Stereo upgrade.....

[Motorsport-SVX]

Not sure what Ill be doing.....but thinking of finally breaking down and upgrading the stereo to a new XM reciever.....in dash Eclipse CD changer.....small amp and new speakers. I know very little about car stereos but have some friends in the business I trust so see what I end up with in the next 30 days. I just want some better sound and dont care about winning any contest or that stuff. I wouldnt mind a navigational system hidden in dash but that will probably have to wait......
How many speakers does our cars have stock anyway..?

[Bwana]

Theres's 2 in the doors, 2 in the back, and the 2 tweeters. If you count the the tweeters, that's 6. (Math Genius)

I put in a Rockford Fosgate X9000 a while ago. It's pretty awesome, plays MP3 CD's too. Definately worth looking in to, 170 songs on one CD cant be bad, can it?

[BLKSVX92]

only problem with xm in my opinion is the monthly fee :( , otherwise its a cool idea.

Check out my locker for a unique place to put a CD changer :)
http://www.subaru-svx.net/photos/user.php?BLKSVX92|335

[Motorsport-SVX]

Originally posted by BLKSVX92
only problem with xm in my opinion is the monthly fee :( , otherwise its a cool idea.

Check out my locker for a unique place to put a CD changer :)
http://www.subaru-svx.net/photos/user.php?BLKSVX92|335

$10 a month I think........worth every penny to me. You pay for cable or satelite....IMHO this is a better deal.........dg

[BLKSVX92]

true, if you have 10 bucks to spend a month why not, for me i dont see the point. I make my compilations and im good to go.

I personally dont get cable or satelite, would rather spend 40 bucks a month elsewhere. IMHO

[EverclearAtMSU]

Originally posted by Motorsport-SVX


$10 a month I think........worth every penny to me. You pay for cable or satelite....IMHO this is a better deal.........dg

I just had this put in my SVX yesterday. Personally it's worth every penny of the $10 a month. Plus the equipment just went on sale at circuit city...and i've still got a rebate to send in :D

Anyways, there is ALWAYS something good on. My only problem is I hate the antenna!

[red95svx]

Not all SVX's have six speakers. The base models did not have the dash tweeters.

David

[Seraph]

Originally posted by red95svx
Not all SVX's have six speakers. The base models did not have the dash tweeters.

David

Dave,

I believe Dayle owns a 92 LS-L. Those have 6 speakers. Some "L" badged SVXes do come with 4 speakers but those were only on 94. The late model "94L"s do come with all 6 speakers, airbag and non automatic seatbelt.

Lwin

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by Motorsport-SVX
Not sure what Ill be doing.....but thinking of finally breaking down and upgrading the stereo to a new XM reciever.....in dash Eclipse CD changer.....small amp and new speakers. I know very little about car stereos but have some friends in the business I trust so see what I end up with in the next 30 days. I just want some better sound and dont care about winning any contest or that stuff. I wouldnt mind a navigational system hidden in dash but that will probably have to wait......
How many speakers does our cars have stock anyway..?
Just wanted to give you a word of caution. Kenwood is pure garbage. I have a new kenwood Sirius reciever and i'ts sound quality doesn't deserve to be sh!tted on. I know people like to knock Sony for there supposed trouble prone decks, but nothing I've used, including a pioneer premier, kenwood and various other pieces of garbage even compare to the Sony Explode's sound quality and power outuput.
Dave.

[BLKSVX92]

Dave everyone is entitled to their own opinion, i personally have a Kenwood eXcelon deck that sounds absolutly amazing, i had a 99 eXcelon cd then went to a 00 eXcelon Minidisc deck. I have had no problems with either and have had numerous compliments on the sound quality.

I have looked and most of sony's line RMS at 53W, Poineer (premier) 50W, Kenwood 47-50, so i dont see how you can say that sony has soo much greater sound output, mind you that these are RMS values and the receiver will almost never push that much

kenwoods can control treble, bass, midrange dB levels and frequency, pioneer's have 6-9 band eqs built in, where sonys have minimal control(i am not sure about the latests models) And after looking at them today, i am very unimpressed

my two cents

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by BLKSVX92
Dave everyone is entitled to their own opinion, i personally have a Kenwood eXcelon deck that sounds absolutly amazing, i had a 99 eXcelon cd then went to a 00 eXcelon Minidisc deck. I have had no problems with either and have had numerous compliments on the sound quality.

