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

[QUOTE=.Isak.;47177990]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. [B]V0 > everything else anyways[/B][/QUOTE] M4A (AAC) or go home :v: It's the successor of MP3 anyways, and from my experience it's just straight up better in compression efficiency. (retains tons more quality than MP3 at equalivent bitrates)

but muh ogg vorbis Probably just use it on some kind of false promise but it's my preferred format for now, since it's the best loss to file size ratio, inverting an original waveform over multiple formats. I have been looking back into MP3 though. I know for certain AAC isn't even a competitor from the last time I tried using it.

[QUOTE=paul simon;47178983]M4A (AAC) or go home :v: It's the successor of MP3 anyways, and from my experience it's just straight up better in compression efficiency. (retains tons more quality than MP3 at equalivent bitrates)[/QUOTE] OGG Vorbis is the only acceptable audio compression format imo. It's open source and can keep audio files relatively small while retaining good quality.

[QUOTE=Elspin;47178884]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][/QUOTE] That's a really horrible figure though, nobody is using 4-bit anything, and there's anti-aliasing filtering you can apply to the output of the DAC to try and help.

[QUOTE=lNloruzenchi;47179215]I know for certain AAC isn't even a competitor from the last time I tried using it.[/QUOTE] You're welcome to test for yourself. In 100% of my tests, the AAC files have been clearly better than the MP3 files when encoded to the same bitrate. Or as Wikipedia puts it, "AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#cite_note-brandenburg-2][2][/url]"

while still technically true i find that people often take that graph without looking in to it and thinking digitally sampled audio has really poor resolution which is a shame. analog audio can't really be stored anywhere near as effectively and pristinely as digital audio can

[QUOTE=nikomo;47179311]That's a really horrible figure though, nobody is using 4-bit anything, and there's anti-aliasing filtering you can apply to the output of the DAC to try and help.[/QUOTE] It's not a horrible figure and that's completely missing the point - it doesn't matter if it's a 4 bit DAC or an 8 bit DAC or a 128 bit DAC, there's always a staircase and making the DAC finer would just make it harder to see how the error works. It's an instructional diagram, it's not meant to show you the current state of technology just how it works. I did mention that "it's extremely debatable whether or not you can ever hear the difference" given just how good digital sampling can get now, but the point is that there's no such thing as "perfect digital reconstruction".

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;47177747]Um, but it's digital.[/QUOTE] Shh don't tell anyone that it makes no difference. You will ruin their business!

---

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;47179370]Like risers to make trails of cables around their listening room. [IMG]http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue37/images/IMG_1263.jpg[/IMG][t]http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/3/37539/bamboo_cable_risers.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Okay ill bite: What is the supposed purpose of this?

[QUOTE=Jsm;47179380]Okay ill bite: What is the supposed purpose of this?[/QUOTE] The electric field the cable makes gets squished if you put it on the floor, when it's free floating the electric field can be free! [sp]I'm not joking, but I wish I was[/sp]

[QUOTE=lNloruzenchi;47179215]but muh ogg vorbis Probably just use it on some kind of false promise but it's my preferred format for now, since it's the best loss to file size ratio, inverting an original waveform over multiple formats. I have been looking back into MP3 though. I know for certain AAC isn't even a competitor from the last time I tried using it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=FurrehFaux;47179306]OGG Vorbis is the only acceptable audio compression format imo. It's open source and can keep audio files relatively small while retaining good quality.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.opus-codec.org/examples/]Ogg Opus is even better[/url].

[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] What does this have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure he meant that physical properties make no difference in digital audio. Once recorded audio goes through the ADC, gold plating and storage methods mean little, it's just fucking data for God's sake. That's not to say that digital signals don't suffer from noise and loss, but it takes extreme instances for that to happen, such as 20 metre cables. Jitter can and does affect audio, but that's the fault of DACs and other circuits getting in the way, and not related to the conductive materials.

If someone is both rich enough, and stupid enough, to buy one of these, good. Subsidizes R&D for non-stupid products.

[QUOTE=Elspin;47179343]It's not a horrible figure and that's completely missing the point - it doesn't matter if it's a 4 bit DAC or an 8 bit DAC or a 128 bit DAC, there's always a staircase and making the DAC finer would just make it harder to see how the error works. It's an instructional diagram, it's not meant to show you the current state of technology just how it works. I did mention that "it's extremely debatable whether or not you can ever hear the difference" given just how good digital sampling can get now, but the point is that there's no such thing as "perfect digital reconstruction".[/QUOTE] At certain point the sampling surpasses any and all resolution capability of our hearing, tho, and you can get rid of some of the disadvantages analogue sound carries. Namely, all analogue recordings degrade either with time, or with each time you play them, or both, meanwhile assuming your filesystem carries checksums and is sufficiently redundant, signal stored digitally can be practically eternal. I mean, your original point that digital cannot be truly lossless by principle is obviously true, but I am fairly confident that we are past the point where the loss of converting to digital is so negligible that the advantages of digital storage and processing outweigh the advantages analog sound might have had.

