Audiophile Myths

[BustinJustin]

what does this have to do with anything

It's the entire point of this whole thread. If there is no way for you to tell the difference, why would you want to spend extra money? And don't say that you can tell the difference. Because it's bs.

[pas008]

It's the entire point of this whole thread. If there is no way for you to tell the difference, why would you want to spend extra money? And don't say that you can tell the difference. Because it's bs.

bs I have spent 3 years finding a mixer(on my 5th) that doesnt alter/distort my music files, been through 4 amps (even bought one from tyler), and 3 dacs

 

mixer is to make phone calls, listen to music, game, cad, and listen to espn on my tv to the left of my 5 monitors

[BustinJustin]

bs I have spent 3 years finding a mixer(on my 5th) that doesnt alter/distort my music files, been through 4 amps (even bought one from tyler), and 3 dacs

 

mixer is to make phone calls, listen to music, game, cad, and listen to espn on my tv to the left of my 5 monitors

 

Wow. I'm sorry you wasted so much money.

[pas008]

Wow. I'm sorry you wasted so much money.

because I can hear the difference in each, just because you cant, doesnt affect me

[helping]

 literally impossible for the human ear to distinguish that audiophiles claim to be able to hear.

 I can hear the difference in each

[MrSuperb]

There is one very wrong assumption to start with, that is that all music is mixed and mastered in very high quality on totaly neutral setup for a totaly neutral setup. Which, let me tell you is NOT true.

 

Saying, that there is no difference between FLAC and MP3 is also utterly bullshit. why? Because 90% of the MP3s on the internetz are just shit. Yeah, you won't here any difference between a good quality MP3 and Flac on most of the audio equimpment. The key word here is a "good quality MP3".

[MrSuperb]

Wow. I'm sorry you wasted so much money.

 

Wow. I'm sorry for your ignorance.

[helping]

Wow. I'm sorry for your ignorance.

No, he's pretty spot in there IMO. 

[BustinJustin]

because I can hear the difference in each, just because you cant, doesnt affect me

I guess now you're gonna tell me that you can see ultraviolet and infrared rays.

[BustinJustin]

Wow. I'm sorry for your ignorance.

Sorry that you dismiss the facts.

[pas008]

I guess now you're gonna tell me that you can see ultraviolet and infrared rays.

I guess you are jealous or something that has to keep rambling on about something he cant get a grasp on

 

people like you are the reason no one uses linus's tech tips as much as they would

[helping]

Well, I suppose we can just end the thread here since it's clearly not going to be going anywhere. 

[MrSuperb]

I guess now you're gonna tell me that you can see ultraviolet and infrared rays.

 

By definition this is impossible. But guess what, no not everybody sees light from EXCATLY 390 to 700nm.

[MrSuperb]

No, he's pretty spot in there IMO. 

 

No, he isn't. And I already posted why.

[BustinJustin]

I guess you are jealous or something that has to keep rambling on about something he cant get a grasp on

 

people like you are the reason no one uses linus's tech tips as much as they would

 

I'm not jealous of all the money you wasted. Don't insult my intelligence and tell me that you can hear changes above the frequencies of what is possible for a human ear to distinguish. And please convert the second sentence in your post to mean something. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[BustinJustin]

By definition this is impossible. But guess what, no not everybody sees light from EXCATLY 390 to 700nm.

 

That is true. But NOBODY can see infrared or ultraviolet rays. You may be able to see a tiny bit further in one direction on the spectrum than someone else. But at a certain point, NOBODY can see. It's the same with audio.

[pas008]

I'm not jealous of all the money you wasted. Don't insult my intelligence and tell me that you can hear changes above the frequencies of what is possible for a human ear to distinguish. And please convert the second sentence in your post to mean something. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

money I used for better sound to my ears, get the hint

and yes people can hear outside those frequencies but its rare, no time did I ever state anything about this anyways

 

please just get the hint, you cant hear some differences but others can

[BustinJustin]

money I used for better sound to my ears, get the hint

and yes people can hear outside those frequencies but its rare, no time did I ever state anything about this anyways

 

please just get the hint, you cant hear some differences but others can

 

If you can tell the difference within a small distance from average human hearing frequencies, I believe you. If that small of a difference is important enough to you to spend hundreds of dollars on hardware, go ahead. But don't tell me that a super-expensive piece of hardware that produces sounds so far out of the range of human hearing that no person in the world can hear them is in any way, shape or form worth the money; especially when hardware half the price or less would produce the exact same sound to your ears or to any human ears. Not to a monitoring device or software.

[MrSuperb]

That is true. But NOBODY can see infrared or ultraviolet rays. You may be able to see a tiny bit further in one direction on the spectrum than someone else. But at a certain point, NOBODY can see. It's the same with audio.

 

no, not at all the same. There are no clear definitions. Also you might not actively be able to see infrared or uv, but you most certainly are able to feel it somehow.

[pas008]

If you can tell the difference within a small distance from average human hearing frequencies, I believe you. If that small of a difference is important enough to you to spend hundreds of dollars on hardware, go ahead. But don't tell me that a super-expensive piece of hardware that produces sounds so far out of the range of human hearing that no person in the world can hear them is in any way, shape or form worth the money; especially when hardware half the price or less would produce the exact same sound to your ears or to any human ears. Not to a monitoring device or software.

ok where was this the discussion?

where and when did I say this

 

you are lost

ears are like eyes

everyones is different,

my ears dont hear what yours does

[helping]

ok where was this the discussion?

where and when did I say this

 

you are lost

ears are like eyes

everyones is different,

my ears dont hear what yours does

Are you sure you've been reading this thread?

 

I implore you to re-read it. I think you're the one who might be lost  :rolleyes:

[Tam3n]

You need this:

 

After you have a $10 000 dollar cd player, we can start talking...

[pas008]

Are you sure you've been reading this thread?

 

I implore you to re-read it. I think you're the one who might be lost  :rolleyes:

re read my posts plz, you taking everything out of context

[BustinJustin]

re read my posts plz, you taking everything out of context

 

I believe my position has been misrepresented. Either by misunderstanding on your part or a failure to communicate on my part. My position is this:

 

A human ear can only hear within certain frequencies. This frequency range is known and it's also known that not everyone falls exactly within this range since it's an average. But at a certain point on the frequency scale, it becomes apparent that the frequency is so far out of normal human hearing range that nobody in the world can hear at this frequency; whether it be pitch or sampling rate of your music.

 

As such, hardware only capable of producing frequencies a little bit outside the average range of human hearing is all that is needed.  Also, hardware that can produce frequencies double or more that of human hearing is not only unnecessary, but a waste of money.

 

Anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference in these higher or lower frequencies/bit rates/sampling rates is either lying or a victim of the placebo effect.

[pas008]

I believe my position has been misrepresented. Either by misunderstanding on your part or a failure to communicate on my part. My position is this:

 

A human ear can only hear within certain frequencies. This frequency range is known and it's also known that not everyone falls exactly within this range since it's an average. But at a certain point on the frequency scale, it becomes apparent that the frequency is so far out of normal human hearing range that nobody in the world can hear at this frequency; whether it be pitch or sampling rate of your music.

 

As such, hardware only capable of producing frequencies a little bit outside the average range of human hearing is all that is needed.  Also, hardware that can produce frequencies double or more that of human hearing is not only unnecessary, but a waste of money.

 

Anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference in these higher or lower frequencies/bit rates/sampling rates is either lying or a victim of the placebo effect.

have you watched the video?

 

ninja edit didnt mean to quote entire post,