If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Would you pay $50 for a higher quality digital audio download?   (npr.org) divider line 48
    More: Fail, digital audio, independent artists, home studio, Duran Duran, recording engineers, Consumer Electronics Association, music download, Warner Music Group  
•       •       •

1701 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Sep 2013 at 8:55 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-12 08:59:19 AM
Only to listen to crickets.
 
2013-09-12 08:59:56 AM

" Case in point is the success of Cookie Marenco's business of selling super high-definition music downloads."


Despite her success, no. I doubt a high quality digital file is going to make "Welcome to the Jungle" or "Pour Some Sugar on Me" sound any better. And most of the time my music is background sound so anything hi fidelity would be wasted.

 
2013-09-12 09:01:34 AM
Why would I do that when I still have a CD player and a record player?
 
2013-09-12 09:02:40 AM
It's worthwhile if you have the right equipment for listening.

pi.b5z.net
Shunyata ZTRON Viper Power Cord
Price:
$595.00
Do not be fooled by the Viper power cords reasonable price. The Viper's 11 gauge conductors make it ideal for the high-current amplifiers while maintaining the delicate nuances required by reference grade source components.
Available in 15A and 20A IEC

LINK
 
2013-09-12 09:02:43 AM
Places like Linn Records will sell you studio master quality downloads right now with big sample rates and high bits-per-sample, so it's not a new concept.  But I find it hard to believe there's a big market for DSD, whose advantages over traditional PCM audio are largely theoretical.
 
2013-09-12 09:02:50 AM
^ This. I've damn near just gone 100% to Pandora for most music these days. Most of the time, I'm just in the mood for something "Early Ska" or "something that sounds remotely like Alice in Chains" or something and don't want to deal with finding something specific.
 
2013-09-12 09:02:58 AM
Whatever happened to Neil Young's new audio device, Pono?
 
2013-09-12 09:05:25 AM
Cool. I'll throw them in the folder with the other FLAC files that can't be opened with any player I actually use.
 
2013-09-12 09:06:11 AM

Johnny Swank: ^ This. I've damn near just gone 100% to Pandora for most music these days. Most of the time, I'm just in the mood for something "Early Ska" or "something that sounds remotely like Alice in Chains" or something and don't want to deal with finding something specific.


I find Pandora's selection so limited that it's worse than radio.  I have a Motown channel and I seem to get "I heard it through the grapevine" about once an hour, and it's always either the Temptations or Gladys Knight versions.

/there's like six Motown versions of that song alone
//And Michael Bolton isn't Motown!
 
2013-09-12 09:06:49 AM
Do they still have the loudness punched to maximum? Then no.
 
2013-09-12 09:20:40 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Johnny Swank: ^ This. I've damn near just gone 100% to Pandora for most music these days. Most of the time, I'm just in the mood for something "Early Ska" or "something that sounds remotely like Alice in Chains" or something and don't want to deal with finding something specific.

I find Pandora's selection so limited that it's worse than radio.  I have a Motown channel and I seem to get "I heard it through the grapevine" about once an hour, and it's always either the Temptations or Gladys Knight versions.

/there's like six Motown versions of that song alone
//And Michael Bolton isn't Motown!


Ya, pandora is ok in small doses for me, but in general I get either 'generic radio pop list' after 2-3 songs. Or I get the same looped playlist after a few hours.

If you use the 'shuffle' function it helps spread it out. But ya, I stopped using it because if I wanted to listen to the radios selection of music I'd shoot myself.
 
2013-09-12 09:24:33 AM
I have a huge collection of discs in SACD format. A couple years ago I bought a Playstation 3 with a particular firmware revision, installed Linux on it and extracted the audio from those discs into nice 96k, 24bit multichannel .FLAC files. I already paid for the high definition audio and I have no problem continuing to do so.

xenophon10k: Do they still have the loudness punched to maximum? Then no.


DSD recordings are often made from analog masters of historic recording sessions. New SACD recordings are normally prestige-type affairs with a different sort of audio engineering than you'd find on the latest Justin Bieber album. You see a lot of awesome Jazz and Classical releases and reissues, which aren't really as closely tied to the trend of minimizing dynamic range in the first place.
 
2013-09-12 09:29:20 AM

xenophon10k: Do they still have the loudness punched to maximum? Then no.


THIS

The new IHeartRadio app has absolutely HORRID sound.  It's unlistenable as are most FM broadcasts.

/Relevance:  There is little.
 
