Sound quality

[Beat_Dominator 5,000+ posts]

Good SQ to me is whatever Jmac tells me is good SQ //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Beat_Dominator 5,000+ posts]

[No message]

 

[yacob.naif 10+ year member]

I don't like small drivers //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/blush.gif.99bc659ee2012b7d826165e26fb5eebe.gif and you can't make me //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/mad.gif.c18f003ab0ef8a0d9c27ca78d77a6392.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Sound quality to me is how faithfully the source material is reproduced ...

And there is the correct answer.

In it's purest sense, sound quality is simply how accurately the stereo system reproduces the source material (in every aspect....balance, linearity, distortion, frequency response, imaging and soundstaging, etc).

While subjectively one person may "like" the sound of a certain setup (like most "bassheads" like their music extremely bass heavy), if it isn't an accurate reproduction of the source material then it is not good sound quality. The more accurately the source material is reproduced, the better the sound quality.

 

[kngadrok 10+ year member]

The more accurately the source material is reproduced, the better the sound quality.

(plagiarized from Jmac //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
NOW THAT'S AN ANSWER.

 

[mnaines 10+ year member]

Sound quality to me is how faithfully the source material is reproduced ... If it sounds good but doesn't sound anything like the real thing, it still doesn't have good SQ ...

In that case, how accurately do Sony's ATRAC3plus and ATRAC Advanced Lossless formats reproduce the original content, and what is the minimum bitrate in any format at which the original content can be accurately reproduced?

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

Sound quality is certainly subjective.

Really? Then how is SQ competition even possible??

Sound quality is not relative, it is absolute...ask any judge.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

And there is the correct answer.
In it's purest sense, sound quality is simply how accurately the stereo system reproduces the source material (in every aspect....balance, linearity, distortion, frequency response, imaging and soundstaging, etc).

While subjectively one person may "like" the sound of a certain setup (like most "bassheads" like their music extremely bass heavy), if it isn't an accurate reproduction or the source material then it is not good sound quality. The more accurately the source material is reproduced, the better the sound quality.

x999999999....and thank you for using your brain today!

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

In that case, how accurately do Sony's ATRAC3plus and ATRAC Advanced Lossless formats reproduce the original content, and what is the minimum bitrate in any format at which the original content can be accurately reproduced?

To truly pick up all the information a human being can hear, you'd need to sample at 40k. To exaclty reproduce any analog waveform you need to digitally sample it at 2x the highest frequency. Which in the case of human hearing, caps right at 20k. Any higher is basically a waste of time.

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

Really? Then how is SQ competition even possible??
Sound quality is not relative, it is absolute...ask any judge.

SQ is very relative. Many judges may not want to admit it but it's true. Let me put it this way? If it is absolute how do we test it? Judges learned long ago what sounds looks good on an RTA won't sound good in the a cars midfield environment. Too many reflections and too much unwanted noise (rattles,etc). At the end of the day, SQ contests are 50% install contests 20% gear bias and 30% on what the judge believes the tracks should sound like.

 

[mnaines 10+ year member]

Lossless should, in theory, be exactly the same ...
Atrac3Plus, however, is a lossy format similar to mp3, which means it takes information away from the original recording in order to compress it into a smaller file ... Therefore, it's not an exact reproduction ... Of course, with a high bitrate and a good encoder, it's quite difficult for someone with untrained ears to tell the difference in a car audio system ...

The only actual source Sony uses for ATRAC3plus is the Connect music library and the SonicStage digital music manager. If I read the manual right, MP3 can compress a CD to 1/10th its original size without losing any of the original content, while ATRAC3plus can compress a CD to 1/22 of its original size without losing any of the original content. All of the downloaded files from Connect are 132kbps ATRAC3 files. If I calculated it out right, the minimum MP3 bitrate that you can run without losing the original source quality is 141.1kbps, but the minimum for ATRAC3plus is 63.495kbps. The absolute minimum bitrate that ATRAC3plus can be run in is 48kbps. All the songs on my SonicStage playlist are either 64kbps ATRAC3plus or 64kbps ATRAC Advanced Lossless. The 64kbps ATRAC3plus creates a file size of 1.9MB for a 4-minute song, while 64kbps ATRAC Advanced Lossless creates a file size of 30.23MB for a 4-minute song. A 4-minute song at CDDA bitrate (1411kbps) is 42.33MB

 

[Beat_Dominator 5,000+ posts]

My Hi-MD player uses the Atrac3+ and I must say the 256k Atrac is better to my ear than 256k MP3 (non VBR)...... but both get destroyed by CD and even my crappy Vinyl Setup.

 

[mnaines 10+ year member]

My ears are very sensitive, and I can pick up on audio details that would otherwise be inaudible to everyone else. Knowing that, I am going to inform you now that I cannot tell the difference between a 64kbps ATRAC3plus file and an actual store-bought CD with the same song. There is more to the sound quality than the level of compression or the type of compression. The device or program used to encode the file is a major factor, as is the hardware (headphones, speakers, etc.), and the type of connection used (analog speaker cables or digital fiber optic cables). That being said, the numbers game does come into play here. If the head unit or the speakers do not reproduce the entire human audible range (10Hz to 30kHz @ a maximum 92dB sensitivity), then they cannot accurately reproduce the quality of the original source. And a little bit of advice on the human audible range: As humans get older, the frequency range at which they can hear gets smaller and the sensitivity of the ear drops. The human ear can pick up a 10Hz signal, although it is felt as vibrations instead of heard as an audible signal. That feeling of a drumstick beating on the eardrum is the 10Hz "bumps" hitting the eardrum

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

SQ is very relative. Many judges may not want to admit it but it's true. Let me put it this way? If it is absolute how do we test it? Judges learned long ago what sounds looks good on an RTA won't sound good in the a cars midfield environment. Too many reflections and too much unwanted noise (rattles,etc). At the end of the day, SQ contests are 50% install contests 20% gear bias and 30% on what the judge believes the tracks should sound like.

Point taken.

Lets look at the definition of quality shal we:

qual·i·ty

Pronunciation: 'kwäl-&t-E

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural -ties

: a special or distinguishing attribute:

So what you're saying is that what distinguishes one sound from another is subjective, relative, and not absolute??

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

My Hi-MD player uses the Atrac3+ and I must say the 256k Atrac is better to my ear than 256k MP3 (non VBR)...... but both get destroyed by CD and even my crappy Vinyl Setup.

Wow, losing to crappy vinyl can be hard. Especially when it comes to details.