# Car Audio Mag Review - PIONEER DEX-P99RS: The Standard for Sound Quality



## moss (Jan 25, 2006)

Pioneer DEX-P99RS : The Standard for Sound Quality Review - Source Units Reviews - Car Audio and Electronics

I can't wait to get my hands on this unit. 

Enjoy!


----------



## Horsemanwill (Jun 1, 2008)

it really is a great unit. i run the jap version the P01


----------



## jstoner22 (Jun 30, 2009)

i run the p99rs version. unbelievable unit. .....except mine is already in for maintenance (connectivity issues with usb port)

it simply cannot be beat for flexibility and sound quality in an all-in-one unit.


----------



## coffee_junkee (Jul 13, 2006)

Great review. Even better head unit.. 

While I still miss having a paper CA&E delivered to my door, I'm glad they are back!!


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

The only problem I have ever had with CA&E is that everything they review is terrific! I don't ever remember in a product review them saying, "well, it sounded just ok" or "the sq of this HU just plain sucked". I know they had a sq rating system, but they are way to politically correct for me to take any of their reviews seriously.

The new Pioneer HU is really sexy though....not sexy enough to buy without making sure the sound lives up to the billing, but sexy none the less.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Why would any reasonable, informed person expect commodity parts such as headunits to sound different unless broken or incompetently designed? 

My problem with the review is that it doesn't tell anyone anything meaningful, except that the auto-EQ routine is not very good because it doesn't incorporate any sort of spatial averaging in its measurements. There's no measurements of anything, just a lot of purple prose. I would like to know, for instance, how accurate the claimed slopes and crossover points are.

It is a nice-looking HU, though. Not quite Mac 406 nice, but still nice.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> Why would any reasonable, informed person expect commodity parts such as headunits to sound different unless broken or incompetently designed?
> 
> My problem with the review is that it doesn't tell anyone anything meaningful, except that the auto-EQ routine is not very good because it doesn't incorporate any sort of spatial averaging in its measurements. There's no measurements of anything, just a lot of purple prose. I would like to know, for instance, how accurate the claimed slopes and crossover points are.
> 
> It is a nice-looking HU, though. Not quite Mac 406 nice, but still nice.


I was referring not just HU's but other stuff they test, like speakers! I would completely expect to go to best buy and get a "dual" brand HU to sound identical to your MX406 .

BTW, off topic...I did buy the NE123's for the 4" speaker test....we have a massive test ranging from many "budget" brands to "stupid expensive".


----------



## dannyboyy14 (Jun 29, 2009)

my friend has a drx9255 almost the same as the 406.... it makes me glad i have a drz9255 to say the least. BUT you are right the looks of McIntosh are so classy! i used to have an mx-5000 sounded amazing with HDCDs, but i like the functionality of the DSP units

that pioneer is soooooooo nice.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> I was referring not just HU's but other stuff they test, like speakers!


Fair enough.



Niebur3 said:


> I would completely expect to go to best buy and get a "dual" brand HU to sound identical to your MX406 .


I would absolutely expect it to sound just like my Mac. Look and feel just like my Mac, though? No way!


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Having used a 880PRS, which would be this deck "lite". It's a nice deck. It has a lot of features and sound quality seemed as good as anything else. I don't doubt that this Pioneer is a great deck...based off of past experience.

You could buy a Dual, then a **** load of other processors to do what it does, and then it might sound the same, but without those extra, expensive processors, it won't.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

I think the Dual comparison was to my featureless McIntosh, not to the Pioneer. Besides that, good point. The Pioneer's benefits are in features in addition to aesthetics. I doubt there's another HU as fully featured. For someone averse to running separate processing, but not averse to running RCA's for every channel from the HU, it's probably the best option around.

I still think the centerpiece feature, the auto-EQ, is poorly conceived, though. A measurement at a single point in space isn't going to accurately capture the soundfield. DSP room correction is only as good as the input measurements. By contrast, the multiple measurements of the Audyssey stuff and the JBL MS8 are going to lead to data that a good correction program can effectively use. And truth be told I don't have much confidence in Pioneer's auto-EQ. I've tried a few versions of their Advanced MCAAC home auto-EQ in both my main and nearfield systems because their receivers often offer useful features at good price points. But every time I've boxed it up and sent it back, because Audyssey MultEQ XT just does a better job. In my rooms, with my speakers, at least. (One would expect some variability in DSP programs, and since they start from different assumptions and have different final transfer functions one should expect them to sound different.)


