer control the quality as they see fit. And not care where they're getting the song from (so if they change from being an Apple user, they don't then have to either figure out how to store/stream it or buy another copy of it which they won't do for most music, but can just transfer the license between whatever).

That would be an interesting idea. Create a company who's job is just cataloguing licenses to content. Not sure if that would be a good idea (a neutral 3rd party), or enable some new DRM hell. Probably the latter.
Yeah, no surprise that Pono didn't make it, but I do like the premise behind XStream, and it may actually get some money out of me. Much (maybe even most) of my music purchasing is done via Bandcamp these days, it is nice being able to get the FLAC from there.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
B format ambisonics is a good mic system for vr as you can focus after the fact on point sources. The challenge is building b format decoders into vr software. Also you don't get closer or farther just able to track whatever you are focused on. And recording in b format is expensive. There isn't much around so many things need recorded and they all take 4 audio channels. This would add up quickly as you layer more sounds.
 

stormkroe

Golden Member
May 28, 2011
1,550
97
91
I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDzdM53j41E



Did you lose your ability to read?

The audio industry is pushing for new stuff in various ways, and wanted to pick Rubycon's brain on the technical nitty gritty. Especially with MQA where I'm trying to figure out exactly what is going on there as I'm not fully understanding the technical parts of it.



Monster is nothing. Damn, was going to link to the one really weird guy that was buying like $10,000 power cables and special rocks to isolate them, but can't remember what the names of that stuff was.
I bet you're thinking of the coconut audio guy.

It's all good, just make sure your heat-compensating your SCSI drives ;)
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
43,908
1,934
126
Just about any audio would likely sound good on such a system, SACD almost certainly had little to do with it (although it may have been the impetus behind him putting the system together).

...

Ooof, you went from 650s to 280s, really? Ouch, and doubly so at you saying the 650s were too revealing. I really cannot fathom anyone saying they'd prefer just about any listening on 280s over 650s. The 280s are plenty revealing of poor sources. Plus comfort alone would be a major reason to prefer the 650s. I get not wanting to spend all the effort (and money) getting the right setup for the 650s, but you have plenty of options of getting a more enjoyable sound from them. My better headphones make even simpler audio more enjoyable for me (I regularly listen to video game music, and I get all the qualities of the nice headphones and never feel like I wasted anything going this route and then listening to something that technically a PC speaker from the 80s likely could playback, and likely would actually be more true to what the person making the audio intended it sound).

...

And for the immersion offered (could argue, required) by VR, discrete encodes of audio just seems like it's going to cause more and more issues.
Yeah, this was back in the early 2000's. He had an SACD & DVD-Audio rig setup with multi-channel audio. Concerts sounded fantastic! Of course, then FLAC & other lossless formats got popular, hard drives got bigger, etc.

Yes, the 650's made my MP3 collection at the time sound like a cross between AM & FM radio. I never understood why people complained about MP3's having pops & crackles until I used that system. They were great headphones for sure, but it was more than I wanted to hear, tbh. I went to the 570's (very light) & eventually to the 280's & haven't looked back in gosh, a decade now. Also migrated to Spotify, haven't used an MP3 or even a CD in ages.

VR audio is a very interesting field. I have an HTC Vive & some of the games like the Brookhaven Experiment (zombie game) are just incredible with the positional audio. I got into binaural audio for awhile back in my headphones days & even got a nice recording setup for doing that; VR really takes that to the next level with the motion detection features. Dirac is doing some pretty crazy stuff with VR like HRTF, which mimics how sound bounces off your shoulders & stuff for automatic ear detection:

http://www.dirac.com/vr-audio/

Audio is such an interesting field because it's surprisingly dynamic...there's always new stuff coming out. Like with TV's, it's understandable...B&W sets to color tube sets to plasmas to LCD then LED & now OLED, projectors & now LED projectors, etc.
 

nakedfrog

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
49,290
2,232
126
Yeah, this was back in the early 2000's. He had an SACD & DVD-Audio rig setup with multi-channel audio. Concerts sounded fantastic! Of course, then FLAC & other lossless formats got popular, hard drives got bigger, etc.

