Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message

But dont forget about DYNAMIC RANGE!!!

A CD can definatly NOT keep up with the
humans ability to handle dynamic range.... In the
case of dynamic range the CD is VERY limited
in comparison to human hearing...


However the CD format can easily keep up with they dynamic range of any
real-world music. While the CD format has about 93 dB worth of dynamic
range, there simply aren't any normal musical recordings with more than
about 75 dB worth of dynamic range.




  #82   Report Post  
nilepez
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

thelizman wrote:[color=blue]
*ec wrote:

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't


FACT: You can't do math - CDA = 176.4 kb/s PCM @ 44.1 khz. MP3 o
the
same quality is 113 kb/s MP3 @ 44.0 khz. CD Audio is loss
compression
too. MP3 is simply a more efficient compression algorithm.
*


Ok, maybe I missed the change in the standard, but I would have swor
that CDA was roughly 1400kbs, not 176.4

And although I guess you may be referring to 176.4KBS, that still beg
the question what are you referring to in your MP3 example? 113kbs, o
904kbs.

Finally, the Redbook standard is not a lossy compression algorithm. I
you think that it is, then you do not understand the term.

Losseless Compression: compress file, decompress file. Compar
original file to decompressed file and you find they're identical.

Lossy: Compress, decompress and compare them and you'll have
different files.

If you want to start with a live recording to do this, then start wit
decompressing....of course there is not decompressing for CDA, becaus
it's a recording of what it got from the DAC.

Note, I'm not arguing whether or not you could get a better recordin
if you went directly to MP3. I simply don't have the information t
say one way or the other
-
nilepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17659

  #83   Report Post  
nilepez
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are audiophiles such idiots?

-Originally posted by thelizman-

Riiiight, but once again your IGNORING the concept of the source
material. Any idiot knows that a copy of a copy cannot be as good a
the
original, much less better. So when you COPY the CD which is a COP
of
the source material, the COPY you made generally won't even be a
good
as the CD, much less the original source.


This is just wrong. I've done numerous tests on a variety of CD Drive
(toshiba, Yamaha, Mitsumi, Pioneer and Plextor) where I take a wav
file, burn it to a CD and then extract it to a wave and compare th
files. If you use a decent program, be it EAC, Easy CDDA Extractor o
CDEX, the file is ALWAYS identical if the CD burned/extracted from wa
in decent shape.

It's a lossless standard. The fact that you're saying it changes make
me question how you do your testing and make the comparisons.

I will note that if you duplicate these tests, you have to ingore th
first file....each s/w package will have a varying amount of silenc
before that first track, but if looked at down to the MS and matche
(which I did in wavelab using it's audiomontage feature), the files ar
identical from beginning to end
-
nilepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17690

  #84   Report Post  
Eddie Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music

We were comparing CD to human hearing!!

The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
no CD can come close to replicating.....

Eddie Runner

Arny Krueger wrote:

However the CD format can easily keep up with they dynamic range of any
real-world music. While the CD format has about 93 dB worth of dynamic
range, there simply aren't any normal musical recordings with more than
about 75 dB worth of dynamic range.


  #85   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Finally, the Redbook standard is not a lossy compression algorithm. If
you think that it is, then you do not understand the term.

Losseless Compression: compress file, decompress file. Compare
original file to decompressed file and you find they're identical.

Lossy: Compress, decompress and compare them and you'll have 2
different files.


Then, according to your definition, CDA is lossy. If you compare the two
waveforms, you'll have different results.





  #86   Report Post  
TCS
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:07:29 GMT, Eddie Runner wrote:
We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music


We were comparing CD to human hearing!!


The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
no CD can come close to replicating.....


Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
quiet passage at all.
  #87   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
no CD can come close to replicating.....


Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
quiet passage at all.


What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.


  #88   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Mark Zarella wrote:

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.


FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
lossless compression methods that exist.



As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
especially when the losses are below threshold.

The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read: audible),
this isn't always the case.


Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
JPEG does.

  #89   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Eddie Runner wrote:

We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music

We were comparing CD to human hearing!!


