something better than MP3 in the car.....

[dietcokeguy]

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.

[yrret]

There's a lot of cheap players that'll do FLAC. Keep your eye out for FLAC
instead of WAV.

"dietcokeguy" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/4/2011 11:13 PM, 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.

Unfortunately, the cost of another player would be trivial
compared to the cost of creating a listening environment in
your car that would allow you to hear a significant
improvement over MP3 files.

Perhaps you just need to find (or create) MP3 files at a
higher bit rate. Unless I'm going to park my car and pretend
I'm in a concert hall, I think that a 320 kbps MP3 sounds
just fine. A 32 or 64 kbps MP3 that you download from
somewhere at random probably doesn't sound very good no
matter where you play it back.

How are you connecting your present MP3 player to the car's
sound system presently? Hopefully you're not wearing
earphones while you're driving. If you're using the analog
input on a car radio, then the quality is not only limited
by the data encoding format, but also by the quality of the
D/A converter in your player. Also, many portable devices
that are designed to drive low impedance headphones don't
develop sufficiently high voltage to give you a good
signal-to-noise ratio when going into an analog input - you
need to turn the radio volume up quite high in order to get
sufficient volume.

When I'm driving one of those newfangled rental cars that
has a USB port connected to the radio, my $15 MP3 player
sounds much better when it's acting like an external disk
drive (through the MP3 port and the car radio's D/A
converter) than when it's connected with an analog cable
between the player's headphone output and radio's external
audio input.


--
"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

[jwvm]

On Mar 4, 11:13*pm, "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.

This sounds like a troll question but if you are serious, note the
following:

1. How is the audio from your MP3 player being played over the car
audio system? If you are using an FM converter, the audio may well be
degraded more by the converter than the MP3 encoding. Assuming that
your vehicle has a CD player, do MP3 tracks sound worse than the
original CD tracks?

2. A vehicle is not the ideal place for listening to music if truly
high fidelity is the goal. Even so, it certainly can make driving a
good deal more enjoyable for many people. There very are expensive
cars with integrated sound systems that provide higher quality but I
would guess that if you are concerned about the cost of an MP3 player,
you probably don't have a premium vehicle.

3. Do you actually believe that you can hear the difference between a
well-encoded MP3 and the original CD in a typical vehicle? Note that
sonic differences between MP3 files encoded at high bit rates and the
original CD are very hard to detect under optimal listening conditions
let alone in a car.

[polymod]

"dietcokeguy" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


Isn't this the same thread that keeps reapearing from time to time that
stirs up the debate of whether it actually makes an f'n difference in an
automobile?

Poly

[William Sommerwerck]

> Isn't this the same thread that keeps reapearing from
> time to time that stirs up the debate of whether it
> actually makes an f'n difference in an automobile?

If it is, let me give it a more or less definitive answer from someone who
listens mostly to classical music...

Lossy compression seems to have its principal effect on the sense of "space"
in recording. The sound becomes "flatter", drier, and grainier. These are
the things one is not particularly aware of when listening through an auto
sound system, regardless of its quality.

This is something that just isn't worth worrying about.

[Ralph Barone]

In article
>,
jwvm > wrote:

> On Mar 4, 11:13*pm, "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.
>
> This sounds like a troll question but if you are serious, note the
> following:
>
> 1. How is the audio from your MP3 player being played over the car
> audio system? If you are using an FM converter, the audio may well be
> degraded more by the converter than the MP3 encoding. Assuming that
> your vehicle has a CD player, do MP3 tracks sound worse than the
> original CD tracks?
>
> 2. A vehicle is not the ideal place for listening to music if truly
> high fidelity is the goal. Even so, it certainly can make driving a
> good deal more enjoyable for many people. There very are expensive
> cars with integrated sound systems that provide higher quality but I
> would guess that if you are concerned about the cost of an MP3 player,
> you probably don't have a premium vehicle.
>
> 3. Do you actually believe that you can hear the difference between a
> well-encoded MP3 and the original CD in a typical vehicle? Note that
> sonic differences between MP3 files encoded at high bit rates and the
> original CD are very hard to detect under optimal listening conditions
> let alone in a car.

and one more...

4) Are you the driver or a passenger? If you are the driver, should you
be paying so much attention to the music that the difference between a
high bit rate MP3 and an uncompressed format annoys you?