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> I would absolutely expect it to sound just like my Mac.


I am NOT going to get this thread off topic....so all I will say is WOW!!!


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

DS-21 said:


> I would like to know, for instance, how accurate the claimed slopes and crossover points are.


already tested by Jorge. Although I don't think he reposted the correct picture for the actual voltage level out at the peak volume setting of 62.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

I will say this though Jay, the Pioneers auto eq may not be all that sophisticated on paper, but in real world use, I bet it tunes better than most people do.

I had the 880 for about 6 months before I ever tried it, then one day I ran the auto eq/ta, and seriously, it out performed what I had done. It sounded really good, with a nice center image, nice stage height and width.

I was stunned, sort of. It was better than I was. I left it alone and only tweaked the crossover values and the sub level.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

89grand said:


> I will say this though Jay, the Pioneers auto eq may not be all that sophisticated on paper, but in real world use, I bet it tunes better than most people do.


I agree with you on that. Not because the Pioneer is that good - while I've not used their car variants, as I wrote earlier I've found their home implementations inferior to Audyssey by a fairly wide margin - but because most people don't know what they're doing and don't have the equipment to set things up properly. (Sadly, that goes for shops, too.) Just matching levels of the various drivers in the system at the crossover point, and establishing some sort of time alignment, will be better than what is typically done.

However, I maintain that it's inferior to a system that starts with spatially averaged measurements.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Obviously you can tell by my sig that I already have this deck, and I think it sounds pretty darn good. So far I have not auto tuned it, I have only used my ears (as bad as they are  ). 

With that said, I started listening to some of my old reference CD's with it, and I have this one recording by Tower of Power which was done by Sheffield Labs some time ago, and there are some really amazing horn passages in it. One part really got me though, on a track called "Squib Cakes" when a percussionist ran his stick across some chimes, the image was located what seemed to be about 3 inches outside my driver window, and about 70 percent up the height of the a-pillars (a percussionist will normally put chimes slightly above the rest of their kit). Doesn't really seem that special I know, but when you consider my mids and tweets are in kicks far forward and up under the dash, it was pretty impressive to me. In another recording of mine, from DMP Records, producer Tom Jung has Bob Mintzer and the rest of the horn section arranged in a circle around one microphone, and during playback on this unit, every single horn has it's own space on stage. No two horns sound like they are on top of each other. Now I've heard these specific recording many times before on several setups (not Mac, although I have heard the Mac HU's/DAC's, and they are truly nice products) but none that I've heard this stuff on have given the field of depth and spaciousness like this deck has. I know that there were perhaps other contributing factors such as the installs (speaker locations, etc...) but as far as this deck is concerned, in my application, I couldn't be happier for an all in one unit. It has some quirks for sure, but certainly well worth the money when you consider I didn't even end up paying the group buy rate.


----------



## dbiegel (Oct 15, 2006)

This unit makes me drool. If only they had a double din version with nav, bluetooth, etc... come on Pioneer make it happen. oke:


----------



## HondAudio (Oct 19, 2006)

moss said:


> Pioneer DEX-P99RS : The Standard for Sound Quality Review - Source Units Reviews - Car Audio and Electronics
> 
> I can't wait to get my hands on this unit.
> 
> Enjoy!


Wait, hold up... CA&E is back?


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

gymrat2005 said:


> Obviously you can tell by my sig that I already have this deck, and I think it sounds pretty darn good. So far I have not auto tuned it, I have only used my ears (as bad as they are  ).
> 
> With that said, I started listening to some of my old reference CD's with it, and I have this one recording by Tower of Power which was done by Sheffield Labs some time ago, and there are some really amazing horn passages in it. One part really got me though, on a track called "Squib Cakes" when a percussionist ran his stick across some chimes, the image was located what seemed to be about 3 inches outside my driver window, and about 70 percent up the height of the a-pillars (a percussionist will normally put chimes slightly above the rest of their kit). Doesn't really seem that special I know, but when you consider my mids and tweets are in kicks far forward and up under the dash, it was pretty impressive to me. In another recording of mine, from DMP Records, producer Tom Jung has Bob Mintzer and the rest of the horn section arranged in a circle around one microphone, and during playback on this unit, every single horn has it's own space on stage. No two horns sound like they are on top of each other. Now I've heard these specific recording many times before on several setups (not Mac, although I have heard the Mac HU's/DAC's, and they are truly nice products) but none that I've heard this stuff on have given the field of depth and spaciousness like this deck has. I know that there were perhaps other contributing factors such as the installs (speaker locations, etc...) but as far as this deck is concerned, in my application, I couldn't be happier for an all in one unit. It has some quirks for sure, but certainly well worth the money when you consider I didn't even end up paying the group buy rate.


