Ah, tweaks! Music to my ears. Actually there is a lot of fraud in the industry regarding cables, power cords (the most expensive one I know about is $40,000 for a 5 foot length, and yes, that not $4,000), and other devices.
A loit of audiophiles buy this junk. There are the little bells. The bronze model works ok. The silver ones make the sound even better, but the gold ones are the best. Maybe someday, he'll come out with platinum ones. Then there are the small round things that you stick on the walls, the little flat plastic boxes with quarts crystals and "special" oil that you tape to the circuit breaker that supplies your system. More than one breaker, and you need more. It takes 10 days before the full effect of the electromagnetic interference to completely go away.
Then, there is one of my favorites. The Quantum Field Corrector. This is a really nice, modern piece of equipment that sits on s table somewhere in your listening room. As it's left there, it, over a period of some 400 hours, fixes the quantum field in the room, and allows the purity of the music to come through. Man, I would get one, but it's $30,000!
The way these companies succeed is that some guys feel this way about it, and this is a direct quote from one, but others have said the same to me:
"I don't care if it works, I just care if I think it works."
And that about sums it up.
LOL. People are nuts. I know I'm nowhere close to that level in any sense. Incidentally, what is your home setup comprised of?
What empirical research? Please provide a link or two. Regardless, we're not talking about mp3. We're talking about AAC. 128kpbs AAC is, in my experience, superior to 128kpbs mp3 in normal consumer listening conditions. The point here is whether most people will notice a difference between 128 and 256kpbs AAC on the equipment they have. I say it's doubtful. You're talking about consumer level car audio, headphones, ear buds, and home systems...often over bluetooth. Once you get over 128kpbs on these systems, it's hard to tell. Some discerning listeners might hear a difference in a double blind environment. Maybe. If they do, it's doubtful they will mind. This is how SiriusXM gets away with bitrates of 40 to 64Kpbs, which people with decent ears absolutely can hear. I personally think it sounds like shit, but I'm more picky than Joe Six Pack. The best empirical research out there is the market, and with over 2 million subscribers in the U.S. alone, I'd say it's pretty clear many people either can't hear it (even at 64kpbs) or don't care.
My Numbers were off, but not the gist of my statement:
This is MP3, but for MP3, there is a definite preference for lossless over anything up to 192 Kbps, which is probably about equivalent to 160 kbps AAC.
And that was for musicians and sound engineers, but in my experience, musicians are not usually reliable judges of sound quality - by a long shot. (The study reflects this.)
I hear you on the listening environments. But even on my former car's shitty stereo, 128 Kbps was absolutely intolerable. It just hurt my ears. My new car has a MUCH better stereo, and 256 sounds fine to me there.
This is MP3, but for MP3, there is a definite preference for lossless over anything up to 192 Kbps, which is probably about equivalent to 160 kbps AAC.
And that was for musicians and sound engineers, but in my experience, musicians are not usually reliable judges of sound quality - by a long shot. (The study reflects this.)
I hear you on the listening environments. But even on my former car's shitty stereo, 128 Kbps was absolutely intolerable. It just hurt my ears. My new car has a MUCH better stereo, and 256 sounds fine to me there.
FWIW, I am a musician and studio engineer.
I appreciate the paper, but you're trying to demonstrate something I'm not arguing. The paper shows listeners prefer CD quality to MP3 at various compression rates, up to 192kbps. I've never argued otherwise. What I'm saying is that with AAC, most listeners will not hear a difference between 128kbps and 256 kbps on consumer equipment. There is a huge difference between lossless and 192kbps, agreed? It's no surprise that many would hear it.
Your statement about the car listening environment is puzzling. A "better" system should amplify (no pun intended) the discrepancy in compression rates and quality, not cover it up. As I've stated, once you get above a certain compression, you really need better equipment to tell the difference (see melgross's post above). For example, on a low quality audio system, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 256kbps and 384kbps. If you have a chance of noticing the difference (and most frankly don't), it would be on really great equipment.