[hank alrich]

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.

Buy a used iPod.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Isn't this the same thread that keeps reapearing from
>> time to time that stirs up the debate of whether it
>> actually makes an f'n difference in an automobile?

> If it is, let me give it a more or less definitive answer from
> someone who listens mostly to classical music...

> Lossy compression seems to have its principal effect on the sense of
> "space" in recording. The sound becomes "flatter", drier, and
> grainier. These are the things one is not particularly aware of when
> listening through an auto sound system, regardless of its quality.

This depends a lot on whether stereo preserving or stereo destroying
encoding choices are made, unfortunately some encoders are of the "we know
best" variety.

> This is something that just isn't worth worrying about.

It is possible to obtain very good sound quality in a car - I had a system
in a previous Skoda that I would have taken to a play-off competition if I
hadn't replaced the car to a newer that the custom rear shelf didn't fit -
partly for quality, partly for spl capability and certainly for discretion -
it used the ex works car radio as front - but difficult to so do without
risking hearing damage due to the masking effect of the car noise.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[dietcokeguy]

"yrret" > wrote in message
...
> There's a lot of cheap players that'll do FLAC. Keep your eye out for
> FLAC instead of WAV.

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.

> "dietcokeguy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>>
>
>

[dietcokeguy]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/4/2011 11:13 PM, 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.
>
> Unfortunately, the cost of another player would be trivial compared to the
> cost of creating a listening environment in your car that would allow you
> to hear a significant improvement over MP3 files.

Oh, I've always been able to tell a difference (even with 320 kp MP3's). Up
until a year ago, I always used a CD player in the car, but decided to try
MP3 for convenience and other reasons (like no skipping, etc).


> Perhaps you just need to find (or create) MP3 files at a higher bit rate.
> Unless I'm going to park my car and pretend I'm in a concert hall, I think
> that a 320 kbps MP3 sounds just fine. A 32 or 64 kbps MP3 that you
> download from somewhere at random probably doesn't sound very good no
> matter where you play it back.
>
> How are you connecting your present MP3 player to the car's sound system
> presently? Hopefully you're not wearing earphones while you're driving.
> If you're using the analog input on a car radio, then the quality is not
> only limited by the data encoding format, but also by the quality of the
> D/A converter in your player.

I have a cassette adapter and have listened this way for over 10 years. It
isn't the best, but someone here mentioned a small, in-line amp a while back
that goes between the player and adapter and I decided to try one. Makes up
for much of the losses encountered in such setups, but still won't fully
compensate for lossy MP3's.

Also, many portable devices
> that are designed to drive low impedance headphones don't develop
> sufficiently high voltage to give you a good signal-to-noise ratio when
> going into an analog input - you need to turn the radio volume up quite
> high in order to get sufficient volume.

The in-line amp does help overcome much of that problem. I forget the name
of it now (I think it's FiiO), but it allows the MP3 input to be maybe 40%
less than without the amp.
>
> When I'm driving one of those newfangled rental cars that has a USB port
> connected to the radio, my $15 MP3 player sounds much better when it's
> acting like an external disk drive (through the MP3 port and the car
> radio's D/A converter) than when it's connected with an analog cable
> between the player's headphone output and radio's external audio input.

I investigated that option at one point, but found both the cost and the
modification to mount such a radio in my car prohibitive. Great idea, my
next car will have it but for now I'll stick with the adapter.
>
>
> --
> "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]

"Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
news:invalid-80DEDA.09130105032011@shawnews...
> In article
> >,
> jwvm > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 11:13 pm, "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.
>>
>> This sounds like a troll question but if you are serious, note the
>> following:
>>
>> 1. How is the audio from your MP3 player being played over the car
>> audio system? If you are using an FM converter, the audio may well be
>> degraded more by the converter than the MP3 encoding. Assuming that
>> your vehicle has a CD player, do MP3 tracks sound worse than the
>> original CD tracks?

MP3 is played through the cassette adapter. Yes, MP3 sounds worse to me
than CD, always has in any sound system setup.

>> 2. A vehicle is not the ideal place for listening to music if truly
>> high fidelity is the goal. Even so, it certainly can make driving a
>> good deal more enjoyable for many people. There very are expensive
>> cars with integrated sound systems that provide higher quality but I
>> would guess that if you are concerned about the cost of an MP3 player,
>> you probably don't have a premium vehicle.