 Being a poor SOB and having to sell off my P9 combo, then my 800PRS to keep my car on the road...I was just going to find another 800PRS and be done. But when I continue to hear feedback like this I am really thinking about saving up for the P99RS.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

...I love reading how everything is inferior to what DS-21 runs (at least there's the insinuation). It's a common theme with him. Oh wait, do you actually HAVE a car? You keep talking about home audio. I suppose I'm just a slime covered layman plebe who doesn't appreciate anything of taste.

Perhpas it's my barbarian mind. I will agree that the McIntosh units are very nice, well engineered, and very well put together. On the other hand, so is the Pioneer. This plebe has a taste for the "old school" tuners, having owned a 7909, a Z-1 and having experience with the 406 and 9255.

I particularly enjoyed the 7909, z-1, and the 406 for the construction quality and ease of use. I can tell you this though, I remember the audible difference of the 7909 over the 7995 and the 7998.

WLDock - Don't feel bad. I had to come to Iraq to be able to afford the P-01.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

gymrat2005 said:


> already tested by Jorge. Although I don't think he reposted the correct picture for the actual voltage level out at the peak volume setting of 62.


Which is sad that it takes a hobbyist, who is using very basic tools to do.

This isn't a knock against Jorge, because I specifically asked him to do the test so I could compare a ‘reference’ deck against the results I got from my z110bt. I’m just saying. Both Jorge and I are hobbyists who used a laptop and a modded XLR cable to do these kind of tests. It’s sad that a source such as CA&E doesn’t have, or at least doesn’t show, the ability to do any actual measurements. Everything they said in that article, I got from Jorge and the rest of you guys. Moreover, I got FR results from Jorge and nothing from that article. 

For such a technically geared piece, there’s a whole lot of subjective talk. The guy who writes movie reviews could have done the same. I expect more high caliber information from a magazine geared toward the hobby/profession than what they gave. 

/$.02


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Erin, I think it boils down to the type of magazine they are and who they cater too. They are in the business of selling magazines...period. And I'm sure the majority of their target audience are the type of people who get lost inside of 20 seconds reading a technical brief. They'd rather be told in as many fluffy adjectives as possible how good the deck sounds rather than what makes it so good.

If you were to dig up all my posts on this deck prior to purchasing it, I've said more than once that my one concern was for the sound quality of this unit, citing that all the auto eq, time alignment, etc...was secondary and just a bonus in my eyes. My subjective review above was simply to convey my satisfaction of owning this deck, and that I think it truly is one of the best new products to come along to try and sort of re-stimulate the focus to more sound quality applications/installations.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

gymrat2005 said:


> Erin, I think it boils down to the type of magazine they are and who they cater too. They are in the business of selling magazines...period. And I'm sure the majority of their target audience are the type of people who get lost inside of 20 seconds reading a technical brief. They'd rather be told in as many fluffy adjectives as possible how good the deck sounds rather than what makes it so good.
> 
> If you were to dig up all my posts on this deck prior to purchasing it, I've said more than once that my one concern was for the sound quality of this unit, citing that all the auto eq, time alignment, etc...was secondary and just a bonus in my eyes. My subjective review above was simply to convey my satisfaction of owning this deck, and that I think it truly is one of the best new products to come along to try and sort of re-stimulate the focus to more sound quality applications/installations.


I’m not knocking subjective reviews in general. I’m knocking that the only thing the review in a magazine based on car audio is a subjective review. Maybe I’m mistaken, but have they not printed a review of the p9 years back with actual FR measurements and crossover accuracy measurements? It’s possible it was another mag, but I thought it was them. I know I’ve seen it in a magazine though.

