4 ms·

I’m not sure this is quite accurate; there are scientific measures of audio quality such as bit rate, sample rate, total harmonic distortion, dynamic range, etc

• munificent 5y ago
  Yes, but most aren't relevant at the point where audiophiles are sinking a lot of time and money into it. Essentially all audio today has a high enough bit rate, sample rate, THD, and dynamic range such that a human listener can't tell a difference.
  • akaij 5y ago
    > Essentially all audio today has a high enough bit rate, sample rate, THD... Some technical aspects have vastly improved over the years yes, but still important is the skill of the person doing the mastering, especially wrt: > ... dynamic range ... This is most definitely noticeable between good work and otherwise. I don't mean stuff like "warm-sounding" or "clinical", but as a simple enough comparison, try a pair of open-ended headphones and a closed one, and tell me there is no difference.
    • kstrauser 5y ago
      Sure, some of that is real. It's when people get into "oxygen-infused copper CAT-6 wiring to reduce the harshness of violin attacks" that engineering types start saying, ok, wait a minute now...
      • akaij 5y ago
        I'm 100% with you on that. If you frequent Audio Science Review forums, you'll see that kind of crap get called out all the time, including subjective/placebo adjectives like 'warm' and 'clinical' about equipment and other snake-oil goods like 'DC purifier's and 'diamond HDMI cable's.
        • kstrauser 5y ago
          I’m glad to hear that. Also, you couldn’t be more right about dynamic range. The Loudness Wars ruined so many recordings. I bought the Dropkick Murphy “Meanest of Times” album many years ago, and there’s like 5dB range. It’s so bland, and so tiring, to listen to.