As mentioned in another post, my next vehicle will have more bells &
whistles in the audio department. For now, I have to work with what I have.

>> 3. Do you actually believe that you can hear the difference between a
>> well-encoded MP3 and the original CD in a typical vehicle? Note that
>> sonic differences between MP3 files encoded at high bit rates and the
>> original CD are very hard to detect under optimal listening conditions
>> let alone in a car.

After listening only to CD in the car for 10 years and then switching over
to MP3 within the last year, I definitely hear a difference. Much of my
music lost its "punch" and sounded much flatter, even at the highest
bitrates of MP3. It isn't just the players being different either. If I
take my good headphones on the PC and play the same file in both
formats(CD/wave and MP3), I can hear the difference.

> and one more...
>
> 4) Are you the driver or a passenger? If you are the driver, should you
> be paying so much attention to the music that the difference between a
> high bit rate MP3 and an uncompressed format annoys you?

It's not that much attention paid, it's a definite note of a loss of
fidelity. Enough that I know I'm not hearing what I should be and I am
seeking out alternatives to get back to the CD quality sound.

[dietcokeguy]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> Isn't this the same thread that keeps reapearing from
>> time to time that stirs up the debate of whether it
>> actually makes an f'n difference in an automobile?
>
> If it is, let me give it a more or less definitive answer from someone who
> listens mostly to classical music...
>
> Lossy compression seems to have its principal effect on the sense of
> "space"
> in recording. The sound becomes "flatter", drier, and grainier. These are
> the things one is not particularly aware of when listening through an auto
> sound system, regardless of its quality.

You summed up the compression effects well and, yes, I am aware of the
losses in the car.

> This is something that just isn't worth worrying about.

No, not generally, but for me it is a slight issue that I am trying to work
around.
>

[hank alrich]

dietcokeguy > wrote:

> "yrret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There's a lot of cheap players that'll do FLAC. Keep your eye out for
> > FLAC instead of WAV.
>
> 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. That's the deal. How it is dealt with depends on the
device.n If you want to play back FLAC files, then you want a device
that will do that on the fly..

Apple lossless is also lossless, and a used iPod would play those
easily.

> > "dietcokeguy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Phil W]

Ralph Barone:
> jwvm > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 11:13 pm, "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.
>>
>> This sounds like a troll question but if you are serious, note the
>> following:
>>
>> 1. How is the audio from your MP3 player being played over the car
>> audio system? If you are using an FM converter, the audio may well be
>> degraded more by the converter than the MP3 encoding. Assuming that
>> your vehicle has a CD player, do MP3 tracks sound worse than the
>> original CD tracks?
>>
>> 2. A vehicle is not the ideal place for listening to music if truly
>> high fidelity is the goal. Even so, it certainly can make driving a
>> good deal more enjoyable for many people. There very are expensive
>> cars with integrated sound systems that provide higher quality but I
>> would guess that if you are concerned about the cost of an MP3 player,
>> you probably don't have a premium vehicle.
>>
>> 3. Do you actually believe that you can hear the difference between a
>> well-encoded MP3 and the original CD in a typical vehicle? Note that
>> sonic differences between MP3 files encoded at high bit rates and the
>> original CD are very hard to detect under optimal listening conditions
>> let alone in a car.
>
> and one more...
>
> 4) Are you the driver or a passenger? If you are the driver, should you
> be paying so much attention to the music that the difference between a
> high bit rate MP3 and an uncompressed format annoys you?

I´ve been thinking about that point, too...

Personally, I like having a CD player (no mp3 capability) in the car. But
mainly for the convenience over tapes. With CDs, I can easily skip between
tracks and don´t have forward/rewind for a while and set it back to "play" -
i. e., I only have to reach out once, instead of twice.
In terms of sound quality, I´ve been content with tapes for 20+ years and
would still be.
Somehow, I´m even glad, that the crappy basic car radio doesn´t support MP3
files - it might distract me for too long while driving, if there´s too much
to read on the display.

[Nil]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/6/2011 7:49 AM, dietcokeguy wrote:

> 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.