Let's address another issue: AAC vs. mp3. Put simply, AAC is a superior-sounding codec. I don't have quite the technical background to explain exactly why, but according to tests at Dolby, it's undeniable. Moreover, the article supports my earlier point about telling the difference between even uncompressed audio and 128kbps AAC.
Quote:
"Experts said it's not easy to tell the difference between 128Kbps stereophonic sound AAC music and the uncompressed audio;"
Moreover, the equipment on which the music was encoded seems to make a difference (hardware and/or software). I've ripped a track to 128kbps AAC on my Mac, and noticed a discernible difference between it and 128kbps content from iTunes. Apple's content sounds better with all the same variables I can control. So there is clearly something I'm not accounting for.
This all started with my statement on topic concerning 128kbps and Apple's forthcoming "high quality" option (presumably 256kbps) over cellular. Given this is the AAC codec, and given that most people will be listening to this in the car, I'm saying it will be difficult to notice the difference. I think, respectfully, that the flaw in your reasoning is assuming that AAC and MP3 are roughly equivalent. They are absolutely not.
LOL. People are nuts. I know I'm nowhere close to that level in any sense. Incidentally, what is your home setup comprised of?
It's a complex system. My pre is a Beyston SP3 surround pre pro. I use a Rane crossover. For my mid bass I have a Behrenger I use to roll of the bass at 70Hz. I have two Bryston 7Bsst squared amps for the tweeter and mid panels of my front speakers. A have two Ice D class 1,000 watt per channel amps for the 8 8" mid bass drivers. For the bass I use 8 12" drivers per channel. This is really Carver Platinum speaker drivers that are still being made. It's a dipole bass system which goes down flat to 16Hz at 110db output, powered by two 950 watt Parts Express sub amps per channel, one per four drivers.
The mid and tweeter panels, as well as the mid bass are a BG Radia FS 880, which I modified by redoing the crossovers, adding an l-pad and changing the electrical configuration of the mids. This is, except for the mid bass drivers, a dipole, with 6 10" mid drivers per channel, and 16 3" drivers per channel for the treble. There are 4 mid bass drivers in a box at the bottom of each speaker. I also build panels for the sides of the speaker to prevent premature cancellation of the front wave from the out if phase back wave. The manufacturer didn't bother with that as it's a "lifestyle" product, which is capable of extremely high performance, if some things are rectified, which I did.
My SACD player is a Sony ES 5400. I use my Macbook Pro as a music server, going into the USB of the SP3. For my 5,000+ records, I have a Technics SO-15 turntable, which I bought off eBay, and modified the electronics of to get the speed adjustment working properly. I designed a base for it, using proper principles of vibration exclusion. The base consisted of a .5" thick layer of aluminum, .5" layer of acrylic, .125" of neoprene 70durometer rubber. Then .125" aluminum. The base going up from there reverses that, with the rubber, then the acrylic and then the aluminum. It's topped by .25" of a Tiger Wood layer I made and glued on. The tone arn board is .5" aluminum, with the same wood on top. I designed the springs it sits on and had them made for me. The anti vibration base under that is fairly compiles, so I won't describe it now.
The tone ARM is a Technics EPA-500, mounting a Grado Reference 1 cartridge. My phono pre amp was built by a friend who owns an audio manufacturing company called Miracle Audio. He's well grounded, no pun intended, and the name is just a name and doesn't indicate any odd ideas. He was building an internal option of a phono ore for his line stage, and it sounded so good, I persuaded him to design an external model as well.
The electronics are mounted in an audio/video rack I designed and built.
I have rear channels as well, but that's for another discussion. I'll take a quick, not very good couple of pics using my iPad I'm writing this with, as see if they'll get uploaded. You can tap on the photos to enlarge them.
This is the Facebook pics the manufacturer put up right after they made my units. That's the custom red powder clad I provided them. It's custom wired inside. No grill covers on.
One of the custom feet I made to replace the points.
Photo showing acrylic wings made
Audio/video cabinet with electronics
Turntable in closed in section, sitting on top of the anti vibration platform under turntable.
Yes, I know this smacks of excess. But, I've engineered professional electronics and mechanical systems for a long time, and nothing I've done is out of the area of well understood engineering.
