Hi Chris…as much as I hate to disagree with your explanation of MP3's…well….

It's my engineering degree and my A/V experience that have to discredit your MP3 synopsis. Your comment "...MP3's use both data compression and data reduction" is redundant. By the very nature of compression, data is reduced. It's the whole point of compression to reduce the amount of data. The way this compression is accomplished is different among the audio data compression algorithms in use today (MP3, WMA, ACC, OggVorbis…). Most rely on an underlying principal called auditory perception. Sounds present on a CD may not be audible to the average human due to those sounds being masked by other sounds on the same recording. These algorithms take advantage of this to varying degrees. Another common practice is to narrow the allowable frequency bandwidth. The CD is limited to 20hz to 20Khz. This is the audio range of most humans. Many compression schemes narrow this considerably. All these measures amount to the same goal. Reduce the total number of bits which make up a recorded source. The "white noise" you referred to is not actually "white noise" It is legitimate music, but it just cannot be distinguished amongst all the other sounds going on. True "white noise" is a "hiss", or more specifically a combination of tones from 20hz to 20Khz all at the same level at the same time. This is not to be confused with "pink noise".

So in closing, if played on the exact same system, an MP3 could never sound as good as the original source because it is a severe compromise of the original. The higher bit rates allow you to reduce the amount of compression to retain more of the original signal, and thereby have a clearer signal than a more compressed version (say 192kbs vs. 128kbs).

Not trying to start anything, we all have to share the luv. Just clearing things up a bit.

 

Yeah that is what I figured. I listened to the pioneers at Bestbuy. I didn't think they sounded all that bad. I like loud music too, but don't need to blow the doors off. I would have kept the stock ones until the one went bad..

 

This is actually the problem I am having with the passenger door speaker. Wonder if it is just another ford defect amoung many.....

Its too late anyway, decided it was a good excuse to upgrade and those pioneers do sound better than the stock ones.

 

If you don't want to splice into your factory wires, you will need

Scosche SHFD03B

or

Metra 72-5600

Makes it real easy.

 

I don’t think anyone uses 192 on down anymore, at least not in three or five years so the music is not very compressed. However while I used white noise as a generic term for sounds that the human hear does not translate well, I was just trying to simplify the answer. I try to KISS on postings on the forums for obvious reasons.

As I stated, anyone that is talking about the math or the ‘perfection of reproduction’ will not like stripping away that sound that the human ear can not interpret. Those that actually want to hear the instruments or vocals truly do not miss the extraneous sounds.

A good test of this is listening to a song where no matter how close you listen; you can not quite make out the words. Lots of them out there, especially Rock songs.
Then rip it, and play it back on the same system. 8 out of 10 can hear the words clearer.
Often being startled that “Docks that night” becomes “dark sad night” (for those Dillon fans…
Try it sometime.
Although a true purist doesn’t really care about that, it’s the principle of the thing…

Well, not a big thing anyway. Have a good one.
Chris

 

Hi Chris,
Can you provide some evidence/factual info to back up your statement “I don’t think anyone uses 192 on down anymore, at least not in three or five years“ ? I’ve never heard that reference before (3-5 years part). I’ve been involved with the A/V industry for nearly 15 years, so I know a thing or two about the business. I enjoy a good debate, but not when an opinion is stated as factual info. I will agree that 192kbs is the current norm. You mentioned that 192 and above is not that compressed. Do you know what the actual data rate is for uncompressed PCM audio data (a .cda file, or the audio on a CD)? I’ll make it simple. It’s 1411.2kbs. So to go from a rate of 1411 to 192 is actually a huge difference. That alone is an 8:1 ratio. Pretty significant.
It actually has more to do with the encoder than purely the data rate alone. An encoder using the LAME algorithm at 128kbs will sound better than an older encoder at 384kbs! I have built 12 A/V servers in the last 2 years. When doing this the home owner must hand over their entire music library so I can have it all digitally encoded. I then hand the original CD’s over to the customer and take the DVDs and copy them over to the HDD in the server. Of the 12 servers I built all but three chose 128kbs (encoded w/LAME). Two went with 192 and the last went with 384. Below you’ll see a pic of the last server I built (H2O cooled too):

 

Okay knowledgeable ones.... before you gentlemen break out into an arm wrestling match, I have a question. I have a 2005 Lariat SCREW with the Audiophile 6 CD changer MP3 (never use MP3s). Will it drag ithe system down by adding a couple of tweeters at the ceiling, near the windshield ? Or do you think I would be better off just replacing my stock speakers with half way decent ones.... I'm not a purist, but do like hearing all the details of my classic rock, jazz, etc. I don't ever crank it past 4 "bars"... BTW, it's good to have gents such as you two, Chris and rms8, who have the knowledge and background, but not the arrogance of "if it doesn't cost 5 grand it ain't squat" type of attitude .... Thanks....