As compared to MP3. Remeber that. Sure, real life can get
so loud that you make yourself deaf, but honestly, who records
at that level? Nobody.

  #90   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message


We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music


What's wrong with comparing apples to apples?

We were comparing CD to human hearing!!


That would not be a comparison of two comparable things.

The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
no CD can come close to replicating.....


Neither can any listening room, recording studio, concert hall etc., etc.

Furthermore, common estimates of the dynamic range of human hearing are
themselves flawed. They typically compare the threshold of audibility
(roughly 0 dB) to some loud sound, perhaps a sound at the threshold of pain
(ca. 130 dB) or ear damage (ca. 115 dB). Trouble is, if you listen to sounds
at those level, the ear's threshold of audibility increases tremendously. It
is no longer 0 dB or anything like it. In the context of hearing sounds that
are presented together or in reasonably quick succession, the ear has no
more than 70 dB worth of dynamic range. In many cases the ear's dynamic
range is very much less than 70 dB.





  #91   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"MZ" wrote in message


The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
no CD can come close to replicating.....


Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
room, one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the
other playing the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be
able to hear the quiet passage at all.


What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.


Masking is one of several practical limits to the dynamic range of the ear.

As I point out in another post, comparing the threshold of audibility to
peak sound levels is not valid.

For one thing, practical listening rooms, recording studios, and concert
halls have audible background noise. There's no need for media for
distributing music to do much more than give good reproduction of the
background noise.


  #92   Report Post  
Robert
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots? BECAUSE ALF, YOU ARE A JERK

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:05:07 -0500 thelizman
wrote in Message id: :


Wow, I think I've met my match in the "pompous arrogant ****"
department.


Nah, I don't think so. You have a personality that only a cadaver could
love... which no doubt explains why you count so many of them amongst
your sexual conquests.
  #93   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
room, one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the
other playing the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be
able to hear the quiet passage at all.


What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.


Masking is one of several practical limits to the dynamic range of the

ear.

As I point out in another post, comparing the threshold of audibility to
peak sound levels is not valid.


Well, it's valid in that the dynamic range depends on more than just
masking. I think the implication has been that the quiet passages suffer as
a result of limited dynamic range (independent of masking). However, I have
no reason to doubt your claims that the bottleneck is the recording
procedure rather than the CD standard.


  #94   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
especially when the losses are below threshold.

The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read:

audible),
this isn't always the case.


Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
JPEG does.


I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
audible.


  #95   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"MZ" wrote in message

Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
room, one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the
other playing the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't
be able to hear the quiet passage at all.


What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.


Masking is one of several practical limits to the dynamic range of
the ear.


As I point out in another post, comparing the threshold of
audibility to peak sound levels is not valid.


Well, it's valid in that the dynamic range depends on more than just
masking.


Of course. But any analysis of dynamic range that blithely ignores masking
is arguably incomplete. OTOH, if a proper analysis says that masking isn't
an issue in this case, well that would be pretty easy to deal with, right?

I think the implication has been that the quiet passages
suffer as a result of limited dynamic range (independent of masking).


That's a hypothesis that can be tested.

I've tried to test it a number of ways - analysis of commercial recordings
and recordings I've made myself in a number of different venues.. In no case
is the dynamic range of a real-world quiet passage (or even just the "room
tone") limited in any practical way by the dynamic range limits of the CD
format.

However, I have no reason to doubt your claims that the bottleneck is
the recording procedure rather than the CD standard.


Thanks!




  #96   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"MZ" wrote in message


As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
especially when the losses are below threshold.


The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional
artifacts introduced. While it's true that they can be significant
(read: audible), this isn't always the case.


Some of the artifacts are the results of losses and some of them are
spurious responses.

Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.


Actually, solo voices and instruments can be among the most revealing tests.

But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
JPEG does.


I'm not sure what that means.

I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
audible.


I think he's not looking at real-world evidence.


  #97   Report Post  
Ryan
 
Posts: n/a
Default CD/MP3 in-dash players (was - why are salesmen such idiots?)