This is the current state of the system, with the sub eq out.
I guess I'm more of an "Apple guy" when it comes to audio reproduction (creation is a different matter): buy what's simple and good, set it up right, enjoy.
Linn Sondek turntable Linn Wakonda pre 3x Linn LK85 power amps Linn Keilidh aktiv speakers
No CD player, but an Airport Express for the stuff that comes from the computer.
It sounds like you're arguing with me, but we're in complete agreement...?
I'm not sure why it's puzzling that 128 Kbps is unbearable even on a shitty system, while 256 Kbps AAC is fine even on a good system.
It's puzzling that you have such a strong preference fro 256kbps AAC over 128kbps AAC. Isn't that what you were saying? Obviously 128kbps MP3 isn't going to touch AAC at 256 or 128 or even 92. My only real point of contention is the notion that your "shitty stereo" (I've had plenty of those) is more likely to let you hear the difference between 128 and 256 AAC than a better system.
It's a complex system. My pre is a Beyston SP3 surround pre pro. I use a Rane crossover. For my mid bass I have a Behrenger I use to roll of the bass at 70Hz. I have two Bryston 7Bsst squared amps for the tweeter and mid panels of my front speakers. A have two Ice D class 1,000 watt per channel amps for the 8 8" mid bass drivers. For the bass I use 8 12" drivers per channel. This is really Carver Platinum speaker drivers that are still being made. It's a dipole bass system which goes down flat to 16Hz at 110db output, powered by two 950 watt Parts Express sub amps per channel, one per four drivers.
The mid and tweeter panels, as well as the mid bass are a BG Radia FS 880, which I modified by redoing the crossovers, adding an l-pad and changing the electrical configuration of the mids. This is, except for the mid bass drivers, a dipole, with 6 10" mid drivers per channel, and 16 3" drivers per channel for the treble. There are 4 mid bass drivers in a box at the bottom of each speaker. I also build panels for the sides of the speaker to prevent premature cancellation of the front wave from the out if phase back wave. The manufacturer didn't bother with that as it's a "lifestyle" product, which is capable of extremely high performance, if some things are rectified, which I did.
My SACD player is a Sony ES 5400. I use my Macbook Pro as a music server, going into the USB of the SP3. For my 5,000+ records, I have a Technics SO-15 turntable, which I bought off eBay, and modified the electronics of to get the speed adjustment working properly. I designed a base for it, using proper principles of vibration exclusion. The base consisted of a .5" thick layer of aluminum, .5" layer of acrylic, .125" of neoprene 70durometer rubber. Then .125" aluminum. The base going up from there reverses that, with the rubber, then the acrylic and then the aluminum. It's topped by .25" of a Tiger Wood layer I made and glued on. The tone arn board is .5" aluminum, with the same wood on top. I designed the springs it sits on and had them made for me. The anti vibration base under that is fairly compiles, so I won't describe it now.
The tone ARM is a Technics EPA-500, mounting a Grado Reference 1 cartridge. My phono pre amp was built by a friend who owns an audio manufacturing company called Miracle Audio. He's well grounded, no pun intended, and the name is just a name and doesn't indicate any odd ideas. He was building an internal option of a phono ore for his line stage, and it sounded so good, I persuaded him to design an external model as well.
The electronics are mounted in an audio/video rack I designed and built.
I have rear channels as well, but that's for another discussion. I'll take a quick, not very good couple of pics using my iPad I'm writing this with, as see if they'll get uploaded. You can tap on the photos to enlarge them.
This is the Facebook pics the manufacturer put up right after they made my units. That's the custom red powder clad I provided them. It's custom wired inside. No grill covers on.
One of the custom feet I made to replace the points.
Photo showing acrylic wings made
Audio/video cabinet with electronics
Turntable in closed in section, sitting on top of the anti vibration platform under turntable.
Yes, I know this smacks of excess. But, I've engineered professional electronics and mechanical systems for a long time, and nothing I've done is out of the area of well understood engineering.
This is the current state of the system, with the sub eq out.
Let's just say you're "a little" beyond my knowledge and experience level with audio hardware. Thanks for the descrip
It sounds like you're arguing with me, but we're in complete agreement...?
