# Source and Amp Subjective Test Results



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

Over the next few posts I will share some subjective results of testing that Westco and I did comparing different sources and amplifiers. 

First, I want to say thanks to Westco for being a great host and sharing his time and equipment so we could compare sources and amplifiers. We spent over 6 hours listening to different speakers, sources, DACs, amps, etc.

Second, let’s get this out of the way up front. This is subjective listening with the equipment and environment we had. Some of the equipment we had was very, very nice and other was middle of the road. Westco and I are both engineering types and we took a methodical approach to our testing such that we only made one change at a time. These are my subjective opinions (and some of Westco’s thoughts I would assume) but I’ll let him chime in separately. 

Finally, since this is subjective testing, I’d prefer we keep comments out of this thread related to what tests we could have or should have done. We did the tests because we wanted to and are just sharing our OPINIONS on this forum. For those that feel different sources or amps don’t sound different, please keep that opinion to yourself. I previously thought sources were fairly close in sound quality and that amps were as well. After our testing, I am firmly of the opinion that different sources and different amplifiers can sound…different. Westco also had some preconceived notions, at least one of which is that class A/B amps sound better than class D. We blew that myth out of the water for Westco.  At least according to our subjective opinions based on what we heard with our ears.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

*Setup and Initial Listening*


Music: 2012 GRAMMY Nominees (select tracks)
Primary amp: Onkyo receiver
Initial speakers: Jamo S606 speakers
Primary speakers: JTR Noesis 212HT-LPs
Primary sub: Morel Ultimo SC 104
 
Before we got into the sources, we did an initial listening to Westco’s Jamo S606 speakers with a CD played on a Yamaha bluray player going into the Onkyo receiver. My initial thoughts were they were decent sounding speakers but nothing outstanding. Honestly, I felt they were normal mid-fi sound, which is what I have had for many years until I just upgraded to my Noesis.

The next test was playing the same music but this time bringing in a McIntosh MDA5000 DAC into the picture. Wow. Just wow. The mid-fi sound of the Jamo’s was replaced with a nuanced detail that was completely missing previously. The only thing that was changed was the DAC and so now I understand why there are DACs that cost thousands of dollars, I wouldn’t buy one of that level but I heard with my own ears what a bad vs good DAC can sound like. Essentially, a good DAC can remove the veil from decent speakers.

Next we brought in my new JTR Noesis 212HT-LPs. First an aside on these speakers since I’m sure many have never heard of them. I was originally researching a new HT subwoofer and ended up buying a full setup of speakers and subwoofers. I ended up with a few TC Sounds LMS 5400 18” subwoofers that weigh 90 pounds each, true beasts that are also articulate. And for speakers, I ended up buying the JTRs even though I hadn’t heard them, based on the feedback from the JTR speaker thread on AVSForum. The JTR Noesis 212 uses the BMS 4595ND compression driver, which is $750 by itself. The 101db sensitive compression driver is crossed over to the 12” midranges (not midbasses – they are pro-audio style midranges) at 400 Hz so the compression driver is handling the bulk of the speaker duties with the midranges crossed down to 80 Hz.

For our listening test, this was the first time I had heard my new JTR Noesis 212HT-LPs and they sounded very good to me. Detailed, articulate, spacious, and above all, dynamic. They did sound better than the Jamo, a lot better if I hadn’t heard the Jamo with the McIntosh DAC. But that is to be expected from a speaker 5 or 10 times the cost of the Jamo. I didn’t feel that the Noesis were 10 times better than the Jamo as there is definitely diminishing return in the upper end of home or car audio. However, I don’t feel like I will be looking for new speakers for the next 20 years or so. Now where the JTR Noesis 212s truly excel is at very high volume, which we didn’t utilize but if we had, then we could easily say the JTR Noesis were 10 times better. I haven’t pushed them but the JTR Noesis can handle 2000 watts (RMS) per speaker and put out ridiculous levels in the 125+ DB range.

Sorry for the long winded commentary on the JTR Noesis speakers but I thought it pertinent to explain that we had some very good and detailed speakers with which we used as our basis for subjective testing of amps and sources. 

And yes, I’m sure there was some bragging there on my new speakers. I apologize immensely!


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

*SOURCE TESTING*

So as I mentioned, we started off with Westco’s Jamo speakers and they sounded decent but not great…until we added the McIntosh MDA5000 DAC to the mix. As I said, the level of detail was a night and day difference and the bass was definitely tighter. 

From there we just switched out the Jamos for the JTR Noesis speakers and took another listen. The level of detail and clarity went up to another level. The sound from the horn compression driver enveloped the entire living room (side to side) to a greater degree. Again, at these volumes I didn’t feel that the JTR Noesis were 10 times better than the Jamos but they were very nice.


*Source deck listening and initial comments (in listening order)*

*Eclipse CD7200*– Coming from the McIntosh DAC, this was a definite let down. And to think the CD7200 is considered a SQ deck on DIYMA. I was simply not impressed and didn’t listen for very long. The midbass was not articulate. Voices seemed more distant or hollow.

