When did SQ start meaning sound quantity???
08-27-2006, 12:38 AM
#1
When did SQ start meaning sound quantity???
You ever notice how many people try to evaluate car sound systems with MP3s and burned CDs? Why bother... what is the point of having 100-1000 songs on a disc if they all sound like a$$?
08-27-2006, 09:38 AM
#3
I have an MP3 player in my car. It's great for just driving around. And I can stick it in my pocket and keep listening when I get out of the car. Not all my litsening is critical. I have a stack of Cd's for that.
08-27-2006, 01:32 PM
#4
my solution to the above was to add 40 gigs of capacity to my car and use the best quality CD ripping that my player will support. if its ripped like crap, that's how it will sound. if its ripped in high quality, it will give my cd player a run for its money.... love it! i've actually demod my car with MP3's with impressive results.
this way you get the best of both worlds. but i understand not everyone has the options to do this. nonetheless with decks nowadays such as the alpine 9861 which can play MP3s burned onto DVD's, there shouldn't be much need to rip low quality stuff to save space... if you have a SQ system you should at least do some justice to the name.
this way you get the best of both worlds. but i understand not everyone has the options to do this. nonetheless with decks nowadays such as the alpine 9861 which can play MP3s burned onto DVD's, there shouldn't be much need to rip low quality stuff to save space... if you have a SQ system you should at least do some justice to the name.
08-27-2006, 02:00 PM
#5
well, if you play mostly mp3's or compressed music, then it would make sense to optimize your system for that medium. I also have a large capacity IPOD (60 gig) that all my music is now played through. It really is the best of everything, i have 5000 plus tracks on it (some ripped 1:1 lossless for demos(only well recorded tracks), but most of it is apple vbr 256 kbps, which I really can't discern from the original, and particularly while driving. Additionally, you can have your cd's safely at home, you can carry your entire music collection with you virtually anywhere, and there's no skipping over rough roads (was not problem anyway with my Alpine), and I finally keep my eyes on the road a lot more now instead of looking/swapping cd's.
08-28-2006, 01:35 AM
#6
I'm the worst for picking through cd's while driving. But I'm not sure I would have it any other way. I really don't see myself ever buying an MP3 deck.
As for burning cd's, I do long burns and only download the highest quality songs and I don't hear too much of a difference....mostly the tonnality gets kinda lost but it's not too bad, symbols and stuff sound tinny but I can deal with it when I'm driving.
As for burning cd's, I do long burns and only download the highest quality songs and I don't hear too much of a difference....mostly the tonnality gets kinda lost but it's not too bad, symbols and stuff sound tinny but I can deal with it when I'm driving.
08-28-2006, 12:19 PM
#8
After this thread started, I thought I would do a little experiment, nothing scientific but still relevant to me, as I would use my system. I ripped a very good quality Boston Acoustics jazz test track at 6 different rates from 100 kbps to 320 kbps along with the original 1:1 lossless, and had my young son, nieces and nephews (10-15 years old) listen to them. My thinking was that their hearing should be much better than most adults in terms of freq. response, picking out the details, and just general overall sound quality. I was quite aware that they were not "trained ears" in the sense that they may not know what to listen for, but the idea was; can an average person with good hearing choose reliably which track is the original? and at what point does the ripping process yield a noticable difference? The four children sat in the drivers seat(where my sound system is optimized), and I would play the tracks randomly( I knew which was which, and recorded the results on paper). Each child would listen as long as they wanted to try and determine which track was the original (the winner got a $50.00 cash prize, it's the only way to pull them away from the PS2 and x-box). The results:
Ripping: highest bit rate to lowest is track 1-7.
child 1 child 2 child 3 child 4 child 5
best track 4 2 5 1 2
worst track 7 7 7 7 7
My conclusion: It seems that everyone including myself, can clearly hear a difference below 128 kbps, all the children sure did. Above that though, seems a lot harder to do, as evidenced by the choices of the kids. I myself could not reliably choose the original track more than 2/10 times. Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I know I just feel better ripping at 1:4 compression rate even if I can't hear a difference at 1:8.
