Listening in a car

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
recorder with dbx, give it a try.

Cheers,

Norm Strong
35 answers Last reply
More about listening
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "normanstrong" normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:

    >I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    >of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    >exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    >want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    >all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    >reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    >the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    >Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    >This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    >recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Norm Strong

    That's a good technique. Some car sound systems employ a "compression" function
    that provides a similar function.

    Since you brought it up there are some real advantages to autosound that are
    often overlooked as well. The first is the only free lunch in audio .... cabin
    gain. In small spaces like cars there is a 12 dB per octave reinforcement of
    low frequencies below the lowest axial mode. For example I have measured over
    30 dB reinforcement at 10 Hz in a Corvette. In this car the effect begins
    around 60 Hz. In a larger car it starts at a lower frequency.

    Next is adequate volume. In the small space of a car its easier to attain
    concert level volume. You also usually have access to all functions from the
    driver seat (loading programs, adjusting controls, etc)

    Although listening positions are fixed from a design standpoint that can also
    be seen as an advantage ..... you know in advance where every listener will be
    seated.

    Finally regarding radio programming; some car systems often receive more
    stations with better reception than all but the finest fixed antenna systems.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    normanstrong wrote:
    > I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    > of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    > exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    > want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    > all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    > reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    > the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    > Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    > This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    > recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Norm Strong
    >

    Norm, you have to come to the 21st century :). Get a wave editor, like
    the one that comes with Nero. Use the dynamic compressor feature. You
    can change the compression slope, specify different attack and release
    times, and burn mp3's to boot.

    I agree that listening to full-range classical music in a moving vehicle
    is a challenge. One appreciates the necessity of compression. And one
    can understand why a little compression, like what you find on a lot of
    vinyl LP's and SET's, can appear to bring out those "microdynamics".
    Hey, you can hear the low level details better!
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    4-banger.

    "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52...
    > I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    > of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    > exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    > want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    > all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    > reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    > the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    > Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    > This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    > recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Norm Strong
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52>...
    > I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    > of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    > exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    > want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    > all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    > reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    > the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    > Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    > This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    > recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Norm Strong

    So you record in dbx, then play the tape without dbx? Doesn't the
    music become flat and lifeless?

    CD
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52...
    > I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    > of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    > exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    > want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    > all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    > reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    > the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    > Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    > This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    > recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >
    IMO the compressor section of a DBX117 or DBX119, commonly sold on Ebay,
    offer yet a better solution. I use a DBX 119 to go from CD to CD avoiding
    the downside of cassettes and/or tone correction. (I assume everyone here
    has a CD players in their cars.)
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/27/04 12:23 AM, in article JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52,
    "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

    > I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    > of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    > exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    > want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    > all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    > reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    > the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    > Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    > This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    > recorder with dbx, give it a try.

    Actually, compression works well in a noisy environment - mp3 and other
    digital "psycho-acoustic" methods work almost as well.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Norman Strong wrote"

    Cassette recorders with dbx capabilities are fairly rare. My solution for
    listening to classical music in cars - and I agree it's harder to hear low
    level signals - is to record on Metal Cassettes using Dolby C noise reduction
    and then raise the gain level to about + 8 db, which the metal tape headroom on
    my tape deck, a 3-head Nakamichi, allows. Unfortunately, it is not easy to
    find car tape players with Dolby C noise reduction built in, so this won't be a
    solution for many foks either.
    I use a Nakamichi TD-1200 Type 2 Mobile Dragon head unit in my car, which has
    Dolby C noise reduction, so I'm fortunate in that regard. The best place these
    days tyo find equpment like this now is probably on eBay.

    Bruce J. Richman
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    B&D wrote:
    > On 7/27/04 12:23 AM, in article JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52,
    > "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    >> of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    >> exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    >> want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    >> all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    >> reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    >> the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    >> Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    >> This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    >> recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >
    > Actually, compression works well in a noisy environment - mp3 and other
    > digital "psycho-acoustic" methods work almost as well.
    >

    Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Actually driving a ybrid really slowly is really, really quiet!

