The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Does recorded music always sound better on vinyl?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:17 PM Author: luke the drifter (definite and ineradicable gauge of its upward moving) As far as I can tell with vinyl you get some crackling static sound as the needle rides those concentric grooves, but it’s not too annoying. I have read that some think this makes the recording sound warmer. I wouldn’t go that far. It’s definitely distracting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144651) |
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:23 PM Author: hex yeah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144659) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:27 PM Author: peeface no. but there is a different listening process, and a physical aspect, that makes it an enjoyable alternative to the algorithmic digital music machine.
|
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:29 PM Author: TurboGrafx-67 The best sound takes uncompressed raw digital data and uses a complicated process to make it analog
Even if it's vinyl they convert it to digital first. Then back to analog |
 |
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:34 PM Author: peeface there are still some autists making records with a fully analog process for other autists, but usually nothing anyone normal listens to. the beatles mono reissue probably the closest we come to anything commercial.
|
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:11 PM Author: zarathustra it's not the cracking and imperfections that make it "warmer" the medium itself produces subtly different harmonics. but you have to be an autist about it or at least an attentive listener to perceive any difference most of the time. i think technically reel to reel is the highest fidelity analog medium and is less susceptible to audible wear. digital wins on absolute fidelity across the board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144721) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:30 PM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) This is cr. Electromagnetic tape is substantially higher fidelity than vinyl. Vinyl is fundamentally lossy. There isn't enough space on a disc to capture all the bass waves the lowest of which would be the entire width of an LP. In the mastering process low waves are filtered out. So are high waves which the needle can't capture because it would fly out of the groove. If you like vinyl, you like music that sounds worse or at least does not contain all the data in the recording. Tape comes very close but is expensive and cumbersome to reproduce. Digital is above tape. Red book CD has never been improved upon. The format is essentially the final form. Boomers claim they get listening fatigue from CDs because they're overwhelmed by too much sonic data and would rather a song sound shittier and be missing some pieces so their geriatric brain can handle it for longer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144733) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:46 PM Author: zarathustra dsd and hi res digital are top for absolute fidelity, better than standard consumer cd. most vinyl appreciation is performative or for the kitsch or ambience but it does legitimately impart a different quality to the sound, much like tv screens can look different, or how you can apply 'warm' or 'cool' filters to the picture.
people use very imperfect vocabulary like "warmth" or "fullness" to attempt to capture the effect which makes it sound fake and gay and causes others to be skeptical particularly because it's retarded boomers who are usually pushing it and mostly out of nostalgia rather than any real grasp of the audible nuances. but vinyl and other antiquated audio technologies like tube equipment do legitimately have distinct qualities that can be nice if you listen enough to sense what they're doing. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:01 AM Author: gay scientist couldn't digital filters be applied to impart whatever desirable characteristics exist with vinyl or tubes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144764) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:09 AM Author: zarathustra hypothetically it's possible but as with any attempt at a simulation it will break down under certain conditions and will generally be imperfect, and if you care enough you might as well get the real thing.
if you need an ev for practical reasons but you love the sound of shifting gears you could also hypothetically rig up a sim on your car which would be incredibly gay but you might have a real reason to prefer the ev. if you love the sound of tubes then just get tubes. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:08 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Lol is this flame? DSD and hi res audio are complete 100% flame. What are you smoking? There is literally nothing better than red book CD. It's mathematically impossible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144779) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:12 AM Author: zarathustra just ask chatgpt if you need convincing man, there's no need to debate empirical facts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144783) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:12 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) There's no logical argument for why you think you can hear information that your ear can't hear. You're the one who is defying physics but telling me to ask an LLM about it? Ljl at you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144821) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:32 AM Author: peeface "it isn't actually better if a person can't hear the difference" is a bit of a different argument
but not even true. setting aside children and weirdos that can hear outside the red book standard... the low sample rate can cause filtering problems. it was very noticeable 30 years years ago, but DACs have gotten better.
and for anything that might be used in future production i'd certainly prefer the more generous source.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:38 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) What are you fucking talking about? This is fucking gibberish. Yeah let's record audio at a much higher sample rate given that on a long enough time span scientists will figure out how to extend the range of human hearing? Is that really what you're saying?
