Sure, LPs sound great on a $2,000.00 turntable, $3000.00 vacuum tube power amplifier, $500.00 preamp, and the $3500.00/each Klipsch La Scala speakers to go with it. Just ask any audiophile.
thewhitefalcon wrote: »
That's the reality, getting a better set of headphones will do more for people's listening experience than going from an iPhone to a Pono player. That's something that Beats has done well, it's gotten people to be willing to spend real money on headphones. I have the older brother to the phones they used in this test, and they do make a difference.
Sure, dude, tell us about how your MONSTER CABLE XT AWESOME EDITION makes everything better. :rolleyes:
God this thing looks ugly!
That sounds cheap, I prefer a TAD Reference One system. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
apple ][ wrote: »
Yeah. They don't use noise cancellation headphones when mixing in studios.
Most mixes aren't done on headphones, but on studio monitors. Occasionally you might put headphones on the check something, but the majority of people mix through monitors, both near field and larger monitors.
alanshutko wrote: »
The article didn't mention: did Pogue level match the two signals? It's well documented that people will consider louder audio to be "better" and if the iPhone happened to be louder (even a small amount) it could explain the test results.
Okay Mr. Kasper... "high quality MP3s" -- ??
The songs were purchased from the iTunes Store, so they were not MP3s.. they were MP4s...
That REALLY depends on the state of your LP's and the choice of your equipment. This is a currently available record player.
Probably. I can tell the difference between a AIFF/FLAC file versus a 320 kbps mp3. I was curious to see which headphones they used in the Yahoo test, so I read the Yahoo article. They were using a pair of Sony MDR 7506, which are good headphones.
Blind is right, this 'test' is completely ignorant. It's like someone evaluating a high-definition television signal on an old black and white standard definition television and then saying that HD looks the same as old black and white/SD. Cheap headphones going through a cruddy Radio Shack switcher throws away precisely all the extra fidelity that a player like Pono provides in the first place.
I've been using an Audioquest Dragonfly digital to analog converter hooked up to audiophile speakers on my Mac for the past year. It frequently sounds like a live concert is playing right in front of me on high bitrate FLAC tracks. When I listen to MP3 and tracks from iTunes they often sound like a child's pull-string toy by comparison. Pogue literally has no idea what he's talking about and should be embarrassed to claim otherwise.
Some time ago I created an audio file that had sections that were from a 223 kbps AAC rip of the original CD track and sections that were from a lossless WAV rip. You can grab it here.
I would be very interested to hear if anyone thinks they can discern where the quality transitions.
16 bit vs. 24 bit is not an argument that relates to dog vs. human hearing, because everything that is within human hearing is also improved due to the smaller steps.
I think I just heard Claude Shannon scream from his grave.
Very surprised [and sad] to see so many Apple-savvy AI readers here who don't understand or appreciate the difference between high-resolution audio and compressed audio.
You are a fool if you really believe that the human ear can not appreciate a higher bit rate than 256 kbps.
I heard an odd blip in the EQ somewhere around the 50-second mark, and only for a few seconds.
Speaking frankly, though, this sample contains a LOT of studio wizardry (including post-processing). Unless I knew the "original" recording well (and I do not), I could not presume to differentiate the artistic from the deliberate (i.e., bitrate change).
An experiment like this might be more telling with, say, a live classical performance (even solo piano), recorded with as little technical intrusion as possible.
Listen to the file I uploaded and identify the splices then.