Radeon RX 5700 series review leaks out at Polish website

I never said there's no difference between 60 and 144, there is and it's evident, but from there on it gets very minimal to the point you don't see any difference, and no, that's not me only. it's everyone, god this conversation looks more and more like a discussion between audiophiles and non audiophiles.

 

Non-audiophiles are OK with flat, crushed, noisy sounds. Other people hear the difference.

 

I tried different things too, and the differences are not as they picture it, they don't hear the difference, they just invent it. Atm i'm running a 300€ dac/amp with 500€ headphones, and differences aren't worth the price over normal consumer stuff. And i'm sure that if i tried something that's supposed to be better than what i currently have, i would hear no difference, because there just isn't, past some point, that is.

 

Maybe you could have tried some frequency hearing test before investing into audio set.

 

I did, and like every human being my limit is 18/19KHz, and maybe 5-10Hz for low frequencies.

 

Not the limit, but ability to distinct certain frequencies within the limit. People age, upper limit goes down. Explosions/concerts happen and that affects ability to hear certain frequencies.
Some you hear better, some you hear worse, some you can't hear.

I believe that you are able to distinct difference between 128kbps and 192kbps mp3 on your setup.
I tend to believe that you can clearly hear difference between Bluetooth and wired headphones when both cost $100. And that you can head difference between open and close headphones.
Right question is, where you no longer head meaningful difference.

I am still on old AKG-K701 which are now rather cheap and have updated versions. Before, I used $200 in-ears which were very good. But with K701, I could hear/distinct additional instruments. (After I bought new sound card with appropriate AMP as old sound card could not drive them and flattened some frequencies while some were lost completely.)

For PC I have USB/Optical to wireless (not Bluetooth) headphones from Platronics - RIG 800HD.
They are better than bluetooth, but nowhere near old in-ears or K701 for music.
(I actually realized that I no longer listen to music through PC since I use 800HD as only PC audio.)

But I can say that untrained ear would consider them as top grade For games they truly are.

Here in Czech Republic, people still buy Koss Porta Pro today. Many years ago when they were new, I tried them... bloody mess they were. And they are still crushing every sound and have unclear but strong bass.

People have preferences to certain tone, you likely too. Maybe your setup is not exactly up to your preference or Headphones are not doing well with AMP.
But I am sure that you can distinct differences between certain setups. And it is just question of what sounds best for you.

For me, I love how K701 are flat and clean across frequencies. And foobar2000 is just fine as it does not do anything to sound. AS child I used to listen to fathers vinyl records through Tesla gramophone and big ass, heavy AMP he built that powered closed Tesla headphones. Sound from that setup was always very smooth, clean and everything was nicely separated.
When I was very young and winamp was player of choice on PC, I used all kind of audio processing filters to "fix" 128/192kbps mp3 to "simulate" similar effect, but that could never separate or highlight what was not there in 1st place. (Even with Creative Soundblaster sound card.) That lost appeal when I heard actual clean lossless recording even on generic PC headphones.

It is funny how I was blown away by my 1st in-ears Koss "The Plug", as uncomfortable as they were, they were pretty good performers for given price. (around year 2001~2002) And I used them with some big, miraculous MP4 player from Asia. When their cable broke, I did not care for warranty and instead bought good audio cable which made them even better. Till they broke 2nd time years later and I actually upgraded to those $200 in-ears which were magnitude better.

Sorry for chronological mess.
- - - -
TL;DR: To sum it up, it takes experiencing better setup to realize that other is worse. So, as I wrote, maybe you already have best you need. Maybe it is not right setup for you.

 

The limit. Nobody is able to hear past those frequencies, is someone claims he is, he's either fooling himself or trying to fool others. I know very well the limit decreases with age, i'm still young enough to barely hear something at 19KHz, or slightly under, and nothing below 5Hz, frequency response has nothing to do with the arguments audiophile like to go over repeatedly. Their ears are not better trained, you just can ear that much, and that will get worse with years, there are no superhuman abilities, the limit for human hearing is 18-19KHz, top of the line equipment might help you hear sliiiiightly better, but just regarding sound pressure, nothing else.

 

You do realize that the human body is so complex that it's literally impossible to make statements like this?

When you go and read what the human body can do, that's based off the "typical" human, and does not represent the whole. There have been many, many studies of this, among so much else about the "outliers" of humans.

"The commonly stated range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Under ideal laboratory conditions, humans can hear sound as low as 12 Hz and as high as 28 kHz" And that's still based off the typical human rather then the outliers.