*Eclipse modified deck *- Dynamic and wide sound stage. Midbass much cleaner than CD7200. Just behind McIntosh DAC in upper range.

*Sony C90* - very musical but lower midrange is missing something. Top end is very nice. Not as articulate in midbass. Still tons better than CD7200. Just slightly behind Eclipse modified due to missing midrange. If not for that, would be close to McIntosh DAC.

*Sony C90 with XDP-4000X Processor/DAC *- very nice upper end. Couldn't pick between McIntosh without a direct A/B. Does the Sony combo have too much bass or the McIntosh not enough?

*Alpine CDA-7949* - very nice overall. Great vocals. Not quite as articulate in the lower midrange/midbass frequencies compared to the best sounding decks. Best stock deck so far.

*Alpine DVA-9861* - Sub output is low, had to increase sub volume to equal output of other decks. Just barely laid back in upper range. Bass is not as articulate as other units. Overall a nice musical deck.

*Clarion DRZ9255* - Very musical with great detail throughout the frequency range. Slightly laid back upper range. Favorite stock deck and I like it even better than the Eclipse modified deck.

*Source Rankings*
1. Sony C90 with XDP-4000X Processor/DAC
1. McIntosh MDA5000 DAC
2. Clarion DRZ9255
3. Eclipse modified deck
4. Alpine CDA-7949
5. Alpine DVA-9861
8. Sony C90
19. Eclipse CD7200

*Source Summary*
The short version is I would be happy from a SQ viewpoint with any of the decks except the CD7200. We didn’t have time to go back and listen so I can’t crown a winner between the Sony C90 with XDP-4000X and the McIntosh MDA5000 DAC but suffice to say they were both outstanding. I was also very impressed by the Clarion, which was the last deck we listened to and the one we used for the amp testing. I subjectively put the Sony C90 at a fictional #8…just because I felt it was missing something in the midrange. For the Eclipse CD7200, I put it at a fictional #19, which is to say that I really didn’t like the sound of it. That is surprising for two reasons. First, I remember reading about the CD7200 and some saying it was a SQ oriented deck. Secondly, I previously didn’t think there was THAT much sound difference between source units; never really thought of it before.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

*AMP TESTING*

For the amp testing we used the Clarion head unit as that was the last source unit we listened to and were both impressed by its sound. It wasn’t the best but it was certainly good enough to continue the amp testing. 

*Zapco ZP400.2* - Sounds decent but seems to be missing layers of detail. Words I finally came up with is that it doesn't have dimensionality, it's more 2D than 3D.

*McIntosh MCC302* - Great sound with incredible detail. Virtually indistinguishable from the Onkyo receiver's amp. What I think of when people say quality amps should sound the same.

*Zed Leviathan III *– Wow. So this one is going to be a little long-winded. The short version is I was really impressed with this Class D amp. While listening, I was wondering if I felt the McIntosh was better because of its cost and lineage. The more I listened though, the more I was impressed by the Leviathan. So much so that I actually preferred the sound of the Leviathan over the McIntosh with the caveat that the speakers and other equipment would determine the actual best amp for a given situation. The Leviathan sounded slightly different from the McIntosh but I didn’t feel it was inferior, just different. I felt the McIntosh had a slightly more rolled off or laid back highs, while the Leviathan was a little more full up at the top of the frequency range. 

*Amp Rankings**
Zed Leviathan III
McIntosh MCC302
Zapco ZP400.2
* These are my amp rankings and Westco would probably put his McIntosh above the Leviathan. He’d be wrong but that is his right. 

I have often heard people say they prefer silk-dome or metal dome tweeters and I have long considered myself a silk-dome tweeter person. That isn’t to say that I haven’t heard fantastic metal dome tweeters or bad silk-dome but in general, I like the smoothness and not “bright” sound of silk dome tweeters. Well, as a generality, I could easily see the McIntosh being preferred by those with metal-dome tweeters that might be a little forward or aggressive, the laid back McIntosh will take the edge off slightly. The Leviathan with a laid-back silk dome tweeter would ensure that the amp wasn’t contributing any additional laid back sound to the tweeter. Of course, the corollary is that either of these amps with the opposite tweeters MIGHT not be a good combination in my opinion. Again, my opinion, trying to put my thoughts into words, and I have varying degrees of success doing that. 

So if I had tweeters that were slightly aggressive or “bright”, I would want the McIntosh amp…with everything else, I could easily see myself going with the Leviathan and saving some money and space.

One of the main reasons I wanted to do this test, was to see how an inexpensive class D amp compared to the other amps in Westco’s collection. Unfortunately, I forgot my PPI P600.2 and so we didn’t get to test it. Westco and I will get together at a later date to see if we can spot a difference between the PPI and the Leviathan.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Great post with great notes!

I put the drz/Sony with xdp/ Mda all in the same league . Same with the mcc302 and Levi. Curious to see how the ppi measures up.

I 100% agree the z400.2 was a complete disappointment in mids and highs.

An important conclusion David mentioned is that matching up components (amp, source, and drivers) all can me mixed and matched to achieve the sound someone is looking for.

