can a carputer compete with a head unit for sound quality?

**CHUPACABRA** · 04-22-2005, 08:35 PM

Hi guys I just wanted to step in for a min and let you guys know that if you by-pass ur HU and just use ur pc u will want to still get a active EQ .Thought the sound quality is good through a high quality HU it can never surpass a high end sound card .The reason why is that you r converting digital audio to analog from the disc to the HU output,now from a pc you still convert the signal but at a diffrent level.The pc keeps the digital signal through all the processing (sound settings,EQ,soundstage,whatever u use)till it gets to the output to go to the amps,a HU converts the signal before it hits the processing stage.Now as for khz a high end HU will only prduce 44khz max(yet to see one higher)and at only a 96-128 bit rate maxx a pc well above that depending on how u record the MP3s.
I have to go right now but If u guys want anymore specs or info on this or any other subject IM me via MSN at chupacabraecr@hotmail.com Ill be glad to help anyone willing to learn

**nubz69** · 04-23-2005, 07:25 PM

"a HU converts the signal before it hits the processing stage." Not true unless you are using an outboard analog crossover and EQ. Peices like the cda-9835-55 and the pioneer P-9 set do their work in the digital domain along with a few others. There are also H/U's that do upconversion of cd audio such as the Denon headunits.

I have to say that so far the carpc is about at a 1980-early 90's level of SQ that is suitable for the car environment. It has the ability to be at a level on par with current head units but noone is trying to push it to todays standards as far as sound goes. I hope this changes soon. Could you immagin using 2 sound cards for a fully active surround setup in a car? The sound would me amazing.

**CHUPACABRA** · 04-23-2005, 11:40 PM

You must be out of ur mind!!

NONE of those external EQ/crossovers process digital audio anywhere next to a level a pc can. There isint even a house DIGITAL RECIVER that can surpass a well built and configured pc,dont let advrsetisments fool u or even some specs on web sites. Ive put in sound cards that cost up to $2500 in a customers vehical that would do somany things u couldent even use all the options if u tried.Just think of it this way most music is recorded using a DIGITAL computer system and if the sound quality was lower that thay would of stuck with reel to reel

And I dont see any HU of any kind providing support for HIGH DEFINITION AUDIO.
Im a technician of car audio and computer technology for 12 years,Trust me I wouldent be yanken $}{!% out my @$$

P.S. Why would u want to use 2 sound cards?

**fantomas** · 04-23-2005, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by CHUPACABRA

Just think of it this way most music is recorded using a DIGITAL computer system and if the sound quality was lower that thay would of stuck with reel to reel

actually.... recording on a digital computer system is cheaper and easier. tapes...or reel to reel... sound much better than a digital system. tape is a much more accurate reproduction of the original sound.

**HybridFox** · 04-23-2005, 11:46 PM

can a mustang compete with a civic?

**Shotty** · 04-24-2005, 12:36 AM

When recording music, it is going to go digital eventually anyway isn't it?

I'm not in the field, so i've no expertise in it, so please correct me if i'm wrong.

As far as I can see, the only reason now to record onto tape, is that you may later down the track have a means to record at a higher bitrate then you can currently.

music - > tape -> digital
music - > digital

Tape is only used as an intermediate anyway.

**BenjaminS** · 04-24-2005, 12:47 AM

Not a single one of you have provided real proof for either side. I am not writing to flame, but because I feel this topic requires proof to make a point, i am very interested in the outcome. Perhaps a few of you should write into a car audio magazine to have them do lab testing so that we could settle this in a controlled environment.

Cheers.

**CHUPACABRA** · 04-24-2005, 10:03 AM

"recording on a digital computer system is cheaper and easier"
Very true,Digital recording is alot easier than anolog.

"tapes...or reel to reel... sound much better than a digital system."
Where u came up with this information.......I dont know.I think u might be thinking of VINAL and the reason VINAL sounds more superior is because it plays at 48khz vs 32khz for metal oxide(type of HIGH QUALITY tape) or lower depending on what source your recording from.
Now even not useing a computer musicians or actualy producers record using a DAT deck wich is still digital but in a tape form.This DAT tape can record up to 48khz TOPS,but tell be who has a DAT player in their car?

"tape is a much more accurate reproduction of the original sound."
I dont know how u could say this.What tape r u useing? Vinal is the best when it comes to anolog sound production and even then It depends on what type of needle u use.

All thing I have provided to you are facts and not opinion of mine. If you dont beleave me look up on the web because there is even more information than I can provide you. My means are not to flame anyone just to spred my knowlage to you guys.

**Snootch** · 04-24-2005, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by HybridFox

can a mustang compete with a civic?

I assume you are refering to sound quality competition? In SQ comps vehicles are divided up into power classes (0-500 watts, 501-1000 watts, 1000+) for IASCA and USACi competitions.
The type of vehicle does not matter, so yeah, a Mustang can compete with a Civic, assuming they are in the same power class.

**noodles** · 04-24-2005, 08:57 PM

Pro digital recordings are done at least 24-bit/96khz. It gives a lot of headroom in the mixing environment. When all's said and done, it gets mixed down to 44.1khz and put on a compact disc. Now theoretically if you have the original 24-bit digital audio, it will be better quality than a CD in a head unit. But honestly, I don't think it matters in a sound competition. The difference is trivial even to trained ears.