Regardless, I still say that while a subjective review is nice, and it appeals more to the masses, a few FR tests, distortion tests, etc shouldn’t be beyond their capability. It is, however, beyond their desire. I find that a shame.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

I hear you, I just know that subjective reviews hold very little weight in this forum which is why I refrained from writing some big long winded fluff piece upon my initial install. There had already been a few by some of the first to acquire them and I didn't feel it would be necessary or add anything new to the mix of reviews already. But I do like the deck, and for those who have not heard it, you owe it to yourself to try. Whether you like MAC, Nak, Denon/RF, Alpine, or whatever..this deck deserves a serious listen.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Just to reiterate, because how it sounds, etc is not the point I’m trying to argue (and frankly don’t care)… 

My point is why didn’t they do the same test they did for this headunit as they did for the p9 (can’t find the link to pictures now, but I KNOW they did it)? They showed technical data in addition to giving subjective opinion. They have the means, or at one time did. I just find it odd they would do all of that for the p9 combo and not do it for the p99.

It’s not like they can’t afford the page space.


----------



## pusko (Sep 17, 2009)

here's another test.....in german:

Imageshack - carhifi002.jpg
Imageshack - carhifi003.jpg


----------



## shawnk (Jan 11, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> I would absolutely expect it to sound just like my Mac. Look and feel just like my Mac, though? No way!



Wait... are you serious?? Please tell me you are joking! 

I'm so tired of people stating that there is no difference in sound/quality in different gear. Save for speakers, which thankfully at leat most of us will still agree there's a signifiacant difference between prduct, price points, etc.. 
I aslo find it fascinating, and mildy amusing, how the majority of these folks who claim there's no difference in sound between head units and amplifiers all seem to be running some of the most expensive, high-end gear available!!! For crying out loud! If there's no difference then save yourselves a boat-load of cash and for you next system install all of Walmart's best to offer! Then... if you still feel confident it all sounds the same as your Mac, Audison, Z1, P9, F1, XES, Tru, or whatever, I will allow you to try to convince me how spectacular your system sounds. Just don't expect any success. :laugh:

k.. I'm cool now..deep breathes.. I'll jump off my soap box. Sorry, but I get so heated over this kind of thing. Please tell me someone else feels my pain?:blush:


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

shawnk said:


> Wait... are you serious?? Please tell me you are joking!


Nope. There's just no reasonable basis to presume that a Mac headunit _sounds_ any different from any other competently designed, nonbroken HU.



shawnk said:


> I'm so tired of people stating that there is no difference in sound/quality in different gear.


Clever usage of the slash there. I'm not sure if it represents a deliberate attempt to obfuscate or genuine confusion, but I'll assume the latter if you don't mind. 

No difference in sound does not mean no difference in quality. Perceived quality (look/feel/brand snobbery), actual quality (reliability, etc.) are both aspects where there are differences in components. "Sound," however, is largely a commodity today. 



shawnk said:


> Save for speakers, which thankfully at leat most of us will still agree there's a signifiacant difference between prduct, price points, etc..


Just to be clear, and I apologize if I'm misreading you here, but I see an implication that there's significant positive correlation between price and sound quality in speakers. There is some, to an extent, because the known best practices for designing and making high-quality drivers are in some cases more expensive than other methods. But it's a correlation that's far from airtight.



shawnk said:


> I aslo find it fascinating, and mildy amusing, how the majority of these folks who claim there's no difference in sound between head units and amplifiers all seem to be running some of the most expensive, high-end gear available!!!


Why? Even though sonics are the same, there are plenty of other factors a rational person can rank-order in order to determine whether a given piece of kit is something s/he wants. 



shawnk said:


> For crying out loud! If there's no difference then save yourselves a boat-load of cash and for you next system install all of Walmart's best to offer!


What if nothing Walmart offers has the appearance and tactile quality of a Mac/Denon/Nak or this Pioneer? 

What if nothing Walmart offers has as much power in a form factor as small as the Jello HD amps? 

And so on. It's a matter of prioritizing what matters to you. Just stick to factors that actually differ between given products, and don't make **** up about sonic differences when in fact they are only very rarely in evidence.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DS-21

So just a question then. Since there are no sonic differences between different "competently" designed Head Units, would you be able to explain why when doing an A/B test of head units, you can hear a difference between them? I did a blind A/B test with a McIntosh MX4000, Alpine F#1 7990, Clarion DRZ9255 and Alpine 9887 (all decks capable of 4 volts out) and everyone involved could hear a difference between them....and the differences were very noticeable.


