KVR Audio

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:08 am

Listening on a pair of Sennheiser eh2200 headphones ($50.. I use 'em for everything, though), it's hard to say which sounds BEST. Using A as a point of reference, B sounds like it has slightly more defined highs. C also seemed to be a little more... expanded, perhaps, in the upper range? I also could have sworn I heard a little more compression in C, something to make the kick punchier. Could be my imagination. I guess if I had to pick which sounded better, it would be C, but honestly that is just about an arbitrary choice.

Kraku · Post by **Kraku** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:59 am

I hope this isn't a test for "If I boost the master track 15dB around 500-600 Hz, does anyone notice?", since then we'd failed miserably and it would prove that there was actually no reason at all to mix our tracks for the endusers.

bullshark · Post by **bullshark** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:06 am

bmanic, thanks a lot for pointing out the inadequacy of my monitoring solution

I can see some differences in an audio editor, but to me they sound exactly the same. I don't like you anymore

NewSc2 · Post by **NewSc2** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:58 am

i was lazy (too lazy to turn on my monitors, too lazy to put on headphones) and just listened to them on my (pretty decent) computer speakers (videologic). pretty hard to tell a difference between B and C, but both were definitely more crisp than A. I also felt B had some more dynamics than C, but my system isn't the best so I just went on intuition at that point.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:45 am

bmanic wrote:No, you just don't get it and I'm not going to explain to you either, not yet.

Btw, you do NOT qualify for high-end monitoring. Sorry chap (neither do I for that matter!).

I think I'll just stop taking your opinions seriously from now on, John Westman. You've gone too far. My monitoring is measured to only have a *one* sharp dip at exactly 110hz, and it doesn't change when you move in the room. Otherwise it's pretty much flat. And you perfectly well know this! (to clarify to other people, dynaudio bm6a)

No seriously, who gives a damn how anything sounds on Nautilus? Feelings? Intuition? Earth to bmanic!

You're stepping on controversial audiophilia territory and you can full well expect me to react and question things.

smokingmonkey · Post by **smokingmonkey** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:50 am

I like b the best it seems to have more attack on the guitar

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:38 pm

kilroy wrote:
ouroboros wrote:
kilroy wrote:C, all the way...somehow that phase inversion just put it over the top for me.
what is it you are hearing kilroy? Muddy ears want to know!
Well, for whatever reason, the C file's phase was inverted compared to A and B...a phase flip during processing, perhaps. Or maybe just Bmanic messing with us to see if we are paying attention.

None of the loops are exactly the same length.. this is on purpose!

Cheers!
bManic

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:40 pm

Kingston wrote:
bmanic wrote:No, you just don't get it and I'm not going to explain to you either, not yet.

Btw, you do NOT qualify for high-end monitoring. Sorry chap (neither do I for that matter!).
I think I'll just stop taking your opinions seriously from now on, John Westman. You've gone too far. My monitoring is measured to only have a *one* sharp dip at exactly 110hz, and it doesn't change when you move in the room. Otherwise it's pretty much flat. And you perfectly well know this! (to clarify to other people, dynaudio bm6a)

No seriously, who gives a damn how anything sounds on Nautilus? Feelings? Intuition? Earth to bmanic!

You're stepping on controversial audiophilia territory and you can full well expect me to react and question things.

Nope. You simply still don't get it. Kingston, sometimes it would be good for even you to step off your high pedestal and lower that arrogant tone a bit.

As for your monitoring setup, sure it's ok, it's even quite good but are you seriously saying it can compete with a proper mastering studio's monitoring chain? Man..

Kingston wrote: You're stepping on controversial audiophilia territory and you can full well expect me to react and question things.

As for this. It's quite typical of you, I know and you can question things but this time, "just let it roll".. YOU are not the CENTER of the earth man all the time. Let me have some fun with this please. With fun, I don't mean this is a joke, it's far from it, but I really do enjoy the results the poll is taking shape with. I'll spill the beans once I have enough votes (I need quite a lot to verify some things).

- bManic

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:20 pm

Kingston wrote:John Vestman

Perhaps it isn't your monitoring but rather your hard drive that isn't high fidelity enough?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:37 pm

bmanic wrote:Nope. You simply still don't get it. Kingston, sometimes it would be good for even you to step off your high pedestal and lower that arrogant tone a bit.

I have perfectly valid reasons to question you. There is enough confusing audiofilia voodoohoodoo in the world. I.e belief systems centered around an entirely technical topic. and from where I'm standing, it certainly looks you are entering that territory. Why do I say that?

Well you brought feelings and intuition into a super subtle audio comparison that is apparently only valid when listened through 20k monitoring: the hallmark of true audiophilia. Who's on the high horse afterall?

Highvoltage · Post by **Highvoltage** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:38 pm

so what was it about?

Watto · Post by **Watto** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:06 pm

I thought you guys were friends!!!

kenn · Post by **kenn** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:17 pm

Kingston wrote:...a super subtle audio comparison that is apparently only valid when listened through 20k monitoring: the hallmark of true audiophilia.

My 2 cents:

I was only using a $250 pair of speakers, and I'm no spring chicken, and the file differences were consistently audible to me with only a bit of concentration on my part. So, not much room for voodoo or psych tricks there.

bmania asked us to listen to 3 files, for which he has (wisely) provided little details about, and quickly make a value judgement, without necessarily getting all analytical.

Ok, so why not?

Where's the harm in that?

I'm secure enough in my abilities (or lack thereof) to participate, and I'm not afraid to be wrong in my choice (C), and i'm looking forward to bmanic telling us more about the files when the survey's closed, cos I might even learn something.

So, why wouldn't anyone not want to do this, if they can spare a few minutes, apart from any pro-or anti-audiophile feelings?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:51 pm

ok, I'll resign from this and admit I should've kept my remarks to private discussions with bmanic. He's a good friend and I expected he would be willing to face a little honest critique, a little tongue in cheek even. I admit I'm being impatient and not giving him the benefit of doubt.

Yet some concepts give me a rash, hence these reactions.

All yours bmanic. just remember you're dealing with controversial and subjective issues and need to be able to face valid critique. I won't be the last to question these things.

the_nihilist · Post by **the_nihilist** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:21 pm

I didn't even listen to the files, but my intuition told me to vote for B.

KVR Audio

Non-scientific little poll. Vote with intuition.

Which of these sound snippets sound the best?