I have looked and most of sony's line RMS at 53W, Poineer (premier) 50W, Kenwood 47-50, so i dont see how you can say that sony has soo much greater sound output, mind you that these are RMS values and the receiver will almost never push that much

kenwoods can control treble, bass, midrange dB levels and frequency, pioneer's have 6-9 band eqs built in, where sonys have minimal control(i am not sure about the latests models) And after looking at them today, i am very unimpressed

my two cents
You are correct. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I'ts also possible that I've experienced a bad install with my Kenwood deck, but there are a few things I find strange.

First of all, the bass on my kenwood needs to be turned almost all the way up to get proper low frequency response. Even some preprogramed presets have the bass set at close to maximum. This is very unusual, as with with most systems, this high bass level would certainly cause distortion, even at low sound levels. For this reason, manufacturers usually don't set bass levels that high in sound presets. Why a high bass setting doesn't cause distortion, and a low bass level sounds lacking on my kenwood deck is a mystery.
Other problems I've ahd include the face plate lights flickering on and off, and the deck seems to distort easily at high volume, even when the bass is turned down. So I'm very unimpressed.
As far as power ouput is concerned, companies can claim anything they want. Granted, most decks won't push exactly the wattage they claim, but some get closer than others. You don't have to be a real genious to figure this out, just listen. And lack of control over midrange or other sound isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Some quality in-home recievers such as Onkyo or Denon don't allow user midrange or db control.
I'm not trying to knock any company or piss anybody off, I'm just sharing my experience and I think that user experience feedback gives an accurate interpretation of the overall quality of a product.

[kuoh]

Those are PEAK ratings, not RMS. RMS values are usually half or less. There are very few decks, if any, with more than 30W RMS per channel.

KuoH

Originally posted by BLKSVX92
I have looked and most of sony's line RMS at 53W, Poineer (premier) 50W, Kenwood 47-50, so i dont see how you can say that sony has soo much greater sound output, mind you that these are RMS values and the receiver will almost never push that much

[kuoh]

The deck, speakers, musical content, additional emphasis (Loudness), and personal tastes all play a factor. For some songs, even when I crank the sub all the way up, it doesn't seem enough, then for others I have to drop it to almost nothing. Where the bass and treble controls are set are not the final determining factor in distortion, the overall volume plays the biggest role.

I'm also shopping for a new MP3 deck for my SVX, and the last thing I look at is the power rating. Ofcourse that's because I'm running external amps for all the speakers. The Alpine 7995, Pioneer 8400/9400, JVC, and that high end Sony with the color TFT display all look great to me. It's just my wallet that groans whenever I get the itch. :D

KuoH

Originally posted by DavieGravy
First of all, the bass on my kenwood needs to be turned almost all the way up to get proper low frequency response. Even some preprogramed presets have the bass set at close to maximum. This is very unusual, as with with most systems, this high bass level would certainly cause distortion, even at low sound levels. For this reason, manufacturers usually don't set bass levels that high in sound presets. Why a high bass setting doesn't cause distortion, and a low bass level sounds lacking on my kenwood deck is a mystery.

[EverclearAtMSU]

Originally posted by kuoh
Those are PEAK ratings, not RMS. RMS values are usually half or less. There are very few decks, if any, with more than 30W RMS per channel.

KuoH



thank you for saying what had to be said :)

all i have to say is dont get all bent out of shape over the radio. if your really worried so much about the outputs go get a high end alpine, they come w/ no internal amp, just some really nice high voltage outputs. get a nice 4 channel amp that will give you the 50 X 4 RMS and then maybe you'll be happy. In the mean time I'm happy w/ paying a few hundreed bucks at circuit city or best buy for something that will take a cd and give me good sound. Not ear shatering make my call fall apart sound, but hey, that's just my 2 cents

[nvrmore100]

I have to agree, I've been using Kenwood components for years now. All the way back to my first casette. :)

They have always worked amazingly well, and sounded perfect.

My only concern about your setup is that its cd based (or minidisc for that matter). Why not look into MP3? I got my Kenwood Mp3 for about $300, and have loved it since. Being able to get 150+ songs on one cd let me drop my 10 disc CD changer and still have more music than I would to listen to. You also get to sort them how you like them, and put them all in folders by genre/artist/etc, no more hunting to cd 4 because I think that was this cd...

Just a thought.