    On 7/28/04 2:21 AM, in article mBHNc.175275$IQ4.44815@attbi_s02, "John
    Walton" <jdwalton@comcast.net> wrote:

    > My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    > classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    > 4-banger.
    >
    > "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52...
    >> I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    >> of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    >> exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    >> want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    >> all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    >> reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    >> the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    >> Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    >> This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    >> recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Norm Strong
    >>
    >
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/28/04 7:34 PM, in article ce9d5b0hba@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
    <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

    > B&D wrote:
    >> On 7/27/04 12:23 AM, in article JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52,
    >> "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    >>> of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    >>> exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    >>> want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    >>> all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    >>> reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    >>> the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    >>> Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    >>> This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    >>> recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >>
    >> Actually, compression works well in a noisy environment - mp3 and other
    >> digital "psycho-acoustic" methods work almost as well.
    >>
    >
    > Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    > was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.

    Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:


    >
    >My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    >4-banger.
    >
    >"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52...
    >> I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    >> of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    >> exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    >> want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    >> all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    >> reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    >> the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    >> Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    >> This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    >> recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Norm Strong

    I'm not sure I agree that a 20-year old Benz will steal any quietness awards
    but I fully agree with the idea. I've evaluated over 200 production vehicles in
    the past 5 years and the great sounding ones are always in quiet cars..... at
    least if you evaluate them when driving the car.

    You'd be surprised at how often cars that 'should' be great sounding (evaluated
    at idle or ignition-off) just don't cut it on the road (and I'm talking 30-45
    mph on suburban roads not 70-80 mph on X-Way.) It's interesting that
    after-market sound quality "competitions" are ALWAYS conducted with the car
    sitting still with the ignition off. The car is only started to see if there is
    system noise like alternator whine; then it's off.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    B&D wrote:
    > On 7/28/04 7:34 PM, in article ce9d5b0hba@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
    > <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
    >
    >> B&D wrote:
    >>> On 7/27/04 12:23 AM, in article JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52,
    >>> "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm sure you're all familiar with the problem of listening to material
    >>>> of wide dynamic range while in a moving car. I listen almost
    >>>> exclusively to classical music, and on those rare occasions when I
    >>>> want music while driving, I get around the problem like this: I copy
    >>>> all the music I want to hear from CD to a cassette, using dbx noise
    >>>> reduction. This reduces every 2db change in the original to 1db in
    >>>> the copy; a program with a 50db dynamic range is reduced to 25db.
    >>>> Bass is also reduced, so I have to boost the bass on playback--a lot.
    >>>> This scheme works amazingly well. If you find an old cassette
    >>>> recorder with dbx, give it a try.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, compression works well in a noisy environment - mp3 and other
    >>> digital "psycho-acoustic" methods work almost as well.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    >> was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.
    >
    > Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    > note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    > same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.


    Can you provide any proof that mp3's roll off the high and the low
    frequencies? I don't think you could. Are you also saying that in a car,
    if you reduce bass and treble, the result is better or "easier" sound?
    That certainly goes against commonly known principles, like the one
    behind the loudness compensation.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 29 Jul 2004 23:38:59 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    >On 7/28/04 7:34 PM, in article ce9d5b0hba@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
    ><chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
    >
    >> B&D wrote:
    >>> On 7/27/04 12:23 AM, in article JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52,
    >>> "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

    >> Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    >> was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.
    >
    >Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -

    What? No it doesn't!

    >note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.

    No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    > On 29 Jul 2004 23:38:59 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    > >On 7/28/04 7:34 PM, in article ce9d5b0hba@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
    > ><chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >> B&D wrote:
    > >>> On 7/27/04 12:23 AM, in article JMkNc.194838$Oq2.59455@attbi_s52,
    > >>> "normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

    > >> Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    > >> was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.
    > >
    > >Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -

    > What? No it doesn't!

    > >note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    > >same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.

    > No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    > effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.


