hi there
as we all know that the mp3 files are less quality than the wav files which we use in the cd players
so i wonder is it worth it to buy an mp3 HU which is much expensive and less SQ than the normal cd player ...
my idea over here that i'm willing to buy an Alpine HU so the price between the normal cd reciver and the mp3 is a big differnce .....
so i need help ... what do u think about it dudes
many thanx
Replies (10)
Tray on 09/5/2003 13:09:15
MP3 less quality?
.wav in CD players?
OK, let me see.
If you are referring to CD quality music, which is purchased from a retail store, the music is recorded/played at 128kb/s sampling rate. This is referred to as CD quality.
.wav files are actually the type of files referred to on a computer. These typically are recorded at ~64kb/s or lower.
If you are an audiophile, and are looking for extreme SQ, you can sometimes obtain music that is recorded at 256kb/s, and when you transfer this to a CD via MP3 format, you would actually be getting better than CD quality sound.
Realistically, if you were to look at Kazaa, napster, or some of the other file sharing communities, you will notice that most files can be obtained in the 128kb/s rate, and will reproduce CD quality sound, if it is then recorded properly onto quality media.
It now comes down to your decision. Are you willing to invest in high quality CD media, and spend the time finding quality MP3 files? If not, go with the non-mp3 option. If so, you will be happy with the mp3 option, assuming you would be happy with it if all else were equal.
Tray on 09/5/2003 13:19:39
Just re-read that, and I sounded kind of harsh. Not trying to be rude, just point out the facts.
Swez on 09/6/2003 06:00:05
It did not come off as harsh as I read it. In fact, very much to the point, good facts behind the expected results.
I seem to remember that Admins (Walt) gave a expose' on this topic and it seems that he stated CD quality has a bit sample rate of 192Kb/sec???
As you said, have found 128 to be of good enough quality for most general audio material. Anything below that, the mix is poor and I just deleted them. Even at 96Kb, the SQ is less tha desireable... like a bad tape duplication etc.
Swez
accusedmonk on 09/6/2003 09:11:19
CD's that are stamped, or burned for recording artists are at 196kb/sec. When we rip and burn it takes it down a little to 128.
bearman on 09/8/2003 14:35:43
I'm not an expert, but I purchased an MP3 compatible HU for my Suburban, Blaupunkt San Jose, and I am very happy with it. The experts are correct about sound quality. You just have to be careful when downloading or ripping mp3's. The great thing about mp3's are that you can get an exponentially greater number of tracks on a disk thank you can with regular CD format tracks.
Hope this helps.
dflock on 09/8/2003 16:39:41
Napster...
wow. That program really was excellent. I can't stand most of the newer programs (KazaA, Gnutella...) Maybe someone will come out with Napster 2.0.
bearman on 09/9/2003 10:13:39
It is my understanding that Napster will be coming back online around Christmas. It will be a pay per download type site, but I would expect the guys from Napster to keep the prices down. Has anyone else heard the same?
Tray on 09/9/2003 15:01:33
Last I checked Napster was up again, and was operating under the pay per file model.
At that point, I still did not want to get into the whole paying for ?????????, because 90% of the stuff I've downloaded in the past has been either poor quality, not the file mentioned, or an incomplete file.
Now that the whole law suit is happening against so many people, I have come to the understanding that maybe I will eventually be forced to go this route. Hopefully they get some quality control in place first though.
Oops, yes 192 is correct, please forgive my oversight. 192 kb/s is recording industry standard, where 128 kb/s is considered CD quality. I'm slightly out of touch, as I haven't worked in the CD-Writer field for almost 3 years now. Guess I should have referenced my notes, rather than thinking I can remember so much.
dflock on 09/9/2003 16:28:54
I was at www.napster.com. They are not operational. Had they been recently? Either way... I loved the layout of Napster. It was just music, i think that is what made it so great. Simple and usable.
accusedmonk on 09/9/2003 17:25:23
I would get an mp3 deck if I were you. I bought a Sony MP70, it's nice, but it won't let me use multisession, so once I burn a CD that's all I can put on it or the newer songs won't play for long. Better models probably won't do that. It is worth it though, and safer. Better just hittin a button on a remote to scroll through up to 511 songs, then flipping through 50 cd's and changing them.
The quality is all there too, 128kb/s is plenty for me lol. I did finally find out the my preout voltage for the subouts and probably the front and rear preouts is 2.1 volts.
I'm gettin sound quality out of SPL suited subs with what I have though, so I guess it's all good.
Actually, the tracks on a bought cd aren't in .WAV, we rip them and encode them into WAV or MP3. WAV I think is about the same quality as MP3's except is not nearly as compressed. A typical wav format song runs into 25 megs or more.