Performing drop in tests can illuminate differences in system components. I am glad that we got together to do this.

Keeping an open mind is important and so is trusting your ears.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

How was level matching done. It needs to have been done with pink noise and a RTA. Also, for anyone planning to use EQ, they need to have been eq'd the same.

Were measurements taken? Anything that can be heard, can be measured.

Were the tests blind? How long of a time frame between switching gear was there?


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

That is why I was clear in the title and in the first post that these are subjective comparisons.

We didn't EQ. We didn't RTA. We didn't level match other than to get the sub subjectively level with the mains, just enough sub to provide presence but there were several times I had to mute the mains to make sure the sub was playing, it was to that level and the Ultimo was that nicely integrated with the mains at 80 Hz. Also, we were in an apartment so we kept the volume at a respectable level. 

Tests were not blind and we switched in the order presented one after the other. We didn't go back and pit the best two sources against each other back to back, which would have been interesting, especially if it were blind.

We spent 6 hours out of our busy schedules to do this testing for our own knowledge. We shared our results because we thought it would be interesting. Was there more we could have done? Absolutely. But really Westco just wanted to clue me into the fact that sources and amps did sound different. And now I know there is a difference...with my ears, not measurements.

I understand that some will dismiss our tests because they weren't done to a full scientific method but I'm not submitting to a scientific journal.

For those that find value in what we presented, great. For those that want to dismiss our SUBJECTIVE findings, that is within your right and I'm cool with that.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

Let me add on the EQ part. We were comparing sources with flat settings. This was an apples to apples test with the only change being sources...or amps changed. 

Is it possible with a nice EQ to get an Eclipse CD7200 to sound good, probably? 

But then we get into the EQ/processor and that brings with it a whole other can of worms in terms of auto EQ quality, the tuner's capability if done manually, etc. 

So I'll say again, ours was a simple SUBJECTIVE test comparing sources with flat settings, one to another.

This was not a test to see if the Eclipse CD7200 that didn't sound good with flat settings could be made to sound great with the right EQ or tuner. 

Frankly I want to start with a good sounding baseline and tune from there. So for me, I would not choose the Eclipse CD7200 based on my subjective listening because I might have a hard time getting it to sound good even with a powerful EQ. While someone else might be a tuning wizard that could make an 8 track sound magical. I exaggerate but I made my point.

Either way, I hope some find our results intriguing, another data point in the hobby. If not, then so be it. Even if it was just for Westco and I it was good info.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

I only asked, because without answering the questions I asked, you don't really know that they sound different. Because the actual differences in products you tested are much smaller than the margin of error in the testing method.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

Fair enough but where is the error in our testing method. If everything else is the same except for the source, where is the great variable.

These are on expensive (my opinion) home theater speakers in a living room using a home receiver as the amp. The room response stays the same between tests. The sub level is the only thing we also change during the tests. And frankly, that was playing at such a low level (apartment) that it didn't contribute much to the results.

Like I said this was subjective and I tried to be clear on that. Then again, I would like to understand where you think our testing is falling down with regards to errors in our testing method.

Frankly, I've been out of car audio for 15-20 years and I know a lot has changed but I could care less which of the units sounded better. The only bias I felt was that the McIntosh was sort of seen as the best due to their name but I tried to fight that. How well I fought that bias, I don't know. I did like a Class D amp over the McIntosh amp, which I'm sure some would say is blasphemous.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

a p99 needs to be thrown into the mix


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

SkizeR - I'd love to have a P99 or P80 to throw in the mix if for no other reason than Westco doesn't like the sound of Pioneer decks. It would be fun to do a blind A/B test with him. Unfortunately, we don't have one of those units...unless you'd like to share.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

So let me talk about the results that I can say without a doubt based on our limited tests with controls as much as possible.

1. Switching from the Yamaha Bluray's DAC to the McIntosh DAC was a huge difference in detail and tight midbass. That was easy to hear...noticed it immediately. And this was on Westco's Jamo speakers. It would have been even more noticeable on my speakers. Then again if I had heard the Yamaha DAC on my speakers initially, I might have cried for what I spent for them and the lack of detail I would have heard. Note, this isn't specific to the McIntosh DAC as I think any of the top sources we heard would have been a huge step up from the Yamaha DAC.

2. Would I have been able to hear a difference in some of the decks if it were a blind A/B? Yes but I'm not sure I could tell much difference between the top 3 or even top 6 if you made me bet my life. But I'm sure I would have still placed the Sony C90 near the bottom due to the missing (something) in the midrange. But absolutely, the Eclipse Cd7200 would have been at the bottom. That was also an immediate reaction that I didn't like the deck and was ready to move on after hearing just a few parts of songs. Now, is there a problem with the deck, who knows.