Lower samples rate of what? 44.1 Khz? That's low to you? It's double the theoretical limit of human hearing. You think that's low? Are you crazy? And you're worried about jitter? This has been debunked lol. You literally cannot hear the noise floor or the jitter dipshit. This is such a smug retard argument for which there's no evidence. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:44 AM Author: peeface maybe you should be angry at yourself for getting into a conversation you don't understand, instead of at the guy trying to explain it to you.
first understand that sound is a wave, and the sample rate has to be twice the frequency.
44.1=22.05, right at the edge of human hearing you stupid cretin.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:47 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) 20k herz is the maximum. 22.5 is more than the maximum. You certainly cannot hear above 20k. Most adults cannot hear over 15k. Red book CD IS hi res. It's higher resolution than you could ever hear. It's already more than the maximum. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144837) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:55 AM Author: peeface first, you are again wrong.
second, you might want to latch on to the comment i made above about filters and try to understand it. i know you don't, because you clearly don't understand things that come three rungs on the ladder below that, but it is important.
third, you ("Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked(Prestige Feuds)") are fucking not a bright guy.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:48 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) I can't, the filter! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145000) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:46 AM Author: The Penis You are making statements based on an idealized reconstruction. You are assuming the signal is perfectly band limited below 22.05 kHz, sampled perfectly at 44.1 kHz, quantized with enough precision, and reconstructed with an perfect ideal filter. Real irl systems systems require anti-alias and reconstruction filters and other stuff too. Higher sample rates give the filter more room. None of this requires anyone to hear a 30 kHz tone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144851) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:46 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) This has been disproven by an MIT professor. It's all completely made up woo-woo. None of this matters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144995) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:15 AM Author: The Penis If by “this” you mean my point about anti aliasing and reconstruction filters then you are wrong. That's standard signal processing, not audiophile woo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145041) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:30 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Right I do not dispute the existence of anti aliasing filters. I dispute that having a larger bit bucket to start with has any noticeable effect on sound quality than red book CD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145056) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:34 AM Author: zarathustra this is fairer than any argument you or i will make:
give me the most definitive scientific research available on the ability of humans to perceive the higher fidelity of formats considered higher fidelity than red book cd
The most definitive, comprehensive, and widely accepted scientific study on this topic is a massive peer-reviewed systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (JAES).The paper, titled "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation," was authored by Dr. Joshua Reiss from the Centre for Digital Music at Queen Mary University of London.
This study is considered the gold standard because, rather than relying on a single experiment with a small group of people, it applied rigorous statistical meta-analysis to the entirety of available historical research.
The Scope of the Study
Dr. Reiss analyzed 80 publication candidates, ultimately narrowing the selection down to 18 highly controlled, published experiments that provided full, verifiable data sets.
Data Volume: The meta-analysis compiled data from over 400 unique participants.
Rigor: It evaluated more than 12,500 individual blind listening trials.
The Goal: To determine if subjects could successfully differentiate between "standard resolution" audio (16-bit/44.1 kHz or 48 kHz CD quality) and "high resolution" audio (anything exceeding Red Book CD standards, such as 24-bit/96 kHz or SACD/DSD).Key Findings: What the Data Proved
The study's conclusions forced both hardcore audiophiles and strict skeptics to compromise.
1. The Core Finding: Perception is Real, but Trivial
The meta-analysis concluded that humans can perceive a difference between high-resolution and CD-quality audio under blind conditions, and the result is statistically significant. However, the effect size is incredibly small. Across all 12,500+ combined trials, the average correct identification rate was roughly 53%.Context: A score of 50% represents complete random guessing. While 53% is mathematically "better than chance" over thousands of trials, it demonstrates that the difference is not a striking "night-and-day" auditory revelation for the general public.
