MP3 'seperates' component?

run_Forrest_run

Hi,
Just thinking recently, maybe this is a stupid question or maybe I have been out of the loop for too long but considering there are CD players, MD players, receivers etc..in the separates form is there not a similar offering for the MP3 format? I know there are portable MP3 devices but can U actually buy a an MP3 player dedicated 'separate' component that has decent storage capacity (200Gb+) ?? It would perhaps have a USB interface for loading MP3s etc..

mathias

yes such units do exist , if you want one the size of a hi fi component that will look well sitting on top of the unit though , these are thin on the ground.


Heres an example but the storage capacity is pretty weak ,
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/requestmm.html

Because of the compression and the much lower sound quality though most hi fi manufacturers stay away from this type of unit , so for instance , yamaha do a digital jukebox that rips cds , but only keeps the audio stream with no compression to ensure maximum sound quality , this is the unit , note that although it does not do mp3 , most cds come in at 700MB or less so this unit with 200GB of storage will hold a minimum of 200 cds with no loss of quality.

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/av/products/hf/cdrhd1500.html

Note that a lot of the latest DVD players , even some of the units from Aldi and Lidl , will play mp3's from an external hard drive via a USB connection or from a DVD R loaded with mp3 albums ( you can fit about 50 albums on a DVD r ) , so this might be an option for you.

Most modern amps and AV recievers will also have a capacity for handling mp3 signals but how this signal gets to the amp is left up to you.

The best way to have an mp3 digital jukebox is with a media center pc. These can be bought as standalone units that would not look out of place on your hi fi , and considering you need a computer to deal with mp3s anyway , this is probably the best all round solution. Heres one example but there are many , some a lot cheaper than this unit , have a look around. The thing to search for is Intel Viiv.
If you have the know how the best way to get a media centre pc is to buy a case and build it yourself , the operating system it should have is either Windows MCE or Vista as these have media center capabilities in the software. There are other software solutions in the case of Media centers but these fall into computer expert category so stick with Microsoft if you just want something that works out of the box.

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=324021 this link if for a finished unit that works out of the box.

http://www.komplett.ie/k/kl.asp?bn=10553 this link is for cases if you build your own ,

A media center pc in this case is a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut , this things also play DVD's , record TV , can be used as DVD jukebox just as in the case of Mp3's etc. Storage capacity is of course unlimited , You can add as many hard drives as there are bays.

Finally the easiest and cheapest way to get mp3's through your hi fi , is to get an ipod and an FM transmitter. That way you can have your hi fi tuner pick up the content from your ipod. These are some of the transmitters available , most of these can be bought for the same price in any 3G store.

http://www.ipod-europe.net/summary1.asp
Note that the compression on mp3's means lower quality than a cd or even a minidisc ,even with the best encoder ( which is lame encoding with variable bit rate 100% quality) so you really lose nothing by using an FM transmitter.

run_Forrest_run

wow! thanks for the great response. At the prices for those media centres I think I will just hook up my laptop to my amp for the moment but that's just going to be a pain every time I want to listen to something from my MP3 library.

Looks like the media centre is the way to go in the long run...thanks again.

bbbbb

If you have a wireless network from home, you can get devices that allow you to stream the audio from another PC (e.g. your laptop or the "ugly" desktop upstaris). Some also connect to broadband for streaming internet radio stations.

Plenty of threads on this already e.g.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055024787
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=271922

run_Forrest_run

nice one, I'll keep that in mind as I am getting broadband soon.

zilog_jones

mathias wrote:

Note that the compression on mp3's means lower quality than a cd or even a minidisc ,even with the best encoder ( which is lame encoding with variable bit rate 100% quality) so you really lose nothing by using an FM transmitter.

Compression on MiniDiscs can vary greatly - Atrac3Plus for example, sounds fooking horrendous compared to a typical 128kb/s MP3. And good MP3s are still significantly better than even a proper FM broadcast from RTÉ or whoever, never mind the cack that those little iTrip-like FM transmitters produce.

From my experience you lose A LOT from an FM transmitter, even from a 96k MP3.

mathias

Im trying to be objective here and not subjective , the quality of sound will depend on your encoder and in the case of FM transmitters , on the quality of that , some of the latest ones are excellent ( given what it is , its not going to be any better than quality FM ), such as the Audiax .
Its not Hi fi , but its a fair quality cheap and cheerful way to get MP3's to a hi fi. Probably " The " cheapest.

Regardless , if absolute quality is your goal , then you shouldnt be listening to MP3's at all , but for convenience , or for a party setting where you dont want all your CD's getting left lying around out of their cases , then its ideal.

The best quality MP3 for your hi fi is going to be the media center , with a quality card like a Terratec and a good encoder on the system like lame or whatever , the sound will be very good , but will never match a CD.