3. The Zapco amp was a disappointment and easily heard that it didn't have the dimensionality, if blind, I probably would have thought it was the Leviathan based on what I've heard about Class D amps being inferior to A/B. By the same token, I probably would have thought the Leviathan was the McIntosh because I liked it the most and would have thought it had to be the McIntosh because of their name and it costs the most.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

dgage said:


> Fair enough but where is the error in our testing method. If everything else is the same except for the source, where is the great variable.
> 
> These are on expensive (my opinion) home theater speakers in a living room using a home receiver as the amp. The room response stays the same between tests. The sub level is the only thing we also change during the tests. And frankly, that was playing at such a low level (apartment) that it didn't contribute much to the results.
> 
> ...


Discrepancies in frequency response can cause a difference in sound. Even a small mismatch between the sub and everything else. A db or two difference in the match, might not be noticeable as your matching it, but might be enough to sway your opinion on the sound. 

I'm not saying this other than to say that the differences in performance of the equipment you tested, is smaller than your testing allowed for. Without blind testing, without instantaneous switching of sources, your brain cant change more about the sound between sources than is actually there. Auditory memory is horrible.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Discrepancies in frequency response can cause a difference in sound. Even a small mismatch between the sub and everything else. A db or two difference in the match, might not be noticeable as your matching it, but might be enough to sway your opinion on the sound.
> 
> I'm not saying this other than to say that the differences in performance of the equipment you tested, is smaller than your testing allowed for. Without blind testing, without instantaneous switching of sources, your brain cant change more about the sound between sources than is actually there. Auditory memory is horrible.


I would agree about that, especially my memory, oh you meant my auditory memory. Yeah, that too.

I would say I was probably trying to find differences between decks that I likely couldn't if A/B. At some point I would also have gotten fatigued trying to notice the differences.

But I stand behind my post #13 where the differences were just so pronounced in those 3 instances.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> a p99 needs to be thrown into the mix


I have ran it and heard it in 3 cars and on my home theater. It is very balanced, but too clinical for CDs.

I liked it for the first few days I had it, then after more critical listing, countless hours tuning I grew tired of it. I sold it two months later. A lot of this is personal preference. But I won't buy pioneer again. The noise level is very low, music sounds very clean.

After last night, the zapco amp fell short on my expectations, no detail compared to the other two. It was almost as though blankets were placed over the speakers. Just my honest impressions.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

WestCo said:


> After last night, the zapco amp fell short on my expectations, no detail compared to the other two. It was almost as though blankets were placed over the speakers. Just my honest impressions.


I have heard that before. I have not had a chance to listen to one myself.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I have heard that before. I have not had a chance to listen to one myself.


It is what it is... mine is headed to the classifieds/ebay, and I'll be hunting for a different amp for my subs.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Also tried it at different gain levels, no difference.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Discrepancies in frequency response can cause a difference in sound. Even a small mismatch between the sub and everything else. A db or two difference in the match, might not be noticeable as your matching it, but might be enough to sway your opinion on the sound.
> 
> I'm not saying this other than to say that the differences in performance of the equipment you tested, is smaller than your testing allowed for. Without blind testing, without instantaneous switching of sources, your brain cant change more about the sound between sources than is actually there. Auditory memory is horrible.


I'll have David connect a deck without my knowledge and I will name it next time he is over. Auditory memory isn't as good as that associated with smell and taste, granted. 

In all honesty we could match the gain levels to a 1khz test tone with a dmm and match voltages in the speaker wires then listen to each source at the same relative volume (based on a 1khz test tone). However, this would be a waste of time. Why? Because the relative difference in output is the same over all volume ranges. The music was played at close to the same volume. 

Your comments are valid on the sub response. It was done with a mini dsp and relatively quickly matched up. So feel free to discard our review for everything under 80hz. However everything above 80 was done on the same drivers, with the same passive crossovers. However the 9861 did have very weak sub preouts since the gains on the mini dsp had to be turned up very high to have output. 

People should be encouraged to drop in different gear and listen to the change in output, this is what SQ competitors do.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Close to the same volume is where I raise a flag. 1-2 db difference in volume is enough to throw someone off, and choose the louder source. Even so, measurements are important. If you can hear a difference, then you can measure a difference. Its important to know why things sound different. And if they don't measure different, its even more important to know why they sound different.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Close to the same volume is where I raise a flag. 1-2 db difference in volume is enough to throw someone off, and choose the louder source. Even so, measurements are important. If you can hear a difference, then you can measure a difference. Its important to know why things sound different. And if they don't measure different, its even more important to know why they sound different.


I'll break out the RTA gear on our next test to calibrate the sub on the first source we test.

I will calibrate everything using a 1khz test tone and 50hz test tone with a dmm.
I'll get some RTA spectrum's of the output on each, playing music (the way these tests should be conducted).

Only going to do 3 tests next time anyways.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

Ok. I've kept my thoughts to myself but no more. Frankly, people can find fault in ANY test. I was very clear that these were subjective and I made a first post that said this subjective test is what it is. Frankly the first post was to stop comments like the first one I received calling into question the results. I've seen it on AVSForum so much that it's annoying. If you have a problem with this subjective test then move on, it doesn't have value for you. And I'm not trying to affect people's purchases based on subjective findings. I'd like people to consider doing these tests for themselves and seeing what they find.

