[Nil]

On 07 Mar 2011, "Arny Krueger" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Sometimes you have to retag files after transcoding them. But FLAC
is not unique in that regard. Metacode is not always covered by
generally agreed-upon standards.

Of course. By point, though, is that you don't necessarily get out of a
FLAC file exactly what you put into it. Audio data will be exactly
preserved, but other aspects may not, and the file you get when the
FLAC is uncompressed may not match the file you originally started out
with. FLAC is not like ZIP in that way.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/7/2011 8:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

The Sansa alternatives are not unsurprizingly far less costly and more
flexible than many well-known alternatives. What may be surprizing to some
is the fact that in some critical ways, they outperform the high priced
spead.

I tried a Sansa Clip when I was looking for a replacement
for a player that I lost (maybe left on an airplane). The
thing was so small that I couldn't read the display or
operate the controls easily. I never even got far enough to
evaluate the sound, I took it back and got one that I could see.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 3/7/2011 8:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

The Sansa alternatives are not unsurprizingly far less
costly and more flexible than many well-known
alternatives. What may be surprizing to some is the fact
that in some critical ways, they outperform the high
priced spead.

I tried a Sansa Clip when I was looking for a replacement
for a player that I lost (maybe left on an airplane). The
thing was so small that I couldn't read the display or
operate the controls easily. I never even got far enough
to evaluate the sound, I took it back and got one that I
could see.

I guess that's why Sansa make the larger but functionally similar and almost
as low-priced Fuze. ;-)

I admit it, I usually have my reading glasses on when I'm fiddling with my
Clip+.

And you're right, the Clip couldn't be much smaller and be used by
*anybody*.

Its pretty amazing that they packed all that function, including a FM stereo
tuner, in such a tiny little box.

There's even a micro SDHC slot so it can be significantly expanded.

[dietcokeguy]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 3/7/2011 8:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

The Sansa alternatives are not unsurprizingly far less
costly and more flexible than many well-known
alternatives. What may be surprizing to some is the fact
that in some critical ways, they outperform the high
priced spead.

I tried a Sansa Clip when I was looking for a replacement
for a player that I lost (maybe left on an airplane). The
thing was so small that I couldn't read the display or
operate the controls easily. I never even got far enough
to evaluate the sound, I took it back and got one that I
could see.

I guess that's why Sansa make the larger but functionally similar and
almost as low-priced Fuze. ;-)

I admit it, I usually have my reading glasses on when I'm fiddling with my
Clip+.

And you're right, the Clip couldn't be much smaller and be used by
*anybody*.

Its pretty amazing that they packed all that function, including a FM
stereo tuner, in such a tiny little box.

There's even a micro SDHC slot so it can be significantly expanded.

After reading about the player here and doing some googling, I'm going to
return the one I have -Philips GoGear Vibe- and get one of those Sansas.

[dietcokeguy]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
dietcokeguy wrote:

I never quite understood the meaning of the word "troll".

An internet troll is somebody who posts something (often ridiculous or
contentious) with the sole purpose of tying up a lot of people in a
pointless discussion, for whatever bizarre purpose.

The concept of being able to discern differences between a 320kbps MP3 and
a CD through a car cassette insert adaptor in a vehicle pretty mush
qualifies for the 'ridiculous' part.

If you have a car that is quiet enough to allow such a comparison to be
meaningful, you would likely not be stuck with a car cassette player.
Unless you have an aged Bentley or Roller, or something like that !

You circumstances may indeed be different, but I and I suspect most others
here cannot comphrend how.

geoff
Doing the comparison on the PC between FLAC and MP3 at 320 kbps, I do hear
better fidelity from the FLAC file. I can't tell a difference between the
FLAC and WAV file, however. So, the player in the car will support FLAC for
now on.

[geoff]

dietcokeguy wrote:

Doing the comparison on the PC between FLAC and MP3 at 320 kbps, I do
hear better fidelity from the FLAC file. I can't tell a difference
between the FLAC and WAV file, however. So, the player in the car
will support FLAC for now on.

