Headphone help

[NannerBeans]

$300-500 headphones, you could stop there happily

Nah man gotta go for those LCD-XC

[Michael McAllister]

$300-500 headphones, you could stop there happily

 

Isn't $300 the price point in which diminishing returns start to kick in?  Like $300 is really good and anything past that doesn't make much of a difference in sound quality until around $1000 or so.  If I remember correctly, that's what @MayflowerElectronics had said in a video.  Am I wrong?

[MayflowerElectronics]

It's not an exact figure like, $299 is fine, but $300 is not. It depends on your headphones, your source and what exact headphone you're getting.

[xtroria]

Isn't $300 the price point in which diminishing returns start to kick in?  Like $300 is really good and anything past that doesn't make much of a difference in sound quality until around $1000 or so.  If I remember correctly, that's what @MayflowerElectronics had said in a video.  Am I wrong?

 

Well K712 is $350, there's also HE-400i and HD650

[creatip123]

Beats is ~$300....

 

*and it's nowhere near a sweet spot....

[Pomfinator]

Beats is ~$300....

Beats diminishing returns start at $0

[Michael McAllister]

It's not an exact figure like, $299 is fine, but $300 is not. It depends on your headphones, your source and what exact headphone you're getting.

 

I figured as much.  It's too bad Spotify Premium does not offer CD-quality audio (16/44.1Khz).  The bandwidth would still be much less than a high-definition YouTube video or FLAC.

[Pomfinator]

I figured as much.  It's too bad Spotify Premium does not offer CD-quality audio (16/44.1Khz).  The bandwidth would still be much less than a high-definition YouTube video or FLAC.

What? CD-quality audio is the largest form of audio unless you go for 24-bit stuff, it's uncompressed PCM at 1411kbps.

[creatip123]

Music quality is kinda endless debates. Here's a good and easy to read article: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

 

In summary, the article agrees there are differences in various quality tests, but gotta strain/concentrate hard to hear it.

[Michael McAllister]

What? CD-quality audio is the largest form of audio unless you go for 24-bit stuff, it's uncompressed PCM at 1411kbps.

 

I'm not sure what you are using to get your calculations, but according to Google, CD-quality audio at 16-bits would require about 1.4 Mbps.  This is well within the new FCC guidelines for broadband.  As stated, this is still far lower bandwidth than HD video.

[SSL]

Music quality is kinda endless debates. Here's a good and easy to read article: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

 

In summary, the article agrees there are differences in various quality tests, but gotta strain/concentrate hard to hear it.

 

Dumb link, no blind testing. Plus, it's already established that the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit isn't audible, as the 16-bit noise floor is already inaudible. And don't get me started on high frequency sound perception.

[Michael McAllister]

Music quality is kinda endless debates. Here's a good and easy to read article: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

 

In summary, the article agrees there are differences in various quality tests, but gotta strain/concentrate hard to hear it.

 

This is not even really my point.  Sure, 320 kbps compressions may be fine for most, but when you buy a CD, it's not compressed.  Why is it that I can get a CD copy of Master of Puppets from Amazon for less than the MP3 version?  Why is it that I am essentially being penalized for using my Internet connection to get my music instantaneously?  As shown, the bandwidth cost for CD-quality (not studio quality) is quite reasonable for most Internet connections.

[creatip123]

Dumb link, no blind testing. Plus, it's already established that the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit isn't audible, as the 16-bit noise floor is already inaudible. And don't get me started on high frequency sound perception.

 

Nevertheless, let's just say that they're a bunch of delusional people, even then, they agreed that you gotta really strain to hear the differences (let's just say the differences are there), which is not really an ideal music listening condition. Straining while listening 2-3 songs, the brains will be too fatigued to even enjoy the songs.

[Pomfinator]

I'm not sure what you are using to get your calculations, but according to Google, CD-quality audio at 16-bits would require about 1.4 Mbps.  This is well within the new FCC guidelines for broadband.  As stated, this is still far lower bandwidth than HD video.

I think you have a couple misconceptions.  CD-quality audio is stuff that comes straight out of the CD, no compression, it's the largest file in it's type (16bit/44.1hz).  If you go onto Foobar and look at a CD, it will show the bitrate as 1411kbps.  FLAC is a result of compressing said CD audio.  FLAC is always smaller and is exactly the same, why have a larger file that sounds no different from the smaller one.

 

And um...1411 kbps / 10 = 1.411 Mbps...What I'm saying is a straight CD rip or even lossleses is taxing to bandwidth, not to you, but to the service.  Just think about it, most modern songs end up compressing to around 1000kbps, that's 3x more than even Spotify premium at 320kbps.  Spotify has about 20 million songs in it's library.  But to store all 20 million in FLAC, they'd have to store the equivalent of 60 million songs encoded in 320k Vorbis, servers cost money you know.

[Michael McAllister]

I think you have a couple misconceptions.  CD-quality audio is stuff that comes straight out of the CD, no compression, it's the largest file in it's type (16bit/44.1hz).  If you go onto Foobar and look at a CD, it will show the bitrate as 1411kbps.  FLAC is a result of compressing said CD audio.  FLAC is always smaller and is exactly the same, why have a larger file that sounds no different from the smaller one.

 

And um...1411 kbps / 10 = 1.411 Mbps...What I'm saying is a straight CD rip or even lossleses is taxing to bandwidth, not to you, but to the service.

 

1.411 Mbps is not that much bandwidth at all.  There are DSL connections that are 6 Mbps.  Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, you probably have a connection capable of that speed or much better.

