I need this for my boat. I already have a Sony CD changer that connects via a Bus connector.
I might have a sony CD player with a bus plug laying around...
Jeff Morrison - Used Car Manager
Woodstock Garage, Inc.
Chrysler - Dodge - Jeep - RAM
Current Stable of Mopar Junk
57 Chrysler Windsor 4drHT - 67 Dodge D100 Short Bed Step Side - 71 Dodge Challenger - 91 Chrysler Lebaron LX 33k mile Survivor - 91 Dodge Dakota V8 - 05 Chrysler Crossfire Roadster - 08 Ram 2500 Cummins
Jeff Wrote:I might have a sony CD player with a bus plug laying around...
lol... he has that one already!
#99 - 2000 Civic Si (Future H2 Car, Former H1 car)
IPGparts.com, AutoFair Honda, Amsoil, QuikLatch Fasteners
NASA-MA Tech Inspector (Retired)
Kaan Wrote:Jeff Wrote:I might have a sony CD player with a bus plug laying around...
lol... he has that one already!
He has the changer already, not the head unit.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Kaan Wrote:Jeff Wrote:I might have a sony CD player with a bus plug laying around...
lol... he has that one already!
He has the changer already, not the head unit.
oops my bad... a CD changer? whats that? :-P
#99 - 2000 Civic Si (Future H2 Car, Former H1 car)
IPGparts.com, AutoFair Honda, Amsoil, QuikLatch Fasteners
NASA-MA Tech Inspector (Retired)
I am Old School. I find the sound quality of a CD preferable than that of the Ipods I have heard hooked up to any head units. Plus I have a selction of cds just for the boat. I just bought a HU on Ebay. I hope it gets here ingood working order.
Ole Wrote:I am Old School. I find the sound quality of a CD preferable than that of the Ipods I have heard hooked up to any head units. Plus I have a selction of cds just for the boat. I just bought a HU on Ebay. I hope it gets here ingood working order.
Depends on how they are hooked up. Some connections just plain suck, some are even POST-AMP! I prefer my ipod in sound quality however done right, the lexus sounds absolutely amazing with my ipod setup.
2020 Ford Raptor
2009 Z06
1986.5 Porsche 928S
D_Eclipse9916 Wrote:Ole Wrote:I am Old School. I find the sound quality of a CD preferable than that of the Ipods I have heard hooked up to any head units. Plus I have a selction of cds just for the boat. I just bought a HU on Ebay. I hope it gets here ingood working order.
Depends on how they are hooked up. Some connections just plain suck, some are even POST-AMP! I prefer my ipod in sound quality however done right, the lexus sounds absolutely amazing with my ipod setup. its not the connection, its the source. even 320kb/s MP3 sounds like shit. AAC is only marginally better. Apple Lossless (for ipod fanbois) or lossless FLAC (for the rest of the world) is the only way to keep the sound quality of a CD.
So I am correct that CD quality is better than say your average ipod hooked up to a head unit? My buddies sounds like crap, more so when we are on his boat and have to crank it up so I can hear it 65' back and 8' in the air.
Evan Wrote:320kb/s MP3 sounds like shit
320kbps is perfectly transparent (meaning with a pair of good speakers / headphones and a real stereo, you can not tell the MP3 from the original recording in a blind listening test) about 99% of the time on all but the most extreme samples. MP3 at about 210kbps VBR using the LAME MP3 encoder is about 98% transparent (MP3's quality doesn't scale well towards the upper bitrates.) FLAC is great if you don't mind each CD taking up 300mb of storage space.
Why do people just post what they are thinking? Without thinking.
2012 Ford Mustang
1995 BMW 540i/A
1990 Eagle Talon TSI AWD
ViPER1313 Wrote:320kbps is perfectly transparent (meaning with a pair of good speakers / headphones and a real stereo, you can not tell the MP3 from the original recording in a blind listening test) about 99% of the time on all but the most extreme samples. MP3 at about 210kbps VBR using the LAME MP3 encoder is about 98% transparent (MP3's quality doesn't scale well towards the upper bitrates.) FLAC is great if you don't mind each CD taking up 300mb of storage space.
