Listening in a car

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[chung]

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.

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

>
> 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!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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
>

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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*.