Does any of you own an car MP3 player?

Who makes it?
How much did it cost?
How well does it play MP3's?
How does the FM tuner come in?


I have a JVC KD-SX990. I really like it. You can get them for under
$150 with shipping. This page shows a pic:
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL026999

Some of the reasons I like it a
-it has a rotary encoder instead of up/down buttons (yuck)
-has an aux input on the front for playing audio books from a walkman
(for example)
-when you turn off the car in the middle of playing an MP3 file, it
starts playing in the same spot again when you turn the car back on.
Back when I was shopping a lot of the players couldn't do this
-higher output power than most decks (19W RMS per channel)
-2 sets of preamp outputs if you don't want to use the deck power
-two displays, one shows station/cd track/MP3 filename/Disc title/etc,
and the other shows the clock (most of the time). Very handy not to
have to switch between display modes to see the time
-great price
-has a remote control
-two separate buttons for radio and CD. I hate cycling through 6
'sources' to get the one I want, like you have to on some radios

The FM tuner pulls stations in file, but it's not spectacular.

If you are going to play MP3 files in your car I would suggest
encoding them at 192 bit rate or higher. I can definately hear
artifacts in my 128Kps files.

-Ryan
  #98   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

TCS wrote:
Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
quiet passage at all.


You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #99   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

MZ wrote:
Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
JPEG does.



I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
audible.


I think you're being too kind. This yahoo knows less about digital
imaging than he does about digital audio.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #100   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots? BECAUSE ALF, YOU ARE A JERK

Note: sci.electronics.repair removed because Robert is yet another
unconcious crossposting ****tard

Robert wrote:

Nah, I don't think so. You have a personality that only a cadaver could
love... which no doubt explains why you count so many of them amongst
your sexual conquests.


You're funny. How about I meet you after school over by the monkey bars
and teach you some funnies which aren't older than your dad.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.


  #101   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Arny Krueger wrote:

The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional
artifacts introduced. While it's true that they can be significant
(read: audible), this isn't always the case.


Some of the artifacts are the results of losses and some of them are
spurious responses.


That kind of bothers me as well - some things you think should be simple
to encode fail miserably, like organ and flute and madrigals, while some
things seem to do very well.

My guess is the compression algorythms are like JPEG - they have a
preference for certain types of waveforms/data - so that for instance,
in a typical digital camera, Water and sky comes out great, but
grass almost always has jaggies.


Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.


Actually, solo voices and instruments can be among the most revealing tests.


True - but a 16 or 32 bit synth is one thing MP3 encodes well.


But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
JPEG does.


I'm not sure what that means.


Both are compression methods - and both cause noticeable problems and
artifacts if you bother to listen/look at specific areas.

I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
audible.


I think he's not looking at real-world evidence.



  #102   Report Post  
TCS
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:36:01 -0500, thelizman wrote:
TCS wrote:
Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
quiet passage at all.


You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.


If you want 140db on a CD, turn up the ****ing volume. You'll be too
deaf afterwards to ever hear anything at 40db again.

And by the way, even at 140db, there's less than 80db of dynamic range in
a moving car.
  #103   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

TCS wrote:

If you want 140db on a CD, turn up the ****ing volume. You'll be too
deaf afterwards to ever hear anything at 40db again.


Thats just wrong. I've been exposed to as high as 160 db of SPL before,
and my last hearing test (June 02) shows that I am in the 97th
percentile of hearing acuity. Now if I listen to it for eight hours a
day on a regular basis, then there is the likely possibility of short
term hearing damage.

Regardless - and I can't seem to emphasize this enough as you keep
missing the blatently obvious point - a CD is only capable of 110 db or
less of DYNAMIC RANGE. EVER. SPEAKA ENGLISH?

And by the way, even at 140db, there's less than 80db of dynamic range in
a moving car.


What does that matter? We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA is
superior to human hearing. How much dynamic range you have in a car is
irrelevent to this discussion.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #104   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"thelizman" wrote in message


TCS wrote:


If you want 140db on a CD, turn up the ****ing volume. You'll be too
deaf afterwards to ever hear anything at 40db again.