One of the really good things about a media center is that if you have the hard drive space , you can copy your CD's without any compression at all !! Thats about 700MB per CD though.

Most MP3's sold from itunes are 128kbps , and the default encoding rate is the same , the quality of this is decidedly average and any noise from the FM transmitter will only hide the compression artifacts anyway , thats what I meant when I said you really will lose nothing using one.

Heres an excerpt from the Wiki on audio quality of lossy compression systems like MP3, note the maximum bit rate ( 320kbps ) is just over one quarter the rate of a standard CD.

Audio quality
Because MP3 is a lossy format, it is able to provide a number of different options for its "bit rate" — that is, the number of bits of encoded data that are used to represent each second of audio. Typically, rates chosen are between 128 and 320 kilobits per second. By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kb/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels).

MP3 files encoded with a lower bit rate will generally play back at a lower quality. With too low a bit rate, "compression artifacts" (i.e., sounds that were not present in the original recording) may be audible in the reproduction. A good demonstration of compression artifacts is provided by the sound of applause: it is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. Therefore compression artifacts can be heard as ringing or pre-echo.

As well as the bit rate of the encoded file, the quality of MP3 files depends on the quality of the encoder and the difficulty of the signal being encoded. As the MP3 standard allows quite a bit of freedom with encoding algorithms, different encoders may feature quite different quality, even when targeting similar bit rates. As an example, in a public collective test[2] (07/2003) featuring two different MP3 encoders at about 128kbps, one scored 3.66 on a 1-5 scale, while the other scored only 2.22.

Quality is heavily dependent on the choice of encoder and encoding parameters. While quality around 128kbps was somewhere between annoying and acceptable with older encoders, modern MP3 encoders can provide very good quality at those bitrates [3] (01/2006), not statistically different from quality provided by AAC, the technical successor of MP3. However, in 1998, MP3 at 128kbps was only providing quality equivalent to AAC-LC at 96kbps and MP2 at 192kbps [4].

The transparency threshold of MP3 can be estimated to be at about 128k with good encoders on typical music as evidenced by its strong performance in the above test, however some particularly difficult material can require 192k or higher. As with all lossy formats, some samples can not be encoded perfectly transparent to all users. Thus many users opt for 192k as a good trade off.

At lower bit rates, the quality of MP3 quickly degrades, and is far behind AAC quality at 32kbps, as demonstrated by a collective listening test (06/2004)[5].

It is also important to note that perceived quality can be influenced by listening environment (ambient noise), listener attention, and listener training.

zilog_jones

I know about MP3 encoding and have read up on many comparisons before. But my point is, from my experience of comparing songs played on an FM radio station to the same song in MP3 form (usually made with LAME) - on the same Hi-Fi - the MP3 always sounded better. This is 1940s technology we're talking about here.

mathias

I understand perfectly where your coming from Zilog , but as I posted thats subjective and not objective ,

Objectively , the tech specs say you lose nothing , as all the information thats lost in the compression should make the mp3 a lower level spec than FM , and consequently should lose nothing in the transmission , whether or not it sounds better /worse to any one is subjective and depends upon what your used to listening to and under what circumstances.

For instance , I have have everything encoded using lame at 100% quality variable bit rate , I listen to my media center through a set of Mordaunt short premier plus surround speakers and it sounds excellent ,not as good as the original CD , but excellent nonetheless , I connect my ipod using the fm transmitter and send it through the AV reciever , it sounds pretty good , not nearly as good as the media center , but way better than the ipod headphones , played through the car stereo , well it plays better than the CD or radio in the car , and not as good as the ipod headphones , but thats going to be the quality of the car equipment which is a standard Opel unit. And so on ...
It varies , for a fixed level of encoding quality , the subjective experience depends on the equipment and the situation. Theres no denying that , but the tech specs are the tech specs , and , technically speaking , broadcast FM should be better than MP3.

This is 1940s technology we're talking about here.

It may be old , and it may be analog , but the signal to noise is excellent and its not compressed !! Ergo , it should be better !!

cianer

I have a Roku Soundbridge and it is only the mutt's nuts. It streams music from your PC (interoperates with lots of programs including iTunes) so you have no capacity issues, sounds great, is easy to use, and looks lovely. Cracking piece of kit.

They used to do an M2000 model which was identical to the others except that it was the width of a hifi rack. Check eBay if its been discontinued.

SouperComputer

The Slimdevices Transporter is a very good way to go.

If you are an audio nut, you could compress using FLAC too.

run_Forrest_run

SouperComputer wrote:

The Slimdevices Transporter is a very good way to go.

If you are an audio nut, you could compress using FLAC too.

looks good.

Red Alert

I rip all my CD's losslessly to FLAC, best way IMHO. They're all stored on the server