2013-09-12 09:30:09 AM
I still listen to music on beer soaked cassette tapes in the stock stereo that came with my 1988 Ford Escort.
 
2013-09-12 09:31:25 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Johnny Swank: ^ This. I've damn near just gone 100% to Pandora for most music these days. Most of the time, I'm just in the mood for something "Early Ska" or "something that sounds remotely like Alice in Chains" or something and don't want to deal with finding something specific.

I find Pandora's selection so limited that it's worse than radio.  I have a Motown channel and I seem to get "I heard it through the grapevine" about once an hour, and it's always either the Temptations or Gladys Knight versions.

/there's like six Motown versions of that song alone
//And Michael Bolton isn't Motown!


Yeah, that's true. I've got a couple stations trained with a bunch of thumbs up/down dialed in, but it's a pain to do that all the time.  I've been more on a Spotify/Slacker kick lately now that I think about it.
 
2013-09-12 10:04:43 AM
Call me crazy, but I go and buy the CD, they seem to be a fairly decent quality, and get this, I can get 10-12 songs for a single price.  I can then make my own file and listen to any of the songs in any order at any time.  Crazy I know.
 
2013-09-12 10:10:25 AM
Gimmick. Plain & simple...  All you need to get high quality audio from a digital file is:

1) A computer with a good audio interface. Sometimes the built in audio is good enough, but sometimes it isn't. When it's not, M-Audio, Edirol, Lexicon & others make high quality, affordable USB or firewire interfaces that do the job about as good as it gets.

2) A flac or wav file or even *gasp* a 320 kbps mp3 from a good source. 99% of the time a 320 kbps mp3 is virtually the same as CD quality. If it's not, you have a poorly encoded file or a something in the playback chain is subpar.

3) A good audio system to play it back on.

And that's it. You're done. If a digital file sounds legitimately bad, it's probably a badly encoded low bitrate file, a badly mastered recording, a crappy player, or a combination of all the above.

What these guys are really doing isn't selling you a file that sounds better because it's a super-high bitrate and bit depth... If it sounds better, it's because they didn't super-compress the living Hell out of it and screw it up during the mastering process. Basically they're charging you a premium for not shiatting all over the recording.
 
2013-09-12 10:13:34 AM
Here's what's really insane:

There are still a lot of audiophile labels that are issuing SACDs; the discs typically cost $13 to $20. The hi-rez download (either stereo or multi-channel) tends to cost $30+ -- and it's the exact same content that's on the SACD -- it's not like you're getting any better sound quality.

And what makes things even crazier, is that with the SACD you get: 1) CD layer; 2)High-rez stereo layer; and 3) Multi-channel layer. The hi-rez downloand is either just the stereo or multi-channel layer. So not only is the SACD cheaper, but if you were to buy all three layers as downloads, it would be like $70.
 
2013-09-12 10:20:56 AM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Cool. I'll throw them in the folder with the other FLAC files that can't be opened with any player I actually use.


Quit buying players with fruit shaped icons on them and look at their ability before you purchase one.   All 3 of my MP3 players had the ability to play flac.   I don't have much in that format but it was still supported

anythingbutipod.com if you are looking for a device that supports flac
 
2013-09-12 10:21:04 AM
I love all the things my laptop and mobile phone can do for me, but it's a shame that the sound quality of music and voice is so much worse than when I was a kid.  I wish I could afford to be even an aspiring audiophile.  At the very least I'd gladly pay double my current cell phone bill to have the noise from the earpiece sound like an actual human being again.
 
2013-09-12 10:23:46 AM

immrlizard: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Cool. I'll throw them in the folder with the other FLAC files that can't be opened with any player I actually use.

Quit buying players with fruit shaped icons on them and look at their ability before you purchase one.   All 3 of my MP3 players had the ability to play flac.   I don't have much in that format but it was still supported

anythingbutipod.com if you are looking for a device that supports flac


My Mac plays flac.
 
2013-09-12 10:26:33 AM

thornhill: Here's what's really insane:

There are still a lot of audiophile labels that are issuing SACDs; the discs typically cost $13 to $20. The hi-rez download (either stereo or multi-channel) tends to cost $30+ -- and it's the exact same content that's on the SACD -- it's not like you're getting any better sound quality.

And what makes things even crazier, is that with the SACD you get: 1) CD layer; 2)High-rez stereo layer; and 3) Multi-channel layer. The hi-rez downloand is either just the stereo or multi-channel layer. So not only is the SACD cheaper, but if you were to buy all three layers as downloads, it would be like $70.