[kuoh]

Who's getting bent out of shape? I am in fact, considering the Alpine 7995, except they're slightly outdated in their design and ergonomics department. So far, the Pioneer 9400 is my favorite followed by the 8400 and the JVC. The Kenwood 919 is also very nice, except I couldn't figure how to get it to display the ID3 tags.

KuoH

Originally posted by EverclearAtMSU
all i have to say is dont get all bent out of shape over the radio. if your really worried so much about the outputs go get a high end alpine, they come w/ no internal amp, just some really nice high voltage outputs

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by nvrmore100
I have to agree, I've been using Kenwood components for years now. All the way back to my first casette. :)

They have always worked amazingly well, and sounded perfect.

My only concern about your setup is that its cd based (or minidisc for that matter). Why not look into MP3? I got my Kenwood Mp3 for about $300, and have loved it since. Being able to get 150+ songs on one cd let me drop my 10 disc CD changer and still have more music than I would to listen to. You also get to sort them how you like them, and put them all in folders by genre/artist/etc, no more hunting to cd 4 because I think that was this cd...

Just a thought.
You probably have the same kenwood i have. It's an mp3 deck. I love being able to fit that many songs on a cd. I wouldn't trade that for anything. Even slightly better sound. But one should consider the possibility that there may be a tradeoff between the two. I'm sure it's a bit more expensive to make an mp3 deck than a simple cd unit, and I would think the manufacturer needs to compensate for that in some form or another. Woulnd't you agree?
Dave.

[punisher]

Yes, it's great to be able to fit 150 songs on one CD...but what happens when you get sick of those songs? Then you have to take the time to put together another compilation...and you have to make sure your MP3s are the highest quality, otherwise what's the point??

But the thing is....anyone with an ear for music will testify to the fact that, no matter how high an MP3 is compressed, it will not give you true digital sound. I don't care if you people will tell me "but CDs are compressed at 128 and this mp3 is 198!." You are still taking a very large sound file and degrading its volume (AS IN CUBIC UNITS, NOT SOUND), which in turn degrades its sound quality.

[nvrmore100]

I agree, but honestly my stock speakers are not going to project sound that clear anyways. Sound quality is important but you don't have to a fanatic either. If you enjoy your sound that is all that matters, convience and enjoyment is the key.

[kuoh]

Sound is analog, but whether it's represented by 16 bits sampled at 44.1kHz or a 320kbps MP3, they are both digital data streams. As for someone with an "ear for music" being able to tell between a CD and a 256k or 320k mp3 under controlled conditions by ear only, I'd call that bluff. MP3 may be lossy compression, but the human ear is not exactly a piece of precision scientific instrument. When you're standing next to the speakers at a concert, are you able to hear a normal volume conversation happening just 3 feet in front of you? Ofcourse not, but that doesn't mean that the sound isn't there. You're ears just can't register it when it's being overwhelmed by other surrounding sounds. This is the main principle behind MD, MP3, and other "lossy" audio compression schemes. How well they accomplish this task simply depends on what, how, and how much they choose to compress.

When the CD first came out, the audio purists also claimed that it was inferior to vinyl simply because it was digital! Their claim was that an analog audio waveform can never be accurately represented by any digital means, no matter how high the sampling rate is. And ofcourse there were the "golden ears" who claimed to be able to easily tell the difference. But little did they know that back in 1933, a guy named Harry Nyquist had already discovered otherwise. Along came some engineers at Sony/Phillips with time and money on their hands who understood what Nyquist was saying, and the rest is history. Perceptions have changed much in the 20 years since the CD first came out haven't they? What makes you think that we're not due for another radical change in those perceptions?

Personally, I know for a fact that no matter how much money I throw at my car's stereo system, it will never come close to a studio quality environment...and still be driveable. So what if I can't hear that final subtle 15kHz overtone while driving with the windows down at 70MPH during the evening rushhour? Would I have been able to hear it if it was on the original CD? Or if I was sitting right next to the artist in the recording studio? Personally, I've listened to plenty of 128k MP3's and yes, there are a lot of bad recordings out there, but there are plenty of good ones too. The ones at 192k, 256k, or 320k recorded from good sources sound just as good as the originals to me, they just take up more HD space then some would like. Given the fact that the tuner and tape on my headunit have stopped functioning recently, I've began to realize that 12-17 songs on one CD gets old fast. And changing CDs in the middle of rushhour is not the smartest of ideas.