You could go without the mp3 feature, but to me it's much more of a hassle. I'm wondering how we ended up talkin about napster lol.
as we all know that the mp3 files are less quality than the wav files which we use in the cd players
so i wonder is it worth it to buy an mp3 HU which is much expensive and less SQ than the normal cd player ...
my idea over here that i'm willing to buy an Alpine HU so the price between the normal cd reciver and the mp3 is a big differnce .....
so i need help ... what do u think about it dudes
many thanx
Replies (10)
Tray on 09/5/2003 13:09:15
MP3 less quality?
.wav in CD players?
OK, let me see.
If you are referring to CD quality music, which is purchased from a retail store, the music is recorded/played at 128kb/s sampling rate. This is referred to as CD quality.
.wav files are actually the type of files referred to on a computer. These typically are recorded at ~64kb/s or lower.
If you are an audiophile, and are looking for extreme SQ, you can sometimes obtain music that is recorded at 256kb/s, and when you transfer this to a CD via MP3 format, you would actually be getting better than CD quality sound.
Realistically, if you were to look at Kazaa, napster, or some of the other file sharing communities, you will notice that most files can be obtained in the 128kb/s rate, and will reproduce CD quality sound, if it is then recorded properly onto quality media.
It now comes down to your decision. Are you willing to invest in high quality CD media, and spend the time finding quality MP3 files? If not, go with the non-mp3 option. If so, you will be happy with the mp3 option, assuming you would be happy with it if all else were equal.
Tray on 09/5/2003 13:19:39
Just re-read that, and I sounded kind of harsh. Not trying to be rude, just point out the facts.
Swez on 09/6/2003 06:00:05
It did not come off as harsh as I read it. In fact, very much to the point, good facts behind the expected results.
I seem to remember that Admins (Walt) gave a expose' on this topic and it seems that he stated CD quality has a bit sample rate of 192Kb/sec???
As you said, have found 128 to be of good enough quality for most general audio material. Anything below that, the mix is poor and I just deleted them. Even at 96Kb, the SQ is less tha desireable... like a bad tape duplication etc.
Swez
accusedmonk on 09/6/2003 09:11:19
CD's that are stamped, or burned for recording artists are at 196kb/sec. When we rip and burn it takes it down a little to 128.
bearman on 09/8/2003 14:35:43
I'm not an expert, but I purchased an MP3 compatible HU for my Suburban, Blaupunkt San Jose, and I am very happy with it. The experts are correct about sound quality. You just have to be careful when downloading or ripping mp3's. The great thing about mp3's are that you can get an exponentially greater number of tracks on a disk thank you can with regular CD format tracks.
Hope this helps.
dflock on 09/8/2003 16:39:41
Napster...
wow. That program really was excellent. I can't stand most of the newer programs (KazaA, Gnutella...) Maybe someone will come out with Napster 2.0.
bearman on 09/9/2003 10:13:39
It is my understanding that Napster will be coming back online around Christmas. It will be a pay per download type site, but I would expect the guys from Napster to keep the prices down. Has anyone else heard the same?
Tray on 09/9/2003 15:01:33
Last I checked Napster was up again, and was operating under the pay per file model.
At that point, I still did not want to get into the whole paying for ?????????, because 90% of the stuff I've downloaded in the past has been either poor quality, not the file mentioned, or an incomplete file.
Now that the whole law suit is happening against so many people, I have come to the understanding that maybe I will eventually be forced to go this route. Hopefully they get some quality control in place first though.
Oops, yes 192 is correct, please forgive my oversight. 192 kb/s is recording industry standard, where 128 kb/s is considered CD quality. I'm slightly out of touch, as I haven't worked in the CD-Writer field for almost 3 years now. Guess I should have referenced my notes, rather than thinking I can remember so much.
dflock on 09/9/2003 16:28:54
I was at www.napster.com. They are not operational. Had they been recently? Either way... I loved the layout of Napster. It was just music, i think that is what made it so great. Simple and usable.
accusedmonk on 09/9/2003 17:25:23
I would get an mp3 deck if I were you. I bought a Sony MP70, it's nice, but it won't let me use multisession, so once I burn a CD that's all I can put on it or the newer songs won't play for long. Better models probably won't do that. It is worth it though, and safer. Better just hittin a button on a remote to scroll through up to 511 songs, then flipping through 50 cd's and changing them.
The quality is all there too, 128kb/s is plenty for me lol. I did finally find out the my preout voltage for the subouts and probably the front and rear preouts is 2.1 volts.
I'm gettin sound quality out of SPL suited subs with what I have though, so I guess it's all good.
Actually, the tracks on a bought cd aren't in .WAV, we rip them and encode them into WAV or MP3. WAV I think is about the same quality as MP3's except is not nearly as compressed. A typical wav format song runs into 25 megs or more.
You could go without the mp3 feature, but to me it's much more of a hassle. I'm wondering how we ended up talkin about napster lol.
Copyright ClubKnowledge 2009 * All Rights Reserved