The advantage is that what goes in comes out. With MP3 and
other "lossy" perceptual encoding (I prefer that over the
term "compression in this context"), the encoder uses a
fairly complex algorithm to decide what sounds you won't
hear because they're masked by other sounds, and simply
throws them away. It's like running the audio through a
filter, but a filter that's always changing.

FLAC doesn't work that way. It works like ZIP in that it
finds repeated bit patterns in the data stream and encodes a
string of bits as a shorter string. When decoding, it sees
the short string, says "I know what this means" and puts
back all the ones and zeros that were there in the first
place. It doesn't reduce the size of the file as much as
even the highest bit rate MP3 encoding, but it doesn't lose
anything either.

Still, if you're not enjoying the music while you drive
because it isn't CD quality, you're probably not paying
enough attention to your driving. Everybody who cares about
music fidelity knows that there's a difference between lossy
encoding and lossless or no file size reduction, but most
understand that there's a place for each, and that the car
is not a place to worry about the difference.


--
"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

[geoff]

dietcokeguy wrote:
> "yrret" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There's a lot of cheap players that'll do FLAC. Keep your eye out
>> for FLAC instead of WAV.
>
> 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 like ZIP. You get out exactly what you put in. Exactly.

geoff

[geoff]

Nil wrote:
> On 06 Mar 2011, "dietcokeguy" > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>

> 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.

Cowon play FLAC.

I wonder if the Apple genus is the scientifically same thing,with just a bit
of their trickery to stymie their customers.

geoff

[geoff]

dietcokeguy wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 3/4/2011 11:13 PM, 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.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the cost of another player would be trivial compared
>> to the cost of creating a listening environment in your car that
>> would allow you to hear a significant improvement over MP3 files.
>
> Oh, I've always been able to tell a difference (even with 320 kp
> MP3's). Up until a year ago, I always used a CD player in the car,
> but decided to try MP3 for convenience and other reasons (like no
> skipping, etc).


Hell ! What sort of car do you have, and do you ever run the engine or drive
?

geoff

[geoff]

dietcokeguy wrote:
> "Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
>
> MP3 is played through the cassette adapter. Yes, MP3 sounds worse to
> me than CD, always has in any sound system setup.

Um. ANYTHING sounds worse through a cassette adaptor.

If you are happy with Diet Coke, you should be happy with MP3s.

geoff

[Luxey]

> > Oh, I've always been able to tell a difference (even with 320 kp
> > MP3's). *Up until a year ago, I always used a CD player in the car,
> > but decided to try MP3 for convenience and other reasons (like no
> > skipping, etc).
>
> Hell ! What sort of car do you have ....

Yes, CD in my car never skipped.

[dietcokeguy]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> dietcokeguy wrote:
>> "Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
>>
>> MP3 is played through the cassette adapter. Yes, MP3 sounds worse to
>> me than CD, always has in any sound system setup.
>
> Um. ANYTHING sounds worse through a cassette adaptor.

I know, that's the weak link in the chain but if my level of acceptability
comes from CD quality in an MP3 player rather than MP3, I'll make the weak
link a bit stronger. BTW, I picked up one of the FLAC players one of the
others here mentioned. It wasn't much more in cost than the one I have ($10
more), so I'll now see how FLAC sounds since I've never heard it before.

> If you are happy with Diet Coke, you should be happy with MP3s.

There's a catch there too, I only like Diet Coke if it is caffeinated. Has
a much better taste than the caffeine free. So you see, yes, I may be a bit
picky.

> geoff
>

[dietcokeguy]

"yrret" > wrote in message
...
> There's no advantage other then a reduced filesize. Its more common to
> see FLAC listed as a format then WAV on a dedicated music playing device.
Tonight, I'll be hearing a FLAC based file. I managed to pick up a cheap
MP3 player supporting FLAC. If it's all that I read about here and through
Googling, then problem solved. Will report back....

[Nil]

On 06 Mar 2011, "geoff" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> FLAC is like ZIP. You get out exactly what you put in. Exactly.

Not entirely true - I discovered that WAV files that have certain kinds
of embedded information get that stuff stripped out during compression.
The audio data itself is always preserved.

[yrret]

There's no advantage other then a reduced filesize. Its more common to see
FLAC listed as a format then WAV on a dedicated music playing device.