    I'd have to check, but I believe that my current setting for
    LAME (--alt preset standard) results in variable bitrate mp3s (128--320)
    with a 'low-pass transition' around 19 kHz. I took this to mean that it starts
    discarding data corresponding to high frequencies above the 19 Khz mark.
    Which is beyond what I can hear, for sure.

    I see no evidence that it does anything similar at the low end of the frequency
    spectrum.


    --

    -S.
    "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
    Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
    David Lee Roth
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:

    >"John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >>classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    >>4-banger.

    Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!

    OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    quality!
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/30/04 1:44 PM, in article cee1d4018o3@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
    Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

    >> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    >
    > What? No it doesn't!
    >
    >> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >> same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
    >
    > No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    > effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.

    Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge - why
    does it sound so bad?
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    B&D wrote:
    > On 7/30/04 1:44 PM, in article cee1d4018o3@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
    > Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    >>
    >> What? No it doesn't!
    >>
    >>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >>> same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
    >>
    >> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >
    > Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge - why
    > does it sound so bad?
    >

    But it is much easier just listing the ways you are wrong. You know, we
    all go for the low-hanging fruit! :)

    Here is a website that explains how mp3's work in layman terms:

    http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/

    When you said that mp3's sound "so bad", you are making an invalid
    assumption. I have listened to high bitrate mp3's and mp4's, and it is
    very difficult to tell the compressed version from the original. You
    should download iTunes and try it for yourself. Make a CD of tracks that
    you encode into AAC or mp3 (and decompress to .wav format). Compare that
    with original. Try coding at 320Kbps; it gets very difficult to detect
    differences using music material.

    BTW, if you believe that mp3's sound so bad, why then did you say that
    they sound "much easier" in a car?
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    B&D wrote:
    >>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much
    >>> easier -
    >>
    >> What? No it doesn't!
    >>
    >>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not
    >>> be the same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost
    >>> as well.
    >>
    >> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >
    > Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge
    > - why does it sound so bad?

    I made some comparisons with higher bitrates mp3. The sonic structure was
    kept very well, but the spacial impression got completely lost. What was
    deep soundstage extending beyond the speakers ended up on a line between the
    speakers. In headphones this was not so noticable, but IHL is not very
    revealing anyway.
    --
    ciao Ban
    Bordighera, Italy
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/30/04 12:02 AM, in article cech810ukt@news2.newsguy.com, "chung"
    <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

    >>> Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    >>> was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.
    >>
    >> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    >> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >> same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
    >
    >
    > Can you provide any proof that mp3's roll off the high and the low
    > frequencies? I don't think you could. Are you also saying that in a car,
    > if you reduce bass and treble, the result is better or "easier" sound?
    > That certainly goes against commonly known principles, like the one
    > behind the loudness compensation.

    OK Chung -

    The sound of mp3's is perfect and just like CD's. I am totally wrong, and
    am not only wasting money but a damn fool for believing that CD sounds
    better than mp3's.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/30/04 11:31 PM, in article goEOc.200481$JR4.160108@attbi_s54, "Stewart
    Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

    > On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
    >
    >> "John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >>> classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    >>> 4-banger.
    >
    > Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!
    >
    > OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    > quality!

    Heard that! But you could also get one of the whizzy new hybrids (like the
    Toyota Prius) - at lower speeds, the engine turns off and it runs on
    batteries - making it VERY quiet!
  21. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:59:49 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    >On 7/30/04 1:44 PM, in article cee1d4018o3@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
    >Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    >>
    >> What? No it doesn't!
    >>
    >>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >>> same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
    >>
    >> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >
    >Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge - why
    >does it sound so bad?