2. The Multiplier: Auditory Training
The single most critical variable in the entire study was whether or not the listener was trained.
When data from untrained, casual listeners was isolated, their ability to perceive high resolution fell to near-total random chance.
When data from trained listeners (such as mastering engineers, audio students, or professional musicians) was isolated, the ability to tell the formats apart increased dramatically, pushing identification rates closer to 60%.Dr. Reiss noted that almost all the statistical variation between the 18 separate studies could be explained by one factor: whether the participants had been trained to know exactly what micro-artifacts or transient details to listen for.
3. Stimulus Selection Matters
The study also revealed that the ability to perceive high-fidelity audio depends heavily on the choice of music. Listeners were far more successful at identifying high-resolution audio when using longer samples (more than 30 seconds) and tracks with intense, sharp transients—such as the sudden pluck of an acoustic string or the strike of a metal cymbal. This aligns with theories suggesting higher sampling rates better preserve microsecond timing data in sound waves.
Other Notable Context: The Meyer & Moran Defeat
Before Dr. Reiss's 2016 meta-analysis, the most famous study cited by skeptics was the 2007 Meyer & Moran Study (also published via the Audio Engineering Society).Over a year-long period, researchers tested 60 members of an audiophile society across 554 blind trials.
They inserted a CD-quality bottleneck (16-bit/44.1 kHz) into a high-end SACD/DVD-Audio playback system.
The audiophiles guessed correctly exactly 49.8% of the time.
Why Reiss changed the narrative: While Meyer & Moran proved that an average audiophile cannot walk into a room and instantly spot a CD-quality filter, Dr. Reiss's meta-analysis demonstrated that when you zoom out to thousands of trials and focus strictly on trained ears listening to targeted audio cues, human perception can technically resolve details beyond the Red Book CD barrier.
Would you like to explore the specific neuroscientific or physiological theories (like time-domain transient resolution) that explain how trained ears pick up these differences? Or would you prefer a breakdown of how to train your own ears using an ABX test? |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:45 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) It's impossible and it's been completely disproven. It's literally not possible. No one can hear beyond the range of human hearing and no one can hear more than 96 decibels of dynamic range for the same reason you can't hear a fly buzzing at the same time a jet airplane is taking off in front of you.
It's all poppycock and 3% over random guessing is statistical noise. It could easily be attributed to some other factor for instance in some blind tests larger file sizes take longer to load. That's an identifiable marker that could easily skew tests among many other possibilities. The fact that some people with training did better could again likely be someone who knew an identifiable marker in the file itself just like a marked card in a deck.
You are absolutely kidding yourself. It's also extremely pathetic that you can't even use your own words and need a robot to do it for you. Extreme loserdom. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:41 AM Author: The Penis 3% is statistical noise is wrong in terms of actual stats and experiment dsign. It depends on the number and independence of observations and experiment design. It can be extremely significant under a 50% null with enough well controlled trials.
You are being too cd-absolutist overall. But I think you are right that under realistic listening conditions, improvements over redbook are small. Problem is you are trying to act like its settled, saying that its mathematically impossible to improve on and violates physics, which isn't true. It's not a settled claim. It's an ongoing engineering and perceptual question. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:56 AM Author: zarathustra seems that it does make a marginal empirical difference to trained ears listening to dynamic tracks in ideal settings but that it won't make much of a difference to casual listeners, and higher-res sources are usually listened to on good equipment in well-treated settings and are probably mastered better, so in practice most of the anecdotal advantage is flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144853) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 3:05 AM Author: The Penis Yeah pretty much. One audiophile thing I think is 100% not flame though is expensive headphones. Used to have multiple pairs of $1000+ headphones from focal and some of the other companies, and they were 180. Comes down to real materials, engineering and manufacturing advantages that make a huge difference. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144855) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 3:45 AM Author: zarathustra most non-conspicuous enthusiast goods like quality coffee, cookwear, audio equipment are not flame, you just need exposure and taste to discern and understand the difference, and money to burn. 90% of the time when people are debating the absolute quality of these things they are smuggling in the value question and whether they are "worth it" which is really a matter of taste and how rich u are. if i were poor and didn't want to bother with separates i'd be perfectly happy with a stereo pair of sonos speakers but i'm not poor so i buy nice shit that i can appreciate.