[geoff]

dietcokeguy wrote:
> "yrret" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There's no advantage other then a reduced filesize. Its more common
>> to see FLAC listed as a format then WAV on a dedicated music playing
>> device.
> Tonight, I'll be hearing a FLAC based file. I managed to pick up a
> cheap MP3 player supporting FLAC. If it's all that I read about here
> and through Googling, then problem solved. Will report back....

Then you'll be auditioning nasty cheap co0nverters on a low-voltage player -
not auditioning WAV v. FLAC v MP3 v. CD . And then to cap it all off
filtering it all through an uber-crappy cassette adaptor ?!!!

You really must be a troll - this can't be a serious discussion !

geoff

[geoff]

Luxey wrote:
>>> Oh, I've always been able to tell a difference (even with 320 kp
>>> MP3's). Up until a year ago, I always used a CD player in the car,
>>> but decided to try MP3 for convenience and other reasons (like no
>>> skipping, etc).
>>
>> Hell ! What sort of car do you have ....
>
> Yes, CD in my car never skipped.

I was referring to the context of engine noise, road, noise, and the
less-the-ideal acoustical shape of the average car not really being the
ideal place to critcially audition the pros and cons of the finer poiunts of
various audio formats.

geoff

[geoff]

dietcokeguy wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dietcokeguy wrote:
>>> "Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> MP3 is played through the cassette adapter. Yes, MP3 sounds worse
>>> to me than CD, always has in any sound system setup.
>>
>> Um. ANYTHING sounds worse through a cassette adaptor.
>
> I know, that's the weak link in the chain but if my level of
> acceptability comes from CD quality in an MP3 player rather than MP3,
> I'll make the weak link a bit stronger. BTW, I picked up one of the
> FLAC players one of the others here mentioned. It wasn't much more
> in cost than the one I have ($10 more), so I'll now see how FLAC
> sounds since I've never heard it before.

It sounds identical to WAV. You are actually auditioning crappy little
players and a crappier cassette interface - the actual audio will have a
hard enough job gettiing through that maze in the first place, and any
diffences should be totally swamped by the replay chain.

Jeepers - you can get a replacement car stereo that does CD, MP3-CD, and
front (electrical) input socket for whatever else you may care to plug in,
for very little money.

geoff

[dietcokeguy]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> dietcokeguy wrote:
>> "yrret" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> There's no advantage other then a reduced filesize. Its more common
>>> to see FLAC listed as a format then WAV on a dedicated music playing
>>> device.
>> Tonight, I'll be hearing a FLAC based file. I managed to pick up a
>> cheap MP3 player supporting FLAC. If it's all that I read about here
>> and through Googling, then problem solved. Will report back....
>
> Then you'll be auditioning nasty cheap co0nverters on a low-voltage
> player - not auditioning WAV v. FLAC v MP3 v. CD . And then to cap it all
> off filtering it all through an uber-crappy cassette adaptor ?!!!

I didn't say WHERE I'd be doing the comparison. In actuality, I'll be
listening to each on the PC and from the analog output of an Audiophile 2496
sound card with a pair of Sony MDR-V6 headphones. If there is a difference,
this setup will definitely pick it up. The Sony's biggest weakness is on
bass, but I already know how to compensate for that.

> You really must be a troll - this can't be a serious discussion !

I never quite understood the meaning of the word "troll". Be that as it
may, why can't the discussion be serious? I simply stated that I was
looking for something better sounding and less lossy than MP3 format for the
car. And I already said I could definitely tell a difference, even through
the cassette adapter, of the sound quality from my original CD player versus
the MP3 player. I then said I have partially compensated for frequency
losses through the Fiio amp (I know, not the best but surprisingly good) and
was seeking a better file format than MP3. I'm already aware of the
cassette adapter losses, the losses involved in ADDA conversions and such,
but I know it is possible to still improve sound quality in the auto. I
wasn't aware of FLAC format and had been searching for WAV supporting MP3
players for over a year. No dice in my price range, but a reasonably priced
player supporting FLAC was purchased today. Tonight will be PC tests and
listening first, then the auto. Simple.

Now if I wanted to go all pro in the auto, it would be a completely
different ballgame and I would start with as little ADDA conversion chains
as possible, or use the best ones available, buy the best speakers, etc etc,
but it's impractible to do it. However, little is lost when improving audio
quality in an auto even slightly which was my goal here.