    That's an entirely different matter. MP3 does not in and of itself
    sound bad, this only arises when you try to use excessive compression,
    i.e too low a bit rate, which for me on most music is anything less
    than 192kbits/sec. OTOH, most agree that AAC is a fundamentally
    superior compression algorithm, and it's becoming increasinly popular.
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

    >On 7/30/04 11:31 PM, in article goEOc.200481$JR4.160108@attbi_s54, "Stewart
    >Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >> On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
    >>
    >>> "John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >>>> classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    >>>> 4-banger.
    >>
    >> Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!
    >>
    >> OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    >> quality!
    >
    >Heard that! But you could also get one of the whizzy new hybrids (like the
    >Toyota Prius) - at lower speeds, the engine turns off and it runs on
    >batteries - making it VERY quiet!

    But there's more to car noise than engine noise. It Xway speeds tire/wind and
    road noise dominates. In stop and go traffic who knows what hybrids sound like.
    I sure don't. Most modern cars are pretty quiet at idle too.

    If you have some more detailed information I'd love to hear about it.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    B&D wrote:
    > On 7/30/04 12:02 AM, in article cech810ukt@news2.newsguy.com, "chung"
    > <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Uhh, mp3 provides data compression, not the signal compression that Norm
    >>>> was talking about. Mp3 does not give you a compression of dynamic range.
    >>>
    >>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    >>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >>> same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
    >>
    >>
    >> Can you provide any proof that mp3's roll off the high and the low
    >> frequencies? I don't think you could. Are you also saying that in a car,
    >> if you reduce bass and treble, the result is better or "easier" sound?
    >> That certainly goes against commonly known principles, like the one
    >> behind the loudness compensation.
    >
    > OK Chung -
    >
    > The sound of mp3's is perfect and just like CD's. I am totally wrong, and
    > am not only wasting money but a damn fool for believing that CD sounds
    > better than mp3's.
    >

    No, the sound of mp3's is not perfect. The biggest variable contributing
    to sound quality is bit-rate. At high bitrates, like 320Kbps, it gets
    very close to the original. At low bit-rates, like 128Kbps, you can tell
    them apart. But even at 128Kbps, the bass and the treble are not rolled off.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/31/04 10:56 AM, in article cegbup02obh@news3.newsguy.com, "Ban"
    <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

    > B&D wrote:
    >>>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much
    >>>> easier -
    >>>
    >>> What? No it doesn't!
    >>>
    >>>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not
    >>>> be the same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost
    >>>> as well.
    >>>
    >>> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >>> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >>
    >> Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge
    >> - why does it sound so bad?
    >
    > I made some comparisons with higher bitrates mp3. The sonic structure was
    > kept very well, but the spacial impression got completely lost. What was
    > deep soundstage extending beyond the speakers ended up on a line between the
    > speakers. In headphones this was not so noticable, but IHL is not very
    > revealing anyway.

    CD has about 1.4Mbps - I think a song on average, if Apple lossless is to be
    believes is somewhere between 600-1100Mbps - so anything less than that
    might begin to sound compressed!
  25. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/31/04 2:24 PM, in article ptROc.202947$JR4.128822@attbi_s54, "Nousaine"
    <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

    > B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/30/04 11:31 PM, in article goEOc.200481$JR4.160108@attbi_s54, "Stewart
    >> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >>>>> classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    >>>>> 4-banger.
    >>>
    >>> Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!
    >>>
    >>> OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    >>> quality!
    >>
    >> Heard that! But you could also get one of the whizzy new hybrids (like the
    >> Toyota Prius) - at lower speeds, the engine turns off and it runs on
    >> batteries - making it VERY quiet!
    >
    > But there's more to car noise than engine noise. It Xway speeds tire/wind and
    > road noise dominates. In stop and go traffic who knows what hybrids sound
    > like.
    > I sure don't. Most modern cars are pretty quiet at idle too.
    >
    > If you have some more detailed information I'd love to hear about it.

