Discussion in 'music, bands, clubs & festies' started by Doctor Carrot, Apr 5, 2010.
The concept is sound, whether the implementation is up to scratch or not I'll reserve judgement on.
6moons audio reviews: Bybee Slipstream XLR Magic Bullet
I think these might be on the wrong thread, they sound great for anyone with hearing loss.
I just did the test, the results roughly match the results of my hearing tests at Guys Hospital. They don't have reggae on their genre list, but listening to hip hop for a similar bass response the difference between listening to the music flat and then adjusted to suit my hearing loss the difference is incredible. The sound is so much fuller becasue I'm not missing out the frequencies that I don't hear.
I sort of wish I hadn't just splashed out on some expensive Sennheiser Momentum 2 cans, although they do sound pretty lovely. Might get these one day, thanks for the heads up
Surely you just need a bit of software rather than their particular $179 headphones though?
Yeah, smartphones do it, now.
Not got one, but Google it. My Samsung Galaxy S6 does this; I think the feature is called 'Adapt Sound'.
Thats great, I didn't know that was a built in feature. I just set it up on my new headphones and it sounds 10 times better already. I really are quite deaf. Thanks
I used to be. Spent some serious money over the years on amps and speakers, turntables, tuners and equalisers. Those were the days when we had a hi fi in the living room.
Now I listen in the computer room, on a pair of Altec Lansing PC speakers. The sound is perfectly acceptable.
Ah! It's not de-oxygenated copper though, is it. Even in the days when I bought decent hi fi, I did not buy those hideously expensive connectors.
Apart from anything else, some mP3 players won't play flac. I have to transcode flac to MP3.
"I bet he's gone balls deep in a few port holes and spaffed on some subwoofers in his time"
I get that.
was lucky to grow up in a flat where my dad had invested in a half decent arcam separates system with a rega deck.
add to that his 60s/70s vinyl collection and it really was a great experience.
now, just like you, pretty much every thing I listen to is pipped down the interweb, prob terrible quality. I do have a soundcard and some half decent monitors but nowhere near a decent set-up.
I guess apart from the money side of it, time is also a factor, to appreciate it, you need to make time to sit down and listen properly to get the best out of it, now it is just the musical version of fast food.
That's true, I generally have music playing in the background as I potter about on the PC.
I'm a poor sleeper, in terms of finding it difficult to get off to sleep. I use an Mp3 player, usually with an audio book playing, but, if I'm in bed early, I'll listen to some music first. With Mp3 players, good headphones make the difference. I use these, they are superb.
Atomic Floyd - The New State of Sound (I didn't pay as much as that for them.)
Home - The Cable Cooker
Convincing yourself you've not just wasted a grand, by lying you yourself about what you can hear, is perfectly well understood scientifically!
$1799 for the Anniversary Edition HI-POWER Premium Plus version.
Yeah, but it's worth the extra 400 for the quiet fan (see model comparison chart).
"Jack Bybee is a physicist whose work in Quantum Physics led to the development of the Quantum Purifiers for certain military applications, some of which are still classified. Until five years ago, Jack offered versions of these filters to audio and video enthusiasts keen to improve the level of signal purity in their home systems."
Sadly, his website is down.
Perhaps the cables broke.
From the FAQ:
Good sounds are cheap now DSP can solve all sorts of acoustic and electronic ills.
Have you had any experience programming DSP?
But, if it sounds better to you, because you spent a grand on it, isn't that the point? There isn't a objective point, it's all subjective, and if one thinks it sounds better, then it literally does, to the person in question.
I've often thought the same is true for wine, it's well established that if someone spends £20 on a bottle of wine it'll taste better to them than a cheaper bottle. Irrespective of what's in the bottle. If they taste the same wine in a double blind test they probably won't be able to tell the difference between that and a £4 bottle of wine. In effect, they've spent money on the experience, which is 'real' to them.
It's hard though to make the most of this, as I can't spend £5 on a bottle of wine and imagine I've spent £20 on it. And I'm not going to spend £20 on a bottle of wine.
Point is objecting to people presenting subjective opinion as scientific fact backed up by pseudoscientific woo in order to fleece the credulous.
They made a typo with the brand name on the jazz one.
I spent almost all of last night reading a monster 100 page discussion / analysis of one his products.
It was car-crash forum reading. Once I started looking, I just couldn't stop.
Separate names with a comma.