3 ms·

"more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be

"more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.

bayindirh 3y ago
Here we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
- kuschku 3y ago
  I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?

bayindirh 3y ago

Here we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.

kuschku 3y ago
I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?