KuoH

Originally posted by punisher
But the thing is....anyone with an ear for music will testify to the fact that, no matter how high an MP3 is compressed, it will not give you true digital sound. I don't care if you people will tell me "but CDs are compressed at 128 and this mp3 is 198!." You are still taking a very large sound file and degrading its volume (AS IN CUBIC UNITS, NOT SOUND), which in turn degrades its sound quality.

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by punisher
Yes, it's great to be able to fit 150 songs on one CD...but what happens when you get sick of those songs? Then you have to take the time to put together another compilation...and you have to make sure your MP3s are the highest quality, otherwise what's the point??


I hope you're joking.

1. It's hard to get sick of 150 songs.
2. Would you rather get sick of the 10 songs on a
regular cd?
3. I have about 700 songs in my mp3 library. I recently went
through and made a favorite songs disk, going through every
one of my mp3s. Probably took about 2 minutes. But if you
really can't handle it, go out and spend 20 dollars on a cd
from the store with 2 to 3 good tracks on it, as opposed to
getting it for free.
4. Blank cds today cost about 70 cents, so if you do get tired of
it, toss it away and burn a new one.
5. If you can really tell the difference betwee 192 kb/sec and
320 kb/sec, then you are a trully amazing individual. I'm
really big into home audio and high quality sound, and I can't
tell the difference. As far as I know, nobody else can either.

Dave.

[punisher]

MP3s are a joke for anything other than computer listening. I'm not talking about the highs or lows, I'm talking audio quality in general. How can you possibly think that depleting the size of a normal file would preserve its sound quality?! How can you not hear the hollowness in the new recording?? I'm surprised none of you have brought up .SHN files. MP3s are very outdated in the music community. Any knowledgable lover of music with any sort of standards knows this. .SHN files are truly losless, yet larger than an mp3. Compare a .SHN to the same .MP3, and if you can't tell a difference, then I hope you're in no possession of responsibility, because there's definitely a lot of other people out there who are more qualified to do what you do, no matter what that is. I'm not even going to begin to get into this with any of you, because I (and many others) can tell the difference and I have a hard time giving respect to anyone who can not. But that is beside the point, satellite radio is the way to go for car listening.

[kuoh]

Yet another case of judging a book by its covers. In one sentence you state that compressing any file would compromise its "sound quality", yet just a couple of sentences down, you shoot yourself in the foot. If you stopped contradicting yourself, people might actually believe in some of your statements. Subjective generalizations like "knowledgeable lover of music" and "sound quality" are always one of the first phrases thrown out by the "snobs" of the music loving community. Refer to my description of the introduction of CDs to the music loving community above.

Originally posted by punisher
How can you possibly think that depleting the size of a normal file would preserve its sound quality?!.....Any knowledgable lover of music with any sort of standards knows this. .SHN files are truly losless, yet larger than an mp3.

Hollowness? Another meaningless term to describe a nonexistant phenomenon perceptible only to the ears of the esoteric members of the audio community, nevermind any scientific evidence to the contrary. Now if you had said that the decompressed audio exhibited subtle harmonic distortions and random phase variances throughout the frequency spectrum, maybe I could believe you. At least those things can be measured by something other than a golden ear and a deep wallet.

Originally posted by punisher
How can you not hear the hollowness in the new recording??

KuoH

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by punisher
MP3s are a joke for anything other than computer listening. I'm not talking about the highs or lows, I'm talking audio quality in general. How can you possibly think that depleting the size of a normal file would preserve its sound quality?! How can you not hear the hollowness in the new recording?? I'm surprised none of you have brought up .SHN files. MP3s are very outdated in the music community. Any knowledgable lover of music with any sort of standards knows this. .SHN files are truly losless, yet larger than an mp3. Compare a .SHN to the same .MP3, and if you can't tell a difference, then I hope you're in no possession of responsibility, because there's definitely a lot of other people out there who are more qualified to do what you do, no matter what that is. I'm not even going to begin to get into this with any of you, because I (and many others) can tell the difference and I have a hard time giving respect to anyone who can not. But that is beside the point, satellite radio is the way to go for car listening.

