Menu
Forum
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Car Audio Discussion
General Car Audio
Car Audio Build Logs
Car Audio Equipment
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Help
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Classifieds
Car Audio Wanted
Classifieds Member Feedback
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Test
Forum
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
Search
Search titles only
Search titles only
What's new
New posts
Live Activity
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Classifieds Member Feedback
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Car Audio Equipment
Head Units
I had this alpine radio which probably was rare idk.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ELS122" data-source="post: 8839827" data-attributes="member: 678405"><p>If you didn't realize, I used vynil as a rhetorical example for when formats don't become outdated because of sound quality but other reasons instead. I.E. Vynil => The convinience of cassettes => convenience of digital audio</p><p></p><p>"you don't want to lose this argument over how great your tape player is." Who's pulling complete BS out his ass now?</p><p>The only argument that you say is BS that I actually made, is that better sound quality only was achieved recently which is true, unless you consider some uncommon format that nobody used, better audio quality only now has become a thing with computers that can play high bitrate flacs, yet how many people you see using high bitrate audio? with a high sampling rate?</p><p>if you're the type that say "oh you cannot hear above 20khz and you cannot head a .00x% difference" then get 2 audio files, encode one in aac, the other in opus, at a usual bitrate like 128kbps, and compare the sound.</p><p>Then tell me you cannot hear the .000x% difference in format decoding.</p><p>Then record some music (high sampling rate!), and then put a 0db sawtooth signal at ~22khz and tell me it doesn't sound like ****? "IT CANNOT, IT ABOVE 20KHZ"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ELS122, post: 8839827, member: 678405"] If you didn't realize, I used vynil as a rhetorical example for when formats don't become outdated because of sound quality but other reasons instead. I.E. Vynil => The convinience of cassettes => convenience of digital audio "you don't want to lose this argument over how great your tape player is." Who's pulling complete BS out his ass now? The only argument that you say is BS that I actually made, is that better sound quality only was achieved recently which is true, unless you consider some uncommon format that nobody used, better audio quality only now has become a thing with computers that can play high bitrate flacs, yet how many people you see using high bitrate audio? with a high sampling rate? if you're the type that say "oh you cannot hear above 20khz and you cannot head a .00x% difference" then get 2 audio files, encode one in aac, the other in opus, at a usual bitrate like 128kbps, and compare the sound. Then tell me you cannot hear the .000x% difference in format decoding. Then record some music (high sampling rate!), and then put a 0db sawtooth signal at ~22khz and tell me it doesn't sound like ****? "IT CANNOT, IT ABOVE 20KHZ" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Car Audio Equipment
Head Units
I had this alpine radio which probably was rare idk.
Top
Menu
Home
Refresh