#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm looking for a speaker that sounds great and won't break the budget. I've been listening to music through JBL aliens for years so any upgrade over that will be a huge improvement. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I've done that NPR test 2x on my macbook with a headphone amp + my Sony MDR-7506 headphones (<$100, but highly regarded).
Both times I got 5 out of 6 right... (It was > 6 months apart so I'd forgotten what was what). First time I couldn't tell on the Katy Perry track, second time I couldn't tell on the Mozart Track. I do need time to listen to them several times though and it really depends on the quality of the recording. I think a really good recording of say a piano with the mic up on the lid or of an acoustic guitar right at the 12th fret I'd be able to pick out pretty easy. I think the more they monkey with the music in the studio or in the computer (lots of pop stuff is completely generated in the computer except for vocals) the harder it gets. And coldplay sounds terrible on any equipment once you notice it... I like(d) their music, but once you really listen to it, it's almost unlistenable. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
If you want a reasonably high end speaker for your computer, that's easy to move about and sounds better than it should then the Peachtree Deepblue should be considered. Its about a hundred more than your budget but doesn't require a separate amp. Very easy to live with.
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
I did the NPR test when it first came out and IIRC got 5 of 6. (I forget which I missed but it might have been the Jay-Z)
This time I did it and got 5 of 6--missing the Susanne Vega which, ironically, is the cut I'm most familiar with. Listening with the speakers on my Macbook Pro, it was pretty hard. But listening with my Bifrost DAC, Woo Audio headphone amp, and Audeze headphones it was much easier to hear the differences. But I wouldn't say it was trivial. You needed to focus on a certain part of the mix rather than just kicking back and listening to what sounds "best." Last edited by Avincent52; 11-18-2015 at 04:21 PM. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
The Suzanne Vega one is super ironic as it was apparently a test track in the original development of MP3.
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Joe |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Ripping anything other than to flac is incomprehensible to me. Or even worse, to encode to an mp3 at anything other than 320kps (lame present -insane) is equally misguided and misplaced frugality. Disk space is ridiculously cheap. For anything other than a mobile device, what is the point?
Modern music is a compressed, brick-walled waveform anyway so, in that sense, what's a couple of cycles less of sample rate. mp3s at 128 do sound terrible to me no matter how it noise pollutes anyway. But to be fair, a lotta newer music is released on vinyl LPs so not all is lost. Lastly, decent quality music depends equally on a an unmolested source file (no mp3 of any form) and a decent speaker, you can decide for yourself what is a decent speaker. Cheap speakers have these exaggerated humps in their response curves to make the boom & sizzle of what passes for good sound these days. Forget high-end for 300 bucks - what you're gonna get is whatever is less repellent of mostly bad options. Decent sound can be had for cheap sometimes: Koss KSC75 Portable Stereophone Headphones Ditch the earclips off of 'em and reattach the phones to a normal headband. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Jeff |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
big ears are the most important aspect of one's audio listening experience.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
And pretty much everyone else that knows what they are talking about.
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
In the "olden days", it was the turntable.
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Turntable, arm and cartridge, to be more precise. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of spending a lot of money on reproducing the output of a mediocre sound source.
Yeah, but this guy keeps complaining about a hole in the midrange. |
Tags |
audio, audiophile, computer, speakers |
|
|