Not only that, but with the SACD or DVD-Audio you also get the artwork, liner notes and a physical copy of the album.
 
2013-09-12 10:26:51 AM

immrlizard: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Cool. I'll throw them in the folder with the other FLAC files that can't be opened with any player I actually use.

Quit buying players with fruit shaped icons on them and look at their ability before you purchase one.   All 3 of my MP3 players had the ability to play flac.   I don't have much in that format but it was still supported

anythingbutipod.com if you are looking for a device that supports flac


Or, crazy thought, one could use a file converter that works perfectly like:  http://www.dbpoweramp.com/ to change the files from flac to apple lossless.
 
2013-09-12 10:32:59 AM

GibbyTheMole: Gimmick. Plain & simple...  All you need to get high quality audio from a digital file is:

1) A computer with a good audio interface. Sometimes the built in audio is good enough, but sometimes it isn't. When it's not, M-Audio, Edirol, Lexicon & others make high quality, affordable USB or firewire interfaces that do the job about as good as it gets.

2) A flac or wav file or even *gasp* a 320 kbps mp3 from a good source. 99% of the time a 320 kbps mp3 is virtually the same as CD quality. If it's not, you have a poorly encoded file or a something in the playback chain is subpar.

3) A good audio system to play it back on.

And that's it. You're done. If a digital file sounds legitimately bad, it's probably a badly encoded low bitrate file, a badly mastered recording, a crappy player, or a combination of all the above.

What these guys are really doing isn't selling you a file that sounds better because it's a super-high bitrate and bit depth... If it sounds better, it's because they didn't super-compress the living Hell out of it and screw it up during the mastering process. Basically they're charging you a premium for not shiatting all over the recording.


If you're arguing that that a music file compressed down to 320 kbps sounds better than a native DSD file or 24/192 (or 24/96), you're simply wrong. Or, you're audio system just aint that good.

What's also missing from your formula is a DAC.
 
2013-09-12 10:34:51 AM

enik: Or, crazy thought, one could use a file converter that works perfectly like: http://www.dbpoweramp.com/ to change the files from flac to apple lossless.


Or, you know, leave it in FLAC so that it will be supported by a vastly wider array of players.

thornhill: Here's what's really insane:

There are still a lot of audiophile labels that are issuing SACDs; the discs typically cost $13 to $20. The hi-rez download (either stereo or multi-channel) tends to cost $30+ -- and it's the exact same content that's on the SACD -- it's not like you're getting any better sound quality.

And what makes things even crazier, is that with the SACD you get: 1) CD layer; 2)High-rez stereo layer; and 3) Multi-channel layer. The hi-rez downloand is either just the stereo or multi-channel layer. So not only is the SACD cheaper, but if you were to buy all three layers as downloads, it would be like $70.


It's kind of technically prohibitive for most people to extract audio from either SACD or DVD-Audio discs. For SACDs, you need one of the launch Playstation 3 models that hasn't been updated past a certain firmware revision AND some familiarity with Linux. For DVD-Audio, you just have to dig up the extraction software and figure out how to work it. I've done all my discs of high-resolution audio, but it was a pain in the ass and I can definitely understand wanting to be able to listen to your HD recordings someplace besides the $700 Oppo player in your living room, which is probably what you're doing if you're regularly purchasing SACDs.
 
2013-09-12 10:47:26 AM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Cool. I'll throw them in the folder with the other FLAC files that can't be opened with any player I actually use.


If you have an audio systems, most A/V receivers post-2008 can decode FLACs. So can most recent Blu-ray players.
 
2013-09-12 10:50:13 AM
I still can't play these formats in my car, so I don't really care.
 
2013-09-12 11:05:24 AM
FTA:

The announcement comes amid growing evidence that music fans are tired of the crappy sound they hear on their portable music players.

Okay, great, where is this evidence?  I would bet that most people don't care that much about quality on their portable players.  Most of them are listening while on the go, on cheap bundled earbuds, or something they bought from a retailer like Target because of the brand name.  They aren't familiar with bitrates.  Indeed, many times when I see someone's digital collection, I see a bunch of lossy transcodes and mutt rips.  Sometimes even stuff they ripped off of YouTube.

Most people can't distinguish a LAME encoded V2 rip with lossless.  Most audiophiles think they can tell a difference between 320 CBR/V0 MP3 and lossless, but in blind tests they usually can't.