but discussion is ruined by people on both sides because poor people use it as a chance to take out their resentments towards things they can't have while discourse within the "hobby" is polluted by vain and slothful boomers in need of an obsession and an incinerator to consume their cash. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:02 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Lmao we can't all be as perfectly positioned as you. In this endeavor or any other. I bet your wife lets you fuck other women and doesn't seem to care. You really have it made, Goldilocks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145027) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:10 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145033) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:58 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) LOL why would they be mastered better? Now you are wading deeper into territory beyond your comprehension. Why the fuck would a hi res audio release just randomly be mastered better than the CD release? Do you know anything about mastering? Lol. You don't even know what it is you just like to tout yourself. 53/47 is still 50/50 guesswork. You have no idea which one it is! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145015) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:48 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144999) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:52 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) There's nothing ongoing about it. The difference is not small. It is non existent. It's not a subtle barely perceptible improvement. It is no improvement. Even during completely ideal listening conditions. It is 100% imperceptible. As I said that 3% difference with trained ears could easily be attributed to another factor than sound quality. There are potentially markers in the playback process with more explanatory value than sound quality. At 3% that means that even the people who are 'right' are guessing almost all of the time and still getting it wrong nearly as often as they are getting it right. I believe there are non-audio related tells that 'training' can help someone figure out just slightly that it's 'different' but not necessarily better. These markers are not audio related. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145006) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:22 AM Author: The Penis Regarding the statistics, you are wrong. You are using the small effect size as proof of large statistical uncertainty. Those are different quantities. A coin that lands heads 53% of the time over a sufficiently large number of independent trials can have an extremely well established 3 point bias while remaining nearly unpredictable on any particular flip.
Your explanation about non-audio related tells is only a hypothesis. It could hypothetically explain some experiment under some design. But to overturn this specific result, you'd need to identify the cue and show that it produces the observed pattern.
I'm not saying there is definitely an effect or that it's a big one, just that you are overclaiming by saying it is 100% imperceptible. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:27 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) Vegas has generated billions offering games with a house advantage less than 3%. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145052) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:31 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) I guess it's settled then. 53% is better than 50/50 and people definitely are not guessing even when wrong 47% of the time. And there's no possibility that that tiny advantage could be do to non audio related markers like a marked card in a deck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145061) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:35 AM Author: The Penis Different thing. 53% accuracy is terrible if you're asking whether a specific person can identify which file is HI-RES on a particular trial. They're wrong almost half the time. But the question is whether the underlying probability of being correct is exactly 50%, or slightly greater than 50%. With enough properly controlled observations 53% can give extremely strong evidence against a 50% null.
Oh shit thought I was responding to hatp here. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:43 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) You would have to be able to prove a massive chain of custody. You would have to be able to prove that the music was recorded mixed mastered in hi res at every step of the chain, in some cases requiring specialized tools and equipment. For example where are you going to find a microphone that can capture audio up to eg 96,000 hz? Most mics top out at 20k or so. So you would have to really be able to prove that there was information captured way, way above the range of human hearing and that inaudible data was actually in the recording. You would then need to cut that master into two files, a hi res one and a red book CD.
I have strong doubts that the test would have been that scientific down to the level where we knew beyond a doubt that there was actually substantially more auditory information in the file than the other one, far beyond the range of human hearing. You would really need a lot of special tools to achieve this. And you would somehow have to be able to explain why information captured at many times the maximum range of human hearing was even audible.
