what is so special about the ps model scph 1001?

[AppleQueso]

can someone explain why some of these sites suggested you leave it turned on for a few days to get the best sound? I know it is probably ridiculous BS, but I still want to know what the audiophile logic is behind that....

I guess they're pretending it's got tubes or something

[Niode]

can someone explain why some of these sites suggested you leave it turned on for a few days to get the best sound? I know it is probably ridiculous BS, but I still want to know what the audiophile logic is behind that....

Audiophiles are fucking idiots. Trust me. These are the retards that say they can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and uncompressed PCM. It is IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE! That was the whole point of the MP3 standard you numpties. It cuts out frequencies that we can't perceive due to other more dominant frequencies being present in the audio.

Audiophile is the technology equivalent of holistic therapy. IE Complete and utter horse shit derived from idiots who wouldn't know what a double blind test was if it smacked them in the face with a huge dong that has 'proof' written down it.

[dsheinem]

These are the retards that say they can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and uncompressed PCM. It is IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE! That was the whole point of the MP3 standard you numpties. It cuts out frequencies that we can't perceive due to other more dominant frequencies being present in the audio.

Depending on the recording, it does make a difference - especially if you have sensitive ears. For example, I used to big into trading fan-recorded concerts and I could tell the difference when listening on headphones between a high bit rate MP3 and a shn or flac file (or PCM wav). So while I agree that most audiophile stuff is BS, I agree with them when it comes to lossy compression. Maybe your ears can't tell, but in "blind tests" I can.

[dsheinem]

These are the retards that say they can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and uncompressed PCM. It is IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE! That was the whole point of the MP3 standard you numpties. It cuts out frequencies that we can't perceive due to other more dominant frequencies being present in the audio.

Depending on the recording, it does make a difference - especially if you have sensitive ears. For example, I used to big into trading fan-recorded concerts and I could tell the difference when listening on headphones between a high bit rate MP3 and a shn or flac file (or PCM wav). So while I agree that most audiophile stuff is BS, I agree with them when it comes to lossy compression. Maybe your ears can't tell, but in "blind tests" I can.

I should add that I haven't done a test with 320Kbps MP3s, but have with 256kbps MP3s. Maybe @320 the difference is much more negligible, but at lower rates the difference does stand out to me.

[Hatta]

Depending on the recording, it does make a difference - especially if you have sensitive ears. For example, I used to big into trading fan-recorded concerts and I could tell the difference when listening on headphones between a high bit rate MP3 and a shn or flac file (or PCM wav). So while I agree that most audiophile stuff is BS, I agree with them when it comes to lossy compression. Maybe your ears can't tell, but in "blind tests" I can.

I agree with this. The noisy environment of an audience recording is a lot harder to compress properly than a studio recording. The artifacts are there if you listen hard for them. Ogg is much better than MP3 in this respect. AAC is probably better still, but I haven't tried it. Personally, I just don't listen for the artifacts, or I look for an SBD.

Tangentially, if I can't find SBDs of your band on archive.org or bt.etree.org, I'm probably not going to bother. So any bands who read this, share your SBDs if you want my money.

Of course, the real reason for collecting lossless copies of live shows is that occasionally a new SBD will be found. If someone wants to make a matrix, they need the best possible copy of the AUD. This is why 24/96 FLACs are popular now when 16/44.1 is all you really need for transparent audio.

[mas]

so after reading and looking up the info It's really a waste of time and money if i try to find this model so i guess i will stick with my psone and just hook it up to my tv if i want to.

[Niode]

These are the retards that say they can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and uncompressed PCM. It is IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE! That was the whole point of the MP3 standard you numpties. It cuts out frequencies that we can't perceive due to other more dominant frequencies being present in the audio.