I'm not sure why it's puzzling that 128 Kbps is unbearable even on a shitty system, while 256 Kbps AAC is fine even on a good system.
There seems to be a big break between those two rates. I'm not sure how audible 128 is on a cheap system. It would depend on the system and the listening conditions. And we must remember that hundreds of millions of people were satisfied with 128 for quite a few years before 256 became common.
I did professional recording some time ago with the Boston Symphany, London Records, and others, because we made some of the equipment they were using, and so I was working with them.
It's very difficult to get things right. But, just a large of a problem is how to purpose,what's being recorded. In other words, what kind of playback system can we expect to be used?
Was it a cheap auto system? A good auto system? A junk player at home? Or perhaps an inexpensive all in one stereo? Maybe it would be used in a Wurlitzer in a bar. Or possibly a disco. Maybe a good home system. Perhaps a Walkman with $1 earbuds.
This is really a problem, and that was back before the iPod, iPhone,CD, etc. The same problem exists today. We've had a big problem in the mid '80's and later, with producers pushing the compression and even limiting. A lot of music, mostly all popular stuff has been ruined that way. More recently, it's been getting better. Heavily compressed and limited signals, and I'm not now talking about lossy compression, but dynamic compressors and limiters, make lossy compressed music sound much worse, because of the destruction of the dynamics, where the lossy compression removes much of the signal from. If there is little dynamics, and much pop and rock is about 7db of dynamic range, the lossy compression will sound BAD, and that's really quite apparent with popular music more so than with classical with much greater dynamic range. I can prove it easily, but it needs to be listened to not talked about.
It's puzzling that you have such a strong preference fro 256kbps AAC over 128kbps AAC. Isn't that what you were saying? Obviously 128kbps MP3 isn't going to touch AAC at 256 or 128 or even 92. My only real point of contention is the notion that your "shitty stereo" (I've had plenty of those) is more likely to let you hear the difference between 128 and 256 AAC than a better system.
It isn't - that was the point.
I see the source of confusion now: I was actually making two separate points and conflating them without realizing it.
1.) 128 Kbps MP3 is so shitty that its crappiness is apparent even on terrible systems, and this is audible to just about anybody.
2.) 256 Kbps AAC is good enough to be just fine for just about everybody most of the time, even on good systems.
I see the source of confusion now: I was actually making two separate points and conflating them without realizing it.
1.) 128 Kbps MP3 is so shitty that its crappiness is apparent even on terrible systems, and this is audible to just about anybody.
2.) 256 Kbps AAC is good enough to be just fine for just about everybody most of the time, even on good systems.
Got it. I agree with that. I'd go even further though and suggest that on most car audio equipment, people won't hear much if any difference between 128 and 256 AAC. That was my original point in response to the story.
Got it. I agree with that. I'd go even further though and suggest that on most car audio equipment, people won't hear much if any difference between 128 and 256 AAC. That was my original point in response to the story.
That, I disagree with. But that's not really an important point.
That, I disagree with. But that's not really an important point.
Well, it kind of is the point, actually. Given that many people find the quality of satellite totally acceptable at 40 kbps (proprietary), and given that iTunes was at 128kbps (AAC) exclusively for years without many serious complaints about sound quality from consumers, it certainly doesn't seem likely. With your background, I think you're really overestimating the average listener's ability to discriminate in this regard. Once you add in the relatively low quality of many car audio systems, I see no reason to think most people will hear a difference between 128 and 256. Some may claim they do and actually ?believe they do. But, put them in a double blind environment, and the truth will be known. Not to be pushy here, but on what are you basing your disagreement on...your own perception of sound quality?
Also, don't mistake "not hearing" for "not caring". The two are vastly different.
I'm basing this on my own experience, and experience with people around me, and on the study linked to above (albeit expanded to the shitty car system in my old car, which tended to exacerbate precisely the problems with 128 Kbps mp3
Also, don't mistake "not hearing" for "not caring". The two are vastly different.
