3 ms·
Well, considering that I can hear a difference between lossless and ~80k Opus (stereo) with a decent headphone amp and 16 EUR Sony in-ear's, I can't share your
by namibj 6y ago
Well, considering that I can hear a difference between lossless and ~80k Opus (stereo) with a decent headphone amp and 16 EUR Sony in-ear's, I can't share your sentiment.
Granted, this is fairly pathological synth sound (the intro/first 30s of Night Club's "Magnetic"), but I would hardly call that listening equipment audiophile.
- LeoPanthera 6y ago80k stereo is (approximately) 40k mono. We seem to have the same sentiment.
- namibj 6y agoNo, I'm saying that this is very much distinguishable without exotic hardware, on music not deliberately created to expose compression artifacts. And at a bit rate higher than what you claimed to be transparent on non-audiophile setups. And calling <20$ headphones (that includes an in-line microphone) on a Thinkpad's built-in headphone amplifier "audiophile" seems inappropriate. I do hear a difference (on FLAC) between those cheap headphones and some ultra-low-distortion 2-way half-open headphones, with the latter being notably more clear. You said 64k stereo aren't distinguishable from FLAC with normal, consumer-grade listening equipment. I said I hear a difference between 80k stereo and FLAC using a laptop built-in headphone amp and the cheapest headphones that didn't look like a consumable.
- X0Refraction 6y agoThey said 64k mono is indistinguishable, not 64k stereo.
- LeoPanthera 6y agoYou're talking about stereo and I'm talking about mono, as I tried to explain in the previous comment.
- namibj 6y agoAh, fair, I somehow read that as 32k mono/64k stereo being attributed that quality. I must have been quite tired. Thanks for clearing up.