That's just wrong.


It's right if you take "afterwards" in a reasonable way, as in immediately
afterwards.

I've been exposed to as high as 160 db of SPL
before, and my last hearing test (June 02) shows that I am in the 97th
percentile of hearing acuity.


Not the same as immediately afterwards.

Now if I listen to it for eight hours a
day on a regular basis, then there is the

likely possibility of short
term hearing damage.


Then we agree.

There's an important point that was buried in the intensity of the former
statement - namely how long it takes normal hearing to be recovered, after
substantial exposure to really high volumes. your hearing is 97the
percentile now, but how about 10 seconds or 10 minutes after exposure to 160
dB? I don't think so!

I should add that there are at least two ways to measure SPLs - a flat
measurement, and an A-weighted measurement. Generally when we are talking
about exposure to high SPLs and ear damage, we're talking A-weighted. The
reason why is that 160 dB SPL at very low frequencies isn't nearly as
damaging as 160 dB SPL in the 4 KHz range.

So, if I get to pick the measurement procedure , and the spectral content of
the sound, 160 dB SPL might not be really all that loud.

Regardless - and I can't seem to emphasize this enough as you keep
missing the blatantly obvious point - a CD is only capable of 110 db
or less of DYNAMIC RANGE. EVER. SPEAKA ENGLISH?


16 bits is good for about 93 dB worth of dynamic range if quantized with a
flat noise floor, but it can be 120 dB or more at its greatest, if quantized
with an audibility-weighted noise floor.

And by the way, even at 140db, there's less than 80db of dynamic
range in a moving car.


What does that matter?


Because dynamic range is based on a ratio, not the loudest noise you can
get.

We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
is superior to human hearing.


In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is entirely
sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter out-of-context be my guest,
but don't expect to have much credibility.

How much dynamic range you have in a
car is irrelevant to this discussion.


Dynamic range is also about noise floors.



  #105   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
room,
one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
quiet passage at all.


You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.


For all intents and purposes, I think the biggest limitation to dynamic
range is the resolution of the digital vollume knob, no?




  #106   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Arny Krueger wrote:

We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
is superior to human hearing.



In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is entirely
sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter out-of-context be my guest,
but don't expect to have much credibility.


As a generalization, I can agree that CDA is "sufficient". But the
statement was unequivocal and broad that CDA was "superior", which by
definition indicates a degree of advantage in all aspects. This is not
the case. There are several liminations to CDA, and enough people are
able to recognize these limitations to have justified the creation of
digital formations which exceed the Redbook CDA format. Now for me, I'll
never bother with the likes of dts or SACD because to me CDA is good
enough that on the rare occasions I notice its limitations, its not
enough to bother me.

How much dynamic range you have in a
car is irrelevant to this discussion.


Dynamic range is also about noise floors.


Theres less noise floor in my car than in my house (owing to the 80 lbs
of damping material I've installed). This is dangerous territory to
tread on for this discussion, so for simplicity's sake lets just assume
cetaris paribus, a limited or 0 noise floor.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #107   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

MZ wrote:

For all intents and purposes, I think the biggest limitation to dynamic
range is the resolution of the digital vollume knob, no?


The precision of the knob has nothing to do with the absolute limits of
a CDs capacity. And with deference to the implied sleight, I have
buttons, not knobs. Until someone other than Nak produces an in dash
with an analog volume knob, its not even worth worrying about it. The
only settings I need are soft, medium, and **** off the democrat
neighbors who don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #108   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

For all intents and purposes, I think the biggest limitation to dynamic
range is the resolution of the digital vollume knob, no?


The precision of the knob has nothing to do with the absolute limits of
a CDs capacity.


Note that I'm not referring to the dynamic range of the CDA format. I'm
talking about practical use.

And with deference to the implied sleight, I have
buttons, not knobs. Until someone other than Nak produces an in dash
with an analog volume knob, its not even worth worrying about it. The
only settings I need are soft, medium, and **** off the democrat
neighbors who don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh.