People embraced MP3 because it's easy to use, light on space, and used by every player out there.  I don't think they will give that up because larger files are going to take up more space and smart phones still haven't gotten to decent capacities (100+ GB) yet.
 
2013-09-12 11:06:16 AM

likefunbutnot: It's kind of technically prohibitive for most people to extract audio from either SACD or DVD-Audio discs. For SACDs, you need one of the launch Playstation 3 models that hasn't been updated past a certain firmware revision AND some familiarity with Linux. For DVD-Audio, you just have to dig up the extraction software and figure out how to work it. I've done all my discs of high-resolution audio, but it was a pain in the ass and I can definitely understand wanting to be able to listen to your HD recordings someplace besides the $700 Oppo player in your living room, which is probably what you're doing if you're regularly purchasing SACDs.


A few points:

1. While I agree that the label's logic is that you're paying a premium for the privilege of being able to put the hi-rez files on a music server, I doubt there are many people that need this functionality because their SACD player is in a different room than their audio system. Or in other words, I think there are very few people for whom the connivence justifies $10 to $20 surcharge.

I want to go pure media server/downloads, but I aint paying $30 for a download that I can buy as a SACD for $15.

2. For this small subset that wants everything on a media server, they're probably savvy enough that they've figured out how to rip the DSD content from SACDs.

3. Now that HDMI supports DSD, you no longer need a $700 Oppo. I know audiophiles love to spend money, but many sub $150 Blu-ray players will output DSD over HDMI (the Blu-ray player acts purely as a transport -- it doesn't do anything to the native DSD signal). You connect that to your A/V receiver, and can either keep the signal in DSD through the pure direct mode, or apply room corrections. The only reason to buy the high end Oppos is if you don't own a better DAC than what comes in it (so you want the Oppo to decode the audio), and/or, you want to use an A/V receiver that doesn't have HDMI inputs. The audiophiles that are buying Oppos only to connect them to receivers via HDMI are just throwing their money away.
 
2013-09-12 11:10:11 AM
Kinda interesting that there is a new push for hi-rez audio but not multi-channel sounds.

I frankly find that there is a much larger jump in sound quality between hi-rez stereo and multi-channel, than 16/44 stereo and DSD stereo.
 
2013-09-12 11:14:36 AM
Wait, are you telling me people pay for music?
 
2013-09-12 11:33:02 AM
thornhill:

If you're arguing that that a music file compressed down to 320 kbps sounds better than a native DSD file or 24/192 (or 24/96), you're simply wrong. Or, you're audio system just aint that good.

I never said anything of the sort, but now that you mention it... If it's a 320 kbps mp3 that I ripped in from high quality vinyl or another good quality source vs. a DSD or 24/192 or 24/96 file that was sourced from a crappy overly compressed source, then yes... the 320 kbps would be better because the original source was better. Otherwise, no.

And my system is quite decent, actually. 

What's also missing from your formula is a DAC.

The term "audio interface" & DAC are basically the same thing.
 
2013-09-12 11:52:39 AM

monoski: Wait, are you telling me people pay for music?


I know, right?  I'm just as shocked as you are ...
 
2013-09-12 11:54:23 AM

thornhill: 3. Now that HDMI supports DSD, you no longer need a $700 Oppo. I know audiophiles love to spend money, but many sub $150 Blu-ray players will output DSD over HDMI (the Blu-ray player acts purely as a transport -- it doesn't do anything to the native DSD signal). You connect that to your A/V receiver, and can either keep the signal in DSD through the pure direct mode, or apply room corrections. The only reason to buy the high end Oppos is if you don't own a better DAC than what comes in it (so you want the Oppo to decode the audio), and/or, you want to use an A/V receiver that doesn't have HDMI inputs. The audiophiles that are buying Oppos only to connect them to receivers via HDMI are just throwing their money away.


Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that I *gasp*....mix-and-match my components?!?!?  I DID NOT SPEND A GRAND ON A MARANTZ RECEIVER JUST TO STACK A COBY BLU-RAY PLAYER ON IT!!!!

/Next you'll be telling me that I need to replace my wooden volume knobs.
 