Now, different tests with different methodologies are valid. You TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL have done an amazing job with your sound deadening test but look how much time, money, and effort you have had to sink into it. And how many posts have we read in your thread that you should have done this or that. Sometimes you need to take a test for what it is whether that is a smaller scale test or over the top test. The more limited tests add information that can be added with other information. Without the minor tests then we'd have less information and that is not good either.

So based on your logic, should anyone do any reviews or tests unless we are willing to spend weeks to make it happen? Hell no. That's ridiculous.

Our subjective tests are just that and I challenge anyone to do a similar test and NOT find similar results. 

If it is true that the units are too close for us to notice differences, then why are so many SQ competitors using older "SQ" decks? I wanted to use a new deck with newer features like Bluetooth and iPod controls and Westco said I wouldn't be happy with the SQ of the newer decks (I was especially wanting a double-din, which reduces options). To his credit he stepped up and said if you don't believe me, come over and listen for yourself...hence this SUBJECTIVE 6 hour test.

Onto the amps. Same source. Same speakers. Different amps. Big difference in sound on the Zapco. Class D as good or better than Class A/B. Considering how there are so many on this board that say class D amps are not as good, where did that come from? 

Do I want my subjective test to become the basis of an argument that class D is better than class A/B. No, I'd like to suggest people listen for themselves to figure it out. And I'd definitely like to stop the snobbishness on this board that Class D is inferior. Also, if all amps sounded the same, why would Mosconi, McIntosh, or Sinphoni be so called SQ amps while others are not considered SQ. If the amps were so close in measurement, we should have no way to identify differences. So why do people pay so much for "better" amps if there is no sound difference?

[/OFF soap box]


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

WestCo said:


> I'll break out the RTA gear on our next test to calibrate the sub on the first source we test.
> 
> I will calibrate everything using a 1khz test tone and 50hz test tone with a dmm.
> I'll get some RTA spectrum's of the output on each, playing music (the way these tests should be conducted).
> ...


A few simple ideas for the second round. First, don't use the sub (that makes it a non-factor). Then use a mic in a stand that remains stationary. Level match, listen, measure. See if you can measure the same changes you claim to hear.

I understand the fun in a gear evaluation session and I understand you wanting to share it. The problem is that the educated are going to say what has already been said. The human brain is wired in a way that something louder is generally perceived as "better". This honestly means that 1-2db of difference (that sounds close at first) can make a difference in listening impressions. An honest evaluation of the system needs to be made AND be compared to measurements. The uneducated, well, aren't educated and could take you on your word, spend $1500 on a Mac DAC and find they could have gotten the same sound with a $250 used Eclipse 7200 and some tuning. 

FWIW, if I'm deciding on gear, I want EVERYTHING before the speakers to be "detailed" or "clinical". Saying a Mac amp is "laid back" to me implies that the FR is rolled off up high. I don't want that. I want the electronics to play back flat (accurate) and then I can set my sound via speakers and EQ. Anything else just seems dumb to me.

Oh, and the 9861 "Sub Level" setting needs to be at 15 to have the same preout voltage as the fronts. The preouts aren't weak at all, they are just set up different than most decks where sub level BOOSTS the signal. Only pointing it out because you shared information that wasn't accurate and, again, the uneducated may take it as the truth.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

WestCo said:


> I'll break out the RTA gear on our next test to calibrate the sub on the first source we test.
> 
> I will calibrate everything using a 1khz test tone and 50hz test tone with a dmm.
> I'll get some RTA spectrum's of the output on each, playing music (the way these tests should be conducted).
> ...


Actually Westco, our next test with the PPI P600.2 will use your speakers (mine are too big to move again) so we won't bring the sub into play since yours are full range. We can use the RTA or sound meter to establish the same volume level when comparing the amps.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

pionkej said:


> Oh, and the 9861 "Sub Level" setting needs to be at 15 to have the same preout voltage as the fronts. The preouts aren't weak at all, they are just set up different than most decks where sub level BOOSTS the signal. Only pointing it out because you shared information that wasn't accurate and, again, the uneducated may take it as the truth.


That was a misstep by alpine then.
Thank you for clarifying.

All the other sources have a fairly similar output level at the sub level set at the default 0 boost position.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

pionkej said:


> Oh, and the 9861 "Sub Level" setting needs to be at 15 to have the same preout voltage as the fronts. The preouts aren't weak at all, they are just set up different than most decks where sub level BOOSTS the signal. Only pointing it out because you shared information that wasn't accurate and, again, the uneducated may take it as the truth.


Good info. Thanks for educating us on that setting for the Alpine 9861.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

This is all I'm going to add. Like Pionkej said, leave the mic stationary, and set levels with it. But do it with full spectrum pink noise. If you use say, 50hz and 1000hz, but a source has a bump at 3000hz, your ears will pic that up, even if its minor, and it will change your opinion of the set up. Pink noise takes that out of the equation and averages the output when using an spl meter. Use c weighting, or any weighting you want, as long as its the same every time.


