Sony attempts to lure audiophiles with 'Premium Sound' microSD - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Sony is launching a new super-expensive 64GB microSD card aimed at audiophiles. Claiming to offer 'Premium Sound', the Sony SR-64HXA micro SDXC memory card costs more than five times the average price of a similar specced card offering the same amount of storage. The SR-64HXA micro SDXC memory card will start shipping next month, and will rip a $160 (£100) hole in your wallet if you believe Sony's claims and feel the need for such a 'Premium Sound' memory card. According to the Japanese electronics firm, this card is designed to produce less electrical noise when reading data, pandering to an audio enthusiast's passionate pursuit of crystal clear sound quality. The company suggests that while the speed and capacity of memory cards can be the same, the parts and materials can make a difference to the sound files read from them and delivered to your ear drums. [/QUOTE] [url]http://hexus.net/tech/news/storage/80950-sony-attempts-lure-audiophiles-premium-sound-microsd/[/url] [IMG]http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2015/2/5d4db233-20eb-4eaa-9ee3-1b7fa10a536b.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;47177747]Um, but it's digital.[/QUOTE] but it's gold plated it's better quality

Seriously, is there people dumb (and wealthy) enough to buy this?

[QUOTE=DaBeaver;47177768]Seriously, is there people dumb (and wealthy) enough to buy this?[/QUOTE] Monster Cable is proof that there is a market for dumb rich people.

[QUOTE=DaBeaver;47177768]Seriously, is there people dumb (and wealthy) enough to buy this?[/QUOTE] Yes, if people buy [url=http://www.custom-cable.co.uk/audioquest-diamond-usb-digital-audio-cable.html]this[/url] they will buy anything.

[QUOTE=DaBeaver;47177768]Seriously, is there people dumb (and wealthy) enough to buy this?[/QUOTE] Audiophilia is often pretty much just like bro science, so probably.

[QUOTE=Ripmax;47177782]Yes, if people buy [url=http://www.custom-cable.co.uk/audioquest-diamond-usb-digital-audio-cable.html]this[/url] they will buy anything.[/QUOTE] diamonds are hard they make the beat go harder duh dude do your research

[QUOTE=Ripmax;47177782]Yes, if people buy [url=http://www.custom-cable.co.uk/audioquest-diamond-usb-digital-audio-cable.html]this[/url] they will buy anything.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wish there was a "Dear God" rating.

I want someone with a super precise MRI to analyze the card in depth and compare it to their "normal" one. Knowing Sony's rich history of complete fucking bullshit proprietary different-for-no-reason storage formats, they moved 2 wires so it's technically better while so miniscule it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

Love to see how this compares to Pono.

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;47177747]Um, but it's digital.[/QUOTE] Squashing this. Anyone who says "analogue" is more "premium" than digital doesn't understand audio. Digital is a perfect reconstruction of whatever is recorded, and so if you record shit it's going to become perfectly reconstructed shit. Analogue just has natural, physical presence but technically is of a lower fidelity than digital recording.

Woah, will purchase. It will go well with my [URL="http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm"]'Machina Dynamica's Brilliant Pebbles'[/URL]

The worst part is that audiophiles with more money than brains will claim they hear a difference. Yet the moment you ask them to do a blind listening test they get defensive.

This isn't targeted towards audiophiles, it's for professional recording studios. From a [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2wghhg/sony_releases_160_64_gb_sd_cards_marketed_for/coqmogx"]reddit comment[/URL]: [QUOTE]First, I'm not sure this is being targeted at end users. Second, electrical interference from capacitors, motors, and other sources can and will get picked up by audio interfaces. Computer equipment is VERY prone to generating that interference. It's a severe enough issue that most professional audio recording uses external usb/firewire audio interfaces when recording directly to a computer. It's just easier to avoid the problems that it is to try and shield things like the computer's CPU. Stand alone audio recording interfaces are used for on-site recording when you can't be in a studio. Most of them will record to a laptop via USB/firewire, but a large number of the newest ones can record directly to SD. $160 for an internally shielded SD card is not that much compared to the results of having a whine from a failing card show up in a live recording. EDIT: If it's got traces/wires and current, it has a magnetic field. Shielding helps, but portable audio gear rarely includes a faraday cage between the SD card and the inputs.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]According to the Japanese electronics firm, this card is designed to produce less electrical noise when reading data, pandering to an audio enthusiast's passionate pursuit of crystal clear sound quality. [/QUOTE] If you're buying an SD card for music, chances are you're probably buying it for a phone or other portable device, in which case you almost certainly have much bigger audio quality problems than electrical noise from the storage. [editline]20th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=orgornot;47177971]This isn't targeted towards audiophiles, it's for professional recording studios. From a [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2wghhg/sony_releases_160_64_gb_sd_cards_marketed_for/coqmogx"]reddit comment[/URL]:[/QUOTE] The source says this card produces less noise when reading though, not writing.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;47177947]The worst part is that audiophiles with more money than brains will claim they hear a difference. Yet the moment you ask them to do a blind listening test they get defensive.[/QUOTE] there's noticeable difference between 128kbps, 192kbps, 256kbps, and 320kbps - if the same song was played 4 times at each of those levels I'd likely be able to pin which one was which. there's a hugely noticeable difference between streaming a crappy 128kbps and downloading CDQ. past that you won't notice a huge difference unless you have an incredibly expensive pair of headphones. I have a few WAV files in my library and they're noticeably punchier than 320kbps, but my headphones aren't good enough to really tell the difference past 320kbps. the sort of people who have libraries full of FLAC only go a bit overboard imo but there's definitely noticeable differences in MP3 bitrates. V0 > everything else anyways

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47177846]Squashing this. Anyone who says "analogue" is more "premium" than digital doesn't understand audio. Digital is a perfect reconstruction of whatever is recorded, and so if you record shit it's going to become perfectly reconstructed shit. Analogue just has natural, physical presence but technically is of a lower fidelity than digital recording.[/QUOTE] There's a quality hit in the ADC, and then DAC when you play it back, but considering most music nowadays is recorded straight to digital, and then heavily digitally edited, it seriously makes no difference.

