Check out what Behringer is up to now...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/07/behringer-unveils-8-foot-inuke-boom-ipod-dock-goes-consumer-wit/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C118645

We report, you decide.

What a strange device. Are MP3's suitable for delivering the big "full spectrum" sound that such a unit would ideally want? Is this a home living room thang... or a nightclub/disco thang? Lastly, what's the pricetag on this little baby?

Dare we continue our assumption that "if it's BEHRINGER, then the quality must be_____________"

Depending on the quality of the files in the player, sure. And dependant upon the quality of the D/A converter in the box as well.

According to that article, $30K. Seems more like some sort of novelty device for nightclubs more than anything.

Just for the record I never use MP3 format compression - I have all my music in aiff format on my iPod Classic and use a good pair of AKG headphones when listening. This is certainly just ridiculous, and would have made for a great April Fools product announcement.

Can't you just see it: BEHRINGER quietly hones its products... enduring all the jabs and jeers.... until it emerges as one the industry's "go-to", hallowed brands. Like something out of THE TUDORS. LOL

What a monstrosity!!!

Yes.

I've been to several of these events where someone has cut up a song (often, a Steely Dan song), editing it so that it switches back and forth between a WAV file and a high-res MP3 file and playing it back on a "full spectrum" system. We can tell the difference, but it's subtle, and don't feel like we can always catch the difference. You can hear a very slight collapsing of the stereo soundfield and a very very slight difference in the top end, but it's far more subtle than you would think even on a very large, expensive system. I know people like to bag on MP3s because it makes them sound like they really know their stuff, but the audio on a high-res MP3 is really surprisingly good. It ain't what audio engineers like to hear, but it's the truth.

I'm getting one for the double-wide.

I guess this is what radio stations will start putting on their flatbeds for remote events instead of those giant boom-boxes they used to use?

Must avoid my son buys one box like that, if not two.

He already kills my nerves sometimes with smaller boxes.

They say there's been a real range of quality in the converters and output electronics in various iPods and iPhones (Bill Machrone did a piece on it using his family's 7 different generations/tiers of iPods), so I won't weigh in on any particulars there -- but in recent comparisons between my computer's onboard motherboard audio and my MOTU 828mkII 'pro' interface using 320 kbps mp3s, I heard a distinct jump in quality between the mobo sound and the MOTU.

(Maybe not amazing, since the motherboard audio chip set probably cost the maker less than a buck and my MOTU cost... several. )

And when I compared the same media on my phone, I noticed yet another clearly distinguishable gap.

And, again, this was not even using full quality files (although 320 kbps sounds quite close, closer than most folks can distinguish).

By contrast, using 160 kbps files, I'd never really noticed a huge difference in audio quality moving from the mobo sound to the MOTU. (Of course, I always use the MOTU for recording, but now I use the MOTU for my streaming music, too, which, since switching to MOG, is all 320 kbps.)

So, if you're only creating those files for the iPod, you might want to experiment a little and see if you could get away with a lower quality, say 320 kbps.

If not, can't an iPod play Apple Lossless format? That would cut your bandwidth/storage requirement down to about 55-60% as I understand it. (A 320 kbps would be a little under half that, a little under 1/4 the bitrate of CD audio.)

I've been looking for a charger for my iPhone. I think this might be it.

But you have to remember the quality of the encoding/decoding algorithms have improved dramatically since the MP3 format was first introduced. I think some of the "bagging on MP3s" has to do with impressions formed early on. I have the latest Fraunhofer algorithms in the Sonnox MP3 plug-in, and it's far better than the sound of just a couple years ago.

The same thing happened with ATRAC, the compression format Sony used for Minidisc. The first iteration was like nails on a chalkboard, but the subsequent generations were vastly superior. However, by that time, people had heard the original version, and made up their minds. Few had the incentive to listen to the next gen..."Oh, I heard it already, it sucked."

You just may get the award for best first post ever

Before I clicked on the link I thought Bose Cannon which i heard early. Easy setup, loud, attention grabbing in parking lot?

Mount on back of truck.

Wow! $30K? 10kW? This must be targeted at those guys who put 12 foot tractor tires on their pickup trucks...

Couple of 4x8 sheets of plywood, woofers, tweeters, wire, crossovers, amps etc.

Can build for less

Can probably build entire setup into a truck, albeit used.

I remember what early MP3s sounded like. But CDs, when they first came out, generally sucked too. Now you can stream good-sounding 320kbps MP3s. Times change.

So to answer the question again: Yes. MP3s can utilize a "full spectrum" player and sound good.

What I really want to know is: who the hell is gonna buy this?

i'm surprised that the date on the linked article isn't April 1 !!

Okay, that's it. You have to post super often.

That has to be the coolest thing behringer has ever put out.

That was my first thought as well, and since it ain't April 1st I give up already trying to figure this one out.

The only thing missing is a big matchbox to go with it so you can hide from the giant spider.

I could see some military and police applications... like using it to smuggle a SWAT team into a drug cartel party or something. You know, the whole Trojan horse thing... oops, I mean thang.

Certainly algorithms have improved, as have D/A converters,but perhaps the thing that has made the most dramatic improvement in the sound of MP3 (and other) data compression has been the decrease in cost and increase in size of storage media. The first portable MP3 players had just a little memory and plug-in cards were still expensive.

Players that were designed to hold just a few songs survived because people were ujsing more and more compression and lower sample rates to be able to load up their players with more music. It's not surprising that anyone with an inkling of what good audio sounds like wouldn't be impressed at 16 kbps data rate at 8 kHz sample rate - but many went that way so they could get a couple of hundred songs on their player. And expansion continued in that direction. When the 160 GB iPod Shuffle came out, it was pushed as storing thousands and thousands of songs, not 50 CDs or so with essentially CD quality.

Someone can (and probably has) always come up with some audio material that gets mangled even at a high bit rate of encoding, but for most things, 44.1 kHz sample rate at 320 kbps is indistinguishable from the CD that file was compressed from. Try this at home, kids.

Who was the genius to approve of this?

Seriously, if they can figure out how to make this thing into a car, they may have a small market for it. You know... instead of a car with speakers, you have a speakers that drive.

Hopefully this will put them out of business...

Clearly this device is designed just as a gimmick to introduce their new line of home-consumer audio. The reason it costs $30K is because it likely is the only one in existence. But it seems to have gotten all of US talking about it, so it seems to be working.

Based on the success they've had with pro audio, I doubt it will put them out of business. Regardless of how much the experts bitch about the lack of quality in the products.

Well, at the very least we can be pretty sure they didn't steal it.