----------



## shawnk (Jan 11, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Nope. There's just no reasonable basis to presume that a Mac headunit _sounds_ any different from any other competently designed, nonbroken HU.



There's a perfect basis to presume various HU's and amplifiers sound different. That simple fundamental is called 'human hearing' my friend. No matter how you try to argue this I, as well as others, can hear the difference in gear. I'm not boasting here so please don't take it that way but.. Having been an installer/competitor/tinkerer for 12+ years I have installed an obsurd amount of gear over the years. All I can say is no one will EVER convince me that there are no sonic differences between gear. I've heard/experienced it time and time again. 




DS-21 said:


> And so on. It's a matter of prioritizing what matters to you. Just stick to factors that actually differ between given products, and don't make **** up about sonic differences when in fact they are only very rarely in evidence.


For a man of 50cent words you seem to curse awefully quick No need of it, but whatever. I'm not making sh*t up, and it's NOT FACT! If your hearing cannot perceive the difference then I'm sorry. Maybe it's a gift as you will be pleased with the sound of inferior gear as some of us will have to continue with the persuit of sonic nirvana.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> DS-21
> 
> So just a question then. Since there are no sonic differences between different "competently" designed Head Units, would you be able to explain why when doing an A/B test of head units, you can hear a difference between them?


There are lots of potential reasons. Levels could be improperly matched. One could have some sort of signal processing engaged. But none of them have anything to do with the innate sonics of the DUT's themselves.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> There are lots of potential reasons. Levels could be improperly matched. One could have some sort of signal processing engaged. But none of them have anything to do with the innate sonics of the DUT's themselves.


Does clock gitter, DAC's (1 bit vs 24 bit), internal power supplies, S/N ratio, copper chassis or anything else matter at all?


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Clock "gitter" isn't a thing. 

DACs are all transparent today, and have been since the second generation of consumer digital audio players. Some of the first generation players were only 14-bit, and differences were reliably noted between them and DACs of higher resolution on some program material.
S/N ratio, you're assuming there are large differences that aren't borne out in fact. Any modern HU is going to fall below known audible thresholds. Even when used outside of a moving car. That means a Walmart HU, a Mac, and everything in between.
Copper chassis, are you kidding?
Anything else? Well, if one HU doesn't turn on, that's a problem.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

clocking jitter is definitely a "thing". Similar to a PC's video card and it's ability to effectively provide anti-aliasing. When a video card tries to render a straight line on some type of angle, the line looks a series of separate lines that make the image look jagged. In the example of a video card the image is there, but there are anomalies and artifacts which the AA tries to smooth out. In digitally trying to reproduce an analog wave form, jitter shows up in the form of loss of detail, and mangled harmonics.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Jitter may be the thing of very marginal importance, but "gitter" ain't ****.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> Jitter may be the thing of very marginal importance, but "gitter" ain't ****.


You know what the **** I meant, *******!!!


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Jitter is much more than marginal, it is a measurable, tangible factor in recreating an analog waveform from a digital sample. I learned of it's importance during my training at Meridian Electronics in Georgia. For almost 7 hours we were subject to numerous A/B blind studies using their transport against a DAT machine (Panasonic I think), a run of the mill Denon CD player with digital out, and a higher end Cal Labs Icon, and you could pick Meridan's transport 10 out of 10 times.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

If that's true, then something else was going on.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Niebur3 said:


> You know what the **** I meant, *******!!!


No, I didn't. I can't keep one tweek's idiot fetishes straight from another's. How was I do know you weren't parroting some new irrelevant tweakoid ******** pseudoscience term straight from the pen of one of the high priests, a Jonathan Scull or Robert Harley or Harry Pearson? There's just too many of them, and the one thing they're all good at is convincing audiophools that their dicks will be too small unless they buy the latest wondertweek.

As for the audibility of jitter, a nonstupid person may wish to see what the actual science says. So such people may find the following peer-reviewed articles illuminating:

Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon, "Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality.

Kaoru Ashihara and Shogo Kiryu, "A Jitter Simulator on Digital Data"



Basically, at any levels found in gear that's designed with a marginal degree of competence, jitter is a non-factor.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Well it was true, I certainly have no reason to come in here and lie about it. 