I'm basing this on my own experience, and experience with people around me, and on the study linked to above (albeit expanded to the shitty car system in my old car, which tended to exacerbate precisely the problems with 128 Kbps mp3
I'm trying to be polite here, but it's really frustrating when you seem to willfully ignore and mistate my point. I've never claimed iTunes was MP3. I don't think you're correct that it was always 160kbps, either. I'm almost positive it was 128 at one point. Either way, I stand by my original point: Most listeners will not hear a difference between whatever bitrate AAC iTunes/Apple Music uses now, and the presumed 256kbps high quality option. Not on most consumer car audio equipment. Those that DO probably won't care that much. I'm not conflating caring and hearing, either.
Finally, you continue to state and/ or imply that your low quality former audio system would make such a difference MORE noticeable. While I suppose it's possible that it was " perfectly mismatched" for 128k MP3, that doesn't mean a "shitty" system will make distinguishing audio quality easier. Everything we know about audio tells us just the opposite.
Comments
Ah, tweaks! Music to my ears. Actually there is a lot of fraud in the industry regarding cables, power cords (the most expensive one I know about is $40,000 for a 5 foot length, and yes, that not $4,000), and other devices.
A loit of audiophiles buy this junk. There are the little bells. The bronze model works ok. The silver ones make the sound even better, but the gold ones are the best. Maybe someday, he'll come out with platinum ones. Then there are the small round things that you stick on the walls, the little flat plastic boxes with quarts crystals and "special" oil that you tape to the circuit breaker that supplies your system. More than one breaker, and you need more. It takes 10 days before the full effect of the electromagnetic interference to completely go away.
Then, there is one of my favorites. The Quantum Field Corrector. This is a really nice, modern piece of equipment that sits on s table somewhere in your listening room. As it's left there, it, over a period of some 400 hours, fixes the quantum field in the room, and allows the purity of the music to come through. Man, I would get one, but it's $30,000!
The way these companies succeed is that some guys feel this way about it, and this is a direct quote from one, but others have said the same to me:
"I don't care if it works, I just care if I think it works."
And that about sums it up.
LOL. People are nuts. I know I'm nowhere close to that level in any sense. Incidentally, what is your home setup comprised of?
http://www.academia.edu/441306/Subjective_Evaluation_of_MP3_Compression_for_Different_Musical_Genres
This is MP3, but for MP3, there is a definite preference for lossless over anything up to 192 Kbps, which is probably about equivalent to 160 kbps AAC.
And that was for musicians and sound engineers, but in my experience, musicians are not usually reliable judges of sound quality - by a long shot. (The study reflects this.)
I hear you on the listening environments. But even on my former car's shitty stereo, 128 Kbps was absolutely intolerable. It just hurt my ears. My new car has a MUCH better stereo, and 256 sounds fine to me there.
FWIW, I am a musician and studio engineer.
My Numbers were off, but not the gist of my statement:
http://www.academia.edu/441306/Subjective_Evaluation_of_MP3_Compression_for_Different_Musical_Genres
This is MP3, but for MP3, there is a definite preference for lossless over anything up to 192 Kbps, which is probably about equivalent to 160 kbps AAC.
And that was for musicians and sound engineers, but in my experience, musicians are not usually reliable judges of sound quality - by a long shot. (The study reflects this.)
I hear you on the listening environments. But even on my former car's shitty stereo, 128 Kbps was absolutely intolerable. It just hurt my ears. My new car has a MUCH better stereo, and 256 sounds fine to me there.
FWIW, I am a musician and studio engineer.
I appreciate the paper, but you're trying to demonstrate something I'm not arguing. The paper shows listeners prefer CD quality to MP3 at various compression rates, up to 192kbps. I've never argued otherwise. What I'm saying is that with AAC, most listeners will not hear a difference between 128kbps and 256 kbps on consumer equipment. There is a huge difference between lossless and 192kbps, agreed? It's no surprise that many would hear it.
Your statement about the car listening environment is puzzling. A "better" system should amplify (no pun intended) the discrepancy in compression rates and quality, not cover it up. As I've stated, once you get above a certain compression, you really need better equipment to tell the difference (see melgross's post above). For example, on a low quality audio system, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 256kbps and 384kbps. If you have a chance of noticing the difference (and most frankly don't), it would be on really great equipment.
Let's address another issue: AAC vs. mp3. Put simply, AAC is a superior-sounding codec. I don't have quite the technical background to explain exactly why, but according to tests at Dolby, it's undeniable. Moreover, the article supports my earlier point about telling the difference between even uncompressed audio and 128kbps AAC.
"Experts said it's not easy to tell the difference between 128Kbps stereophonic sound AAC music and the uncompressed audio;"
Moreover, the equipment on which the music was encoded seems to make a difference (hardware and/or software). I've ripped a track to 128kbps AAC on my Mac, and noticed a discernible difference between it and 128kbps content from iTunes. Apple's content sounds better with all the same variables I can control. So there is clearly something I'm not accounting for.
This all started with my statement on topic concerning 128kbps and Apple's forthcoming "high quality" option (presumably 256kbps) over cellular. Given this is the AAC codec, and given that most people will be listening to this in the car, I'm saying it will be difficult to notice the difference. I think, respectfully, that the flaw in your reasoning is assuming that AAC and MP3 are roughly equivalent. They are absolutely not.
I'm not sure why it's puzzling that 128 Kbps is unbearable even on a shitty system, while 256 Kbps AAC is fine even on a good system.
It's a complex system. My pre is a Beyston SP3 surround pre pro. I use a Rane crossover. For my mid bass I have a Behrenger I use to roll of the bass at 70Hz. I have two Bryston 7Bsst squared amps for the tweeter and mid panels of my front speakers. A have two Ice D class 1,000 watt per channel amps for the 8 8" mid bass drivers. For the bass I use 8 12" drivers per channel. This is really Carver Platinum speaker drivers that are still being made. It's a dipole bass system which goes down flat to 16Hz at 110db output, powered by two 950 watt Parts Express sub amps per channel, one per four drivers.
The mid and tweeter panels, as well as the mid bass are a BG Radia FS 880, which I modified by redoing the crossovers, adding an l-pad and changing the electrical configuration of the mids. This is, except for the mid bass drivers, a dipole, with 6 10" mid drivers per channel, and 16 3" drivers per channel for the treble. There are 4 mid bass drivers in a box at the bottom of each speaker. I also build panels for the sides of the speaker to prevent premature cancellation of the front wave from the out if phase back wave. The manufacturer didn't bother with that as it's a "lifestyle" product, which is capable of extremely high performance, if some things are rectified, which I did.
My SACD player is a Sony ES 5400. I use my Macbook Pro as a music server, going into the USB of the SP3. For my 5,000+ records, I have a Technics SO-15 turntable, which I bought off eBay, and modified the electronics of to get the speed adjustment working properly. I designed a base for it, using proper principles of vibration exclusion. The base consisted of a .5" thick layer of aluminum, .5" layer of acrylic, .125" of neoprene 70durometer rubber. Then .125" aluminum. The base going up from there reverses that, with the rubber, then the acrylic and then the aluminum. It's topped by .25" of a Tiger Wood layer I made and glued on. The tone arn board is .5" aluminum, with the same wood on top. I designed the springs it sits on and had them made for me. The anti vibration base under that is fairly compiles, so I won't describe it now.
The tone ARM is a Technics EPA-500, mounting a Grado Reference 1 cartridge. My phono pre amp was built by a friend who owns an audio manufacturing company called Miracle Audio. He's well grounded, no pun intended, and the name is just a name and doesn't indicate any odd ideas. He was building an internal option of a phono ore for his line stage, and it sounded so good, I persuaded him to design an external model as well.
The electronics are mounted in an audio/video rack I designed and built.
I have rear channels as well, but that's for another discussion. I'll take a quick, not very good couple of pics using my iPad I'm writing this with, as see if they'll get uploaded. You can tap on the photos to enlarge them.
This is the Facebook pics the manufacturer put up right after they made my units. That's the custom red powder clad I provided them. It's custom wired inside. No grill covers on.
One of the custom feet I made to replace the points.
