Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
why are salesmen such idiots?
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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? ~~~~~~~~ |