If I'm not mistaken, if you have an upgraded system you can damage your speakers by playing standard radio too loud but a cd is clean enough to do it.

If you have an aftermarket system and play an IPOD song is the quality similar to a cd?

Is it dependent on what quality you download onto the IPOD?

Also, does anyone know if the IPOD can handle staying in the car permanantly? Houston heat is near 100 in the summer so car temps must be 150+.

I'm on the waiting list for the adapter and would like to know before I go forward.

Thanks in advance.

1. Playing the radio at high volume is probably safer than playing a CD at the same level because of the amount of dynamic compression radio stations use.

2. The quality of what you get outo of the I-Pod depends on what level of compression you store your tunes. Lossless compression or straight wav. files will sound as good as a CD through a good connection between the I-Pod and the head unit, like the Dension or new BMW adaptor.

3. I lived in Denton, TX for two long years, and it was constantly over 100 deg. for the entire summer, in the car it was more like 130+. Electronic equipment can probably survive the heat me thinks

Do a search, the Dension adaptor looks like a strong competitor to the BMW unit. :beer:

VBR MP3s averaging 256kb played through my iPod sound about 80% as good as CDs. FAR better than radio, which is substantially better than satellite, but not even close to perfect. This is in car, of course.

The difference between CDs and my iPod in my home system is laughable at the very best.

Wouldnt be much of a difference as long as you have the OEM stereo! If you go some steps further tho quality is just inadequate...Mp3 is niice but still has restrictions.

The encoding rate of music has absolutely nothing to do with what your stereo can handle. It only affects the frequency response of the music itself. All music is typically mastered to 0db to provide the hottest signal possible (sometimes at the cost of dynamic range because it's so heavily compressed). The only thing that will kill your speakers is clipping. A signal that is a square wave produced by either sending too much wattage to a speaker not rated for that wattage or by introducing a signal in the input stage of the amp that is overdriving the amp itself.

The quality of the songs on your ipod will vary depending on how good the mp3 is. Not every mp3 is the same. The quality of the mp3 depends on the source its taken from, how its ripped and how its stored. An mp3 does not retain all the "information" a CD song contains because it is compressed. An old fashion record gives higher sound quality than a CD as well but its alot easier to damage a record reducing its quality. The same can be said about a CD and mp3. A CD can be scratched and damage while an mp3 is not going to change. An mp3 will retain its sound quality but a CD and record have the potential for lose of sound quality over time.

I have an Ipod in my car and love it. Can't drive without it. I've left my car in below freezing and 100 degree heat. Probably not the smartest thing but it is fine. I wouldn't suggest leaving it in a car in 100 degree heat for a week straight with no break in temperature. Consult with Apple or the manufactor of the mp3 player and see what they recommend.

Also, with an Ipod you can tweak the songs. There is a base boost on it which I use.

An old fashion record gives higher sound quality than a CD as well but its alot easier to damage a record reducing its quality.


Hate to debate this to death..but I think we've all beaten the fact that the Nyquist theorem is here to stay. Therefore in absolute sense, yes..a vynil record contains the analog equivalent of the source material. But a CD, even at 44.1, will outperform a vinyl's dynamic range and resolution by a considerable margin. The SNR alone makes the analog format you mention a less desirable medium. Furthermore, there is more than enough sampled information at 44.1 to reproduce all human audible frequencies.

As for MP3s, only your ears will tell you if you can notice the difference. I find that overall depth (even at 320 or 256) is lost especially in the detail of the bass frequencies. Clearly, the type of material you listen to on a typical day plays a big part in how much loss your material will tolerate before it sounds like crap.

Of course, it's a "weakest link" system. If you have prestine source material coming through a Discman..well..you'll be limited to the technology in the cd player, cables, speaker (or headphones).

FWIW, you may want to consider a slightly higher quality solution like the Phatbox (www.phatnoise.com).

Vinyl just sounds better... I would only compare to SACD... THo you need a very special recording and a reference system to get this wuality! Digital is easier...Pop in the disk and enjoy no matter the temperature,humidity or anything!

Hate to debate this to death..but I think we've all beaten the fact that the Nyquist theorem is here to stay. Therefore in absolute sense, yes..a vynil record contains the analog equivalent of the source material. But a CD, even at 44.1, will outperform a vinyl's dynamic range and resolution by a considerable margin. The SNR alone makes the analog format you mention a less desirable medium. Furthermore, there is more than enough sampled information at 44.1 to reproduce all human audible frequencies.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

...but wouldnt the record skip alot if the road is bumpy? :chair:

sound quality will only be as good as its source.