General SQ General discussion of Sound Quality related issues.

When did SQ start meaning sound quantity???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 7, 2006 | 01:13 PM
  #31  
liv2ride's Avatar
500 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 668
From what i've been reading, it's probably unlikely
But was it even the same cd, or two different cd's ?! lol
Old Sep 7, 2006 | 01:28 PM
  #32  
03rejo's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 137
Post no way

unlikely? impossible. There is no difference, it's an exact copy. Maybe I will look today after work for a website that can explain how digital media works. There will be no more bass from burning a disc from another disc without the use of some kind of equalizer/audio enhancement. If you make a burned disc from an original that was run through a processor right before the burner there would be the enhancements you made, but there is no difference when burned from an original cd to a burned cd.
Old Sep 7, 2006 | 02:59 PM
  #33  
liv2ride's Avatar
500 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 668
I don't even know of any programs which you could equalize your songs from a cd onto a burnt one, unless you ripped the songs to your pc, equalized them, then burnt them back onto a cd.. but that wouldn't be a ripped cd, it'd be a edited cd..buff, does it matter ?! and SQ means sound quality, not sound quantity.
Old Sep 7, 2006 | 11:22 PM
  #34  
03rejo's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 137
Exclamation Yepper

Right on - I knew a guy that had the old analog cd burners when they first came out, and he would burn cd's through his EQ, cd in the changer hooked up to the eq and from there to the analog burner. That on the other hand isn't Digital like i've been stressing so far. Also, i'm not even getting into the fact about your "sound quantity" because that is totally valid - anything that isn't lossless is not as good as the original. period. You're gonna hear small differences not always apparent but they are there whenever you compress any digital audio to the point beyond lossless.

MP3, WMA, I think it's all a marketing gimmick. THey pay so little for the software, add it to the firmware on the deck, market the out of it and people think it's the best thing out there.it's not.

But then again, for 90% of the people out there a $30 Jensen deck is a better buy than a $200 low-line eclipse. So go figure.
Old Sep 8, 2006 | 02:14 PM
  #35  
beauthepro's Avatar
0 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8
Marketing gimmick

For sure, I agree with the fact that MP3 decks are not marketed as "the highest quality sound" products, however, don't forget that most people out there are not looking for the highest quality sound. The nice thing about them is that the flexibility is there - if you want to continue to use only original CDs (or verbatim copies) for better SQ then go ahead. On the other hand, if you are want to listen to 100 songs on one CD and can put up with the reduction of quality, you can do that too. Compare this to the new PVRs (Personal Video Recorders) that are becoming popular now. You can record about an hour or two of HQ video on one DVD for something you will want to keep and watch over and over. You can instead record about 8 hours of lower quality video on that same DVD if you so choose. So the flexibility is there.

Don't forget though, that there is a difference between a $75 CD player and a $500 CD player in terms of the D/A (digital-to-analogue) conversion. So even though your $75 CD player can play CDs and MP3s and WMAs, it doesn't mean it is automatically better than the $500 CD player that doesn't play MP3s or WMAs.
Old Sep 9, 2006 | 12:23 AM
  #36  
snipes12's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 172
i listen to both new cd's and mp3 cd's and i think they all sound the same to me so i have no idea what u guys r talking bout
Old Sep 9, 2006 | 09:10 AM
  #37  
theif's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 336
it seems to me the higher end my system gets , the more I can hear a difference .
Old Sep 9, 2006 | 10:58 AM
  #38  
SweetnLow91SC's Avatar
500 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by snipes12
i listen to both new cd's and mp3 cd's and i think they all sound the same to me so i have no idea what u guys r talking bout
Well....... it depends how good your system really is (speakers system, transfer function, etc).

A while back I tweaked a customer's system that have a CD player with the ipod hooked up to it. At first the customer showed me how little the difference between the two. and I agree...... But it wasn't very dynamic and sounds sort of flat. after the system was tweaked... the system opened up, deeper soundstage. much more accurate on the initial attacks..... and then i switch to the ipod. Now.. its no longer the same...... the ipod was much more leaner sounding overall. and the CD was more alive with richer harmonics.
Old Sep 9, 2006 | 12:40 PM
  #39  
liv2ride's Avatar
500 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 668
I agree, The better your system components are, the more you are going to tell the difference between a good quality cd, and an mp3 of poor quality..
I had that issue when i got my sound system for my room, all the 192kbs mp3 that use to sound good, now sounded scratchy, and i could hear all the imperfections.. so 256kbs and above is a must now..
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
prabhakarglv
Car Alarm and Mobile Security
9
Apr 10, 2014 12:45 AM
PGaudio
General Discussion
11
Dec 14, 2008 12:58 PM
SID0001
General Discussion
9
May 7, 2008 04:23 PM
tonez735
General Discussion
10
Mar 6, 2007 05:55 PM
maltesechicken
Install related
7
Dec 17, 2004 01:55 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 PM.