so i downloaded a few flac albums, and i can honestly tell no difference. i feel sorry for you kids that spend all this time and money wigging about lossless. i tried listening to it on my laptop's shitty speakers, my z5500s, and my ipod with sennheiser buds, and while it sounds good, it's no different than any of the decent quality mp3s i have . what is all the fuss about?
iPods can play .flac files?
converted them to apple lossless (.m4a)
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audio, hence the reason Audiophile setups are supposed to be expensive.
Also,
Geddit?
Also,
Geddit?
.mp3's are simply converted audio files which remove the sound range which humans can't detect from the sound anyway.
If you say you can notice the difference you are a liar.
If you say you can notice the difference you are a liar.
Kirov reporting.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audio, hence the reason Audiophile setups are supposed to be expensive.
Also,
http://www.cncgames.com/arsenalpics/sovftrack.jpg
Geddit?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
exactly why audiophiles are fail. spending thousands of dollars to hear the slightest difference is retarded, even if you're richFenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audio, hence the reason Audiophile setups are supposed to be expensive.
Also,
http://www.cncgames.com/arsenalpics/sovftrack.jpg
Geddit?
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audio
rufknsrs?phishman420 wrote:
z5500
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
You think an Audiophile setup is gonna be using Logitech 5.1 speakers?Cheez wrote:
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audiorufknsrs?phishman420 wrote:
z5500
7.1 wall mounted speakers.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You think an Audiophile setup is gonna be using Logitech 5.1 speakers?Cheez wrote:
Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audiorufknsrs?phishman420 wrote:
z5500
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
phishman420 wrote:
if audiophiles didnt have their heads so far up their asses, maybe they could actually hear the music like normal people
Last edited by phishman420 (2009-03-22 06:02:30)
Yes, I do think $600 speakers denote Audiophilia.
If $600 are still not good enough, then fuck FLAC.
If $600 are still not good enough, then fuck FLAC.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
I'm not questioning the awesomeness of the setup, I'm saying an Audiophile most likely won't be using them in a full setup.phishman420 wrote:
laugh all you want, but my setup fucking ownsssssssFenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You think an Audiophile setup is gonna be using Logitech 5.1 speakers?Cheez wrote:
rufknsrs?Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audio
if audiophiles didnt have their heads so far up their asses, maybe they could actually hear the music like normal people
Is this not the product he said?Flecco wrote:
7.1 wall mounted speakers.
Most music-tracks are recorded in stereo, 7.1 or 5.1 surround sound really is quite useless, all it will do is split and divide the track in ways that it was not produced/reocrded to be split, and then you'll get all sorts of EQ problems and losses to quality. Unless you want to constantly readjust your equalizer and surround-setup everytime you play a different genre/style of song, it's probably best to just cut out the surround and keep it to a 2.1 when listening to music. I know very few artists that record with 5.1 support, and the only guy I know that produces his music specifically for full-ambient 7.1 is Amon Tobin.Flecco wrote:
7.1 wall mounted speakers.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You think an Audiophile setup is gonna be using Logitech 5.1 speakers?Cheez wrote:
rufknsrs?Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You probably need something that can handle higher quality audio
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
lolAussieReaper wrote:
.mp3's are simply converted audio files which remove the sound range which humans can't detect from the sound anyway.
If you say you can notice the difference you are a liar.
@ig: You won't notice a difference with "basic" music, ie something without a wide spector of sounds. Try listening to Classical Music for example, and it'll be easier to notice the difference. I heard heavy metal also shows the difference quite well, but never tried that myself.
@Cheez: the Z5500s aren't that great (for music).
Last edited by Jenspm (2009-03-22 06:00:07)
fail fail and failJenspm wrote:
lolAussieReaper wrote:
.mp3's are simply converted audio files which remove the sound range which humans can't detect from the sound anyway.
If you say you can notice the difference you are a liar.
@ig: You won't notice a difference with "basic" music, ie something without a wide spector of sounds. Try listening to Classical Music for example, and it'll be easier to notice the difference. I heard heavy metal also shows the difference quite well, but never tried that myself.