It could simply be a slight difference in level...

geoff

[dietcokeguy]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
dietcokeguy wrote:

Doing the comparison on the PC between FLAC and MP3 at 320 kbps, I do
hear better fidelity from the FLAC file. I can't tell a difference
between the FLAC and WAV file, however. So, the player in the car
will support FLAC for now on.

It could simply be a slight difference in level...

No, all files are normalized to the same level.

geoff

[John Williamson]

dietcokeguy wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
dietcokeguy wrote:

Doing the comparison on the PC between FLAC and MP3 at 320 kbps, I do
hear better fidelity from the FLAC file. I can't tell a difference
between the FLAC and WAV file, however. So, the player in the car
will support FLAC for now on.

It could simply be a slight difference in level...

No, all files are normalized to the same level.

A problem with that when comparing lossy and lossless formats is that
lossy encoding can often alter peak levels and the ratio between peaks
and average.

The FLAC and WAV files would be expected to play back identically, as
the sound information in the WAV can be recovered bit for bit from the
FLAC. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, the only loss may be in
some of the metadata. If, for the sake of it, you take a complex WAV
from a real piece of music, encode it as the highest bitrate mp3 you can
make, then reverse the process and compare the two files on either a
'scope, a spectrum analyser, or by doing a file comparison, you will
find little correlation between the before and after versions of the WAV
file.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Michael Dobony]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:13:23 -0500, dietcokeguy wrote:

Would like the equivalent of CD quality but without the CD player. I'd like
to keep the MP3 style flash drive player, which I already have.
Unfortunately, I see very few cheap MP3's that support WAV format, so what
is as good or nearly so? Trying to keep the cost down if I have to buy
another player.
Thanks.

Are you really going to notice much of a difference with auto speakers? Or
do you have at least a "premium" sound system or a top of the line
aftermarket speakers that it would really make that much of a difference?

[Michael Dobony]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:29:38 -0600, Michael Dobony wrote:

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:13:23 -0500, dietcokeguy wrote:

Would like the equivalent of CD quality but without the CD player. I'd like
to keep the MP3 style flash drive player, which I already have.
Unfortunately, I see very few cheap MP3's that support WAV format, so what
is as good or nearly so? Trying to keep the cost down if I have to buy
another player.
Thanks.

Are you really going to notice much of a difference with auto speakers? Or
do you have at least a "premium" sound system or a top of the line
aftermarket speakers that it would really make that much of a difference?

BTW, if you are paying that much attention to the quality of the sound,
maybe you shouldn't be on the road.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Dobony" wrote in
message
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:13:23 -0500, dietcokeguy wrote:

Would like the equivalent of CD quality but without the
CD player. I'd like to keep the MP3 style flash drive
player, which I already have. Unfortunately, I see very
few cheap MP3's that support WAV format, so what is as
good or nearly so? Trying to keep the cost down if I
have to buy another player.
Thanks.

Are you really going to notice much of a difference with
auto speakers? Or do you have at least a "premium" sound
system or a top of the line aftermarket speakers that it
would really make that much of a difference?

Car audio is all over the map. In fact some of the OEM base systems have
smoother response and generally better sound than the premium systems.

[rakman]

On Mar 6, 6:07*pm, Nil wrote:
On 06 Mar 2011, "dietcokeguy" wrote in rec.audio.pro:

What is the advantage of FLAC? From what I read, it is a form of
compression that is lossless, but I've never quite understood
that. *Nevertheless, I took some uncompressed 16 bit wav files
here and resaved them as FLAC. Instead of 320 kbps bitrate, which
I would normally have at maximum MP3 quality, I see something in
the 500 range for the FLAC file. *The wave is over 1000 kpbs. *Can
someone explain if FLAC truly is CD/ wave quality and why
especially if it is compressed? *Also, would an MP3 player
supporting FLAC decompress a FLAC file as it plays or how is it
done? Thank you.

FLAC is lossless - if you compress a WAV file to FLAC, then decompress
it back to WAV, you will have the same audio data, no loss, no
degradation. Compare this to a lossy format like MP3, which permanently
excises audio data which is still missing if you convert it to WAV
format. A disadvantage is file size - a WAV file will compress down to
maybe 1/2 to 2/3 the size of it's uncompressed parent, depending on the
audio content and other factors. That's still a good savings, though.
Another nice thing about FLAC is that it can contain information tags
and cover art.