    Sorry to not have a ton of details - all I know is that at low speeds it
    goes into battery only mode and the people who drive them claim how spooky
    quiet it is in the cabin. I have no idea the dB levels or anything. I am
    sure Toyota has information.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/31/04 12:43 PM, in article 7%POc.221125$XM6.17476@attbi_s53, "Stewart
    Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

    > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:59:49 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/30/04 1:44 PM, in article cee1d4018o3@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
    >> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much easier -
    >>>
    >>> What? No it doesn't!
    >>>
    >>>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not be the
    >>>> same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost as well.
    >>>
    >>> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >>> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >>
    >> Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge - why
    >> does it sound so bad?
    >
    > That's an entirely different matter. MP3 does not in and of itself
    > sound bad, this only arises when you try to use excessive compression,
    > i.e too low a bit rate, which for me on most music is anything less
    > than 192kbits/sec. OTOH, most agree that AAC is a fundamentally
    > superior compression algorithm, and it's becoming increasinly popular.

    Thanks! I have listened to AAC and MP#, albeit at 128kbps - which seems to
    be a popular norm.

    This afternoon I ripped some Elvis Costello to 192kbps AAC - and the CD
    sounded better though iTunes on my Mac through some studio monitors (in the
    studio) and I noticed a difference, and the CD sounded much better - though
    not as different as at 128. I see what you mean.

    I can use Apple lossless and get it to 50% of size - and for the hard drive
    - since Gigs are cheap - it seems eaqsy to not have to decide on the amount
    of loss!
  27. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Ban <bansuri@web.de> wrote:
    > B&D wrote:
    > >>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much
    > >>> easier -
    > >>
    > >> What? No it doesn't!
    > >>
    > >>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not
    > >>> be the same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost
    > >>> as well.
    > >>
    > >> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    > >> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    > >
    > > Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge
    > > - why does it sound so bad?

    > I made some comparisons with higher bitrates mp3. The sonic structure was
    > kept very well, but the spacial impression got completely lost. What was
    > deep soundstage extending beyond the speakers ended up on a line between the
    > speakers. In headphones this was not so noticable, but IHL is not very
    > revealing anyway.

    over on www.hydrogenaudio.org, they've done lots of controlled
    comparison testing of various encoders and decoders.
    And the upshot is that the best lossy implementations are pretty much
    indistinguishable from their sources, for all but the most difficult
    source material, by these criteria. Were your
    comparisons done rigorously? Using what encoders and decoders? At
    what bitrates? Using what material as a test? All of that matters.

    --

    -S.
    "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
    Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
    David Lee Roth
  28. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 7/31/04 10:55 AM, in article cegbts02oam@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
    <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

    >>> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >>> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >>
    >> Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge - why
    >> does it sound so bad?
    >>
    >
    > But it is much easier just listing the ways you are wrong. You know, we
    > all go for the low-hanging fruit! :)

    :-) No kidding - much easier to criticise than correct, yes? :-P

    >
    > Here is a website that explains how mp3's work in layman terms:
    >
    > http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/
    >
    > When you said that mp3's sound "so bad", you are making an invalid
    > assumption. I have listened to high bitrate mp3's and mp4's, and it is
    > very difficult to tell the compressed version from the original.

    I would say that while not invalid, it is the particular use of the
    compression (the 90% reduction rate) makes it sound bad.

    Interesting link - thanks.

    >You
    > should download iTunes and try it for yourself. Make a CD of tracks that
    > you encode into AAC or mp3 (and decompress to .wav format). Compare that
    > with original. Try coding at 320Kbps; it gets very difficult to detect
    > differences using music material.

    Just did - on my studio monitors (Project 6 self powered) I can begin to
    detect problems at around 192kbps using iTunes AAC. On my main stereo
    system, it is about 320kbps as you said where it is obvious if you are
    listening for it, but not if you aren't or aren't familiar with the CD.
    Given that the effective bitrate is 600-1000bps if you believe iTunes apple
    lossless encoding, that is around a 50% compression - which makes some
    sense.

    > BTW, if you believe that mp3's sound so bad, why then did you say that
    > they sound "much easier" in a car?

    Oh - I took some 192kbps compressed and put it back on CD in AIFF formet -
    and it didn't sound half bad - kind of like good FM radio (we have a couple
    of stations around here that take pride in good sound). Didn't sound as
    good as the original CD, but completely acceptable - easier on the ears, in
    fact!