[SSL]

And um...1411 kbps / 10 = 1.411 Mbps...What I'm saying is a straight CD rip or even lossleses is taxing to bandwidth, not to you, but to the service.  Just think about it, most modern songs end up compressing to around 1000kbps, that's 3x more than even Spotify premium at 320kbps.  Spotify has about 20 million songs in it's library.  But to store all 20 million in FLAC, they'd have to store the equivalent of 60 million songs encoded in 320k Vorbis, servers cost money you know.

 

1.411 Mbps is not that much bandwidth at all.  There are DSL connections that are 6 Mbps.  Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, you probably have a connection capable of that speed or much better.

 

720p video is about 1.5 Mbps, so I think losslessly compressed audio streaming is perfectly reasonable.

[Pomfinator]

1.411 Mbps is not that much bandwidth at all.  There are DSL connections that are 6 Mbps.  Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, you probably have a connection capable of that speed or much better.

I'll repeat myself, not YOU, the SERVICE.  It doesn't matter if you can download at way above 1.4Mbps, if it's not profitable for them to store it there's no reason to offer it.  Especially not for miniscule improvement from 320k Vorbis.

[Pomfinator]

720p video is about 1.5 Mbps, so I think losslessly compressed audio streaming is perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, except when you take into account that holy Google is bleeding money from Youtube.

 

EDIT: I just want to put it out there.  With modern internet speeds, lossless audio streaming is very much possible.  But if a company is not going to make any money off of lossless streaming, they're not going to do it.  Google takes a hit on Youtube because in the grand scheme of things, it's worth it.  I don't think Spotify is willing to go that far.

[Michael McAllister]

Spotify has about 20 million songs in it's library.  But to store all 20 million in FLAC, they'd have to store the equivalent of 60 million songs encoded in 320k Vorbis, servers cost money you know.

 

Netflix charges about $10 a month for their streaming service.  They offer up to 1080p video as part of the standard service and UHD with two additional streams (4 instead of 2) for four dollars extra per month.  Like I said, audio does not take up near as much bandwidth as video.

[SSL]

I'll repeat myself, not YOU, the SERVICE.  It doesn't matter if you can download at way above 1.4Mbps, if it's not profitable for them to store it there's no reason to offer it.  Especially not for miniscule improvement from 320k Vorbis.

 

I think that's the main argument against lossless streaming, barely any audible improvement.

 

However, I suspect that streaming is easier to monetize than something like Youtube. Also, Vimeo apparently makes money; overall the Youtube model seems to work.

[Pomfinator]

Also, Vimeo apparently makes money; overall the Youtube model seems to work.

Youtube would make tons of money if all they did was let music videos on and banned everyone else.

 

Netflix charges about $10 a month for their streaming service.  They offer up to 1080p video as part of the standard service and UHD with two additional streams (4 instead of 2) for four dollars extra per month.  Like I said, audio does not take up near as much bandwidth as video.

Heres a quote from Reuters about Netflix July 2014:

The June release of a second season of "Orange" helped lure customers during the quarter, Netflix said. The company's profit rose to $71 million, or$1.15 per share, from $29.5 million, or 49 cents per share, a year earlier. Revenue rose to $1.34 billion from $1.07 billion

 

Now contrast with Spotify In November 2014:

As Music Streaming Grows, Spotify Reports Rising Revenue and a Loss. Spotify, the company that has come to symbolize the growth of streaming music around the world, had more than $1 billion in revenue in 2013. But it has yet to turn a profit

 

Imagine if they had to store 3x as much data, they would be closed tomorrow.

[Michael McAllister]

I think that's the main argument against lossless streaming, barely any audible improvement.

 

However, I suspect that streaming is easier to monetize than something like Youtube. Also, Vimeo apparently makes money; overall the Youtube model seems to work.

 

I agree with you guys.  I'm on your side.  I agree that a good number of people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in an ABX test.  Producing a physical good such as a CD is inherently more expensive than streaming it.  Bandwidth is comparatively cheap.  I'm just saying that there is no reason people should be penalized for using their Internet connection.  The data on a CD typically has more information in it than iTunes or even on Spotify.

Some people can tell the difference, and prefer CDs for this reason.  Knowing that CDs are more expensive to produce and ship to stores, why not just make it available online?  I'm not talking about some stupidly marked up price either like from HD Tracks.  About the same cost or less than the CD.

[Pomfinator]

Some people can tell the difference, and prefer CDs for this reason.  Knowing that CDs are more expensive to produce and ship to stores, why not just make it available online?  I'm not talking about some stupidly marked up price either like from HD Tracks.  About the same cost or less than the CD.

In a perfect world, all sellers should be Bandcamp.  I wouldn't mind a small markup for FLAC, maybe even a service that gives you free lossless upgrade for like 10 bucks a year or something.

[Michael McAllister]

In a perfect world, all sellers should be Bandcamp.  I wouldn't mind a small markup for FLAC, maybe even a service that gives you free lossless upgrade for like 10 bucks a year or something.

 

Guess which is cheaper?

 

http://amzn.com/B00RUT3DTE

http://www.hdtracks.com/physical-graffiti-deluxe-edition

[Pomfinator]

Guess which is cheaper?

 

http://amzn.com/B00RUT3DTE

http://www.hdtracks.com/physical-graffiti-deluxe-edition

lol HDTracks is the last place I would get anything. They make Beatport look generous.