When CDs came out, the digital compression was touted as being 'transparent' and only cutting out audio that our ears dont hear or process anyway. Lo and behold, a bunch of crochety audiophiles with phonographs complained to high heaven that their music has lost warmth and dynamic range. They werent crazy, but most people just didnt care because CDs did sound great and had a lot of other advantages and didnt require a $5k phonograph and valve amp to sound good.
20+ years later, MP3s come around and say the same thing, that they are being compressed by eliminating things our ears cant hear anyway. And most people dont care because its 'good enough' and you can fit a million of them on your PC then your ipod. Hell, I dont care most of the time, but audio quality is definately affected and I can definately tell the difference on my good stereo between a CD and a MP3. Lows and highs are really where the MP3 becomes evident so if Alan is pumping his ipod loud through some big speakers I dont doubt its pretty audible.
What really sucks is that we should be all listening to 24bit / 192khz audio by now, but instead we are using compressed/degraded versions of 25 year old CD 16/44 technology.... :vomit:
Evan Wrote:They werent crazy....
....What really sucks is that we should be all listening to 24bit / 192khz audio by now
I'd really like to witness someone who can hear over 20khz and pick out 320kb/s recordings over lossless. I have yet to meet them, though they claim they're out there. If we're ever hanging out Evan and are just bored out of our minds with nothing to do, it's double blind hearing test time for you buddy. :lol:
You have to admit though that 192khz audio is in the "crazy" range though. 44khz sampling gets you to 22khz.... which covers like 99.999999% of the population. Is there like a world record for high frequency hearing? Cause I bet it's a little lower than 96khz. Where are you even going to get a tweeter that can play that back? Saying we should be listening to 192khz recordings is like being disappointed that a 42" TV that you sit 6ft from isn't 4700p instead of 1080p.
This is a good WTB thread :thumbup:
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a van is a good guy with a van
Evan Wrote:ViPER1313 Wrote:320kbps is perfectly transparent (meaning with a pair of good speakers / headphones and a real stereo, you can not tell the MP3 from the original recording in a blind listening test) about 99% of the time on all but the most extreme samples. MP3 at about 210kbps VBR using the LAME MP3 encoder is about 98% transparent (MP3's quality doesn't scale well towards the upper bitrates.) FLAC is great if you don't mind each CD taking up 300mb of storage space.
When CDs came out, the digital compression was touted as being 'transparent' and only cutting out audio that our ears dont hear or process anyway. Lo and behold, a bunch of crochety audiophiles with phonographs complained to high heaven that their music has lost warmth and dynamic range. They werent crazy, but most people just didnt care because CDs did sound great and had a lot of other advantages and didnt require a $5k phonograph and valve amp to sound good.
20+ years later, MP3s come around and say the same thing, that they are being compressed by eliminating things our ears cant hear anyway. And most people dont care because its 'good enough'. Hell, I dont care most of the time, but audio quality is definately affected and I can definately tell the difference on my good stereo between a CD and a MP3. Lows and highs are really where the MP3 becomes evident so if Alan is pumping his ipod loud through some big speakers I dont doubt its pretty audible.
What really sucks is that we should be all listening to 24bit / 192khz audio by now, but instead we are using compressed/degraded versions of 25 year old CD 16/44 technology.... :vomit:
Actually, they were crazy. The "warmth" you talk of is distortion added by tube amps. There are a number of plug-ins that can replicate that "warmth" in the digital world if that's the sound you are going for.
Before you knock MP3, what encoder are you using? If you are basing your conclusions off of files downloaded off the internet, you are right, most of the time their quality sucks. There is a huge quality difference between an MP3 file encoded with LAME and one encoded with iTunes/Xing/fhg encoders.