Yes, the 650's made my MP3 collection at the time sound like a cross between AM & FM radio. I never understood why people complained about MP3's having pops & crackles until I used that system. They were great headphones for sure, but it was more than I wanted to hear, tbh. I went to the 570's (very light) & eventually to the 280's & haven't looked back in gosh, a decade now. Also migrated to Spotify, haven't used an MP3 or even a CD in ages.
Out of curiosity, were those MP3s ripped from your own CDs, or obtained through alternate methods? I recently got a pair of HD-598s, which admittedly aren't as high-end as the 650, but the MP3s I've ripped still sound quite good on them, and the quality on lower rate MP3s is still generally apparent to me even on lesser headphones.
 

WaTaGuMp

Lifer
May 10, 2001
21,208
2,505
126
I have a fairly high end portable setup now a days. Noble Audio K10 customs being fed by the AK240 by Atell & Kern. The majority of my tracks are MP3 320 bitrate, I only have a few FLAC files, I really don't hear a difference that some people claim.


K10



 

nakedfrog

Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
49,290
2,232
126
I have a fairly high end portable setup now a days. Noble Audio K10 customs being fed by the AK240 by Atell & Kern. The majority of my tracks are MP3 320 bitrate, I only have a few FLAC files, I really don't hear a difference that some people claim.
It might be more notable with a 160kbps MP3, and more so with a 128 (as was not uncommon back in the day).
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
43,908
1,934
126
Out of curiosity, were those MP3s ripped from your own CDs, or obtained through alternate methods? I recently got a pair of HD-598s, which admittedly aren't as high-end as the 650, but the MP3s I've ripped still sound quite good on them, and the quality on lower rate MP3s is still generally apparent to me even on lesser headphones.
Variety of sources, including CD's, but I think I only did like 192kbps at the time because I couldn't hear a difference higher.
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
43,908
1,934
126
I have a fairly high end portable setup now a days. Noble Audio K10 customs being fed by the AK240 by Atell & Kern. The majority of my tracks are MP3 320 bitrate, I only have a few FLAC files, I really don't hear a difference that some people claim.
Yeah...I used to live next to a high-end audio store. The story I always tell is my wife & I went in to demo their stuff; their best setup was $18k speakers with $12k amps. My wife leaned over and whispered, "these sound just like the $150 speakers you just built" (Dayton BR1 kit from Parts Express). So...yeah. For my ears at least, audio quality has an upper limit on what I can discern lol. On the flip side, I am very picky about picture quality. But the funny thing is, picture quality has improved in a huge way in recent years. I just picked up a 4K Hitachi Roku TV (65" LED)...I was considering an OLED (the 55" 4K model that's been on sale a lot lately)...I don't regret passing over OLED at all. 4K looks amazing, even on cheapo sets like TCL, Hitachi, and Insignia (I've setup all 3). And my projector (HT2050) has just absolutely incredible PQ for $799...no need to spend thousands to get amazing high-definition video anymore. They are still significant investments, but you can get a lot more for your money these days!
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,255
3,802
126
A lot of "high end" speakers are just using peerless drivers. Did u build with peerless? If you did then lol.

At a certain point the room is the most important part.

As for MP3. I listen to them on my genelec 8351 and they sound great, if they are mixed well. If not they are exposed for being dogs.
 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,126
130
106
I have a fairly high end portable setup now a days. Noble Audio K10 customs being fed by the AK240 by Atell & Kern. The majority of my tracks are MP3 320 bitrate, I only have a few FLAC files, I really don't hear a difference that some people claim.


K10
3 grand is pretty damn expensive for something that still has wires. I'd like to see somebody tear them apart because I bet they're not doing anything much different than generic $30 earbuds to be worth the 100 times markup.

Man, audiophiles are so easily separated from their money. I wish I had started making stupid expensive cables or something 10 years ago.
 

WaTaGuMp

Lifer
May 10, 2001
21,208
2,505
126
3 grand is pretty damn expensive for something that still has wires. I'd like to see somebody tear them apart because I bet they're not doing anything much different than generic $30 earbuds to be worth the 100 times markup.

Man, audiophiles are so easily separated from their money. I wish I had started making stupid expensive cables or something 10 years ago.
Good thing I didn't buy any of it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY