Blaupunkt drops CDs

[sandbox]

It's been some years since i had a Blaupunkt radio, it was in an old Audi back in the 80's
This is probably the first indication of what the future will hold, I'll bet Alpine won't be far behind!

QUOTE

CDs are slowly going the way of the VHS tape and the Blaupunkt Melbourne SD27 car receiver/audio player is just further proof of that. The receiver has no CD player at all—instead, it plays MP3s and WMA files, includes an MMC/SD card reader and has an LED display that'll show all of your ID3 files and folders.

The unit also accepts USB devices and even has optional iPod and Bluetooth interfaces, providing you with almost every possible way to load music onto it. At $160, the sweet little player may as well come with a shovel you can use to bury your beloved CD collection.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/car-electronics...-cds-302189.php

[chriskleeman]

In many ways, so sad...

None of those file formats offer the clarity and sound quality of the 16-bit CD... which, in many opinions was a dumbing down from LP's... Too much compression to get those files down in size. Great for storage, but crank up those tunes in those formats and and I'm holding my (almost-deaf anyway) ears...

But, with more storage available, who knows?

Chris K

[Paddy]

Yeah, it would be nice if they came up with a format that wasn't so lossy/compressed. However, even by 30 our hearing isn't what it used to be!

Check this out:

http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/

I can still hear the 14.9Khz tone just fine, but nothing beyond that. My 12-year old can hear almost all of them - more than my 16-year old can hear.

I do remember 4 of us who all either worked for record stores or in the music industry comparing a brand new Japanese LP pressing of Simple Minds New Gold Dream with the CD version of the same and deciding that the LP sounded richer. Of course, that was 25 years ago and our hearing was much better! Also, CDs have gotten better too.

[tacit]

QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Sep 21 2007, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In many ways, so sad...

None of those file formats offer the clarity and sound quality of the 16-bit CD...

True.

But think of it this way: In the environment of a car, does it matter? You have so much ambient wind and road noise, and the acoustics of a car are so poor, that it's hard to imagine the quality loss of an MP3 really makes that much difference...

[hingyfan]

A car is like headphones on wheels. you are right there with the speakers. That's why high-end car audio is so big. There's a huge difference with a good set up. I had an awesome system in my previous car but when i bought new one, i didnt feel like hacking it up. It was a mistake. A problem with the last one was just when i got it where i wanted, the car fell apart.
i would like to see car systems be able to play DVD discs encoded with audio. There are some out there. You get like five or six CDs on one. If you put mp3s on one, it could play for days.
The ipod in the car is all right but doesn't sound great loud. For background music, it's OK. That's why i use it at home for parties but seldom for anything else..

[sandbox]

@56 I can feel 14.1khz but not hear it. 22.4 doesn't seem to have any sound. On all but that one you can clearly hear the start and ending of the audio file, it's a click that is not present in 22.4.

I have 8 speakers in my car and it's hard for me to tell the difference from a high quality CD and Rips I make from iTunes. So for my declining potato bins this sort of switcharoo in audio equipment wouldn't make that much difference in quality.

QUOTE(Paddy @ Sep 21 2007, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it would be nice if they came up with a format that wasn't so lossy/compressed. However, even by 30 our hearing isn't what it used to be!

Check this out:

http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/

I can still hear the 14.9Khz tone just fine, but nothing beyond that. My 12-year old can hear almost all of them - more than my 16-year old can hear.

I do remember 4 of us who all either worked for record stores or in the music industry comparing a brand new Japanese LP pressing of Simple Minds New Gold Dream with the CD version of the same and deciding that the LP sounded richer. Of course, that was 25 years ago and our hearing was much better! Also, CDs have gotten better too.

[chriskleeman]

High end gone or not, it's all about how creamy it sounds, and for that, even my well-abused ears can tell the difference, especially cranking it up in different formats. Playing MP3's loud make me want to, well, you know... even in the car. And ear fatigue is much quicker with the compressed formats.

Wasn't there a post about the lack of dynamic range from 20 years ago to now in recordings somewhere here at TS recently?

But, I do have well trained ears and have done my fair share of mixing Album and CD projects as well. Tinnitus be damned!

Chris K

[kbeartx]

IMO, you cannot lump ALL MP3s together as one 'format' and complain about lack of clarity or dynamic range or lossiness.

I have VERY highly trained hearing, and I can definitely hear the difference between 128 Kbps MP3s and uncompressed ['CD quality'] audio of complex music, but if I rip my seedies at 192 Kbps [which I do], even I cannot hear the difference between the rip and the original AIFF [the 'native' CD format for audio files].

I challenge all of you to perform the experiment and make the comparison for yourself.   AFAIK,  I have some high-end loss in my hearing apparatus from forty years of playing live rock'n'roll, so for you the number might be 256 or 320 Kbps, but I bet you that you'll be hard-pressed to hear the difference at 192 or above.  For me, the savings in storage space is well worth any 'theoretical' [that is, inaudible] lossiness.

