~120€ if i remember that right. So definitely not top of the line stuff, but I expected atleast to hear some difference. I bet you could not identify a FLAC file from a 256kb MP3 in a blind test.
If you give me both I can. I obviously can't tell the difference on a track I haven't heard before without the opposing file to compare with. The point is, lossless allows you to to tell more subtle nuances within the track. There are a tonne of volume variations to different layers which are all essentially stripped out and mushed together when it comes to MP3.
The phrase you're looking for is instrument separation. Because half of the shit-stirrers are banned.
Idk if you're talking about Beats or not but I'll get it over with now. The sound quality is good on Beats however: 1. They have a preset EQ meaning that the bass is muddy and the mids are non existent. This is designed to be suited to urban music but it makes that sound terrible too. 2. They have a brittle plastic headband that snaps. Discussion over. On an almost similar note, I've always struggled to find a set of relatively portable and inexpensive headphones that are completely flat, sound wise.
The beats thing was just a joke because audio threads usually turn into a beats ragefest. I was talking about McGyver's comment that his cheap in ear headphones sound as good as a 120€ AKG headphone. I guess he thinks that a U shape equalizer setting = good Back on topic I think the biggest problem with really good headphones is that they are addictive. Everything cheaper sounds so shitty in comparsion. So if you cant afford a really good one never try it out because its like tasting heroin and beeing cut of the supply.
Koss Porta Pros being the exception that proves the rule. So baby things where I wish I'd never tried to improve, I spend so much money on simple things these days because I'm becoming a snob in every field.
Chances are that someone's put a lot of fucking effort into mixing the track you're listening to. You should all leave the eq alone (besides cutting 30hz sometimes).
I use the equalizer to compensate for inadequacies within my speaker driver itself, but I don't do it to change the sound of the song to what I want it to sound like.
Exactly. I will say though, when space mentioned mixing and how they intended it to sound all I can think of is how movies are done. With ridiculously loud music and explosions but very quiet when people speak, which is stupid and I hate it. Though I don't really disagree on how music in general is mixed.
The only mixing that is truly awful is for mainstream electronic, the fucking compression swells do my head in. Modern metal bands tend to overproduce guitar sounds into this brittle sound (but will then act like the wood their guitar is made of affects their tone. Protip: It doesn't). For pretty much everything else there are best practices for most aspects
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm If there is enough distortion or effects I suppose that is true... but types of wood also can affect sustain and other stuff, not just tone. Clean sounds wood type is a lot more noticeable.
Guitar pickups have been potted since the 1960s so, unless you get something with specially designed microphonic pickups like a Burns or a Guild, they don't pick up the vibrations of the wood. Sure the density of the wood is going to affect the vibration of the strings in some minor way but the playing style, pickup type/placement, bridge mass, saddle shape, string guage, overall build quality, etc, will all have a far greater effect. It's sadly a lie perpetuated by guitar manufacturers so they can persuade you to spend an extra few hundred just because it's made of alder rather than basswood or agathis.
It's a crazy lie, since pickups measure electromagnetic oscillations of the nickel strings and not the physical sound they make.
Look, as far as it comes to guitars the only ones I had real chance to play for extended periods were the cheap pine one I got and my brother's really nice mahogany one. Mahogany one was better in every way when it comes to sound, feel, and what not. It also could sustain a tone much longer than pine. That sustain is something that carries over through pickups, because it physically affects how long those strings can vibrate for. Not to mention the sturdier wood allows for heavier strings to be put on. Solid construction helps all that, ain't gonna lie, but even compared to some of the stuff I messed around with in the guitar store the better woods did help. Again though, the general tone is masked if you have a lot of effects or distortion on, but if is a simple clean sound there is a difference between the two.
So you played a more expensive guitar and decided that the wood was the defining factor? They still make some cs Fenders out of pine. Also what string gauge you can use is down to truss rod adjustment and scale length.
You can easily test it, go to a music store with a big sortiment, grab some instruments with the same hardware but different wood. You can easily find fender or warwick instruments in most stores that fulfill that criteria and try them on the same amp with the same settings. You may find out that even absolute similar guitars and basses sound different. What happens is that basicaly the string causes the wood to vibrate which also causes the bridge and sadle to vibrate. That interaction makes it sound different. That said its true that the whole expensive wood = better tone thing is a marketing gag. A guitar would not sound different if you would use a piece of plastic with the same density instead of a piece of wood. Adjusting your screws (tighten or loosen the contact) on the bridge influences the tone alot more than any wood could do. Edit: Thats why my super cheap beginner dean bass with upgraded humbuckers and bridge sound a lot better than my two other basses which were alot more expensive. OH and if you have a shitty guitar or bass get some sand paper and remove most of the lack, the result might suprise you.