@Cheez: the Z5500s aren't that great.
basic music? uhhhh im not going to listen to some shite music just to try to hear a difference in quality...
and yes, the z5500s are great, so fuck off
Last edited by phishman420 (2009-03-22 06:00:44)
Yeah but you cunts think everything's shit.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
I can hear the difference on a decent set of 2.1's, but most of my music is in 320kbps, it suffices.
buy some ears
.Sup wrote:
buy some ears
phishman420 wrote:
if audiophiles didnt have their heads so far up their asses, maybe they could actually hear the music like normal people
If you don't notice the quality difference, what are you complaining about? Save yourself some HDD space, and listen to what you like best. If you don't notice the difference between mp3 and flac, just go mp3.phishman420 wrote:
fail fail and failJenspm wrote:
lolAussieReaper wrote:
.mp3's are simply converted audio files which remove the sound range which humans can't detect from the sound anyway.
If you say you can notice the difference you are a liar.
@ig: You won't notice a difference with "basic" music, ie something without a wide spector of sounds. Try listening to Classical Music for example, and it'll be easier to notice the difference. I heard heavy metal also shows the difference quite well, but never tried that myself.
@Cheez: the Z5500s aren't that great.
basic music? uhhhh im not going to listen to some shite music just to try to hear a difference in quality...
and yes, the z5500s are great, so fuck off
You guys do know that the higher the quality goes, the less your brain can tell the difference and at a certain point it can't tell the difference at all.
lol wat you know nothing. Ever heard of SACD or DVD Audio? 6, 8,.. mics recording sound from different angles creating multichannel output and not splitting stereo like you said LOLD big timeUzique wrote:
Most music-tracks are recorded in stereo, 7.1 or 5.1 surround sound really is quite useless, all it will do is split and divide the track in ways that it was not produced/reocrded to be split, and then you'll get all sorts of EQ problems and losses to quality. Unless you want to constantly readjust your equalizer and surround-setup everytime you play a different genre/style of song, it's probably best to just cut out the surround and keep it to a 2.1 when listening to music. I know very few artists that record with 5.1 support, and the only guy I know that produces his music specifically for full-ambient 7.1 is Amon Tobin.Flecco wrote:
7.1 wall mounted speakers.Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:
You think an Audiophile setup is gonna be using Logitech 5.1 speakers?
Sounds like you're a bit envy you can't hear what others can.phishman420 wrote:
.Sup wrote:
buy some earsphishman420 wrote:
if audiophiles didnt have their heads so far up their asses, maybe they could actually hear the music like normal people
Last edited by .Sup (2009-03-22 06:07:27)
im complaining because all of you have been on flac's dick for the past few weeks, and i want to know whyJenspm wrote:
If you don't notice the quality difference, what are you complaining about? Save yourself some HDD space, and listen to what you like best. If you don't notice the difference between mp3 and flac, just go mp3.phishman420 wrote:
fail fail and failJenspm wrote:
lol
@ig: You won't notice a difference with "basic" music, ie something without a wide spector of sounds. Try listening to Classical Music for example, and it'll be easier to notice the difference. I heard heavy metal also shows the difference quite well, but never tried that myself.
@Cheez: the Z5500s aren't that great.
basic music? uhhhh im not going to listen to some shite music just to try to hear a difference in quality...
and yes, the z5500s are great, so fuck off
Hence why he said Most music-tracks....Sup wrote:
lol wat you know nothing. Ever heard of SACD or DVD Audio? 6, 8,.. mics recording sound from different angles creating multichannel output and not splitting stereo like you said LOLD big timeUzique wrote:
Most music-tracks are recorded in stereo, 7.1 or 5.1 surround sound really is quite useless, all it will do is split and divide the track in ways that it was not produced/reocrded to be split, and then you'll get all sorts of EQ problems and losses to quality. Unless you want to constantly readjust your equalizer and surround-setup everytime you play a different genre/style of song, it's probably best to just cut out the surround and keep it to a 2.1 when listening to music. I know very few artists that record with 5.1 support, and the only guy I know that produces his music specifically for full-ambient 7.1 is Amon Tobin.