    Thanks for the website & the info!
  29. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 31 Jul 2004 21:21:09 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    >On 7/31/04 2:24 PM, in article ptROc.202947$JR4.128822@attbi_s54, "Nousaine"
    ><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
    >
    >> B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 7/30/04 11:31 PM, in article goEOc.200481$JR4.160108@attbi_s54, "Stewart
    >>> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:

    >>>>>> My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >>>>>> classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your typical
    >>>>>> 4-banger.
    >>>>
    >>>> Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!
    >>>>
    >>>> OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    >>>> quality!
    >>>
    >>> Heard that! But you could also get one of the whizzy new hybrids (like the
    >>> Toyota Prius) - at lower speeds, the engine turns off and it runs on
    >>> batteries - making it VERY quiet!
    >>
    >> But there's more to car noise than engine noise. It Xway speeds tire/wind and
    >> road noise dominates. In stop and go traffic who knows what hybrids sound
    >> like.
    >> I sure don't. Most modern cars are pretty quiet at idle too.
    >>
    >> If you have some more detailed information I'd love to hear about it.
    >
    >Sorry to not have a ton of details - all I know is that at low speeds it
    >goes into battery only mode and the people who drive them claim how spooky
    >quiet it is in the cabin. I have no idea the dB levels or anything. I am
    >sure Toyota has information.

    In a Lexus LS400/430, you can't hear the engine anyway, unless you're
    accelerating hard.
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  30. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 8/1/04 5:29 AM, in article NJ2Pc.225284$Oq2.65958@attbi_s52, "B&D"
    <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    >> BTW, if you believe that mp3's sound so bad, why then did you say that
    >> they sound "much easier" in a car?
    >
    > Oh - I took some 192kbps compressed and put it back on CD in AIFF formet -
    > and it didn't sound half bad - kind of like good FM radio (we have a couple
    > of stations around here that take pride in good sound). Didn't sound as
    > good as the original CD, but completely acceptable - easier on the ears, in
    > fact!

    Meant to say - Easier on the ears IN THE CAR than IN THE HOUSE on my stereo
    system.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:48:56 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    >On 7/31/04 10:56 AM, in article cegbup02obh@news3.newsguy.com, "Ban"
    ><bansuri@web.de> wrote:
    >
    >> B&D wrote:
    >>>>> Ah, but it does roll off the bass and treble making the sound much
    >>>>> easier -
    >>>>
    >>>> What? No it doesn't!
    >>>>
    >>>>> note that I said "works almost as well" - meaning that it may not
    >>>>> be the same, but the limited BW (or apparent as such) works almost
    >>>>> as well.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, you are simply flat-out *wrong*, MP3 has absolutely *no* such
    >>>> effects, it is purely a data reduction tool.
    >>>
    >>> Instead of listing the ways I am wrong - in your tgechnical knowledge
    >>> - why does it sound so bad?
    >>
    >> I made some comparisons with higher bitrates mp3. The sonic structure was
    >> kept very well, but the spacial impression got completely lost. What was
    >> deep soundstage extending beyond the speakers ended up on a line between the
    >> speakers. In headphones this was not so noticable, but IHL is not very
    >> revealing anyway.
    >
    >CD has about 1.4Mbps - I think a song on average, if Apple lossless is to be
    >believes is somewhere between 600-1100Mbps - so anything less than that
    >might begin to sound compressed!

    The key difference is that with lossless compression, you do get the
    original CD quality, but with AAC/MP3, you are making use of a
    carefully-designed psychoacoustic algorithm which allows significantly
    greater compression without perceived loss of quality. I find it
    extremely difficult to tell the difference between 320kb/sec MP3 and
    original CD, even on music with considerable HF detail, such as cymbal
    work on jazz. OTOH, with 40GB to play with on an iPod, why not simply
    store your 1000 favourite tracks at full CD quality with lossless
    compression? Does anyone *seriously* have more tunes that they listen
    to on anything like a regular basis?
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  32. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    But it's not a "typical" 4-banger!!!