As far as posting RTA plots, don't do it using music. That makes it near impossible to compare (unless you can grab plots from each setup at the exact same millisecond). If you can, use a sine sweep on each set up. That will give frequency response, phase, distortion, decay, etc. If not, again use pink noise, and get a few averages, maybe 10. This wont take any longer than doing it with music, and will be much more accurate.


Also, state your opinion on what your looking for in a head unit. You've already said that your not looking for accuracy. So what is it your looking for. That gives us more insight as to why you've chosen something that other people might not like. I for one, agree that the source, processor and amps should be as accurate as possible. Otherwise, your changing the music from what it was originally mastered to sound like.



I'm really not trying to be a dick. I'm really not. I just want to help this be more informational and helpful. And I agree, there are faults in every test. I'll be the first to admit the faults in mine. But it seems like there are a few things you guys could do to improve the accuracy, without spending much extra time or money.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

dgage said:


> If it is true that the units are too close for us to notice differences, then why are so many SQ competitors using older "SQ" decks? I wanted to use a new deck with newer features like Bluetooth and iPod controls and Westco said I wouldn't be happy with the SQ of the newer decks (I was especially wanting a double-din, which reduces options). To his credit he stepped up and said if you don't believe me, come over and listen for yourself...hence this SUBJECTIVE 6 hour test.
> 
> Onto the amps. Same source. Same speakers. Different amps. Big difference in sound on the Zapco. Class D as good or better than Class A/B. Considering how there are so many on this board that say class D amps are not as good, where did that come from?
> 
> ...


I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak for myself and several others I know and have cars that are considered "great sounding". 

First off, I have owned a Sony C90, C90+4000x, DRZ9255, P99/P01, and Denford. This isn't an "ultimate" list, but it's enough to say I believe my input is justified.

There are MANY reasons people own "SQ" decks and I'd say most deal with something outside of the _sound_ it creates. My main draw to the C90 and DRZ was the fact they use 0db (instead of a volume number) as reference for max output. I just like that. A lot. The draw to the P99/P01 was the l/r 31-bands of control from the dash. The draw to the Denford was the balanced outputs that worked perfectly with the Zapco DC amps I was running at the time. I sold the C90 because I didn't like the display. The DRZ was because I wanted a P99. The P99 and Denford both sold because I needed money more than I wanted the features (though I just bought another P01).

I didn't notice a difference between the C90 or C90+DAC. Truth. Simple truth. The DRZ DID have a difference betweent the normal and 96k processing (my wife who knows nothing about the equipment side noticed it and could tell in blind listening). The P99/P01 and Denford also had no "signature" that I noticed. None of my listening was A/B, but I can tell you none of them left an impression on me long enough to think that was the "deck to have" because it sounds better than everything else. In fact, I'm running a CDA-117 right now and it helped me score/place higher than I ever have in competition. Which brings me to my next point.

Build quality, features, perception. The P99 and 80prs are great examples of this (and I've owned both). The 80prs does 90% of what the P99 does for 1/4 the cost. It literally sounds no different to me when no processing is being done at the deck. So why didn't I keep the 80prs? It feels cheap. Seriously cheap. The CDA-117 and older CDA-9835 are another example. The DC/DC converter is external to the unit on the 9835. I have a noise issue that comes from the deck itself on the 117 (which is why I'm changing it). It's not heard at all while driving, with the car on, or even off with the doors closed in a "noisy" parking lot (so that means for 90% of the people...it doesn't exist). But in a competition setting, with quiet surrounds and a judge listening for it, it can be heard. So does Alpine pay an extra xx amount of money for a feature that is only heard 5% of the time to about 2% of the consumers who care to listen for it? The Denford (and other Denon units) provide balanced outputs. Yet another cost-up SQ feature that has been replaced with something like audio streaming. There is some truth to "sound quality" of an older SQ deck, but most of it has to do with thoughtful board layouts that prevent noise issues...not how it alters the actual sound of the playback. And then there is perception. If you hop in a car and one has a Jesnen double-din and the other has a Mac MX5000+MDM meter display and the external DAC (about $5000 for everything)...which do you EXPECT to sound better. In competition, that perception or expectation can be a VERY powerful thing. People hide (or show) speakers because of it and people spend stupid amounts of money on decks to do the same...create a perception...as perception is reality no?

Same point goes to the amps you mentioned. Those amps are generally considered "SQ" because they use good components, have great output to noise floor properties, and are pretty reliable because the first point. All of those amps are also A/B and there is the PERCEPTION that they sound better than class D (even though they are less efficient, bigger, and are generally more expensive to make). And then the PERCEPTION they are better because of their lineage. You already said you heard no difference between a $600 class D amp and a McIntosh class A/B that cost twice as much (I'd ballpark). But you EXPECTED the Mac to sound better. You think Mac wants people to know what you heard? You think they will start charging less (when people will still pay the premium)? Again, I've never had an issue with the "sound quality" of lower end amps I've personally owned, but some have given me issue with noise floor and reliability.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> This is all I'm going to add. Like Pionkej said, leave the mic stationary, and set levels with it. But do it with full spectrum pink noise. If you use say, 50hz and 1000hz, but a source has a bump at 3000hz, your ears will pic that up, even if its minor, and it will change your opinion of the set up. Pink noise takes that out of the equation and averages the output when using an spl meter. Use c weighting, or any weighting you want, as long as its the same every time.
> 
> 
> As far as posting RTA plots, don't do it using music. That makes it near impossible to compare (unless you can grab plots from each setup at the exact same millisecond). If you can, use a sine sweep on each set up. That will give frequency response, phase, distortion, decay, etc. If not, again use pink noise, and get a few averages, maybe 10. This wont take any longer than doing it with music, and will be much more accurate.
> ...