2013-09-12 12:08:37 PM

PainInTheASP: thornhill: 3. Now that HDMI supports DSD, you no longer need a $700 Oppo. I know audiophiles love to spend money, but many sub $150 Blu-ray players will output DSD over HDMI (the Blu-ray player acts purely as a transport -- it doesn't do anything to the native DSD signal). You connect that to your A/V receiver, and can either keep the signal in DSD through the pure direct mode, or apply room corrections. The only reason to buy the high end Oppos is if you don't own a better DAC than what comes in it (so you want the Oppo to decode the audio), and/or, you want to use an A/V receiver that doesn't have HDMI inputs. The audiophiles that are buying Oppos only to connect them to receivers via HDMI are just throwing their money away.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that I *gasp*....mix-and-match my components?!?!?  I DID NOT SPEND A GRAND ON A MARANTZ RECEIVER JUST TO STACK A COBY BLU-RAY PLAYER ON IT!!!!

/Next you'll be telling me that I need to replace my wooden volume knobs.


I actually got that response from some audiophile friends when I bought a cheapo $100 Sony Blu-ray because it outputs DSD over HDMI.
 
2013-09-12 12:12:19 PM

thornhill: PainInTheASP: thornhill: 3. Now that HDMI supports DSD, you no longer need a $700 Oppo. I know audiophiles love to spend money, but many sub $150 Blu-ray players will output DSD over HDMI (the Blu-ray player acts purely as a transport -- it doesn't do anything to the native DSD signal). You connect that to your A/V receiver, and can either keep the signal in DSD through the pure direct mode, or apply room corrections. The only reason to buy the high end Oppos is if you don't own a better DAC than what comes in it (so you want the Oppo to decode the audio), and/or, you want to use an A/V receiver that doesn't have HDMI inputs. The audiophiles that are buying Oppos only to connect them to receivers via HDMI are just throwing their money away.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that I *gasp*....mix-and-match my components?!?!?  I DID NOT SPEND A GRAND ON A MARANTZ RECEIVER JUST TO STACK A COBY BLU-RAY PLAYER ON IT!!!!

/Next you'll be telling me that I need to replace my wooden volume knobs.

I actually got that response from some audiophile friends when I bought a cheapo $100 Sony Blu-ray because it outputs DSD over HDMI.


LOL.  I'd say you were lying, but I think we have the same friends.
 
2013-09-12 12:24:13 PM

kroonermanblack: Dwight_Yeast: Johnny Swank: ^ This. I've damn near just gone 100% to Pandora for most music these days. Most of the time, I'm just in the mood for something "Early Ska" or "something that sounds remotely like Alice in Chains" or something and don't want to deal with finding something specific.

I find Pandora's selection so limited that it's worse than radio.  I have a Motown channel and I seem to get "I heard it through the grapevine" about once an hour, and it's always either the Temptations or Gladys Knight versions.

/there's like six Motown versions of that song alone
//And Michael Bolton isn't Motown!

Ya, pandora is ok in small doses for me, but in general I get either 'generic radio pop list' after 2-3 songs. Or I get the same looped playlist after a few hours.

If you use the 'shuffle' function it helps spread it out. But ya, I stopped using it because if I wanted to listen to the radios selection of music I'd shoot myself.


Two big problems with Pandora for me are first that when I was wanting to listen to 20th/21st Century Classical Music, it kept giving me movie scores.  Fark that shiat.  If I wanted to listen to movie scores, I would make a channel with a big film composer and not one with a composer who has NEVER done a movie.

Second problem.  If you like concept albums or multiple movement pieces, you're never going to get to listen to it front to back and will usually be stuck with the minor/transitional middle sections.

It's mainly Spotify and Bandcamp for me now to preview new stuff and listen to back catalogs.  And I actually BUY the new music that I love to support the band so they can keep making more stuff usually on Amazon or Bandcamp.
 
2013-09-12 02:30:42 PM

thornhill: 1. While I agree that the label's logic is that you're paying a premium for the privilege of being able to put the hi-rez files on a music server, I doubt there are many people that need this functionality because their SACD player is in a different room than their audio system. Or in other words, I think there are very few people for whom the connivence justifies $10 to $20 surcharge.


It's not really all that hard to find homes with multiple AV setups. Not that it's <i>blisteringly</i> common, but a living room system and a full on finished basement home theater? Or somebody with a decent audio system in their office? They're out there and they're well off enough not to really quibble over an extra $20.

thornhill: 2. For this small subset that wants everything on a media server, they're probably savvy enough that they've figured out how to rip the DSD content from SACDs.


