Reccomend $500 Head units

Stas · Post by **Stas** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:43 am

FTOluv wrote:so are u trying to tell me the same deck with 24-bit compared to one that has only 1bit is the same?? no wonder yr just a sales person

you ok?? maybe you should start eating breakfast....have you seen that ad on tv? were it tells you it helps keep thinks stored in your brain:)

second i do listen to copied cd:) but copied from original

and im deaf only to people that i dont think its worth listening too....

p.s just cut the crap

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:57 pm

Just some thoughts...

Firstly, if we keep the personal attacks out of it, we could have an interesting discussion here.

I'd bet that a lot of people don't understand what a DAC is and likewise the difference between one that has 24bit resolution vs. one that has a 1bit resolution, keeping in mind that CDs have a 16bit resolution. Likewise there has been no mention of oversampling, which is a must, especially if dealing with 1bit DACs.

I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of people can't hear the difference between the two, either because they don't know what they're looking for, they don't have good enough equipment to notice it, the environment of the car is too noisy for them to notice or quite simply their ears can't hear it (the specifications of most audio equipment is beyond that of our ears).

At a guess, I'd also suggest that a number of people with more expensive equipment are using it to listen to MP3s thereby negating the benefits of having the more expensive equipment

.

The best judge of any audio equipment is going to be your ears. If your ears can't pick the difference then it doesn't matter what the specs say (or the salesperson).

Stas · Post by **Stas** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:37 pm

going into the tech side....ruchi just sumed it up..... but i did not want to go to tech because some people just dont understand.....but there are diff types of dac chips...

Jono · Post by **Jono** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:45 am

hey guys,

ended up buying a alpine cd-9827 for $500 from Lifestyle Shop. This was down from $570.. so it wasnt too bad.

Rodney Served me and they have good customer service, so if any problems i could go back to them with any questions or problems.

Listening to the HU and i could already see the difference between Schneider and Alpine. Hopefully when i get it installed i will see better results.

Ther · Post by **Ther** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:52 am

ruchi wrote:Just some thoughts...

I'd bet that a lot of people don't understand what a DAC is and likewise the difference between one that has 24bit resolution vs. one that has a 1bit resolution, keeping in mind that CDs have a 16bit resolution. Likewise there has been no mention of oversampling, which is a must, especially if dealing with 1bit DACs.

Now explain this to me please..when a system quotes 24 bit resolution with 1 bit DAC....??

ruchi wrote: At a guess, I'd also suggest that a number of people with more expensive equipment are using it to listen to MP3s thereby negating the benefits of having the more expensive equipment .

Now MP3 can be quite crap at low resolutions...192kbps is CD quality....if you go up from that then u can get high quality music, so why do u say that listening to MP3's negates the effect of a more expensive equipment/sound system?..

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:48 pm

Sorry, but this is going to be a long one

Ther wrote:Now explain this to me please..when a system quotes 24 bit resolution with 1 bit DAC....??

If it is a 1bit DAC then technically it only has 1bit resolution, but through oversampling it can simulate having a higher resolution. i.e. to get 24bit resolution from a 1bit DAC would require 24x oversampling.

Rather than comparing sound resolution to a computer's screen resolution, think of it as the number of colours available. A 1bit DAC is the equivilant of black and white while a 24bit DAC would be like having over 16million colours. CDs are encoded at 16bits offering the equivilant of over 65,000 colours. In sound terms, think of each "colour" as a "tone". Obviously the more tones the more detailed and accuarate the sound will be.

However, there is a difference between what technically is possible versus what your ears are actually capable of perceiving. For example, a CD has a sample rate of 44khz - i.e. every second it takes 44,000 snap shots of the music. So even a 1bit DAC still has 44,000 pieces of information about the sound you are listening to, every single second. To put it bluntly, that's a sh*t load of information and the reason why many people can't notice the difference between a 1bit DAC versus higher DACs.

Ther wrote:Now MP3 can be quite crap at low resolutions...192kbps is CD quality....if you go up from that then u can get high quality music, so why do u say that listening to MP3's negates the effect of a more expensive equipment/sound system?..

To put it bluntly, MP3 cannot produce true CD quality sound, rather it produces perceived CD quality sound.

The very basis of MP3 is an algorithm which simulates the "perception" of sound of an "average" human ear. The idea is to remove all the bits of information that the human ear won't notice are missing, leaving behind a much smaller file.

It's a bit like watching a VHS video and then a DVD. If all you watch is the VHS video then your eyes don't "perceive" there is anything missing, but when you have two TVs side by side, both with the same movie but one is VHS video and the other is DVD, your perception changes and you are now aware that the VHS video is not as clear or as detailed as the DVD. (make sense?

)

As an example:
1) Most MP3s are recorded in "joint stereo" (not true stereo) meaning the bulk of the music is averaged out and recorded as mono and only highlights and parts of the music that are primarily out of one speaker are recorded as stereo, so as to give the "perception" of sound seperation and direction.

2) Most MP3s record none (or very little) detail above 16khz (16,000hz). Most audio equipment is measured from 20hz-20,000hz as this is deemed to be the capability of the human ear. The MP3 algorithm, however, says that most people won't notice if sounds are missing from above 16,000hz and therefore cuts them off or provides little space for them. Obviously this limits the high-end and can be quite noticable on some types of music.

The more you listen to MP3s the more your ear gets used to them and the less you perceive that there is anything wrong with it, as your ears don't know any different.

The limitations of MP3 are very well known, even to the point where they have come out with a better version called MP3 Pro. Likewise competitors such as Sony and Apple and open formats such as OggVorbis have arisen to offer better alternatives to MP3. While these formats are a good compromise between sound quality and size for portable media, if archiving your CD collection to your computer, I'd suggest you do it in a lossless format such as WMA lossless, FLAC or what is probably the best, Monkey's Audio (APE).

PHEW!

, if you got through all that, well done!

Ther · Post by **Ther** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:24 pm

Point taken

MP3 is also an older format..... WMA provides smaller files and good quility, but if u sample your owm Mp3 files at higher bitrates and size its not an issue..you get great quality music..
i won't argue the point that CD quality is much better than MP3...
But i think for a car sound system, and also portability..MP3 outshines cd's...

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:45 pm

Ther wrote:i think for a car sound system, and also portability..MP3 outshines cd's...

I agree that MP3 is a good compromise between sound quality and size, but if you've got a good system why play lower-grade music on it? Kind of defeats the purpose of having a good stereo in the first place.

Keep in mind that lossy formats such as MP3 have a limited life, as size becomes less of an issue, the focus will then be on quality.

Just last week Fujitsu announced the release of a 100gb 2.5" hard drive (the same size they use in hard drive based portable media players). Once you've got 100gb of storage for your music, and you can take it with you or play it in the car, you've got to wonder if you'd still use a lossy format like MP3 or a lossless format like WMA lossless, FLAC or APE.

For this reason I suggest people rip their CDs to their computer in a lossless format, as this will future-proof their music collection.

Ther · Post by **Ther** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:32 pm

ruchi wrote:[

For this reason I suggest people rip their CDs to their computer in a lossless format, as this will future-proof their music collection.

I think you mean people should back up their own music as music they "played" with their own instruments because it is illegal in Australia to back up or copy a cd or dvd even though you have purchased them.....

I think FTO Australia and its members do not condone the infringement of any copyright laws.....