Unfortunately, there aren't many commonly available portable playback
devices that support FLAC - I can't name any at all, although I recall
that that some older ones can be hacked via 3rd-party firmware to be
able to play FLACs. But I'm not sure you could go down to Best Buy and
get anything that can deal with them.

FLAC is the new betamax. use mp3

[dietcokeguy]

"rakman" wrote in message

FLAC is the new betamax. use mp3

Meaning? I used Betamax for years; it's picture and sound quality were
superior to VHS. I also used Sony's Minidisc (still do at times) long
before these tiny MP3 players became available. Minidisc players became
quite small also in recent years. Sound quality was not CD, but certainly
better than MP3, IMO.

While I can appreciate a regard for "that which everyone else uses", such a
practice doesn't always pay off. It didn't for me in the case of purely
MP3. Poorer sound quality than CD/ FLAC, but I always had trouble with
skipping of CD's in the car, got tired of it, so switched to MP3, but
quickly tired of the sound until the recent discovery of FLAC support. Now
I have the best of both worlds, a flash drive that doesn't skip and CD
quality. Problem solved.

[dietcokeguy]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dietcokeguy wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
dietcokeguy wrote:

Doing the comparison on the PC between FLAC and MP3 at 320 kbps, I do
hear better fidelity from the FLAC file. I can't tell a difference
between the FLAC and WAV file, however. So, the player in the car
will support FLAC for now on.

It could simply be a slight difference in level...

No, all files are normalized to the same level.

A problem with that when comparing lossy and lossless formats is that
lossy encoding can often alter peak levels and the ratio between peaks and
average.

Agreed.

The FLAC and WAV files would be expected to play back identically, as the
sound information in the WAV can be recovered bit for bit from the FLAC.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread, the only loss may be in some of
the metadata. If, for the sake of it, you take a complex WAV from a real
piece of music, encode it as the highest bitrate mp3 you can make, then
reverse the process and compare the two files on either a 'scope, a
spectrum analyser, or by doing a file comparison, you will find little
correlation between the before and after versions of the WAV file.

If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point format WAV
files in the car. These of course are huge and the difference between 16
and 32 bit files is small (especially when upconverting from 16 to 32 bit),
so it's not worth it, but at least I always try to do most editing/
processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[jwvm]

On Mar 8, 9:47*pm, "dietcokeguy" wrote:

snip

*If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point format WAV
files in the car. *These of course are huge and the difference between 16
and 32 bit files is small (especially when upconverting from 16 to 32 bit),
so it's not worth it, but at least I always try to do most editing/
processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.


Why in the world would you want to use floating-point format for
playback? The dynamic range of 24 bit integers far exceeds the dynamic
range of real-world audio by a substantial amount. The floating-point
format is useful for audio processing since it greatly reduces
roundoff errors but for playback it is very hard to demonstrate
conclusively that anything beyond 16 bits provides any benefit. The 32
bit wave file significand (mantissa) is only 24 bits anyway with an 8-
bit exponent. When a track is properly mastered, the audio is scaled
to use the dynamic range available in the integer format (16 or 24
bit) and there is no need at all for an exponent.

[rakman]

On Mar 9, 2:42*am, "dietcokeguy" wrote:
"rakman" wrote in message
FLAC is the new betamax. use mp3

Meaning? *I used Betamax for years; it's picture and sound quality were
superior to VHS. *I also used Sony's Minidisc (still do at times) long
before these tiny MP3 players became available. *Minidisc players became
quite small also in recent years. *Sound quality was not CD, but certainly
better than MP3, IMO.

While I can appreciate a regard for "that which everyone else uses", such a
practice doesn't always pay off. *It didn't for me in the case of purely
MP3. *Poorer sound quality than CD/ FLAC, but I always had trouble with
skipping of CD's in the car, got tired of it, so switched to MP3, but
quickly tired of the sound until the recent discovery of FLAC support. *Now
I have the best of both worlds, a flash drive that doesn't skip and CD
quality. *Problem solved.

Lol. Ok I was just trolling mainly. I like conveniently sized
files that just work immediately, everywhere, without having
to install extra software or components.