 

Hi WillieP,

I’m assuming you’re asking about adding a passive x-over on the front speakers and send the highs to separate tweeters. If it were me, I think you would see more of a gain and less hassle if you just replaced the speakers in full. I’m not sure what the total output of the head unit is per channel, but I doubt there would be very much headroom left by adding an additional speaker in parallel. If you did add the tweeter, I’m not sure if the factory head unit would be rated to handle a load that low (assuming you wired them in parallel). In my honest opinion, I think it would sound better and be less of a strain on the head unit to just go with an aftermarket 2-way 6x8.

BTW, thanks for the props, and I hope I wasn’t coming off that way with the back-n-forth banter with Chris.

 

To cut through all the technical stuff, those Pioneers will be just fine. Of course, what sounds best to you is what sounds best to you. In my opinion, the Pioneers are the best all-around deal for the money. I recommend coaxials.
I prefer Polks, but I have to watch what I spend, so I went with Pioneer. No regrets.

 

Nice picture and nice work.

About 5 years ago, more or less, the newsgroups started seeing rips of better than 192 as a standard. Since a large proportion of the songs traded over Bitstream, and the various ‘sharing’ Napster clones are actually just reposts of Alt uploads, this was reflected widely.
I would not have noticed but my kid brother (OK, he’s in his 40’s and going bald, but he’s always ‘the kid’ to me) owns an ISP in San Diego and he showed me the bandwidth Vs. the file counts at that time in the MP3 groups. A quick call to him confirms that is still the trend.

This may not be noticeable in some areas, but here in the Golden State even the kids rip high quality. Perhaps it is different in other places, but the Alt posts still reflect this increase. The last thousand or so I looked at were above 224.
Another factor that makes me say few people still rip at the minimum the several hundred clients I used to have (sold the computer customizing shop in 03) were all using higher bit rates, and the nice lady who bought the company frequently talks about this still continuing.
I notice last time I was by the old shop she had no drives smaller than 300 gig on the shelf. And those won’t sell. Everyone locally is into 400-500 and up. Sorta implies they are still using the bigger files.


On your picture;
Nice server box. Haven’t built a rack system since 2002. Miss them. Sorta miss working. Sorta.

Just for fun here is a couple pictures of my footrest.

It's under my feet as I type.
Um, H20 cooling?


That’s my footrest, the 40 buck water cooling system keeps the old 4200x2 cool at 2600Mhz.

When we got into water cooling (way before Danger Den) we had to build our own waterblocks, and I spent many a long day stress testing Athlons. Sometimes to death…
XPs were easier, but these 64x2’s are a walk in the park.
Never did much with Intel’s stuff, water wise. No demand.
I still water cool my gaming machine and the footrest (2 terabytes of storage, just use it as a file server around the house.
My wife runs air-cooling on a 4600x2 for photo shopping. She was never happy with running water in the case, though in five years her machines never sprang a leak.
Got boxes of the blocks, hold downs, pumps, etc. that no one wants anymore. I haven’t had clients that wanted water cooling in several years now, Sorta thought it was dead, but glad to hear it ain’t.

Well, if we get anymore off topic I suspect RockPick will introduce us to a geoligests pick… So
Have a great one,
Chris

 

Thanks rms8 ! That's exactly the type of advice I was looking for. Now I won't be wizzing in the wind trying to put the tweeters in (and you were right - that's precisely what I was considering). And no, you nor Chris came across wrong - just a couple of experts exchanging a variety of viewpoints.... Thanks again...

Bill

 

Wow, I never thought my thread question would expand into this!

Interesting read though.

 

Okay I must know this: is Bose worth the money? I keep hearing they are all marketing and no substance.

 

I have heard bose systems in mazda and nissan cars that sounded nice, but I don't think you can get bose new unless you find someone that takes it out of their vehicle...

 

I can only give my 15 years experience in the custom HOME a/v realm here. The ONLY thing Bose has going for it in that arena is a stellar marketing department. PERIOD. I wouldn’t even put a Bose setup in a bedroom surround sound install. There are just too many vendors out there with better products costing hundreds less. There’s an inside joke in the industry, perhaps you’ve heard it too….”If it has no highs and no lows, it must be Bose”.

Now I have to assume you’re inquiring about the mobile products offered by Bose. I ‘m an upfront, straight to the point person, so on that note….I have no idea. I have no experience with car audio Bose. Based on my home A/V experience, I personally would not even consider looking into any Bose products.