The reality is the only reason to state pretty much anything about the human body as a "It can only do this or this", is to be proven wrong. There is a standard for the human body, that is easy enough to quantify, but the standard is broken by outliers constantly.

Also, why is this RX 5700 thread about human hearing all of the sudden?

 

Nobody can hear above 20KHz. Also yes we're well offtopic

 

Yes because you say so and you're a scientist even though its been tested by actual scientists to hear as high as 28kHz just by normal human beings and there's studies that, sure, depend on situations, where people can detect sounds up to 100kHz (such as when scuba-diving, likely to do with bone-conduction)

But hey you be you, you keep denying facts and denying scientists their results that actually know what they are doing. Because that has gone so well for people in the past. Scientists, and nobodies such as yourself, have always been right when they say you can't do something or it can't be done. They've never been proven wrong before.

The sad thing is, it's already known that the information you're spewing is wrong, so it's not like it's something that will be in the future proven to be wrong, it already is lol

But like i said, you be you, an impossible person to have a conversation with, proven time and time again.

 

Where are these tests? Theoretical tests and experiments don't matter, the only test that matters is real world test, which is, in this case, human test, nothing else, and even if 99 out of 100 are in line with a result, trusting one with different result just because he might be different, doesn't say people are different, it actually could mean 1 out of 100 cannot be trusted.
If you already know this then why you even start arguing, let it go, and we're all happy, besides, my wrong information are proving more and more correct with recent results in ryzen reviews (if that's what you're referring to, and you probably are). How do you want conversations to be? Me saying you're right, and i'm wrong? That's an example of good conversation? If you're looking for that, i suggest you go find someone else to have a conversation with, needless to remind it's you quoting me, and no the other way around.

 

I was not writing about upper limit. Please recheck my post. But about ability to hear and distinct frequencies in between your lower and upper limit. (maybe wrongly worded)
Like you may have hearing damage which prevents you from hearing perfect 2756Hz sound that does not fluctuate. Or you may have reduced ability to hear sounds around 4450 to 4669Hz and their comparative volume is lower than those above/below.

Apparently, I am not mocking you or telling you that 17kHz limit would make you bad at having good musical experience. My upper limit sux. And I have slightly limited ability to hear certain frequencies by one ear due to explosions.
(But I am still much better off than people who visit concerts and stand in front of repro systems.)

 

Ok here i actually agree, you might have minor hearing damage which prevents you from hearing perfectly some notes or certain frequencies, but that's not capability or limit, i agree, it's something different, that depends on what you did in your life, certain jobs might have compromised part of your hearing, and all, but what i meant is everyone is born the same, we have those limits and nobody goes beyond that, but yes you might have different sensibility to certain frequencies.

Also, i just noticed your edit above, I'm currently using an Aune X1S with beyerdynamic DT1990 PRO, but when i bought these, i actually also bought, 2 more pairs, just to try them and see which one i liked more, those were a pair of AKG K712 PRO, and a pair of Sennheiser HD660s, ofc they're all quite distant in price, around 100€ from each other and i ended up keeping the DT1990 (most expensive among these three) just because i liked slightly more high frequencies and overall they sounded slightly more open compared to the others, but nothing anybody wouldn't hear, and surely not worth the price premium, but the bundle and the packaging and everything was so much better than both Sennheiser and AKG solutions, not to mention they're 100% German made, which is something none of the two above offered.

 

To be able to use the cards recording functionality(shadowplay) you have to install geforce experience, so essentially geforce experience is part of the driver. One could say nvidia's driver are split into 2 parts, the second part has a mandatory login.

With Radeon drivers you have everything in one package with good overlay function. Instead of having to switch between 3 different user interfaces like with nvidia to get to basic functions(normal nvdia control panel, geforce experience application and lastly the overlay).

Radeon drivers also have no silly mandatory login or telemetry spying(call it what you like).

 

Again though, not required to install. Neither the shadowplay or geforce experience are required to install. If you want to use shadowplay, fine, be upset that geforce experience is required to install, but your original statement was saying you are fed up with geforce experience and may well go over to AMD. In which, you wouldn't be able to use shadowplay anyways.

So i stick by my statement: It's really an odd thing to complain about something you DON'T have to install.

 

I never used the overlay function of Radeon since the last Radeon card i owned was 12 years ago but from what i've seen in videos it looks very cool. It is functioning properly or is it buggy? I'm not a big fan of GeForce Experience personally (had lot of problems with it in the past but right now it's okay). I'm looking to upgrade to something under 600$ CAD and the 5700XT looks to be the best buy right now. Radeon overlay could be a good selling point if it's not buggy anyway in videos it looks really cool imo.