Unless your entire theory is that the larger bit bucket is better for anti aliasing and reconstruction and you have personally abandoned the idea that anyone can hear up to 96 kHz. But hopefully you at least acknowledge that there's no information in say a Beatles record that was actually captured above the range of human hearing and even if somehow we could debunk the science of human hearing and refute it, at least you would still acknowledge that in 99.99999% of recorded music there is no information beyond the limitations of the equipment used in the recording which we know has no chance of going up to 96 khz and beyond or whatever. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:56 AM Author: The Penis Yeah you are making some legitimate points. I agree with some of this. I definitely agree that if the question is whether humans are directly perceiving acoustic information above 20–22 kHz then the experiment should establish that such information actually existed all the way through the chain.
But the question whether somebody discriminate a high sample rate version from a 44.1/48 kHz version is just a broader question than that. Aside from ultrasonic source content, filtering, conversion and other parts of the reproduction chain can create audible band differences.
I'm not trying to argue here that normal adults are hearing a 40 kHz sine wave. There are other ways two playbacks can become discriminable. A higher sample rate changes constraints on the entire conversion chain. Anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters can be different. Different filtering can alter the signal inside the audible band. Other stuff too. There are lots of things to take into account here. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:03 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) I personally cannot hear above 15k so the idea that someone other than an infant can hear above 20k let alone 40k is pretty insane.
I will get you some more information on why anti aliasing and jitter is negligible in a higher bit bucket when I have the time to sift through all the bullshit online. I think you will be convinced. Once you understand the science you will look at the 53/47 split more differently. I'll get back to you when I have a moment. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:17 AM Author: The Penis I don't disagree that jitter in a competent modern DAC is generally far below audibility or that modern oversampling makes filtering extremely good. And I don't think people are directly hearing 40k tones. The problem is that that only constrains possible mechanisms, but it doesn't fully settle the question we were arguing over.
The aggregate listening data in the study shows a small above chance effect. So the scientific question is what produced that effect. If you can identify a confound that explains the 53/47 result then fine, that's an argument. Saying the underlying effect must be zero because the mechanisms you considered should be inaudible isn't though.
What reason do you have for doubting the results? You don't think its possible that the conclusions of the paper are correct and that the cause is unknown? It might not be one single thing, it could be an aggregate of different effects. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:35 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) There are studies where people have to guess between 256k/s, 320kbs, and FLAC files as to which sounds better and people have been able to identify the FLAC file with above average results because there's a slightly longer delay on playback when you press play it takes a split second longer for the file to load than the smaller file size and respondents have admitted they have figured this out. Lots of possible explanations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145165) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:47 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) How's it different? I'm agreeing with you that 53% over a large enough sample size essentially establishes that it's not 50%.
A pass line bet in craps is so close to a 50% that can appear random, but over time the negative EV is certain. Same thing here.
If you set up an eye exam with an 8 and a B such that only someone with 20/10 vision could perceive the difference, the results would come out slightly over 50% that people can perceive the difference. There's a measurable and techically perceivable difference between the 8 and B, but only an extraordinarily perceptive person would he able to perceive the difference. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:18 PM Author: The Penis Oh yeah I was kind of drunk and skimmed the first few sentences and the moniker and thought I was responding to hatp. When I saw the first bit and thought it was being applied to hatps position I basically assumed how I thought it was being used. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145469) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:31 AM Author: zarathustra this guy is performing abrasive flame as sport, unless u enjoy participating there's really no need to engage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145062) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:35 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) It's not flame, he really thinks he's a MFE on everything and gets emotionally invested in being right even with his claims are indefensible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145071) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:46 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) Formats like SACD are measurably and empirically superior to CDs. They've done double blind tests with audio critics. For most listeners the difference is negligible which is why formats beyond CDs never took off even in audiophile communities, but there is an audible difference. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144993) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:47 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) LOL your most retarded statement ever! There is ZERO evidence for this. Even people at the Japan Audio Society who controlled every conceivable variable said that there is no difference. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here. It's another laugher! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144997) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:50 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) Once again when everyone disagrees with you you just say ZERO EVIDENCE over and over despite being presented with evidence. Perhaps the most compelling being why did audio engineers even develop these formats of there was NO EVIDENCE there is a difference.