Those MiniDiscs sounded like ****. Even yours

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/8/2011 9:47 PM, dietcokeguy wrote:

If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point
format WAV files in the car. These of course are huge and
the difference between 16 and 32 bit files is small
(especially when upconverting from 16 to 32 bit), so it's
not worth it, but at least I always try to do most editing/
processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.

Why? Do you do editing while you're driving? This is one of
the more nonsensical threads we've had here in a while. I
recognize the "feel good" factor, but I can't imagine that
improving the surface quality of the audio in your car would
change your life, other than perhaps end it sooner because
you got too wrapped up in the exquisite detail in the music
and didn't notice that red light ahead of you.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[dietcokeguy]

"rakman" wrote in message

"Lol. Ok I was just trolling mainly. I like conveniently sized
files that just work immediately, everywhere, without having
to install extra software or components."

Ok, I can agree with this. So do I in fact.

"Those MiniDiscs sounded like ****. Even yours "

Early generation Minidisc did sound bad, due to poor compression and
inferior ADDA converters. However, as the years went by, both improved
tremendously. So much so in fact that I would be using a portable Minidisc
player/ recorder in the car over MP3 if a better MP3 solution hadn't of been
found. There will be some that say MP3 sounds better than Minidisc format
and I would say it depends on which Minidisc generation. The latest, IMO,
sounds better than MP3 format (although I have not tested it in practice).

[dietcokeguy]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 3/8/2011 9:47 PM, dietcokeguy wrote:

If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point
format WAV files in the car. These of course are huge and
the difference between 16 and 32 bit files is small
(especially when upconverting from 16 to 32 bit), so it's
not worth it, but at least I always try to do most editing/
processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.

Why? Do you do editing while you're driving?

Of course not. It would be for quality reasons of course. However, 24 bit
96 Khz would suffice IF the source material was recorded at that to begin
with. If not, it wouldn't make a difference. I'm not in the habit of
upconverting unless I'm doing editing.

This is one of
the more nonsensical threads we've had here in a while.

Nonsensical to some I suppose, but making sense to others. Depends on
perspective.

I
recognize the "feel good" factor, but I can't imagine that improving the
surface quality of the audio in your car would change your life, other
than perhaps end it sooner because you got too wrapped up in the exquisite
detail in the music and didn't notice that red light ahead of you.

A select few keep making this point. I can't figure out exactly why. What
harm is there in attaining the best quality audio system in a car for the
least cost possible? I realize my system's limitations, as pointed out
intially, and some helpful folks here have provided some reasonable
suggestions. That's all. Now if I decide to start texting or even talking
on the cell phone while driving and state it here, then, yes, I would be
concerned, but trying to listen to best quality audio possible with limited
budget and conditions, IMO, doesn't qualify as a safety violation.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a
passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated
without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/8/2011 9:47 PM, dietcokeguy wrote:

If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point
format WAV files in the car. These of course are huge and
the difference between 16 and 32 bit files is small
(especially when upconverting from 16 to 32 bit), so it's
not worth it, but at least I always try to do most editing/
processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.

Why? Do you do editing while you're driving? This is one of
the more nonsensical threads we've had here in a while. I
recognize the "feel good" factor, but I can't imagine that
improving the surface quality of the audio in your car would
change your life, other than perhaps end it sooner because
you got too wrapped up in the exquisite detail in the music
and didn't notice that red light ahead of you.

Well, the thing is.... if you are carrying around media with high resolution
files... and if you have plenty of space and plenty of bandwidth... you might
as well just play the high resolution files directly rather than downsample
and store them on some other media.

Mind you that sort of thinking is what brought you autochangers for 45 records
in the glove compartment.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Anahata]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:23:57 -0500, dietcokeguy wrote:

Of course not. It would be for quality reasons of course. However, 24
bit 96 Khz would suffice IF the source material was recorded at that to
begin with.

All 24 bits gives you over 16 bits is more dynamic range i.e. lower
background noise). As the dynamic range of the interior of a car is
unlikely to be more than 10 bits, how does this make an audible
difference?

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/9/2011 9:23 AM, dietcokeguy wrote:

However, 24 bit 96 Khz would suffice IF the source material
was recorded at that to begin with. If not, it wouldn't make
a difference.

