I have never seen a frickin forum like this forum! (and I have been on them since 97 starting with BMW motorcycles, I have well over 10,000 posts on motor forums, I've been a moderator on 2 forums) This place is whack!

Chazzlee did a GOOD thing(thank you sir + rep for you), but he may feel like crap for posting something that might help somebody (I know I'm to the point where I think "why bother posting up something that may help somebody?")

If you dont like the info, ignore it. Why railroad somebodies thread off topic and turn it into crap?
I cant figure it out, is it because the Fit is a low end car? And we have too many snotty spoiled kids here still living with mommy and daddy?











..

 

Well, unless I'm reading you wrong, I was defending Chaz, not slamming his post. His post was extremely useful as far as I'm concerned.

My post was directed at the guy who had to take this cheap antenna discussion down some unnecessary road to audiophile nothingness. In his opinion (Chaz) he got great results from a cheap (cost wise) antenna he purchased from Pep Boys... period. Then some self-proclaimed resident "expert" audiophile had to turn it into a needless discussion of the finer points of flippin' MP3s, and how superior they are to standard AM/FM radio.

I could go on about the differences between even analog and digital, as well as the short-comings of MP3s, but this wasn't the place for it.

In other words, this entire thread became overinflated, and it's simple point almost completely lost in it's eventual stuffy and unfortunate translation.

My hat is off to Chaz for his antenna suggestion... I am currently trying to find one online from Pep Boys. I'm having no luck, mind you... but trying to find one nevertheless. I listen to everything, including my XM subscription. I still have uses for even, yes, heaven forbid, AM and FM radio!

The audio Gods that be will surely condemn me for having said so!

 

thank you Tork! Totally agree. And Moniz, "hearing" is different than finite frequencies. Hearing is a subjective experience, just like experiencing the sensations of "color." We can correlate wavelengths of light as well, but this simply does not explain the experience of the creations in our brains of the sensations of what we call "color." Like the guy in the white hat smoking a joint says, you ARE missing the point. And more to the point, you are, as Tork has just stated, creating an anti-social atmosphere for someone like the OP to share helpful info. Your info simply is not helpful, really. But please do let me know if i accidentally misspelled any words in this post. It's so tremendously helpful of you.

 

Tork, mematte:

In all the car forums I've been a member of(and in good standing)I have never seen so much sensitivity to providing info that people, that somehow in their twisted logic, is seen a as a put down. Where in the hell did I condemn the OP for his choice? Please point that out to me, because I sure as hell would like to know! Of course hearing is subjective, and no where did I say that "Hey, OP you suck because yo are no audiophile" It seems all of you are projecting. Over and over I've said, if he thinks it sounds better than before, then great, fantastic, and yes great thank you for providing the info. But you guys seems to think me a troll for pointing something out? And get annoyed when because you can dish it(claiming my info has no bearing, then fine take your own damn advice and ignore it, like you stated towards me) but can't take a little ribbing from my pointing a spelling mistake!

Such a s sensitive bunch! I must remember to take everyone's self esteem here in to account and apparently, offering a little info/context=making them feel bad about their choice/info. Sheeesh!

 

MP-3 by definition is a compressed format. It leaves out a lot of what was originaly recorded i.e many frequency's to attain the compression. You say that radio is limited to 16,000khtz. Most Humans will never hear 20,000 hz. MP-3 will never sound as good as a wave file/CD/Vinyl/ or a clean FM station. Since MP-3 was introduced, it dumbed down an entire generation to what sound and or music should really be. Your statement is proof. MP3 is for listening in your car which is nosier than almost any other listening environment. BTW. I do live sound for a living.

 

First of all, much respect to you. You sound guys make all the difference between a crappy sounding live show or an amazing sounding one.