You just disregard evidence you don't believe and then claim ot doesn't exist. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:55 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Everyone doesn't disagree with me there's a lot of scientists and experts on my side and this is a law board filled with schizophrenics. Why would I ever conform my superior opinions and beliefs to these idiots? At least I'm not a consensus seeking faggot.
Audio engineers developed the formats to try and make more money and it's failed every time. Neil Young's Pono player. SACD/DSD. There's a lot of money to be made selling snake oil to rich boomers. Did you know that gold cables don't sound better than copper wire but cost a hundred times more? Hi res audio has completely failed as a product every time it's been tried. But I guess some people made money off of it. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:07 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) If there were "lots of scientists and experts" on your side you would poast that evidence instead of just repeating yourself in response to zarathustra poasting evidence.
Regardless, studies show the difference exists but is negligible. Idk why you get so emotionally invested in being right that there's no perceptable difference period. It doesn't matter. Why can't you just accept that theres at least some evidence there is when even they conclude it's negligible? |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:13 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) It's literally, LITERALLY 1000.0000000000000,00000000% impossible that there is a perceptible auditory difference between red book CD and hi res audio even under perfect ideal conditions.
Red book CD is fundamentally a hi res format. It is higher than humanity's maximum theoretical capability to process in your brain as sound. This is an incontrovertible cold hard fact of reality. It's as real as gravity. It's like saying there's a place you can go where a 200 lb person can actually be the same size and density of matter but only weigh 150 lbs because ReAsONs. Some things are just not true because they're not true. And we don't need to propagate lies or tell ourselves lies. We have the data. The Science is settled here. It's over and your side lost in a 100-0 landslide but you're repeating Reddit nonsense because you adopted something you read online. God only knows why you are prone to falling for this. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:18 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) Repeating the same claims without evidence just highlights that you don't have any, especially when you emphasize it with 100 gorillion % and say literally over and over.
If it's so settled by science then it would be easy to cite something.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:32 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) I did a massive amount of research on this over many years but all of it is buried in the search algorithm by people trying to sell you stuff. Sad! I will find it eventually but I don't have all day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145067) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:31 AM Author: The Penis The evidence is compatible with a small condition dependent effect in discrimination at least for some listeners. That is enough to make your 1000…% impossible claim scientifically indefensible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145060) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:34 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) LOL you're completely wrong. There is no evidence. Some listeners? Ljl. It's simply not true. The study is flawed. You haven't even looked into the bull case for why I'm right. You're looking at a tiny data point in a sea of wrongness and hanging your hat on it because of your feelings. It's truly unbelievable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145070) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 9:58 AM Author: cowgod Guy is a joke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145014) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:00 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) These are some incredibly dumb Reddit tier takes that demonstrate zero knowledge of audio science. It's unbelievable but these people read it on Reddit and they locked in and made it a whole cornerstone of their persona. Ljl. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145016) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:43 AM Author: The Penis I feel like "no possible perceptible effect" is the more standard redditor take on this. Redditors love to doubt peoples perceptions and claim its all apophenia, and then focus in on some single reductionist principle from physics or engineering as to why they are definitely right, while ignoring the full evidentiary picture. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145084) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:55 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Neither you nor anyone you have ever met in your entire life has ever heard a recording of high res audio that was fully captured by the necessary tools to achieve audio above the theoretical range of human hearing and played back on a system capable of reproducing it in any setting, ideal or not. But you have a lot of Opinions about this based on some stuff you read online. 🤔 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145089) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:00 AM Author: cowgod Are you saying that he’s stating his opinion as though it were a fact? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145094) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:00 AM Author: S'mores-flavored cold brew (gunneratttt) I sold high end audio gear for 5 years and could reliably identify SACD and CDs. So there's at least one bit of anecdotal evidence for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145095) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:03 AM Author: cowgod 😡 anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145102) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:05 AM Author: The Penis Someone told me this on reddit once. They really hate Anecdotes there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145108) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:16 PM Author: cowgod (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145461) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:04 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Oh really you can identify an SACD over a regular CD of the same master? You did a scientific A/B study? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145104) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:04 AM Author: The Penis lol at the idea that a recording and playback chain capable of carrying substantial ultrasonic content is some hypothetical laboratory contraption. but even assuming that's correct, that isn't even necessary to establish that two systems differ audibly. What matters is the acoustic waveform that eventually reaches the ear in the audible band. If some upstream difference causes an audible difference downstream that's enough. Your argument only works against someone claiming they can hear some 37 kHz harmonics on some record or some shiit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145105) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:09 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) https://www.behindthemixer.com/images/frequencyresponse.gif
This is the most commonly used microphone in human history. It does not capture any ultrasonic information. It only goes up to 15 khz.