That's sort of the point. If you were making your own
recordings from real musicians playing into high quality
microphones, then I can barely see the benefit of 24/96
recording. But you don't sound like someone who does that
enough to justify a playback system to those parameters in
your car.

Nonsensical to some I suppose, but making sense to others.
Depends on perspective.

Has ANYONE here defended your desire for high resolution
playback in your car? e

What harm is there in attaining the best
quality audio system in a car for the least cost possible?

No harm, but it's annoying to those of us who have the
common sense to recognize a balance between quality and
cost, as well as listening situations. If you were asking
about a system for your home, that would be a different
thing. You can sit in your easy chair, in the ideal
listening position, and, assuming you had an acoustically
good room, hear all that went into your source material.
You'll probably find that the "least cost possible" may be
several thousand dollars when you add in the cost of
acoustic treatment and speakers in order to get what arrives
at your ears with the least disruption possible. But in a
car, the best quality audio for the least possible cost
probably is a decent MP3-based system.

Trying to listen
to best quality audio possible with limited budget and
conditions, IMO, doesn't qualify as a safety violation.

No, there's no law against it as far as I know. However, the
concentration that it takes to tell the difference IN A CAR,
WHEN YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, is probably enough
of a distraction to affect your driving. Just as an example,
I nearly always have the radio on when I'm doing things like
this at my computer. I'm sufficiently focused on my typing
that I usually can't tell you what song I just heard, much
less whether it was an MP3 or a 96 kHZ PCM playback. So why
do I bother with the radio? Because I'd miss it if it wasn't
there.

Now you might be one of those personalities who will tear
out your hear if you even think you're hearing an MP3 file.
I'm not.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/9/2011 10:57 AM, anahata wrote:

All 24 bits gives you over 16 bits is more dynamic range i.e. lower
background noise). As the dynamic range of the interior of a car is
unlikely to be more than 10 bits, how does this make an audible
difference?

10 bits? Hell, how about 10 dB? Well, maybe it's a little
better than that, but way less than 100 dB. Where low bit
rate MP3 encoding falls down is when the audio gets that
gurgling sound. That annoys me, too. But that's completely
avoidable if you do your own encoding using a sufficiently
high bit rate (I'm pretty happy with 128 kbps in the car and
on an airplane) and a decent encoder.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/9/2011 10:23 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Well, the thing is.... if you are carrying around media with high resolution
files... and if you have plenty of space and plenty of bandwidth... you might
as well just play the high resolution files directly rather than downsample
and store them on some other media.

Sure, you might as well. But remember, he's looking for "the
lowest possible cost." I think there are some $200 portable
recorders that do 24/96 now, but where does the signal go
from there? How good is the D/A converter? How good is the
car's audio system?

I suppose it could save some time if you were taking some
files over to the mastering studio and wanted to give one
more listen on the drive over, but I wouldn't design my car
around it.

Mind you that sort of thinking is what brought you autochangers for 45 records
in the glove compartment.

Ooooohhh! Vintage vinyl in the car! With that, who needs
24 bits and 96 kHz sample rate.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mark]

Now you might be one of those personalities who will tear
out your hear (sic) if you even think you're hearing an MP3 file.



I think that sums it up nicely typo and all :-)

Mark

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:59:50 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/9/2011 10:57 AM, anahata wrote:

All 24 bits gives you over 16 bits is more dynamic range i.e. lower
background noise). As the dynamic range of the interior of a car is
unlikely to be more than 10 bits, how does this make an audible
difference?

10 bits? Hell, how about 10 dB? Well, maybe it's a little better than
that, but way less than 100 dB. Where low bit rate MP3 encoding falls
down is when the audio gets that gurgling sound. That annoys me, too.
But that's completely avoidable if you do your own encoding using a
sufficiently high bit rate (I'm pretty happy with 128 kbps in the car
and on an airplane) and a decent encoder.

Car audio can sometimes be quite critical of MP3, though not because of
fidelity. In recent cars the tweeters are sometimes on the dashboard a
couple of feet from your ears, and the system tuned to be very bass/top
heavy. This means I hear the top end quite sharply and separately from
the bass, which exposes the swishyness of the lossy compression.