I've spent a large quantity of time comparing the sound between an mp3 and a cd containing the same song on an eq'd system with high quality technics headphones. Yes, in a bit rate of 128 kb/sec or lower, one may hear ringing artifacts and loss in quality. How can I possibly think compressing a file can preserve original quality? TECHNOLOGY. That's why. Your reason of thinking is "if it weighs more, it must be better." For example, VCRs in the 70s and 80s weighed a hell of a lot more than they do today. Are we to think that VCRs during that time were better? Of course not. Technology improves and with it so does efficiency. Can you really tell the difference between a .wav file and an mp3 recorded at a 320 bit rate or higher? I doubt it. But one is smaller than the other. So how does your reasoning measuer up there?
And if you think mp3s are outdated, you've been living under a rock. Countless car stereos have recently included mp3 playback as one of their capabilities. Most DVD players now include the ability to play mp3s, and additionally, everyone and his brother downloads mp3s and makes audio cds out of them. Mp3s are more popular today than they were two years ago.
And now that you've started me on satellite radio, lets talk about jokes. For Sirius, it cots approximately $500 for additional equipment other than the satellite ready reciever, and recievers them selves are usually around $300. And for what? The same crappy music you can hear on FM radio? If you're a true audiophile, you should be picky about the certain artists you listen to. So why pay all this money for music of which the average person would hate about 90 percent of. And XM itself is only 30 percent commercial free. So as far as satellite radio is concerned, no thanks.

Dave

[William Covert]

I dont know alot about the technical aspect of the human ear,but I can tell a difference between mp3s and regular cds.Mp3s sound about 10x better than magnetic tape even with quality tape and good recording equipment, and a little worse than wav. I can choose between an MP3 deck or a cd changer, or maybe an mp3 changer now(1500 songs).Do I even like 1500 songs?Isnt technology wonderful.Billc

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by William Covert
I dont know alot about the technical aspect of the human ear,but I can tell a difference between mp3s and regular cds.
MP3s at what sample rate? All mp3s arn't the same as I was trying to communicate.
Dave

[William Covert]

I know that there are different sample rates, and that the quality of sound differs with these aforementioned rates. I was just giving my opinion. For a car stereo, Mp3s no matter what quality are more than adequate. They are also convenient.In fact I am considering buying an mp3 deck for my car.I am also telling you that I can hear a difference.Especially on my home stereo headphones.I dont know what sample rate,and dont care.I like them better than mag tape and that is all I was trying to say. I certainly dont miss rewinding and ff ing. I also whole heartedly agree with you on the sat radio issue. If I wanted someone else to decide what music I would listen to, I would just stick with FM.Technology is wonderful isnt it.:) BillC

[MartyMcFly]

do you know a good soundsystem, which combines
CD-Changer, MP3, DVD?

price/quality
and brand!

thanx in advance

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by William Covert
I know that there are different sample rates, and that the quality of sound differs with these aforementioned rates. I was just giving my opinion. For a car stereo, Mp3s no matter what quality are more than adequate. They are also convenient.In fact I am considering buying an mp3 deck for my car.I am also telling you that I can hear a difference.Especially on my home stereo headphones.I dont know what sample rate,and dont care.I like them better than mag tape and that is all I was trying to say. I certainly dont miss rewinding and ff ing. I also whole heartedly agree with you on the sat radio issue. If I wanted someone else to decide what music I would listen to, I would just stick with FM.Technology is wonderful isnt it.:) BillC

I agree with everything you said. Especially about tapes. Those things are a pain.
Dave

[Landshark]

don't forget about Mini-Discs!!! i have a 6 MD changer that fits in the glove compartment, with room for extra MD's. i don't have a computer yet ("Damn webTV!" in Homer Simpson voice), so MP3's weren't an option for me. will get one soon with some DSL as soon as i can sell my other cars. i'll be able to browse the forums in less than an hour!

[BLKSVX92]

umm minidisc...i have a eXcelon minidisc deck and i love it...but im thinking about going to an eXcelon mp3 deck with a indash 4 minidisc changer below and keep my 6cd changer in my glove box :-d

[DavieGravy]

f

[kuoh]

I thought he deserved at least a D...maybe a D-, but an F? Davie, you're just too harsh! ;)

KuoH

[BLKSVX92]

WHAT?!?!?! very confused :(

[kuoh]

It was just a joke. The only thing in his post was the letter F. I guess it was only funny in my head. :D

KuoH

[DavieGravy]

That wasn't intended to be anything, I was trying to delete a post and the delete post button wasn't working. :)
I would like to swallow my pride and say that there is usually a difference between mp3s and cds. If anyone even cares. I just thought it was a bit rediculous to hear they're not even worth the bother.
Dave.