24bit / 192khz is completely un-necessary. Any decent stand alone CD player with a good DAC or a computer with a sound-card that doesn't up or down-sample the music will accurately reproduce music above and below frequencies that humans can hear. Some people have argued that the additional frequencies can't be heard but can be felt or perceived or that they distort the audible frequencies, but I have never seen a double blind test that proves it is possible.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX">http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX</a><!-- m --> - I bet you would surprise yourself if you actually set up a controlled test and tried to tell the difference.
Also, one side note: most computer sound cards up-sample every sound to 16bit/48khz before the digital to analog conversion (ReakTek integrated cards, almost every Creative Labs offering being huge offenders.) A lot of times this introduces very audible artifacts in the upper sound ranges, especially with loud samples that are prone to clipping.
Why do people just post what they are thinking? Without thinking.
2012 Ford Mustang
1995 BMW 540i/A
1990 Eagle Talon TSI AWD
BLINGMW Wrote:You have to admit though that 192khz audio is in the "crazy" range though. 44khz sampling gets you to 22khz.... which covers like 99.999999% of the population. Is there like a world record for high frequency hearing? Cause I bet it's a little lower than 96khz. Where are you even going to get a tweeter that can play that back?
This is a good WTB thread :thumbup: huh? 192khz is the sample rate, which means the digital representation of the analog waveform has a much higher resolution and is more true to the original waveform (think smooth vs jagged). nothing really to do with how high or low it goes.
although on that subject, the phono audiophiles always claimed that the dry and mechanical sound of CDs was because all those 'things you cant hear' bounce and reverberate around the room, change frequency slightly, fill out and warm the music more realistically.
I have some 24bit source at home, if you're ever in the area you should come listen, it sounds amazing, if you care about such things.
Quote:Saying we should be listening to 192khz recordings is like being disappointed that a 42" TV that you sit 6ft from isn't 4700p instead of 1080p.
onward march of technology! we dont 'need' anything better than cassette tapes do we?
(Btw, 4700p is weak.
5120p @100fps is the new hotness
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/">http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/</a><!-- m --> )
ViPER1313 Wrote:Actually, they were crazy. The "warmth" you talk of is distortion added by tube amps. There are a number of plug-ins that can replicate that "warmth" in the digital world if that's the sound you are going for.
Before you knock MP3, what encoder are you using? If you are basing your conclusions off of files downloaded off the internet, you are right, most of the time their quality sucks. There is a huge quality difference between an MP3 file encoded with LAME and one encoded with iTunes/Xing/fhg encoders.
24bit / 192khz is completely un-necessary. Any decent stand alone CD player with a good DAC or a computer with a sound-card that doesn't up or down-sample the music will accurately reproduce music above and below frequencies that humans can hear. Some people have argued that the additional frequencies can't be heard but can be felt or perceived or that they distort the audible frequencies, but I have never seen a double blind test that proves it is possible.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX">http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX</a><!-- m --> - I bet you would surprise yourself if you actually set up a controlled test and tried to tell the difference.
Also, one side note: most computer sound cards up-sample every sound to 16bit/48khz before the digital to analog conversion (ReakTek integrated cards, almost every Creative Labs offering being huge offenders.) A lot of times this introduces very audible artifacts in the upper sound ranges, especially with loud samples that are prone to clipping. Warmth of a tube amp and warmpth of a phono are very different and noticable separately. Many phono amp guys now use high end class-d amps which do not add the tube sound.
soundcards are irrelevant and never entered this discussion, not sure why you brought that up.
To this I close with "to each his own"
my 24/192 source sounds amazing, on another level from a CD. If you think that is not the case, that is your perogative, but Im willing to bet that you have never listened to it.
To go back to the original issue, MP3 is lossy compression no matter how you spin it, and its weakenesses are especially transparent when the sound is amplified heavily and there is a lot of bass, a scenario exactly to what Alan was referring so I certainly dont blame him for sticking to CD.
|