I don't see it happening anytime soon. Digital means better, don't you
know.


  #109   Report Post  
sancho
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots? BECAUSE ALF, YOU ARE A JERK

Robert wrote:

Nah, I don't think so. You have a personality that only a cadaver could
love... which no doubt explains why you count so many of them amongst
your sexual conquests.


you say that like it's a bad thing...
--
sancho
  #110   Report Post  
Steve Grauman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Digital means better, don't you
know.


I've been trying to stay out of this argument. My technical knowledge is
admittedly limited, and I feared I would be chewed up and spit out by the "big
boys" around. But the digital vs. analog debate has been around for sometime,
and I think any reasonable person with a reasonable amount of knowledge would
conclude that while both have advantages, digital maintains more of them than
does analog. The inherent "warmth" of analog recordings is desired by some so
called "audiophiles" as is the sense of "depth" or "studio feel" analog
provides. However, many people would rather avoid the warmth of analog and
trade off the "depth" for the "cleanliness" of digital. In order to bring this
back around to the discussion of headunits, I'll also comment that when both
had their EQs defeated, and all other factors remained constant, I could not
identify either an Alpine CDA-9815 or an Eclipse CD8443 in blind testing, and
in a seperate listening, I couldn't identify any unique sound from a Nak CD45z.
In addition, I've had the chance to hear both Pioneer's P9 and Alpine's F#1
deck in action and again, with EQs defeated, not only could I not identify
differences between the two decks (in terms of SQ), I was astonished at their
high pricing.


  #111   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Digital means better, don't you
know.


I've been trying to stay out of this argument. My technical knowledge is
admittedly limited, and I feared I would be chewed up and spit out by the

"big
boys" around. But the digital vs. analog debate has been around for

sometime,
and I think any reasonable person with a reasonable amount of knowledge

would
conclude that while both have advantages, digital maintains more of them

than
does analog.


Well, I was being facetious mostly. My comment was actually referring to
the trend in recent design (and moreso marketing) to incorporate digital
qualities into equipment where such "enhancements" (and I use that term
loosely) are unwarranted. In this case, it would be digital volume
knobs/buttons. But in other cases, it would be signal processing equipment,
for instance. Or, more generally, the trend of sticking the words digital
on the box even when nothing has been digitized (eg. "digital amps" -
they're not digital; they're PWM which relies on duty cycle - an entirely
analog strategy).


The inherent "warmth" of analog recordings is desired by some so
called "audiophiles" as is the sense of "depth" or "studio feel" analog
provides. However, many people would rather avoid the warmth of analog and
trade off the "depth" for the "cleanliness" of digital. In order to bring

this
back around to the discussion of headunits, I'll also comment that when

both
had their EQs defeated, and all other factors remained constant, I could

not
identify either an Alpine CDA-9815 or an Eclipse CD8443 in blind testing,

and
in a seperate listening, I couldn't identify any unique sound from a Nak

CD45z.
In addition, I've had the chance to hear both Pioneer's P9 and Alpine's

F#1
deck in action and again, with EQs defeated, not only could I not identify
differences between the two decks (in terms of SQ), I was astonished at

their
high pricing.


I agree with the rest of this.


  #112   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

"thelizman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
is superior to human hearing.



In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is
entirely sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter
out-of-context be my guest, but don't expect to have much
credibility.


As a generalization, I can agree that CDA is "sufficient". But the
statement was unequivocal and broad that CDA was "superior", which by
definition indicates a degree of advantage in all aspects.


The word *all* makes the question irrelevant. Furthermore, you need to
recognize that frequency-shaped quantizers enable CDA to have effective DR
that is far greater than 93 dB.

This is not the case. There are several limitations to CDA, and enough

people are
able to recognize these limitations to have justified the creation of
digital formations which exceed the Redbook CDA format.


That would be mislead. There's no practical need for a format that is has
more frequency response and/or more dynamic range than CDA. No known
commercial recording of music for entertainment comes within 10 dB of the
basic limitations of the CDA format. If you include the benefits of shaped
quantization, the margins are far greater - about 30 dB or more.