Photo showing acrylic wings made
Audio/video cabinet with electronics
Turntable in closed in section, sitting on top of the anti vibration platform under turntable.
Yes, I know this smacks of excess. But, I've engineered professional electronics and mechanical systems for a long time, and nothing I've done is out of the area of well understood engineering.
This is the current state of the system, with the sub eq out.
I guess I'm more of an "Apple guy" when it comes to audio reproduction (creation is a different matter): buy what's simple and good, set it up right, enjoy.
Linn Sondek turntable
Linn Wakonda pre
3x Linn LK85 power amps
Linn Keilidh aktiv speakers
No CD player, but an Airport Express for the stuff that comes from the computer.
It sounds like you're arguing with me, but we're in complete agreement...?
I'm not sure why it's puzzling that 128 Kbps is unbearable even on a shitty system, while 256 Kbps AAC is fine even on a good system.
It's puzzling that you have such a strong preference fro 256kbps AAC over 128kbps AAC. Isn't that what you were saying? Obviously 128kbps MP3 isn't going to touch AAC at 256 or 128 or even 92. My only real point of contention is the notion that your "shitty stereo" (I've had plenty of those) is more likely to let you hear the difference between 128 and 256 AAC than a better system.
It's a complex system. My pre is a Beyston SP3 surround pre pro. I use a Rane crossover. For my mid bass I have a Behrenger I use to roll of the bass at 70Hz. I have two Bryston 7Bsst squared amps for the tweeter and mid panels of my front speakers. A have two Ice D class 1,000 watt per channel amps for the 8 8" mid bass drivers. For the bass I use 8 12" drivers per channel. This is really Carver Platinum speaker drivers that are still being made. It's a dipole bass system which goes down flat to 16Hz at 110db output, powered by two 950 watt Parts Express sub amps per channel, one per four drivers.
The mid and tweeter panels, as well as the mid bass are a BG Radia FS 880, which I modified by redoing the crossovers, adding an l-pad and changing the electrical configuration of the mids. This is, except for the mid bass drivers, a dipole, with 6 10" mid drivers per channel, and 16 3" drivers per channel for the treble. There are 4 mid bass drivers in a box at the bottom of each speaker. I also build panels for the sides of the speaker to prevent premature cancellation of the front wave from the out if phase back wave. The manufacturer didn't bother with that as it's a "lifestyle" product, which is capable of extremely high performance, if some things are rectified, which I did.
My SACD player is a Sony ES 5400. I use my Macbook Pro as a music server, going into the USB of the SP3. For my 5,000+ records, I have a Technics SO-15 turntable, which I bought off eBay, and modified the electronics of to get the speed adjustment working properly. I designed a base for it, using proper principles of vibration exclusion. The base consisted of a .5" thick layer of aluminum, .5" layer of acrylic, .125" of neoprene 70durometer rubber. Then .125" aluminum. The base going up from there reverses that, with the rubber, then the acrylic and then the aluminum. It's topped by .25" of a Tiger Wood layer I made and glued on. The tone arn board is .5" aluminum, with the same wood on top. I designed the springs it sits on and had them made for me. The anti vibration base under that is fairly compiles, so I won't describe it now.
The tone ARM is a Technics EPA-500, mounting a Grado Reference 1 cartridge. My phono pre amp was built by a friend who owns an audio manufacturing company called Miracle Audio. He's well grounded, no pun intended, and the name is just a name and doesn't indicate any odd ideas. He was building an internal option of a phono ore for his line stage, and it sounded so good, I persuaded him to design an external model as well.
The electronics are mounted in an audio/video rack I designed and built.
I have rear channels as well, but that's for another discussion. I'll take a quick, not very good couple of pics using my iPad I'm writing this with, as see if they'll get uploaded. You can tap on the photos to enlarge them.
This is the Facebook pics the manufacturer put up right after they made my units. That's the custom red powder clad I provided them. It's custom wired inside. No grill covers on.
One of the custom feet I made to replace the points.
Photo showing acrylic wings made
Audio/video cabinet with electronics
Turntable in closed in section, sitting on top of the anti vibration platform under turntable.