[url]http://www.chord.co.uk/product/chord-sarum-tuned-aray-stereo-xlr-pair/[/url] Wooops

muh automlerge

Y'all need to watch this video. [video=youtube;cIQ9IXSUzuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM[/video]

[QUOTE=Lazore;47177779]Monster Cable is proof that there is a market for dumb rich people.[/QUOTE] Monster's got nothing on [url]http://www.wwstereo.com/AudioQuest/HDMICHO08?gclid=CjwKEAiA05unBRCymrGilanF9SwSJACqDFRmAxdUbdWlUssdl5il7dp6HGAvswKLdraemf_sM5AwhRoCsK7w_wcB[/url]

I wonder, if a billionaire were to go to various bullshit cable vendors and asked them to make THE BEST, absolutely ~uncompromising~ cable, no matter the cost, how much would they ask for?

Sony knows their game. "Hmmm. The income figures aren't looking all that good... Hey, maybe try selling a batch of flash memories for $160 each?"

Rotational velodensity people!!!

[QUOTE=Fetret;47178659][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] I'm actually really surprised they haven't covered the MDR-7506. It's like the industry standard for over-ear monitors.

[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] It's all in their damn head

[QUOTE=Elspin;47178884]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][/QUOTE] Your chart looks like hieroglyphics. EXPLAIN! [B]Edit:[/B] And people rate me dumb when I want to be educated. Wow, people suck :(

[QUOTE=.Isak.;47177990]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] I'm not an audiophile, I don't need the highest end stuff. I am a music enthusiast. Most of what I listen to is 320kbps. I have some pretty good $270 headphones, and I've maintained them for a few years now, and I think that's perfect for the casual music enthusiast. However I will note that I do hear the difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps, like the streaming service WiMP offers. I was subjected to a blind test by a friend (musician) on his expensive-ass stereo thing after claiming there probably wasn't that much of an audible difference above 320kbps for untrained ears. Except when listening, one sounded like a recording and the other like a live performance, and I was staggered by how much depth and niceness that added. Now, personally I like to have treats like that reserved for actual live performances, as not to be too spoiled, but there is a whole world out there of ungodly audio replication. It should also be noted that a lot of artists are limited by their recording equipment, so above 320kbps in songs recorded with older microphones or systems there might not even be an information difference at all - or at least not one worth pouting over.

[QUOTE=mac338;47180686] However I will note that I do hear the difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps, like the streaming service WiMP offers. I was subjected to a blind test by a friend (musician) on his expensive-ass stereo thing after claiming there probably wasn't that much of an audible difference above 320kbps for untrained ears. Except when listening, one sounded like a recording and the other like a live performance, and I was staggered by how much depth and niceness that added. [/QUOTE] As someone who listens to various electronic genres, I can tell the difference in a heartbeat. mp3 just doesn't have that defined clarity you get with flac or similar formats.

[QUOTE=zombays;47180683]Your chart looks like hieroglyphics. EXPLAIN![/QUOTE] So basically, sound is made of waves of energy transmitted through the air, right? And these waves, they make your eardrums move back and forth, letting you hear things. So the red line is a standard waveform, probably some sort of oscillating tone, and the black line is what happens to that waveform when you run it through an Analog to Digital converter, which is what you do when you convert something to any digital format. Why does it go all stair-steppy? Because, when you convert something from analog to digital, the converter can only pick up so much information per timestep, sort of like how a digital camera can only capture a scene within the resolution of the image sensor. Think of the stairsteps like individual pixels. So, depending on what your encoding rate is, you can get finer or larger stairsteps, which can result in music that will sound fragmented, tinny, or empty if you use absurdly low encoding rates. Basically, all that to say that digital sound is an approximation of the analog source, because you can only capture so much data at a time. So that's what that chart represents.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;47179837]Y'all need to watch this video. [video=youtube;cIQ9IXSUzuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM[/video][/QUOTE] why was this rated dumb?

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47180726]As someone who listens to various electronic genres, I can tell the difference in a heartbeat. mp3 just doesn't have that defined clarity you get with flac or similar formats.[/QUOTE] I've noted the difference is most pronounced in jazz, and least in punk from what I've heard. I enjoy listening sessions at his house with music of all genres.