[kuoh]

Ok, I can't let the thread die on this note. You can swallow your pride if you want but I still refute the claim that most people, if anyone at all, can decisively, and by decisively I mean 10 out of 10 times, tell the difference between a properly recorded high bit rate MP3 from the original "uncompressed" version just by using their ears under controlled conditions. In fact, I'd be willing to wager a CD or MP3 player on it! :D

The problem I see with people making these claims that they can hear the difference between the original CD or uncompressed WAV and an MP3, is that they are usually making the comparison using different playback systems and sometimes even different sources for each format! If you playback the original CD in your 1000 watt car system and try to compare it to the $29.99 multimedia speakers playing back through your old SoundBlaster16, then ofcourse you're going to hear a difference. Even comparing an audio CD and an MP3 playing back through the decoder from the same deck is not reliable, because there can be differences in the output of the CD and MP3 sections of the player. And some people will even try to compare a downloaded MP3 recorded from a questionable source to the CD they just bought and make these wild claims! IMHO, there is just no way to make a conclusive determination on the quality of the MP3 format as a whole under these widely differing circumstances.

Anyways, I just did my own semi-controlled listening test and found that there is little, if any noticeable difference between a 192K, let alone a 256K or 320K MP3, and an uncompressed source. Though my hearing may not be in the upper 95 percentile compared to the rest of the population, I'm fairly certain that it is well into the 85% to 95% range. At least I can still clearly discern sounds in the 20Hz-17KHz range if the spectrum analyzers in my car stereo, Winamp, and various other stereo systems I've used are to be believed. So given what I just said in the preceeding paragraphs, how could I possibly be able to make such a statement without lieing through my typing fingers? Well if you're not too bored or offended yet, read on.

First, it is a widely accepted fact that a WAV, even an SHN version, is as close to the original CD as possible since it does not rely on the use of "lossy" compression like MP3's do. Second, it would be a fair assumption to say that burning a CD using a properly extracted WAV should produce a copy that is a near perfect replica of the original CD would it not? Given those two assumptions then, it is a simple matter to create a "semi-controlled" test environment in almost anyone home or car. Simply take any CD in your collection, preferrably one with your favorite song of which you are intimately familiar with virtually every millisecond, and create a DAE WAV file of that song. I chose "Orinoco Flow" from Enya's Watermark CD because I liked that song and it seemed to contain enough dynamic range and vocals for my tastes. Then I used a program called Exact Audio Copy to DIGITALLY extract and save the WAV in the Windows MSAudio Encoder format at 128Kbps/44.1KHz. The reason I used Exact Audio Copy is that it does what its name claims, by using both the CD ROM's error correction information and comparing multiple extractions of the same track, it confirms that the track is extracted with as much accuracy as possible. The CRC I got for this song is 109A2AE7 for those of you who care to compare.

Now that I have an "exact" copy of the track, I can move on by creating MP3's to compare with. Since I don't have a WAV to MP3 converter I simply used another program, Intervideo's WinRIP, to extract the same song off the same CD into 192K, 256K, and 320K MP3's. Since the source is not from the same WAV that I first extracted, there is the possibility that the MP3s' quality may be affected, but that can only work in favor of the WAV, which I was willing to live with.

Here comes the hard part, not really, burn all those files back to an AUDIO CD. I used CDRWin3.8E. Since the WAV is for all intents and purposes an exact duplicate of the original CD, the copy on the test CD should be the same. By burning the MP3's to the same AUDIO CD, any sonic deficiencies in the MP3's quality should be audible when compared to the WAV version of the song on the same CD. This allows the listener to play back the different formats using the SAME equipment and environment, eliminating those variables! So what was my conclusion?

I was barely, if at all, able to tell the difference between the 192K version of the song from the WAV version and I knew which was which! If I were to play the songs back in random order and not look at the track indicators, I seriously doubt that I would be able to tell one version from another.

So I challenge anyone, well you'll probably have to be in KC, to be able to prove to me that they can repeatedly and correctly identify the various flavors of MP3's from the WAV version 10 out of 10 times. The prize would be a car CD or MP3 player depending on the winning contestant's preference, but my choice of price point. ;) The listener can provide the source CD, and I'll create the CD to test from. I will provide a list of the tracks and their source formats in a sealed envelope before beginning the tests to verify the listener's conclusions with at the end of the 10 sessions. The listener can use any audio equipment that they care to provide, but it cannot have a spectrum analyzer or other fancy signal processing beyond simple bass and treble controls, not that I really believe it'll do any good, but why make it easy? :D

Anyone care to take the bet? Anyone?