"Savvy" isn't the right word. Ripping SACDs has ridiculously exacting hardware requirements for bit-perfect copying. You can maybe run everything through a mixing console but at that point you're really having to re-do all the work the audio engineer did in the first place. Good luck with that.

thornhill: 3. Now that HDMI supports DSD, you no longer need a $700 Oppo


I never said they did. However, most people who have some kind of investment in HD audio have some kind of decent audio system someplace that probably DOES include a fancy multi-format player and either receiver or an amplifier connected to a nice set of speakers. That does not eliminate the possibility of anyone having more than one such system. Even then, who wants to shuttle discs around between players? It's 2013 for crissakes.
 
2013-09-12 04:19:59 PM

karnal: karnal: Whatever happened to Neil Young's new audio device, Pono?


I'd like to know, too.  Anybody heard?
 
2013-09-12 06:59:59 PM

jaytkay: It's worthwhile if you have the right equipment for listening.

[pi.b5z.net image 350x417]
Shunyata ZTRON Viper Power Cord
Price:
$595.00
Do not be fooled by the Viper power cords reasonable price. The Viper's 11 gauge conductors make it ideal for the high-current amplifiers while maintaining the delicate nuances required by reference grade source components.
Available in 15A and 20A IEC

LINK


Make sure you get a wooden volume knob as well.  And some Anjou cables.  Great swing and pace, those cables smack that right on the nose big time.  They're danceable, and they sure have PRAT.
 
2013-09-12 09:03:26 PM
Good gosh, audiophiles make my skin itch.
 
2013-09-13 03:52:59 AM

ZeroCorpse: Good gosh, audiophiles make my skin itch.


You can love good sound without being a naive douche. I don't mind spending a few bucks on real speakers, but I'm sure as hell not buying Monster cables. I also use FLAC because you can infinitely convert it to whatever lossy format you want but retain the pristine copy in case some better lossy format comes down the pike in a few years.

There are no wooden volume knobs in my house, but I'm not listening to plastic Logitech speakers either.
 
2013-09-13 08:01:45 AM
dickfreckle:  You can love good sound without being a naive douche. I don't mind spending a few bucks on real speakers, but I'm sure as hell not buying Monster cables. I also use FLAC because you can infinitely convert it to whatever lossy format you want but retain the pristine copy in case some better lossy format comes down the pike in a few years. There are no wooden volume knobs in my house, but I'm not listening to plastic Logitech speakers either.

I like the cut of your jib. There's certainly a point of diminishing returns. I've heard $100,000 audio systems, and honestly they don't sound a heck of a lot different than my much more modest rig. There's only so good it can get before you're just throwing money away.
 
2013-09-13 09:48:37 AM

GibbyTheMole: dickfreckle:  You can love good sound without being a naive douche. I don't mind spending a few bucks on real speakers, but I'm sure as hell not buying Monster cables. I also use FLAC because you can infinitely convert it to whatever lossy format you want but retain the pristine copy in case some better lossy format comes down the pike in a few years. There are no wooden volume knobs in my house, but I'm not listening to plastic Logitech speakers either.

I like the cut of your jib. There's certainly a point of diminishing returns. I've heard $100,000 audio systems, and honestly they don't sound a heck of a lot different than my much more modest rig. There's only so good it can get before you're just throwing money away.


Yup. My rig might be $1700 including the DAC. But I didn't spend it all at once. You can probably source $1700 worth of drunken Taco Bell if you really think about it,
 
2013-09-13 12:18:57 PM

airsupport: karnal: karnal: Whatever happened to Neil Young's new audio device, Pono?

I'd like to know, too.  Anybody heard?


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-plans-pono-launch- fo r-2014-20130904
 
2013-09-13 03:56:01 PM

holdenoversoul: airsupport: karnal: karnal: Whatever happened to Neil Young's new audio device, Pono?

I'd like to know, too.  Anybody heard?

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-plans-pono-launch- fo r-2014-20130904


Thank you!
 
2013-09-13 07:04:03 PM
dickfreckle:

Yup. My rig might be $1700 including the DAC. But I didn't spend it all at once. You can probably source $1700 worth of drunken Taco Bell if you really think about it.

Yeah, I think if I bought everything new in my main system (which I didn't buy any of it new) it might be worth around 7 grand. That's less than some guys spend on speaker cables.  :-P
 
2013-09-13 07:06:38 PM
dickfreckle: I might also mention that estimate includes turntable, cassette deck & CD player, though. Without that stuff it would probably be about what you have invested. You really don't need to spend more to get excellent sound. (and you can even spend a lot less.)
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report