[QUOTE=orgornot;47177971]This isn't targeted towards audiophiles, it's for professional recording studios. From a [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2wghhg/sony_releases_160_64_gb_sd_cards_marketed_for/coqmogx"]reddit comment[/URL]:[/QUOTE] Anyone who's taken apart something with an sd card reader knows the reader is shielded already. The sd card sits in a metal cage tied to ground. And Sony themselves says it's for enthusiasts and not professional.

[QUOTE=DaBeaver;47177768]Seriously, is there people dumb (and wealthy) enough to buy this?[/QUOTE] Wealthy != dumb [b]Edited:[/b] silly

[QUOTE=RocketSnail;47178081]Wealthy != dumb [b]Edited:[/b] silly[/QUOTE] My socio-economic biases tell me otherwise [I]most of the time[/I]. I work at a expensive retail clothing store, I know dumb rich people.

I really don't like audiophiles that think that expensive cables make a difference in sound. This is a load of bullshit. Also as much as I like Sony as a company, they can be really stupid, and this is a good example.

Jeez i read it as paedophiles and I thinking "what the hell Sony?"

[QUOTE=Shocky;47177877]Woah, will purchase. It will go well with my [URL="http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm"]'Machina Dynamica's Brilliant Pebbles'[/URL][/QUOTE] Don't forget to ionize your CDs and cables with the [url=http://i.imgur.com/ZYj4h2j.jpg]'Machina Dynamica Particle Accelerator Ion Gun'[/url] for the ultimate relaxed and flowing sound quality. As a bonus you can also dry your hair with it.

[QUOTE=Havolis;47178253]Also as much as I like Sony as a company, they can be really stupid, and this is a good example.[/QUOTE] I dunno, I think sony's the smart one if they can make money off it

[url]http://www.head-fi.org/t/634201/battle-of-the-flagships-58-headphones-compared-update-audeze-lcd-2-revision-2-6-4-13[/url] I just love reading through this thread every now and then. I don't really care about music quality that much, I don't own any high end (or even medium end) headphones or anything that will remotely improve the quality of songs I listen to and I don't even want to get into the whole debate of what is actually noticeable by human ears, but just the fact that someone goes into so much effort in pursuit of something they love is quite fascinating. Also holy fuck on the amount of money spent.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47177846]Squashing this. Anyone who says "analogue" is more "premium" than digital doesn't understand audio. Digital is a perfect reconstruction of whatever is recorded, and so if you record shit it's going to become perfectly reconstructed shit. Analogue just has natural, physical presence but technically is of a lower fidelity than digital recording.[/QUOTE] Um no, amplitude and time discretization butcher the analogue signal and then converter rounds up it's amplitudes to nearest quantum number and each number has specific code which gets converted into binary code thus becoming digital signal. You may not notice it but digital signal is not an identical copy of the original analogue one.

[QUOTE=Lazore;47177779]Monster Cable is proof that there is a market for dumb rich people.[/QUOTE] Not everybody has the time or personal interest to have engaged in whatever it is we've been doing for the past decade or longer - what would you call it, powerusering? They don't have the knowledge that all HDMI cables are created equal or any of the other knowledge we take for granted. If a company says 'oh this HDMI cable will give you a way nicer image' then a [I]lot[/I] of people are going to go with it - just like if their doctor tells them to take x drug. They're taking a professional at their word. I don't think that makes them dumb, just undereducated

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;47177747]Um, but it's digital.[/QUOTE] Audiophiles are often pretty damned gullible and will spend a fortune on things that are supposedly 'designed for premium sound' despite not needing to. [editline]20th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;47178816]Not everybody has the time or personal interest to have engaged in whatever it is we've been doing for the past decade or longer - what would you call it, powerusering? They don't have the knowledge that all HDMI cables are created equal or any of the other knowledge we take for granted. If a company says 'oh this HDMI cable will give you a way nicer image' then a [I]lot[/I] of people are going to go with it - just like if their doctor tells them to take x drug. They're taking a professional at their word. I don't think that makes them dumb, just undereducated[/QUOTE] Five seconds of googling will tell you that monster cables are bullshit, though.

The difference between an analogue and digital signal is that analogue is a continuous signal, while digital is a sequence of sampled data points. Analogue is better by definition but there is a point where the human ear can't tell the difference. It's like watching a film vs looking through binoculars. The binoculars are an analogue display, while film is a digital display. If you can output at a high enough framerate, the difference stops being noticeable. Anyways, anyone who's used a cheap sound card or a poorly shielded motherboard knows what electrical noise sounds like through your headphones. I can totally understand audio professionals buying special hardware to minimize it, it's really not snake oil, just something that most people have no need for.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47177846]Squashing this. Anyone who says "analogue" is more "premium" than digital doesn't understand audio. Digital is a perfect reconstruction of whatever is recorded, and so if you record shit it's going to become perfectly reconstructed shit. Analogue just has natural, physical presence but technically is of a lower fidelity than digital recording.[/QUOTE] As a professional (not in audio, robotics) reading "digital is a perfect reconstruction" is a bit painful. I mean yeah it's extremely debatable whether or not you can ever hear the difference or whether the analogue equivalent's recording/playback has as much error anyways but there's always some type of error in digitizing a signal, even though it's getting better all the time [thumb]http://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-09-30/2084.Figure-1.jpg[/thumb]