And I agree back with you! If you're gonna test. Do it with a mic that remains stationary (and the speakers too, but I assumed that would happen). Measure from the exact same point. Use full-spectrum pink noise if your software won't work with sweeps. The only different opinion I'd put out is don't average it. If you keep the mic stationary and the speakers stationary, your repeatability (for comparing response to response sake) will be greater than moving the mic and averaging.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

pionkej said:


> I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak for myself and several others I know and have cars that are considered "great sounding".
> 
> First off, I have owned a Sony C90, C90+4000x, DRZ9255, P99/P01, and Denford. This isn't an "ultimate" list, but it's enough to say I believe my input is justified.
> 
> ...


You have to use optical out with the c90 and xdp to hear a difference. I am assuming you did that. There was a very noticeable difference there. To both our ears at all volume levels.

I'll admit the sony with dac and the mda5k sound just about as good. (For different reasons). The power of perception is one thing. If groups of people get together and do tests and hear differences. That type of testing should be welcome by any community. Call it casual listening, or inexact listening etc.

Example: the Yamaha blueray DAC vs. the mda 5000. It sounds completely different. The first words out of Dave's mouth were "Are these the same speakers?"

Some of what the extra money goes into with Mac gear is looks as you pointed out, the name, and the internals, reliability. The sony xdp combo can be had for about 1/3 the price of an mx5000 with the mda5000. (Although you could use a cheaper digital source to put into the mda5000, and get close to the same output.) 

We both heard differences. I would encourage you and others to do the same (A/B/C) tests to see which you prefer. The p99rs feels equally cheap to the 80prs (which has had a questionable track record on reliability.) The p99rs has a 100% plastic face. Even after a few weeks of mild use the right knob wasn't as stiff. The sound is also clinical via cd. Which is why it's gone from my collection.

If your in Knoxville, come by the house. Have a beer and listen. If you hear no difference so be it.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

By averaging I simply meant take a few samples from the same location, and average them together, like you can do with REW. My fault for not being clear with that.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> This is all I'm going to add. Like Pionkej said, leave the mic stationary, and set levels with it. But do it with full spectrum pink noise. If you use say, 50hz and 1000hz, but a source has a bump at 3000hz, your ears will pic that up, even if its minor, and it will change your opinion of the set up.


I know you used 3,000 Hz as an example but to me I feel this is part of your hang ups with our tests. Our test was clearly not intended to determine how good we could make a source sound, it was whether sources sounded different when flat. So using your 3,oooHz peak or valley as an example, what does it matter? If it's caused by the speakers then it will be the same across sources. If it is caused by a room mode then again, it will sound the same.

If as you say the source could have a difference then shame on it. A source should be flat from 20-20000Hz IMO. And which is it in your argument? Either sources all sound the same and we can't hear a difference or a source might be slightly different and need to be EQd to be equal? Sorry, now I'm finding flaws in your argument.

And I appreciate that you aren't trying to be a jerk and neither am I. Unfortunately, I've seen way too many of this same discussion on the AVS Forum that it is beyond annoying and I had hoped this wouldn't happen on DIYMA. Subjectivity has its place and so do full out tests. I went above and beyond to make sure it was incredibly clear this was a subjective test. What I could or should have done is immaterial. I know we could have done so much more but I don't have time for that.


----------



## dgage (Oct 1, 2013)

And let me speak to the power of subjective tests. I went onto AVSForum to search for a replacement of a Focal HT subwoofer that I had. It was very musical but it was just that, musical. Since I have kids I don't listen to straight music at home much, I watch movies. So I went onto AVS looking for recommendations for a (single) sub. I was soon schooled that I wanted more than one sub to even out frequency response at multiple positions. So I researched and I researched and finally decided on some subs. There were some analytical tests that covered the frequency eepsonse, max SPL, etc. but I ended up using the subjective listening reports of various people that compared, Sub A to B, and Sub A to C, and Sub A to F, and Sub C to Sub L...etc. Finally I decided based on all of the subjective feedback that Sub A was the best for me. Multiple of Sub As, that is.

While researching subs, I came across mention of Salk speakers and started thinking of replacing my Focal HT speakers. After reading some reviews of the Salk I stumbled onto JTR. I have a guy that is 15 minutes from my house that has the same JTR speakers and I was planning to listen to them before I decided to purchase them. Our schedules kept having difficulty in allowing us to connect. Finally, after so many SUBJECTIVE listening reports from old and new JTR speaker owners, reports of how the speakers did at GetToGethers, etc. I finally decided that they were a great speaker and I'd buy them sight unheard. And while I haven't subjectively made up my mind whether they're the best speaker I've heard, I am happy with my purchase.