I will have to disagree with you though about MP3 compression. I qualified my statement by saying properly ripped MP3. I'm well aware of how much MP3 compression will remove from an original source. The key is how much compression you can get away before it become noticeable. Personally I rip all my music no less than 256kps in AAC(m4a) format. Yes a compressed song will not sound as good as the original wav/cd/vinyl but at 256kps, it's near indistinguishable from the original uncompressed source to all but someone with a perfectly trained ear to hear the difference. I've experimented with a very clean piano piece of music, and I noticed immediate difference in timber once getting below 256kps. But at that rate (256) it's pretty hard to hear a difference between the ripped version and the original. Yes, I know ripping is all in the name of convenience. Nothing beats having a ton of music at the tip of your fingers instead of lugging around CD's or waiting for the radio to play something you like, but you can walk a line as far as quality and convenience.

Now as far as a car as a listening environment. In general, yep, it can be the worst place to listen to music. But then again, next to the live experience, it can be the best place to listen to music.

Allow me to explain. Even the most dedicated audiophile has a hard time sitting in one perfect spot to listen to music, where the soundstage will be perfect and all the instrumentation will be balanced as intended in the original recording. In a car, you know exactly where the persons ears are at all times. Now this is where you start getting into big bucks, but really no more than a super high end home system. With enough sound deadening and proper speaker placement/aiming, you can get (again next to the live experience or a killer ie.expensive set of headphones) a car to possibly be the best sound experience out there, again because the sound will be tuned to exactly where the listener is, and you know the listener will be. Now granted the Fit probably isn't the best car to start with if that's what you're after(and his thread isn't really about that) but if you've ever been in a car audio show car, who's goal is the ultimate sound stage you'd know what I mean. I'm thinking of back in the early 90's there was a gentleman who has Grand National project car that was rated the best place to listen to music for the most realistic sound stage environment aside from a live show, bar none. After a while he was disqualified from competition because he won every time. Mind you he spent a fortune, but he was out to prove that the ultimate sound experience can be had in a car.

I know, off topic, so here comes the flaming!

 

"MP-3 will never sound as good as a wave file/CD/Vinyl/ or a clean FM station..."

A-HA!! Am I reading that right? If so, mine ears have been gloriously vindicated!! An expert sound guy here posts, and he says MP3 will never sound as good as a clean FM station!!
(Which happens to be exactly why I installed the loooong antenna, and is exactly what my ears are still telling me I'm getting, okay?)

-So let the battle begin anew now? (Because I know someonewill surely say, but wait, there's SUPER MP3, and you're just not using it right!!)

Actually as the OP I've come to the rather exasperated conclusion that all this is but "...a tempest in a tea pot', and not really worth all the extra band energy wasted on it? I mean, try the bigger antenna or don't, okay? And if you do try it, then I believe I would actually be intersted in seeing more posting here as to the results you're experiencing? (Or maybe not?)...
(And hey, if you cut off the end of the antenna's plastic wrapper very carefully, and don't lose any of the extra adapter pieces, you could prolly even return the #@$%* thing and get your big $10 investment back too, right?!!)

 

Hey I agree with you, I took the full length antenna off of my Xterra to try. It sounded great, but has problems with my garage door. I have a Toyota Matrix antenna which is a compromise. I don't understant the s@*t you've been getting for good information. I listen to my ipod most of the time, but listen to the radio sometimes. I would probably listen to the radio more if I had a 30" antenna. Thanks for the good tip.

 

Had to chime in here. This MP3 discussion is so missing the boat in reference to the sound in the Fit if you're not also talking about the rest of the signal chain: D/A conversion, preamps and amps in the head unit, and the budget speakers. Even IF the "MP3" file was lossless, you're almost certainly not getting pristine, flat to 20 kHz sound by the time it comes out of the speakers. So by improving FM sound (by increasing the RX signal strength and thereby reducing hi-frequency muting in the tuner), you're very likely getting it into the ballpark of compressed audio played through the budget OEM system.