And, no, I don't text nor fiddle with the player while driving as someone
suggested I might do. Everything is set up before I hit the road. If
adjustments need to be made, I either stop the car or just turn off the
radio until I stop.

> geoff
>

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Nil wrote:
>> On 06 Mar 2011, "dietcokeguy" > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> 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.
>
>Cowon play FLAC.
>
>I wonder if the Apple genus is the scientifically same thing,with just a bit
>of their trickery to stymie their customers.

Lossless coding schemes have been a big deal since Samuel Morse decided
to make coding sequences for more commonly used letter shorter than ones
for less commonly used ones.

Computer folks have used data compression methods like Huffman coding
and Lempel-Ziv compression since the late sixties. If you have files that
have a lot of repeated sequences or a lot of blank space (what the
information theory guys call "entropy") they are very effective.

Most of the file compression utilities that are intended for generic
data files don't get you very good compression ratios when used on audio
files. The gnu compress utility gets only around 30% compression on
typical classical music which is hardly worth the trouble.

In the early nineties a lot of folks putwork into developing lossless
compression schemes that were effective on audio files. FLAC and
ALC use similar basic methods. There are dozens of other lossless
codecs out there but FLAC and ALC are pretty much the most popular and
best-supported ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jwvm]

On Mar 6, 6:03*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>

> Computer folks have used data compression methods like Huffman coding
> and Lempel-Ziv compression since the late sixties. *If you have files that
> have a lot of repeated sequences or a lot of blank space (what the
> information theory guys call "entropy") they are very effective.
>

Just to avoid confusion here, entropy makes compression less effective
so files that have little entropy compress very well using lossless
compression. Alternatively, trying to compress a file with nothing but
white noise results in essentially zero compression.

[geoff]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

> Computer folks have used data compression methods like
> Huffman coding and Lempel-Ziv compression since the late
> sixties. If you have files that have a lot of repeated sequences
> or a lot of blank space (what the information theory guys call
> "entropy") they are very effective.

I think that's backwards. Entropy is randomness or disorder, and a highly
"entropic" file does not compress well.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/6/2011 3:10 PM, geoff wrote:

> Hell ! What sort of car do you have, and do you ever run the engine or drive

He'd better not be driving if he's that intent on hearing
the faults in his BACKGROUND (we hope) music. Maybe he has
a chauffeur.

--
"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 3/6/2011 3:36 PM, dietcokeguy wrote:

> Tonight, I'll be hearing a FLAC based file. I managed to
> pick up a cheap MP3 player supporting FLAC. If it's all that
> I read about here and through Googling, then problem solved.

The cheap player will probably be as bad (but in a different
way) as the deterioration from MP3 encoding. Do you have a
computer with a decent sound card? If so, at least give it a
fighting chance.

By the way, the D/A converter in an iPod is quite mediocre.
There are aftermarket converters that plug in to the digital
output connector that they sell to audiophiles. It's
probably a good investment if you play your iPod through a
decent sound system in a good room.

--
"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

[Luxey]

On 6 ÜÐà, 22:33, "geoff" > wrote:
> Luxey wrote:
> >>> Oh, I've always been able to tell a difference (even with 320 kp
> >>> MP3's). Up until a year ago, I always used a CD player in the car,
> >>> but decided to try MP3 for convenience and other reasons (like no
> >>> skipping, etc).
>
> >> Hell ! What sort of car do you have ....
>
> > Yes, CD in my car never skipped.
>
> I was referring to the context of engine noise, road, noise, and the
> less-the-ideal acoustical shape of the average car not really being the
> ideal place to critcially audition the pros and cons of the finer poiunts of
> various audio formats.
>
> geoff

I mknow. I thought I made a joke.

[Arny Krueger]

"Nil" > wrote in message

> On 06 Mar 2011, "geoff" > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> FLAC is like ZIP. You get out exactly what you put in.
>> Exactly.

> Not entirely true - I discovered that WAV files that have
> certain kinds of embedded information get that stuff
> stripped out during compression. The audio data itself is
> always preserved.

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> 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.
>
> Buy a used iPod.

Buy a band new Clip and save 80% and get better performance.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Buy a used iPod.

> Buy a band new Clip and save 80%
> and get better performance.

Heck, I'm still using my seven-year-old iRiver H120. (I've never gotten
around to installing the RockBox OS.)

[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?