KuoH

Originally posted by DavieGravy
I would like to swallow my pride and say that there is usually a difference between mp3s and cds. If anyone even cares. I just thought it was a bit rediculous to hear they're not even worth the bother.

[lee]

I'd take you up on that test. Not that I think I'd pass. I'm 99.99% certain I'd flunk, but since you didn't mention an entry fee, what the heck, probably better odds than the lottery - might win a free system.

For my $0.02, doubt that more than 1 out of a million cars have an audio system capable of acurate reproduction at speed sufficient to matter.

I've always found "golden ear" audio tests to be amusing. IMHO, the only real way to judge sound differences correctly would be to use a noise sweep and a many band equalizer - I would guess 24 bands per channel as a minimum. For an apples-to-apples comparison, set up a baseline for each playback mode, then test.

where's Mark Levinson when you need him?

[DavieGravy]

Kuoh, I couldn't take your bet and wouldn't want to anyway. Your test doesn't supprise me one bit. When I said most mp3s I meant mp3s at 128k, as most are encoded at this. To avoid confusion, I still hold firmly that high encoded mp3s are practically perfect if done right. I would have bet my life on this, even before your post.

Dave.

[kuoh]

That kind of proves my point in a different way. If you have to alter the test parameters so that the test itself no longer resembles real life conditions, either by using speciallized equipment or creating conditions which would skew the results in favor of a particular outcome, then it is no longer a valid test. In my mind, the test I proposed is not to determine if there is a difference in sound, but whether someone could perceive that difference just by using their ears.

If you're in KC and feel like wasting a couple of hours of your time, I'm up for it. There is no entry fee as you've correctly assumed, but it might be more fair if you were to buy me lunch or dinner if you lose the challenge. ;)

KuoH

Originally posted by lee
I've always found "golden ear" audio tests to be amusing. IMHO, the only real way to judge sound differences correctly would be to use a noise sweep and a many band equalizer - I would guess 24 bands per channel as a minimum. For an apples-to-apples comparison, set up a baseline for each playback mode, then test.

[kuoh]

Aww come on, not even with no entry fee? ;)

Seriously though, do you think that my test conditions are fair and impartial? I honestly would like to have some results to verify that I am not in fact tone deaf! :D

KuoH

Originally posted by DavieGravy
Kuoh, I couldn't take your bet and wouldn't want to anyway. Your test doesn't supprise me one bit.

[DavieGravy]

Originally posted by kuoh
Aww come on, not even with no entry fee? ;)

Seriously though, do you think that my test conditions are fair and impartial? I honestly would like to have some results to verify that I am not in fact tone deaf! :D

KuoH



Your experiment sounded like it was well controlled, but your hearing capacity would play an important factor in your results. I'll probably duplicate what you did and see what I come up with. MP3 accuracy has interested me for a while, but I've only blatently examined possible differences in comparison with cds. I'll post what I come up with in this thread. Thanks,
Dave

[Landshark]

don't forget that listening in a car is a little different than listening in a studio. you have engine, tire, and wind noise, as well as people yelling obscenities after THEY cut YOU off in traffic. i really doubt you'll be able to tell a difference between a source CD and a copy. the convenience is well worth it. if you want to be a knucklehead and put a MacIntosh tube amp, gold connectors, and play Super Audio CD's in your car because your "golden ear" couldn't tolerate anything less - go ahead. i think its a bunch of B.S. in an automobile. get a 10,000W amp and after a few years, you won't know the quality difference between an 8-track and a live performance. ;)

Alan

[scoochv]

back to the original topic on hand..

Alpine arguably makes some of the best CD/Mp3 head units i've ever seen.. It's only made for a regular din space, but with a car kit, that problem is solved.

However, warning to those getting a new head unit: Installation could be quite bothersome. The techs at my local Circuit City had trouble taking the dash apart and had to hard wire mostly everything. Thanks to me, they have a new policy: no more work in any SVXes whatsoever =P

But now I have the Alpine 7875 in my car and I love it. I tried to get a box with 12" subs in it, but apparently the trunk is very small~ Going to settle with 10" subs, and nothing is wrong with 10"s. I'm just looking for that extra sound.