Ripping: highest bit rate to lowest is track 1-7.
child 1 child 2 child 3 child 4 child 5
best track 4 2 5 1 2
worst track 7 7 7 7 7
My conclusion: It seems that everyone including myself, can clearly hear a difference below 128 kbps, all the children sure did. Above that though, seems a lot harder to do, as evidenced by the choices of the kids. I myself could not reliably choose the original track more than 2/10 times. Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I know I just feel better ripping at 1:4 compression rate even if I can't hear a difference at 1:8.
08-28-2006, 01:18 PM
#9
Very Interesting; however, I have also done tests comparing "regular cd"/Burned CD/MP3/WMA/ACC/Dolby Digital/DTS/SACD/DVD-Audio and on and on.
First Off, let me say I don't think it is an issue of "good" or "bad" but rather replication of a performance.
Secondly, while both Dolby Digital and DTS can be enjoyable formats to watch Movies in -- when you compare the two DTS seems to have more "there" there.
In addition, one example of where compression formats and in some cases even burned cds seem to lack substance is in the reproduction of harmonics. A rock track that comes to mind is the Black Crowes' "She Talks to Angels". The track features Rich Robinson on acoustic guitar in the introduction of the song during which he plays a harmonic and it really comes out as something special on a good system -- in fact I have met people who think that CDs do not do justice to harmonics...(which is the reason SACD and DVD-Audio were invented). When you compare 2 channel CD A/B to a remastered 2 channel SACD or DVD-Audio in the case of the new higher resolution formats, there is more "there, there".
To my mind, many proponents of MP3 and the other compressed format are saying that they are "good enough" but if many of todays listeners have not heard proper HiFi, how do they know what they are missing?
A good recording can bring you into the middle of the performance and provide you with an experience that connects with you.
Is is not somewhat contradictory for people to swear that one headunit/amp/speaker/sub is better than another headunit/amp/speaker/sub when the actual track they are listening to is not of high quality?
First Off, let me say I don't think it is an issue of "good" or "bad" but rather replication of a performance.
Secondly, while both Dolby Digital and DTS can be enjoyable formats to watch Movies in -- when you compare the two DTS seems to have more "there" there.
In addition, one example of where compression formats and in some cases even burned cds seem to lack substance is in the reproduction of harmonics. A rock track that comes to mind is the Black Crowes' "She Talks to Angels". The track features Rich Robinson on acoustic guitar in the introduction of the song during which he plays a harmonic and it really comes out as something special on a good system -- in fact I have met people who think that CDs do not do justice to harmonics...(which is the reason SACD and DVD-Audio were invented). When you compare 2 channel CD A/B to a remastered 2 channel SACD or DVD-Audio in the case of the new higher resolution formats, there is more "there, there".
To my mind, many proponents of MP3 and the other compressed format are saying that they are "good enough" but if many of todays listeners have not heard proper HiFi, how do they know what they are missing?
A good recording can bring you into the middle of the performance and provide you with an experience that connects with you.
Is is not somewhat contradictory for people to swear that one headunit/amp/speaker/sub is better than another headunit/amp/speaker/sub when the actual track they are listening to is not of high quality?
08-28-2006, 01:41 PM
#10
I always thought that if you are truly an audiophile and would stop nowhere at getting the best possible sound. Why wouldn’t you get your stereo out of your tin box for a car and have it in a proper listening room?
I was thinking the other day that I have to really start taking more care of my ears so I can truly enjoy HiFi when I’m older (have the money) and move to home theater.
What do you guys think? Or am I just in the wrong forum? HAHA
I was thinking the other day that I have to really start taking more care of my ears so I can truly enjoy HiFi when I’m older (have the money) and move to home theater.
What do you guys think? Or am I just in the wrong forum? HAHA