 

I'll never understand why anyone would do this. I know the sacrifices of mp3 encoding. But if you're going for 256kbs, do yourself a favor- don't encode at all and just write a wav file at cd resolution- 16/44.1. I bought my mp3 player some years ago with the stipulation that it must be able to have wav files write to it. All well and good, but they take up a ton of space. So too does 256kbs. I settled on 160kbs and no lower. I use that for most tracks, and 192 if they are a bit shorter in length. I also have to consider which size is most friendly for internet play and download, so 160 is usually the best balance between sound quality loss and reasonable playback/DL on line. But if you're trying like the dickens to preserve the original sound quality of a track by encoding at just under a cd res wav file, consider not encoding to mp3 at all at that point. The amount of space you're saving just isn't worth it, imo. If you're gonna use mp3 for convenience sake, default to 160kbs and NO LOWER. Yes, 128 sucks balls- no matter how many tunes you can stuff in your player. And like has been mentioned, all is usually futile no matter how much you try because the D/A converter in mp3 players typically sucks and from what I can hear, so too does the A/D in the Fits aux input. The best chain in the Fit is a cd in the player. Next is a USB player on the USB line. Last and worst is any player coming in on the aux line.

If a nice cheap antenna gives you a signal boost, that's great. Music will sound better for it. The stronger the station comes in, the better the music will likely sound. Stations far away or even being picked up from one state over, such as I can do on Long Island to CT, will usually sound compramised and bass light. We have a lot of differents things we would like from our listening experience. Everything from fidelity to convenience. Pick your weapons- there's plenty to satisfy now. Even 30" antennas for a signal boost.

Dan

 

Yes 256 does take up slightly less than full quality CD rip, but at size my library is, those slight size savings down to 256, allow me more room on my main library hard drive to squeeze in more music.

Going back to my piano song that I used a my bench mark, I noticed a pretty significant difference when I ripped it at 160 and 192, but at 256, I couldn't tell the difference anymore between the full bit rate and the 256 bit rate that I eventually settled on.

Hey, but like I've said before, whatever you're happy with is whatever you're happy with.

 

That's cool. I am involved in audio on many different levels, so my needs are all over the map. I don't have a massive listening library on my hard drive, nor do I need one. Whatever tracks are going into my mp3 player are by default, for convenience listening and as such I don't care if the file is a lossy. I mean, in a moving car it's already compromised by a lot. I encode for many different reasons- internet, media delivery, convenience, and mix down proofing. I typically work with audio at 24/44.1 and higher and let me tell you- even a file dithered down to audio cd resolution [16/44.1] is a large compromise. I usually encode mp3's from an original file even higher than cd res, and therefore the mp3's sound even better. I also proof my mixes at 128 and 160kbs to ensure they still sound good squashed. It's never ending, this crap!

Sorry for the left turn with this thread. I always try and steer my response back to your antenna being a good thing to try! The only caveat being- I'd have to see how your eq controls are setup to begin with. It's never ceases to amaze me how badly people setup their stereos in the first place!

Dan

 

I found the Metra CK-RM22B antenna mast at my local Kragen; you can also buy it here:

oreilly auto

For some reason the item page above lacks a picture or description, but if you click Add to Cart you can see the description and the price, $14.99.

I followed the same procedure as OP, removing about 12mm from the threaded adapter so the antenna base will sit flush on the mount. In the last picture below, you can see the remainder of the threaded adapter on the far right.

I did some comparison testing with a few different radio stations: alternative rock, news, classical, and one distant radio station that was just barely coming in, to see if the longer antenna improved reception from stations at the edge of the stock antenna's range. I tested using NO antenna, stock antenna, Metra antenna with uncut adapter, and Metra antenna with adapter cut.

With no antenna, the reception from nearby stations was almost unaffected, but dropped off pretty quick as I switched to further stations. Comparing the stock antenna to the Metra antenna, reception seemed almost the same; I thought I could detect a slight increase in reception from the distant radio station with the Metra antenna, though it was so small it could have been due to weather, etc. There was no discernable difference between having the adapter cut vs. uncut (aside from appearance).

I think I can conclude that having a longer antenna is not going to improve reception or clarity of stations that are nearby and already strong, and it may or may not slightly improve reception of distant, weak stations. Clearly though, as with OP's experience, YMMV. I'll test this more on the drive to Tahoe this Sunday...