Does anyone have subs in their SVX? My friend tried looking for a firewall to put the power wire through, only to find a little space... Need help~

-scooch

[BLKSVX92]

Yes i have had an 8 in a bandpass, switched to a 10 in a bandpass...finally went to a 10 in a sealed enclosure. the sealed box sounds the best with the sub loading in the trunk. I ran two 4 gauge runs for both amps so its not to bad..just hvae to take your time. Ill try to post some pics of where i ran the wire etc if i get a chance

[kuoh]

Well, I wouldn't say the best. I looked at them and anything less than the 7895 (I think that's the one without internal amp) seemed to look dated. They had segmented displays and seemed to impart little info, especially where the ID tags are concerned. The Pioneer 9400, Kenwood 919 and the new Sony with the TFT color display all seem to have much better features and ergonomics. Although the traditional Alpine green does compliment the SVX's dash quite well.

KuoH

Originally posted by scoochv
back to the original topic on hand..
Alpine arguably makes some of the best CD/Mp3 head units i've ever seen.. It's only made for a regular din space, but with a car kit, that problem is solved.

[kuoh]

I tried the bandpass thing too, it just didn't have the right kick. Right now I'm also running a sealed box with a JL 10W0, which has reasonable bass, but I'm looking to upgrade to a 10W6 or an Infinity 10" some time in the near future. There will probably be more rattles to track down then. ;)

KuoH

Originally posted by BLKSVX92
Yes i have had an 8 in a bandpass, switched to a 10 in a bandpass...finally went to a 10 in a sealed enclosure. the sealed box sounds the best with the sub loading in the trunk. I ran two 4 gauge runs for both amps so its not to bad..just hvae to take your time. Ill try to post some pics of where i ran the wire etc if i get a chance

[BLKSVX92]

I had a bluethunder..but it died, so i went with an Xtant X1044, the hexagonal model, all i can say is amazing, i love it. NIce hard hitting bass, clean, and doesnt just lag...it hits...then its gone. the trunk does rattle some though :( but what are you gonna do. I checked out the JL series subs to compliment my JL amps...but i liked the xtant more, just my 2 cents. Everyone has their own personal likes and dislikes.

[svxjoe]

I'd say Alpine is the best quality sound and signal you can get out of a head unit. Next would be Pioneer, then Kenwood. I put Sony headunits in the same category as top brand names such as Jensen and Rampage:D !

[Seraph]

Originally posted by svxjoe
I'd say Alpine is the best quality sound and signal you can get out of a head unit. Next would be Pioneer, then Kenwood. I put Sony headunits in the same category as top brand names such as Jensen and Rampage:D !

What happened to the skyline series blaupunkt? They sound great as well. In my case, I'd rate sony, pioneer and kenwood under panasonic. It all depends on who's getting what. The sony that you get from walmart will sound like crap... on the other hand, top of the line $1000 sony headpiece will blow away the $500 alpine.

Lwin

[BLKSVX92]

Not only to you have to compare apples to apples...but personal preference takes a part also. If you like so-and-so better then the other guy..you will naturally think it sounds better

I think Kenwood tops the list with pioneer and alpine close behind if not the same...i think some of sony's stuff is great..but not all of it..i havent heard any blaupunkts stuff so i cant really say

[Landshark]

nearly every electronic device i own is Sony. never any problems with TV's, PS2, rcvr, CD, MD, VCR's, phones, etc. i might have gone with another head because i don't care for the "Xplod look", but i had to get a Sony to go with my MD changer. it does sound really good, though. i got the top-o'-the-line active black panel one. why couldn't it be green? :confused: the TFT and the hard disk head look nice, but for that much money, those things should wash the car for you.

Alan

[DavieGravy]

For another interesting note about my Kenwood deck, I turned the midrange down to about -5. What an improvment in sound!!! I now have the ideal frequencies going to the speakers that make the stereo sound like it should. It's interesting how the flat midrange control is drastically off for the stock svx speakers. Highs are still tinny though, as they've always been. Probably attributable to the fact that the stock tweeters in the svx aren't very good.
Dave

[EverclearAtMSU]

I've found the blaupunkt CD players to be really good. At least the higher level of them. The sound that comes out of it is awsome. The only bad thing is if your running a SPL vehicle, but I dont think anyone here is...anyways, my friend has a focus that he uses for bass offs, 3 12's running 3000 watts, he put the blaupunkt casiblanca in there and it sounded awsome for regular music, then popped in a bass cd and the thing would not stop skipping! However his stock radio/cd player didn't skip at all in the same conditions...but I doubt any of us here have a sterio that will blow out the windows either, last I heard our windows are kinda on the expensive side.

As for our stock speakers, I like them, sure you have a crazy looking EQ curve, but they still sound good...Even though I just blew out my door speakers :(