Yes, I know this smacks of excess. But, I've engineered professional electronics and mechanical systems for a long time, and nothing I've done is out of the area of well understood engineering.
This is the current state of the system, with the sub eq out.
Let's just say you're "a little" beyond my knowledge and experience level with audio hardware.
There seems to be a big break between those two rates. I'm not sure how audible 128 is on a cheap system. It would depend on the system and the listening conditions. And we must remember that hundreds of millions of people were satisfied with 128 for quite a few years before 256 became common.
I did professional recording some time ago with the Boston Symphany, London Records, and others, because we made some of the equipment they were using, and so I was working with them.
It's very difficult to get things right. But, just a large of a problem is how to purpose,what's being recorded. In other words, what kind of playback system can we expect to be used?
Was it a cheap auto system? A good auto system? A junk player at home? Or perhaps an inexpensive all in one stereo? Maybe it would be used in a Wurlitzer in a bar. Or possibly a disco. Maybe a good home system. Perhaps a Walkman with $1 earbuds.
This is really a problem, and that was back before the iPod, iPhone,CD, etc. The same problem exists today. We've had a big problem in the mid '80's and later, with producers pushing the compression and even limiting. A lot of music, mostly all popular stuff has been ruined that way. More recently, it's been getting better. Heavily compressed and limited signals, and I'm not now talking about lossy compression, but dynamic compressors and limiters, make lossy compressed music sound much worse, because of the destruction of the dynamics, where the lossy compression removes much of the signal from. If there is little dynamics, and much pop and rock is about 7db of dynamic range, the lossy compression will sound BAD, and that's really quite apparent with popular music more so than with classical with much greater dynamic range. I can prove it easily, but it needs to be listened to not talked about.
It isn't - that was the point.
I see the source of confusion now: I was actually making two separate points and conflating them without realizing it.
1.) 128 Kbps MP3 is so shitty that its crappiness is apparent even on terrible systems, and this is audible to just about anybody.
2.) 256 Kbps AAC is good enough to be just fine for just about everybody most of the time, even on good systems.
Got it. I agree with that. I'd go even further though and suggest that on most car audio equipment, people won't hear much if any difference between 128 and 256 AAC. That was my original point in response to the story.
Got it. Yes, we agree.
Got it. I agree with that. I'd go even further though and suggest that on most car audio equipment, people won't hear much if any difference between 128 and 256 AAC. That was my original point in response to the story.
That, I disagree with. But that's not really an important point.
That, I disagree with. But that's not really an important point.
Well, it kind of is the point, actually. Given that many people find the quality of satellite totally acceptable at 40 kbps (proprietary), and given that iTunes was at 128kbps (AAC) exclusively for years without many serious complaints about sound quality from consumers, it certainly doesn't seem likely. With your background, I think you're really overestimating the average listener's ability to discriminate in this regard. Once you add in the relatively low quality of many car audio systems, I see no reason to think most people will hear a difference between 128 and 256. Some may claim they do and actually ?believe they do. But, put them in a double blind environment, and the truth will be known. Not to be pushy here, but on what are you basing your disagreement on...your own perception of sound quality?
Also, don't mistake "not hearing" for "not caring". The two are vastly different.
I'm basing this on my own experience, and experience with people around me, and on the study linked to above (albeit expanded to the shitty car system in my old car, which tended to exacerbate precisely the problems with 128 Kbps mp3
I'm trying to be polite here, but it's really frustrating when you seem to willfully ignore and mistate my point. I've never claimed iTunes was MP3. I don't think you're correct that it was always 160kbps, either. I'm almost positive it was 128 at one point. Either way, I stand by my original point: Most listeners will not hear a difference between whatever bitrate AAC iTunes/Apple Music uses now, and the presumed 256kbps high quality option. Not on most consumer car audio equipment. Those that DO probably won't care that much. I'm not conflating caring and hearing, either.
Finally, you continue to state and/ or imply that your low quality former audio system would make such a difference MORE noticeable. While I suppose it's possible that it was " perfectly mismatched" for 128k MP3, that doesn't mean a "shitty" system will make distinguishing audio quality easier. Everything we know about audio tells us just the opposite.