Music System

[Bullfrog]

Not strictly boating, but I guess many of us have this kind of kit on board.

 

I am looking for a compact system, mains operated, that will offer:-

 

i-pod docking (recharge as well as just playing signal)

CD player

Digital radio

 

Anyone got any experience or recommendations of makes and models?

 

Thanks

 

David

[RLWP]

[Robbo]

 

I am looking for a compact system, mains operated, that will offer:-

 

i-pod docking (recharge as well as just playing signal)

CD player

Digital radio

 

Anyone got any experience or recommendations of makes and models?

 

 

Price range? If you want to be Apple compatible with the AirPlay thing, Denon is a good make.

[Bullfrog]

Price range?.

 

Cheeeeeap !

 

This is for my son who already has an expensive (denon !) rig in his lounge, now wants something more affordable in his bedroom

.

[paulcatchpole]

 

Funny you should mention those - I spotted the BW mooring T+Cs for Docklands harbour moorings include a specific note about inappropriately loud gramophones...

 

PC

[Robbo]

Cheeeeeap !

 

This is for my son who already has an expensive (denon !) rig in his lounge, now wants something more affordable in his bedroom

.

 

Denon make good cheap stuff as well.

[Picard]

Hi. Downloaded all my CDs (450 of them) to my I Pod, so don't need CD player, got radio App downloaded to I Pod so don't need radio, got I Pod speaker deck, Argos £18. Sorted.

[Chalky]

View PostRLWP, on 26 October 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

Posted Image

 

 

Funny you should mention those - I spotted the BW mooring T+Cs for Docklands harbour moorings include a specific note about inappropriately loud gramophones...

 

I bought a load of soft tone needles that are supposed to be quiet. Must have a different dictionary to the one I've got!

[Boatgypsy]

Get a big one - with big speakers - and turn it up LOUD

[blackrose]

Hi. Downloaded all my CDs (450 of them) to my I Pod, so don't need CD player, got radio App downloaded to I Pod so don't need radio, got I Pod speaker deck, Argos £18. Sorted.

I must be the only person left who can't be bothered to download all my CDs to an ipod. When the medium itself starts to become time consuming for me it's not worth the effort.

An I-pod is a portable appliance surely? What's the point of copying all your music so you can listen to it at home?

I-pod speaker decks can't be compared to decent speakers, but if people are satisfied with that sort of sound quality I guess it's up to them.

[nwhear]

This one is hard to beat B & W Zepplin.

 

My link

[WotEver]

Removed 'cos I was confused.

 

Tony

Edited October 27, 2010 by WotEver

[Tim Lewis]

I must be the only person left who can't be bothered to download all my CDs to an ipod. When the medium itself starts to become time consuming for me it's not worth the effort.

An I-pod is a portable appliance surely? What's the point of copying all your music so you can listen to it at home?

I-pod speaker decks can't be compared to decent speakers, but if people are satisfied with that sort of sound quality I guess it's up to them.

 

Downloading your CD's to an computer/Ipod is a one off excercise which, unless you have thousands, is not an arduous task as each one only takes a minute or two and you soon get into the habit of automatically loading up new CD's - assuming of course that you still buy CD's rather than downloading your music.

 

You are not limited to cheap ipod speakers, pretty well all new hifi systems now incorporate a Ipod/MP3 player dock which will let you play your music at just as good a quality as a CD.

 

For some reason I still like buying CD's but once they are downloaded to the computer/ipod they generally never see the light of day again!

 

Tim

Edited October 27, 2010 by Tim Lewis

[ChrisPy]

MP3 does not match the quality of the original CD though.

[Bullfrog]

MP3 does not match the quality of the original CD though.

 

With my old IT hat on I don't understand this point of view.

 

Surely they are both digital systems with checksums etc which stop data being lost, so how come one is perceived better than the other?

 

David

Edited October 27, 2010 by Bullfrog

[Robbo]

MP3 does not match the quality of the original CD though.

 

Agreed, thats why you should use AAC Lossless for iPod type devices.

 

CD doesn't match the quality of Vinyl, but AAC and other encodes have the ability to be totally better than CD quality.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Robbo

[n.b.Goldie]

MP3 does not match the quality of the original CD though.

 

 

Does that not depend on the mp3's 'bit rate'? My copy of iTunes gives a 'cd quality' setting for use when 'ripping cds', its bit-rate is 128kbs. Having experimented, 32kbs is rubbish, 64kbs is just about listenable and at 128kbs I cannot detect any difference between it and the cd.

 

I think 128kbs is about the optimum because I cannot detect any difference between it and 256kbs.

 

Ditchdabbler

[Robbo]

With my old IT hat on I don't understand this point of view.

 

Surely they are both digital systems with checksums etc which stop data being lost, so how come one is perceived better than the other?

 

MP3 is a lossy format like jpeg, what you put in is not what you get out. Lossless formats like AAC are basically what you put in is what you should get out (although not strictly true, you'll only notice the difference if you have really high end gear).

[WJM]

It depends on the compression setting that the MP3 file was created at. The file format on a CD is almost without any loss of the original recorded 'data'. An MP3 file created similarly with no compression will sound exactly the same. however most MP3 files are 'compressed', that is, parts of the data deemed irrelevant, or imperceptible to the human ear, is deleted. The greater he compression the more noticeable it is. (the level of compression is a feature you set when you create an MP3 file)

[jelunga]

nor a nice vinyl 45 or 33. But I must admit the reproduction on my 78s is a little scratchy

[n.b.Goldie]

With my old IT hat on I don't understand this point of view.

 

Surely they are both digital systems with checksums etc which stop data being lost, so how come one is perceived better than the other?

 

David

 

MP3 uses compression to reduce the file size, the quality of the copy is dependant on the 'bit-rate', the larger the bit-rate the better quality but bigger the file.

[Robbo]

Does that not depend on the mp3's 'bit rate'? My copy of iTunes gives a 'cd quality' setting for use when 'ripping cds', its bit-rate is 128kbs. Having experimented, 32kbs is rubbish, 64kbs is just about listenable and at 128kbs I cannot detect any difference between it and the cd.

 

Sample rates also count, default is 44.1 kHz, which is the same as CD.

[WotEver]

I think 128kbs is about the optimum because I cannot detect any difference between it and 256kbs.

Depending on the source, I can. I can also hear the difference between 256kbs Mpgs and Wavs - it's like removing a curtain from in front of the speakers - all sorts of detail suddenly appears.

 

Obviously, it depends on what you're listening to it on.

 

Interestingly, in listening tests the sound quality of an iPod (any variant) generally comes out bottom when judged against competitors' mp3 players. That won't have much bearing however on the ubiquitous nature of the iPod and Apple's aggressive marketing thereof.

 

Tony

[RLWP]

nor a nice vinyl 45 or 33. But I must admit the reproduction on my 78s is a little scratchy

 

You are reproducing on 78s? You're probably breaking them, that's what the scratchy bits are

 

Richard

 

I'm too old for all that adventurous sex stuff now

[mykaskin]

Not strictly boating, but I guess many of us have this kind of kit on board.

 

I am looking for a compact system, mains operated, that will offer:-

 

i-pod docking (recharge as well as just playing signal)

CD player

Digital radio

 

Anyone got any experience or recommendations of makes and models?

 

Thanks

 

David

 

Forget all that, and just get one of these:

 

 

It's music to my ears.

 

Mike