Now that you're not arguing for ultrasonic audio information anymore, are we merely talking about file size? You think that the same audio information in a much larger file size sounds better because of the anti aliasing algorithm and filter cutoff point? Same captured information, just a much larger file size. You think that makes a difference? |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:23 AM Author: The Penis If you start with a 15k limited recording and make a 44.1k version from it, then I agree with you that there is no basis for expecting a 96k delivery file to sound better. But that's different from the argument you were making earlier that high sample rate experiments can never produce any audible difference under any conditions, and any positive experimental result violates physics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145136) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:31 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) As I have said before 99.99999% of all recorded music was not recored above 15k. If you had all the tools to do it, and reproduce it, and you acknowledge that people can't hear 40khz waves, then your whole argument is that the benefit of those inaudible sound waves is that they benefit the reconstructed mixdown? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145159) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:17 PM Author: scholarship No. As far as fidelity goes it technically almost always sounds worse than a cd. CD is as true as ears can hear. But a lot of vinyls are mastered differently and you get a different sound. And the pops and crackles are kind of fun. And the giant albums and the album art are fun. And the whole ritual is neat and some albums have unreleased tracks only on vinyl etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144726) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:33 PM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) The main reason for the resurgence in vinyl was it became a rare collectible commodity. All of the goofy neon colored vinyl and rare releases made it something people could collect. It's like having a nice watch or a baseball cards collection. Modern vinyl heads are in it for the value and investment. It's like hey own a piece of something no one else knows about or has or can get. That's the whole point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144735) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:36 PM Author: scholarship A buddy of mine occasionally gets a cool vinyl with some tracks that are only on vinyl. It’s fun like that. And the size of them is cool. I just listen to MP3’s nowadays. Anything over 256k is basically completely transparent and who cares. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144742) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:06 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) I insist on FLAC. I probably can't tell the difference but psychologically I need to know that nothing is missing.
Do you think DACs are complete flame? Like how can an expensive hardware device convert zeroes and ones into analog any better than all your other devices that do this? Seems like complete flame but people buy em. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 3:09 AM Author: The Penis Not complete flame, there are some real product differences in conversion engineering. But paying for a $1000 dollar dac vs. a $200 dollar one is definitely flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144856) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:42 PM Author: luke the drifter (definite and ineradicable gauge of its upward moving) this is scholarship makes sense to me, that's for sure |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:38 PM Author: askav big fan of vinyl here. no. at least, not with the kind of setup any of us is likely to have (and then, if you did have such a setup, you are listening to the equipment, not the music). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144744) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:02 AM Author: gay scientist favorite albums on vinyl? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144766) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:09 AM Author: luke the drifter (definite and ineradicable gauge of its upward moving) Flatt & Scruggs Greatest Hits Iron Butterfly In a Gadda da Vita Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:21 AM Author: Metal Up Your Ass i'm mostly into vinyl for the expense and inconvenience (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144826) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 4:06 AM Author: spaceporn1488 (✅🍑) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50144864) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 10:27 AM Author: .........\'.........\'\'.......\'\'\' (Dotski Carlisle, You Old Shrew!) no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145053) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 11:24 AM Author: .- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. . I buy vinyl because I like to watch the disk spin. The sound is not better. Also cover art is cool to look at in something larger than your phone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2/#50145141) |