[jwvm]

On Mar 9, 11:56*am, Mike Rivers wrote:

snip

What harm is there in attaining the best
quality audio system in a car for the least cost possible?

No harm, but it's annoying to those of us who have the
common sense to recognize a balance between quality and
cost, as well as listening situations.

It is also annoying that the OP seems to have minimal understanding of
the technical issues involved.


snip

Trying to listen
to best quality audio possible with limited budget and
conditions, IMO, doesn't qualify as a safety violation.

No, there's no law against it as far as I know. However, the
concentration that it takes to tell the difference IN A CAR,
WHEN YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, is probably enough
of a distraction to affect your driving.

If it were up to the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, there
would probably be no driver accessible electronics/entertainment
systems in a car. Please don't give this dimwit politician more
ammunition.

[dietcokeguy]

Well, not to go OT anymore on this thread, I feel the original question was
answered, that being that there is a superior file format to MP3 for a car
player and it appears that FLAC is the best alternative. How I decide to
get better auto fidelity, if even needed, will be up to me. However, and
maybe I should have pointed this out sooner, I DO NOT have a speaker based
audio system in my home, only several sets of better-than-average
headphones. I pretty much count on my headphones to get the mixes right,
then tweak them in the car. This is far from the best way, but the only way
I have at present. Luckily, most mixes are already premixed, such as
published songs, but occasionally I must readjust the mix in the auto to get
it to sound right. Having a CD quality format makes the process a bit
simpler.

BTW, I remember the days when some folks had reel-to-reel players in their
vehicles.

[John Williamson]

dietcokeguy wrote:

BTW, I remember the days when some folks had reel-to-reel players in
their vehicles.

Ha! I used to carry one on my pushbike on the way to an evening out. In
the late 60s, that was.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

jwvm wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:47 pm, "dietcokeguy" wrote:

snip

If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point format
WAV files in the car. These of course are huge and the difference
between 16 and 32 bit files is small (especially when upconverting
from 16 to 32 bit), so it's not worth it, but at least I always try
to do most editing/ processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.


Why in the world would you want to use floating-point format for
playback? The dynamic range of 24 bit integers far exceeds the dynamic
range of real-world audio by a substantial amount.

12 bits woulod be over the top in most cars.

geoff

[geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/8/2011 9:47 PM, dietcokeguy wrote:

If I knew of a way to do it, I'd play 32 bit floating point
format WAV files in the car. These of course are huge and
the difference between 16 and 32 bit files is small
(especially when upconverting from 16 to 32 bit), so it's
not worth it, but at least I always try to do most editing/
processing on the PC at the 32 bit level.

Why? Do you do editing while you're driving? This is one of
the more nonsensical threads we've had here in a while.

That's why it's hard to decide if the whole thing is a troll. Remember this
is all supposedly going thru a back-to-front tape-head Cassette adaptor !

I don't belieive that one could discern many differences in sound quality,
let alone see where one is driving, with one''s head so far up one's arse !

Hey dietman, I'd stick out for 128 bits - nothing less.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/9/2011 2:26 PM, geoff wrote:

Remember this
is all supposedly going thru a back-to-front tape-head Cassette adaptor !

I don't belieive that one could discern many differences in sound quality,

Well "quality" is an odd thing. Not everything you think
would gets masked by what you think is something worse gets
masked. The cassette head adapter introduces frequency
response errors, but MP3 encoding introduces other kinds of
errors. Though the fact that you can't get anything above
about maybe 10 kHz through that cassette adapter kind of
makes 96 kHz sample rate kind of useless since the higher
sample rate doesn't really give you anything but extended
high frequency response. Anything that gets through the tape
head is going to have odd phase shifts anyway, changing the
overtone structure.

let alone see where one is driving, with one''s head so far up one's arse !

Then there's that.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[yrret]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dietcokeguy wrote:

BTW, I remember the days when some folks had reel-to-reel players in
their vehicles.

Ha! I used to carry one on my pushbike on the way to an evening out. In
the late 60s, that was.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

How did the concert bootleggers of the day do it? Or was it such a new
thing that no one was concerned?