So subjective results do have value, even without tons of hard data to back them up. Some systems just sound great, bring you in to the music like you're in the recording, they have feeling. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an RTA that showed that, yet I've known it the few times I've felt(heard) it.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

dgage said:


> I know you used 3,000 Hz as an example but to me I feel this is part of your hang ups with our tests. Our test was clearly not intended to determine how good we could make a source sound, it was whether sources sounded different when flat. So using your 3,oooHz peak or valley as an example, what does it matter? If it's caused by the speakers then it will be the same across sources. If it is caused by a room mode then again, it will sound the same.
> 
> If as you say the source could have a difference then shame on it. A source should be flat from 20-20000Hz IMO. And which is it in your argument? Either sources all sound the same and we can't hear a difference or a source might be slightly different and need to be EQd to be equal? Sorry, now I'm finding flaws in your argument.
> 
> And I appreciate that you aren't trying to be a jerk and neither am I. Unfortunately, I've seen way too many of this same discussion on the AVS Forum that it is beyond annoying and I had hoped this wouldn't happen on DIYMA. Subjectivity has its place and so do full out tests. I went above and beyond to make sure it was incredibly clear this was a subjective test. What I could or should have done is immaterial. I know we could have done so much more but I don't have time for that.


It doesn't take much change to perceive something as "different". 0.5db (a half decible) is enough to make things appear different to a listener. A second note is that the louder sound is typically perceived as "better" when subjectively reviewed. Taking that into consideration, his point has been two-fold.

First, you can't just "ballpark it" on output levels when making a comparison. It MUST be matched in output. So if you are listening for source differences, you keep the speakers the same and the amp gain the same. You measure the output voltage using a 1khz tone on the first deck. Then match every other deck to the first. Then listen.

Now the second caveat. I can "thin" the sound of my system (it is a slight but perceived difference) by setting my EQ to 500hz/0.5Q/-0.5db. This equates to a half decible being pulled from around 250-1khz. I can do the same around 5khz and make it sound "warmer". So if you are measuring a headunit, what is flat? If a headunit is within +/-0.5db from 20-20khz, would you call that "flat"? So what if they were minus 0.5db in two different spots like above, now two flat decks sound different. One is "thin" and one is "laid back". But here is the kicker, you may pay $1k for a head unit that has a "smooth" and "laid back" sound and what you end up with a single step on the EQ away from "thin" and "clinical". So I very much believe a source can measure "flat" and "sound different", but the other point was if it is different it should be able to be measured, which I also believe. 



dgage said:


> And let me speak to the power of subjective tests. I went onto AVSForum to search for a replacement of a Focal HT subwoofer that I had. It was very musical but it was just that, musical. Since I have kids I don't listen to straight music at home much, I watch movies. So I went onto AVS looking for recommendations for a (single) sub. I was soon schooled that I wanted more than one sub to even out frequency response at multiple positions. So I researched and I researched and finally decided on some subs. There were some analytical tests that covered the frequency eepsonse, max SPL, etc. but I ended up using the subjective listening reports of various people that compared, Sub A to B, and Sub A to C, and Sub A to F, and Sub C to Sub L...etc. Finally I decided based on all of the subjective feedback that Sub A was the best for me. Multiple of Sub As, that is.
> 
> While researching subs, I came across mention of Salk speakers and started thinking of replacing my Focal HT speakers. After reading some reviews of the Salk I stumbled onto JTR. I have a guy that is 15 minutes from my house that has the same JTR speakers and I was planning to listen to them before I decided to purchase them. Our schedules kept having difficulty in allowing us to connect. Finally, after so many SUBJECTIVE listening reports from old and new JTR speaker owners, reports of how the speakers did at GetToGethers, etc. I finally decided that they were a great speaker and I'd buy them sight unheard. And while I haven't subjectively made up my mind whether they're the best speaker I've heard, I am happy with my purchase.
> 
> So subjective results do have value, even without tons of hard data to back them up. Some systems just sound great, bring you in to the music like you're in the recording, they have feeling. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an RTA that showed that, yet I've known it the few times I've felt(heard) it.


You're also right that the power of subjective opinion can speak volumes. But the truth is that you used the perfect defense against yourself with speakers. Speakers tend to have much more variability in them than electronics. Properly level matched and eq'ed electronics typically sound inditinguishable (as they should since they only pass the signal along to the speakers). A speaker can have different bandpass frequencies, different cone material (which matters once a speaker leaves it's pistonic range), different enclosure design, and (especially important for home speakers) different crossover design/components. All of these things can and will make or break the quality of a speaker and so a review can be subjective and still much more accurate in my opinion.

So while you are right in your argument, it isn't an apples to apples for your deck and amp review. The question that will always come up with something like this is if you PROPERLY matched each component and then had a blind listening test, would you tell a difference, and my answer is no.


----------



## 2010hummerguy (Oct 7, 2009)

Great thread! Was the modded CD7200 done by Matt R?


----------