    I have an a pair of 18 year old "126" chasis MB's and they are still
    quiet -- except for the occasional clunking of a sway bar --

    Your point on the Lexus is well taken.

    Jack

    "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:goEOc.200481$JR4.160108@attbi_s54...
    > On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
    >
    > >"John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >>My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    > >>classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your
    typical
    > >>4-banger.
    >
    > Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!
    >
    > OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    > quality!
    > --
    >
    > Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
    >
  33. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 8/1/04 10:42 AM, in article ceivg201prt@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
    Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

    > On 31 Jul 2004 21:21:09 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/31/04 2:24 PM, in article ptROc.202947$JR4.128822@attbi_s54, "Nousaine"
    >> <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 7/30/04 11:31 PM, in article goEOc.200481$JR4.160108@attbi_s54, "Stewart
    >>>> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 23:39:38 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "John Walton" jdwalton@comcast.net wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> My advise to you young man, get a quiet car if you like listening to
    >>>>>>> classical music! Even a 20 year old MB will be quieter than your
    >>>>>>> typical
    >>>>>>> 4-banger.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Um, the majority of Mercs *are* 4-bangers!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OTOH, try a Lexus for a quiet environment - and superior build
    >>>>> quality!
    >>>>
    >>>> Heard that! But you could also get one of the whizzy new hybrids (like the
    >>>> Toyota Prius) - at lower speeds, the engine turns off and it runs on
    >>>> batteries - making it VERY quiet!
    >>>
    >>> But there's more to car noise than engine noise. It Xway speeds tire/wind
    >>> and
    >>> road noise dominates. In stop and go traffic who knows what hybrids sound
    >>> like.
    >>> I sure don't. Most modern cars are pretty quiet at idle too.
    >>>
    >>> If you have some more detailed information I'd love to hear about it.
    >>
    >> Sorry to not have a ton of details - all I know is that at low speeds it
    >> goes into battery only mode and the people who drive them claim how spooky
    >> quiet it is in the cabin. I have no idea the dB levels or anything. I am
    >> sure Toyota has information.
    >
    > In a Lexus LS400/430, you can't hear the engine anyway, unless you're
    > accelerating hard.

    True - the Lexus really isolates you from the road.
    But a typical hybrid is about US$25k, Lexus a bit more (like 2x or more!) so
    it is horses for courses - or at least for budgets! :-)
  34. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 09:29:17 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    >On 7/31/04 10:55 AM, in article cegbts02oam@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
    ><chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

    >> Here is a website that explains how mp3's work in layman terms:
    >>
    >> http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/
    >>
    >> When you said that mp3's sound "so bad", you are making an invalid
    >> assumption. I have listened to high bitrate mp3's and mp4's, and it is
    >> very difficult to tell the compressed version from the original.
    >
    >I would say that while not invalid, it is the particular use of the
    >compression (the 90% reduction rate) makes it sound bad.

    You cannot say that MP3 has a 90% data reduction rate, the compression
    ratio is entirely dependent on the bit rate.
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  35. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 8/1/04 1:56 PM, in article cejas3025be@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
    Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

    > On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 09:29:17 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/31/04 10:55 AM, in article cegbts02oam@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
    >> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
    >
    >>> Here is a website that explains how mp3's work in layman terms:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/
    >>>
    >>> When you said that mp3's sound "so bad", you are making an invalid
    >>> assumption. I have listened to high bitrate mp3's and mp4's, and it is
    >>> very difficult to tell the compressed version from the original.
    >>
    >> I would say that while not invalid, it is the particular use of the
    >> compression (the 90% reduction rate) makes it sound bad.
    >
    > You cannot say that MP3 has a 90% data reduction rate, the compression
    > ratio is entirely dependent on the bit rate.

    IN this case, yes I can. In the particular use of compression in question,
    the data loss was ~90% (128kbps). I was speaking specifically, not *in
    general*.
Ask a new question

Read More

High-End Audio Audio Music