Cassette Deck
Rotary Wanker
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 413
Likes: 1
From: Washington, DC
You'll need the cassette and the trim panel to install it. $184 at Finishlineperformance.
Last edited by Ericok; Oct 16, 2007 at 08:25 PM.
I use the cassette interface to play the iPod in my old Explorer; don't know why it didn't occur to me that it could be the reason he wanted one for his 8.
Well, now don't I feel silly. On mine, the $150 was just the beginning. Then the dealer took another $140 to install it (about a 2-1/2 hr. job).
I use the cassette interface to play the iPod in my old Explorer; don't know why it didn't occur to me that it could be the reason he wanted one for his 8.
I use the cassette interface to play the iPod in my old Explorer; don't know why it didn't occur to me that it could be the reason he wanted one for his 8.
Mazda OEM iPod adapter, dealer install. I prefer to have them do everything unless it's purely cosmetic, mostly to avoid any warranty arguments in the future. Car still has only 3600 miles on it.
Absolutely true. The same songs sound much better through the Bose than the cassette/adapter in my other car. The Bose set-up is the best stock sound system I've ever owned in a car. I've had better sounding aftermarket installs, but this one is by far the best right off the showroom floor.
PUSHER ROBOT
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
I really just can't rationalize putting a cassette deck in the 8 if it isnt already there.
1) an FM adapter would be cheaper and better quality for Ipod use, if you didnt want to hard wire one.
2) CD > Cassette, there's really no comparison.
1) an FM adapter would be cheaper and better quality for Ipod use, if you didnt want to hard wire one.
2) CD > Cassette, there's really no comparison.
Registered
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 1
From: Southern NH
It depends on how the recording has been mastered. In the past, engineers would take the highest levels in a given recording at set that to zero. The lowest levels would be set to a negative number. Everything else would reside between those two limits. This would give you a natural, warm sound similar to a vinyl record but with the crispness and clarity of digital. The overall volume of the cd would be lower as well. Nowadays engineers, in order to accomodate people converting their cds to mp3s, etc. they set the levels much higher so more of the formerly midrange levels are now set to zero and any higher levels would be clipped. This makes softer sounds in the recording such as ghost notes much louder and easier to hear, (thus defeating their intended purpose incidentally.) The downside is the overall sound becomes much harsher, particularly instruments such as piano and cymbals. The overall volume of the cd is also much higher. This makes the conversion from cd to mp3 sound better, (as mp3 is a poorer quality than cd to begin with.) You can hear this for yourself by taking a cd from the early 90s and a new cd and comparing them on a decent sound system or through a good set of headphones. The old cd will sound more natural and you'll have to turn the volume up. The new one will be harder on the ears and more fatiguing to listen through and the volume **** will be lower. Alternatively, play each on your PC with media player and set the visual to show the frequency graph. The older cd will show a strong singal through the midline with peaks and valleys occasionally going to the top and bottom of the graph. New cds with show almost complete saturation of the graph with little peaking because the signal is completely taken up.
I'm probably not explaining that clearly, but it's the reason why cds have been sounding worse and worse in recent years. Everyone wants to have louder cds.
I'm probably not explaining that clearly, but it's the reason why cds have been sounding worse and worse in recent years. Everyone wants to have louder cds.
PUSHER ROBOT
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Yeah I've heard that before about the volume / range issue. I was referring to the loss when pulling the data off the tape as opposed to optically. Sound quality wise there's no comparison. Engineers mutilating the range so they can have 'louder' cds is another(stupid) issue entirely.
We've been living with audio compression for decades. That's the only way they engineers used to have to make music even remotely listenable on AM radio.
Sometimes the "good old days" weren't so good...
Sometimes the "good old days" weren't so good...
Registered
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 1
From: Southern NH
A perfect example you might have in your collection is broadsword and the beast. Listen to beastie on the original cd, then on the remaster. Totally different song. The vocals are clearer on the remaster but, at least to me, it doesn't sound as good.
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 772
Likes: 2
From: California, Chula Vista, Otay Ranch
It depends on how the recording has been mastered. In the past, engineers would take the highest levels in a given recording at set that to zero. The lowest levels would be set to a negative number. Everything else would reside between those two limits. This would give you a natural, warm sound similar to a vinyl record but with the crispness and clarity of digital. The overall volume of the cd would be lower as well. Nowadays engineers, in order to accomodate people converting their cds to mp3s, etc. they set the levels much higher so more of the formerly midrange levels are now set to zero and any higher levels would be clipped. This makes softer sounds in the recording such as ghost notes much louder and easier to hear, (thus defeating their intended purpose incidentally.) The downside is the overall sound becomes much harsher, particularly instruments such as piano and cymbals. The overall volume of the cd is also much higher. This makes the conversion from cd to mp3 sound better, (as mp3 is a poorer quality than cd to begin with.) You can hear this for yourself by taking a cd from the early 90s and a new cd and comparing them on a decent sound system or through a good set of headphones. The old cd will sound more natural and you'll have to turn the volume up. The new one will be harder on the ears and more fatiguing to listen through and the volume **** will be lower. Alternatively, play each on your PC with media player and set the visual to show the frequency graph. The older cd will show a strong singal through the midline with peaks and valleys occasionally going to the top and bottom of the graph. New cds with show almost complete saturation of the graph with little peaking because the signal is completely taken up.
I'm probably not explaining that clearly, but it's the reason why cds have been sounding worse and worse in recent years. Everyone wants to have louder cds.
I'm probably not explaining that clearly, but it's the reason why cds have been sounding worse and worse in recent years. Everyone wants to have louder cds.
There are many reasons further down the chain as to why high frequency transients may sound harsh during cd playback. A few possible reasons are:
1. decreasing resolution of redbook at the upper limits
2. ADC components and internals
3. jitter introduced during ADC
4. cd playback system components
5. cd playback system internals: opamps, caps, DAC, PS
6. cd playback jitter
7. time of day / quality of AC power
8. playback transducers: over-bright speakers, tizzy headphones
9. listening room interactions: sub-optimal wall dimensions, lack of primary surface absorption, slap echo.
10. choice of amp, pre-amp
To listen to the best of any format, whether it be cassette, vinyl, cd, or SACD, would require a significant investment. A $200 dashboard cassette or cd player is not going to come near the full potential of the format.
Last edited by User24; Oct 17, 2007 at 07:44 PM.