Depending on the recording, it does make a difference - especially if you have sensitive ears. For example, I used to big into trading fan-recorded concerts and I could tell the difference when listening on headphones between a high bit rate MP3 and a shn or flac file (or PCM wav). So while I agree that most audiophile stuff is BS, I agree with them when it comes to lossy compression. Maybe your ears can't tell, but in "blind tests" I can.

http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~holtk/mp3tfd/

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_hig ... f?page=0,3
http://blog.szynalski.com/2009/07/05/bl ... mpression/

To see for yourself?
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3 ... t-128-320/

[dsheinem]

*http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~holtk/mp3tfd/

In general, the difference at 256 kbps was not discernible, and the difference at 128 kbps, was small enough to most likely be tolerable

-not all cases

*http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_hig ... f?page=0,3

It’s downright humiliating, in fact, that in many cases, we were unable to tell the difference between an uncompressed track and one encoded at 160Kb/s, the bit rate most of us considered the absolute minimum acceptable for even portable players.

-not all cases

*http://blog.szynalski.com/2009/07/05/bl ... mpression/

* At 192 kbps, the Bowie and Yorke samples were still too much of a challenge and I was able to reliably tell the MP3 from the original, though with much less confidence and with more going back and forth between the two versions.
* At 256 kbps (the highest bitrate I tested), I was not able to identify the MP3 version reliably — my ABX results were 7/10, 6/10 and 6/7, which can be put down to chance.

-Again, I also notice these differences at 192, and have at 256 depending on the recording that has been compressed. Can I tell the difference on every song? no. Can I tell the difference on shitty equipment? Not usually. But there is a difference, and I would guess that even at 320Kbps, depending on the recording, those differences would still exist.

*http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3 ... st-128-320
-I chose the right answer.

[Niode]

*http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~holtk/mp3tfd/

In general, the difference at 256 kbps was not discernible, and the difference at 128 kbps, was small enough to most likely be tolerable

-not all cases

*http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_hig ... f?page=0,3

It’s downright humiliating, in fact, that in many cases, we were unable to tell the difference between an uncompressed track and one encoded at 160Kb/s, the bit rate most of us considered the absolute minimum acceptable for even portable players.

-not all cases

*http://blog.szynalski.com/2009/07/05/bl ... mpression/

* At 192 kbps, the Bowie and Yorke samples were still too much of a challenge and I was able to reliably tell the MP3 from the original, though with much less confidence and with more going back and forth between the two versions.
* At 256 kbps (the highest bitrate I tested), I was not able to identify the MP3 version reliably — my ABX results were 7/10, 6/10 and 6/7, which can be put down to chance.

-Again, I also notice these differences at 192, and have at 256 depending on the recording that has been compressed. Can I tell the difference on every song? no. Can I tell the difference on shitty equipment? Not usually. But there is a difference, and I would guess that even at 320Kbps, depending on the recording, those differences would still exist.

*http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3 ... st-128-320
-I chose the right answer.

I chose the right answer as well. It was fifty fifty though.

Of course there are differences, it's compressed. You can't get away from the fact that there is information missing from the source, it is lossy compression after all. The removal of information that we can't perceive due to more prominent frequencies in the source is how MP3 compression works. Due to the abundance of evidence, the vast majority of which says that people can only seldom tell the difference between the source and a compressed MP3 suggest to me that the people who claim to be able to hear the difference are either lucky (they chose the right answers through chance in blind tests) or lying. On reference monitors I found it absolutely impossible to tell the compressed (at 320kbps CBR and even 192kbps VBR using EAC) from the uncompressed WAV files. I even asked a professional audio engineer friend of mine (has several number one albums/singles under his belt) if he could tell the difference. Got only 3 right out of my 10 examples.

Maybe this has something to do with a psychoacoustic effect. I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the examples all being commercially produced music tracks. On the other hand, play me a recording in 24-bit 48k and the same recording in 16bit 48k and I'll tell you the difference straight away. Between 2 16-bit 44.1k music tracks one uncompressed and the other at 320kbps CBR or 192kbps VBR and I can't tell the difference.

[AppleQueso]

I've known folks who put FLAC on their mp3 players and use earbuds