I do like the way it looks though!









Thanks Chazzlee!

 

You are all, all right and all, all wrong. Any lossy format will compromise quality. To what extent depends on many factors including, but not limited to, original fidelity of the program material, the amount of echo or reverb in the recording, rate of compression(kbs), and the amount of compression, or lack thereof, of the dynamic range of the original recording. Because of these variables, I have rejected MP3s as a medium for enjoying music. It was only 3 months ago that I finally bought a portable music player that did not compromise the quality of the original program material. The Sandisk Sansa Clip+ can use FLAC(Free Lossless Audio Codec) files. FLAC files are similar to ZIP files in that they expand to bit perfect WAV files when played. Space saving is about 40% over the WAV file.I have been using FLAC file for 4 years on my Squeezebox, a network music player. It was a simple matter to drag and drop FLACs from my library to the Clip+. About 6 hours of music fits on the 8gb memory, and I'm planning on getting a 16gb microsdhc card that will plug in. I plug into the aux jack and it is hard to distinguish between the CD and the Clip+. Having said all that, a car is still no place to do any serious music listening, no matter how quiet. It SHOULD be just for background listening. If you're concentrating on listening, you're neglecting the driving. Drive the f^ckin car!

 

Thank you Tetraeon for that comparison. I'm wondering why the disparity in results between you, me, and the OP.

 

Obviously, Chaz got very different results! Maybe it's your/his areas of testing? I know you tried the cut and uncut adapter. Maybe it needs to be fully in and touching the base of the Fit's antenna housing with no excess protruding above, or maybe when you cut it you cut it too much and it no longer rests on the bottom of the housing. (I know, slight stretch and shot in the dark on my part )

Still, antennas are strange beasts. If nothing else, we're dealing with extremely crowded AM/FM broadcast frequencies.

I had a friend who replaced his antenna. He got absolutely no better results than with the stock unit. His little brother told him to stick a piece of aluminum foil down in the hole around the bottom of the mast, and my friend gave him the "Go away kid, you're bothering me" routine. His little brother did it while he wasn't looking. Long story short, he said the results were amazing. All local stations were crystal clear and much louder compared to before the foil, and he received distant stations he never knew existed.

Sounds really stupid, and definitely low-tech... but he maintains it's true.

I'm not suggesting anyone go plugging foil down in their antenna receptacle, but I am making the point that just because it didn't give you better reception doesn't mean Chazzlee didn't get the results he's claiming. Again, there are a lot of factors involved when dealing with crowded airwaves, and everything that goes with reception issues in general.

I'm going to try the same antenna you guys tried... what the h3ll, it's only a little under $10.00 (I found it for $8.99). I'll post my results too. Hey, if it's no better, maybe I'll shove some foil down in the hole around the bottom of the mast and see if it works!

 

There shouldn't be any interference with the stock Sport spoiler. Raise your tailgate and look at it from the side with the stock antenna in place. Interference with low-hanging obstacles may be another matter.

 

This was in the back of my mind while I was cutting the adapter, but I was too lazy to cut it longer and file it down slowly so it was the perfect length.

I think I'll try threading the adapter into the housing first, so that it's definitely touching the bottom, and then attaching the antenna and see if that makes a difference.

Then, I'll try foil.

 

It's a perfect case of function over form. If it works for you, then that is all that matters. I think it looks ugly, but hey, that's just me. Some of you don't like my chrome wheels and I love them.

Ricky Nelson: You can't please everyone,...so you got to please yourself.....da da da da dada.


Flea

 

So I took some measurements:

The Fit's threaded antenna housing is about 10mm deep.

The stock antenna's threaded shaft is only about 6mm long, so there is a 4mm gap between it and the bottom of the housing.

The threaded adapter from the Metra antenna that I cut is about 7mm now, so I cut it a little shorter than I needed to... I crammed a piece of aluminum foil in there to fill the gap, but no change in reception for me.

Chazzlee, if you care to, maybe you can tell us how long you left the antenna's threaded adapter after cutting it?