Now for me, I'll never bother with the likes of dts or SACD because to me

CDA is
good enough that on the rare occasions I notice its limitations, its
not enough to bother me.


I'll bet money you are practically incapable of actually noticing the DR or
FR limitations of CDA.

How much dynamic range you have in a
car is irrelevant to this discussion.


Dynamic range is also about noise floors.


There's less noise floor in my car than in my house (owing to the 80
lbs of damping material I've installed). This is dangerous territory
to tread on for this discussion, so for simplicity's sake lets just
assume cetaris paribus, a limited or 0 noise floor.


More practical irrelevancy.



  #113   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

(Steve Grauman) wrote:

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Digital means better, don't you
know.


I've been trying to stay out of this argument. My technical knowledge is
admittedly limited, and I feared I would be chewed up and spit out by the
"big
boys" around. But the digital vs. analog debate has been around for sometime,
and I think any reasonable person with a reasonable amount of knowledge would
conclude that while both have advantages, digital maintains more of them than
does analog. The inherent "warmth" of analog recordings is desired by some so
called "audiophiles" as is the sense of "depth" or "studio feel" analog
provides. However, many people would rather avoid the warmth of analog and
trade off the "depth" for the "cleanliness" of digital. In order to bring
this
back around to the discussion of headunits, I'll also comment that when both
had their EQs defeated, and all other factors remained constant, I could not
identify either an Alpine CDA-9815 or an Eclipse CD8443 in blind testing, and
in a seperate listening, I couldn't identify any unique sound from a Nak
CD45z.
In addition, I've had the chance to hear both Pioneer's P9 and Alpine's F#1
deck in action and again, with EQs defeated, not only could I not identify
differences between the two decks (in terms of SQ), I was astonished at their
high pricing.


Congratulations at application of bias-controls for ferreting-out what's a real
acoustical difference and what's not.

  #114   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Steve Grauman wrote:

I've been trying to stay out of this argument. My technical knowledge is
admittedly limited, and I feared I would be chewed up and spit out by the "big
boys" around. But the digital vs. analog debate has been around for sometime,
and I think any reasonable person with a reasonable amount of knowledge would
conclude that while both have advantages, digital maintains more of them than
does analog.


To me, the primary advantage of digital audio formats is that the media
does not degrade. My CD will sound the same 10,000 playbacks from now as
it did the first day I bought it. The quality shortcomings of CDA are so
insignificant that most people don't know they exist, and I'm rarely
bothered with them.

That is, of course, unless you badly scratch the CD and atmosphere is
allowed to get to the myler layer in the middle. Then its good for about
10 years.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #115   Report Post  
nilepez
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

MZ wrote:
* Finally, the Redbook standard is not a lossy compressio
algorithm. If
you think that it is, then you do not understand the term.

Losseless Compression: compress file, decompress file. Compare
original file to decompressed file and you find they're identical.

Lossy: Compress, decompress and compare them and you'll have 2
different files.


Then, according to your definition, CDA is lossy. If you compare th
two
waveforms, you'll have different results. *


MZ, by my definition, it's not lossy. I've done this test. Have you?
Obviously not.

Do yourself a favor. Record something on your PC, or be lazy an
extract a song from a CD, it doesn't matter.

Burn that wav file to a CD.

Extract it from the CD using EAC or CDEX or EZCDDA Extractor (all ar
either free or have free trials of full versions).

Compare the files. They are identical.

The only difference is that there may be extra silence padding th
beginning of the first track and trailing the last track.

The actual sound wave is IDENTICAL. I lined up 4 different extraction
from different software, and they all were identical.

I lwas looking at them down to the millisecond. No difference. It'
Lossless.

You may have a crappy CD drive. You may use lousy softare. Usin
these may mean you get a less than perfect extraction, but you can ge
an identical extraction.

You CANNOT extract a soudn file, compress it with MP3, OGG Vorb, AAC o
WMV and decompress it to the original wave
-
nilepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17659



  #116   Report Post  
MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Losseless Compression: compress file, decompress file. Compare
original file to decompressed file and you find they're identical.