 

[Xairbusdriver]

And I thought vehicles were for transportation! Some of what has been said here may explain why I see so many unaware 'drivers!' All this 'entertainment' might be a bit safer if there were a way to have emergency sirens come through the speakers. And maybe also train horns. Heck, I wonder if some drivers can even hear at all!

Sorry, I think too many of us take driving way too frivolously. Anything that distracts ones attention from driving is dangerous, be that a loud sound system (of whatever fidelity), cell phone (hand-free or not) or talkative passengers and that includes noisy children.

[sandbox]

I agree Mr. K, I too Rip my CD's in the MP4 192 format, but I only have regular ears so I may not know the difference.
I do have some CD's that my kids have sent me that don't sound reeeeeal good, but I always blamed it on the type of music or that they were ripped from a PC.

QUOTE(kbeartx @ Sep 21 2007, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMO, you cannot lump ALL MP3s together as one 'format' and complain about lack of clarity or dynamic range or lossiness.

I have VERY highly trained hearing, and I can definitely hear the difference between 128 Kbps MP3s and uncompressed ['CD quality'] audio of complex music, but if I rip my seedies at 192 Kbps [which I do], even I cannot hear the difference between the rip and the original AIFF [the 'native' CD format for audio files].

I challenge all of you to perform the experiment and make the comparison for yourself.   AFAIK,  I have some high-end loss in my hearing apparatus from forty years of playing live rock'n'roll, so for you the number might be 256 or 320 Kbps, but I bet you that you'll be hard-pressed to hear the difference at 192 or above.  For me, the savings in storage space is well worth any 'theoretical' [that is, inaudible] lossiness.

 

[chriskleeman]

Gee, guess I'll have to give it a try in that format. I'm just a woodchuck, after all...

I guess I haven't given the newer MP4 format a try so I'll reserve judgement until I try a few.

Thanks Mr. K for the info! And, if I may ask, how much space do those files take versus the AIFF ones?

CK

[kbeartx]

QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Sep 22 2007, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how much space do those files take versus the AIFF ones?

You save quite a bit:

A 46.3 MB AIFF of classical guitar is reduced in filesize to 6.3 MB as a 192 Kbps MP3


 

[sandbox]

FYI

QUOTE

Note: As of Mac OS X version 10.4.9, many programs are only able to export AIFF-C. QuickTime Pro, and Digital Performer 5.11 for example, will export AIF-C when AIFF is selected as the export format. This can be verified by highlighting any newly created AIFF, and selecting "Get Info" from the "File" Menu. This was not the case with OS 10.4.8 and earlier. This is not, however, observed in all programs. iTunes and Logic Express, for example continue to properly export AIFF files.

This change presents potential compatibility issues between systems which use only AIFF, and files written in OS 10.4.9 as AIFF-C. For example, the Alesis HD24 hard disk recorder can work with AIFF files, however AIFF-C files, like those created in Mac OS X 10.4.9 are not compatible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiff


audio file basics
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6243/Getting+...our+Audio+Files

Chris, some stuff from a file on-board, I kept it for comparisons. From what I understand an orchestral piece of music will compress less than Rock & Roll, but maybe someone that knows more detail about this phenomenon can explain it better.

QUOTE

(Original reader comments from the 6/6/2002 news page follows)

      "hey mike, did this quick test.. i was wondering how likely mp4 would be to replace mp3, and did a little test of it. i picked the song i did because it had great highs and lows (normal mp3's destroy the lows at low rates, so i wanted to have plenty of lows and highs to test)

      here are my results-

      The Fugees-How Many Mics
      Aiff - 45.2 MB - cd quality (cd audio)
      MP3 - 6.1 MB - 192 kbps (sounds good)
      MP4 - 1.8 MB - 56 kbps (drastic loss of highs)
      MP4 - 3.1 MB - 96 kbps (sounds as good as 192 mp3)
      MP4 - 6.2 MB - 192 kbps (close to aiff quality)
      OGG - 6.2 MB - 192 kbps (warble of a 96 kbps mp3)

      all encoding was done with QT 6 in OS X, ogg done with the QT plugin from sourceforge
      (available here)

      personally i cant stand an mp3 under 192 kbps, it sounds horrible to me. thus i didnt even test anything under 192 k for mp3's. ogg was horrible and large at 192, so i didnt bother testing less compression. mp4 is freaking awesome. 56 was too low for me, although i could see some people not noticing the loss of high trebles. 96 kbps mp4 could pass as a 192 kbps mp3 no problem, and at half the file size (3.1 MB compared to 6.1 MB) the 192 kbps mp4 roles out of my system as smooth as the aiff, and it is the same size as the mp3.

      final conclusion-i want mp4, and i want it now = ) (my only question is concerning id3 tags...)
      peace
      sandor "