Lossy: Compress, decompress and compare them and you'll have 2
different files.


Then, according to your definition, CDA is lossy. If you compare the
two
waveforms, you'll have different results. *


MZ, by my definition, it's not lossy.


Your definition is stated above. You base it on whether or not you have
"different files". Well, considering that the discussion is based on the
conversion from original program (not CD) to CDA and mp3 formats, in both
cases you'll have "different files" from the original program. This is due
simply to quantization and anti-alias filtering, among other things. I'm
not saying these differences are significant (in fact, it's my opinion that
they're not). Rather, I'm pointing out that there are indeed differences.
This is important because I think it illustrates why your definition is
faulty and perhaps even misleading.

I've done this test. Have you?
Obviously not.


No, you clearly haven't.

Do yourself a favor. Record something on your PC, or be lazy and
extract a song from a CD, it doesn't matter.

Burn that wav file to a CD.


You're missing the point, genius. I suggest you go back and reread the
discussion. The point was the conversion from program to CDA requires a
change in waveform. Read it again.


Extract it from the CD using EAC or CDEX or EZCDDA Extractor (all are
either free or have free trials of full versions).

Compare the files. They are identical.


Of course.

You CANNOT extract a soudn file, compress it with MP3, OGG Vorb, AAC or
WMV and decompress it to the original wave.


Yeah. So what's your point? Nobody said that the mp3 format wasn't lossy.


  #117   Report Post  
thelizman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

nilepez wrote:

MZ, by my definition, it's not lossy. I've done this test. Have you?
Obviously not.


You're not very smart are you? I mean, do you receive frequent head
injuries?

Do yourself a favor. Record something on your PC, or be lazy and
extract a song from a CD, it doesn't matter.


Hey, genius, the COMPUTER IS A DIGITAL DEVICE! When you record to a WAV
file on your PC, it is using PCM - the same encoding scheme as CDA!

Compare the files. They are identical.


No **** sherlock! You know, someone who knows what they're talking about
would have used an oscilloscope. They would have perhaps used a
reference standard like a 1 kHz sine, and recorded it on a decent tape
at the same time they recorded it to a wav file. Then, they would have
played both of them back on a dual channel oscilliscope. In that case,
at high resolutions, that person (who knows what they're talking about)
would note a stepped waveform pattern from the output of the WAV file,
while the analog device would have produced a smooth sine wave. Even the
best soundcards available produced a sigmodically stepped sine wave.

The actual sound wave is IDENTICAL. I lined up 4 different extractions
from different software, and they all were identical.


A wav file recorded using PCM is identical to CDA - which is recorded
using PCM. Golly, imagine that.

You may have a crappy CD drive.


This is fairly interesting, since all CD drives on the planet are made
by a handful of companies such as Pioneer, LG, or Matsu****a.

You CANNOT extract a soudn file, compress it with MP3, OGG Vorb, AAC or
WMV and decompress it to the original wave.


Nor can you do it with CDA.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
  #118   Report Post  
Steve Grauman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

Congratulations at application of bias-controls for ferreting-out what's a
real
acoustical difference and what's not.


Thanks. =)
  #119   Report Post  
Steve Grauman
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots?

To me, the primary advantage of digital audio formats is that the media
does not degrade


I agree. I've got a fair collection of old albums on LP and I rarely play them,
even though I enjoy them quite a bit. It's just knowing that every play means
it's one closer to dead...
  #120   Report Post  
~^Johnny^~
 
Posts: n/a
Default why are salesmen such idiots? BECAUSE ALF, YOU ARE A JERK

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:05:07 -0500, thelizman
wrote:

Okay dickhead, ...



... one of the many reasons usenet
equiquette exists



ROTFL!
--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

~~~~~~~~
Maybe I should ask Radio Shack. They claim they've got answers;
but frankly, if Radio Shack were our provider, we'd _really_ be in
trouble now, wouldn't we?
~~~~~~~~
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:05 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"