The first day at the Meridian Certification Course was spent in the classroom actually measuring these differences on test equipment, I don't remember the equipment as this was back in the mid 90's or so when DTS was still in in it's infancy (we got to hear one of the first DTS encoded CD's ever made). The second day was subjective listening, and the tests were done first with the engineers (we got to meet Allen Boothroyd), then for about the next 5 hours it was only the students doing the switching. We had all devices plugged into a digital preamp (Meridian 800 series control center prototype) which was located some 30 feet behind us, so we could not see which source was being selected, then out to the same single set of digital speakers. Both speakers had the DAC's and amps inside of them (DSP 6000's...god how I wanted a pair of those speakers), and again received a direct digital signal from the preamp. The same digital cables were used on each component (we selected the cables out of a box ourselves and wired them up..daisy chaining the speakers and assigning the control speaker was part of what we learned in class....although we did other tests with other cables as well). After several tests, each of the transports were easily identifiable . The Meridian DAC stood out as being the only one in the test that could not be faulted by any one student. I think there maybe 10 or 12 of us. I remember one of the units (maybe the DAT player) specifically being very harsh on the highs, another one of them was smoother on the highs with no edge, but lacked lower end extension, etc... The Meridian transport (500 series or something like that) was the only one that sounded full, and lifelike, with a very open and deep soundstage, and it was remarkably spot on with it's tonality. So in essence only one variable changed in these tests, and it was the transport source.

Jitter is very real, and certainly measurable, which is why it's so surprising to me you simply cast it aside knowing your pension for hard factual data. Could it be not so much of a factor in today's electronics? Possibly, in most higher end products, but something tells me no wall mart HU is going to disply the same characteristics and attention to these details as a higher end unit..aka Pioneer, MAC, Denon, Clarion.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

DS-21 said:


> Basically, at any levels found in gear that's designed with a marginal degree of competence, jitter is a non-factor.


 Ahhh...you posted that before I replied..as I stated, maybe not so much a factor today at a certain level of product, such as NAK vs. wall mart HU. But definitely a factor when digital technology was becoming more affordable to the masses.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Transport, Tonality, soundstage.......

nice.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

gymrat2005 said:


> Jitter is very real, and certainly measurable, which is why it's so surprising to me you simply cast it aside knowing your pension for hard factual data. Could it be not so much of a factor in today's electronics? Possibly, in most higher end products, but something tells me no wall mart HU is going to disply the same characteristics and attention to these details as a higher end unit..aka Pioneer, MAC, Denon, Clarion.


Why not? 

If a Meridian 508.20 factory-upgraded to 508.24 spec can be sonically unidentifiable from a $70 Samsung DVD-HD841 SACD/DVD-A/DVD player made for sale in 2005 to fairly flimsy standards - though, in its defense, it still works, and I still use it for SACD/DVD-A playback in the nearfield system - why would one possibly think that there's any difference between a cheap HU and an expensive one, except that the expensive one might use more expensive materials and possibly be more durable. 

But none of this discussion has to do with the useless review that sparked the discussion, or the very full-featured HU that it covered. I readily concede that in the hands of someone who knows what s/he's doing, the P99RS will sound better than a Mac such as the one I run. Assuming no other signal processing in the signal chain, the same amps, and the same speakers in the same locations, at least.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

Well as I am not a member, and cannot read the whole paper you linked to, all I can do is read the excerpt.

*Preliminary results show that some subjects can detect jitter of several hundreds nsec*

Am I not reading that correctly? Does it not state the jitter is detectable?


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

If one wants to learn something, and is willing to spend high three figures or even low four figures on a goddamned headunit for a car, 20 USD is pocket change. So don't be so ****ing cheap where it counts.

But, again, note the units: *several hundred nanoseconds!*

What is considered "poor" jitter performance in a modern audio component. Well, let's consider John Atkinson's measurements of the Apple AirPort Express, and his commentary thereon:

"The AirPort Express *stumbled when it came to its measured jitter performance*—hardly surprising, considering it has to derive its 44.1kHz word clock from an asynchronous, probably encrypted datastream. Feeding it the diagnostic 16-bit data compiled by the late Julian Dunn over the ether from a PC running iTunes, the level of *word-clock jitter in the AE's analog output was a very high 2.4 nanoseconds (2400 picoseconds).*" (emph. added)

(The article goes on to say that, using the digital output "The noise floor has dropped by 4–5dB, the word-clock jitter to a respectably low 258ps, which is actually better than the case with the standalone D/A processor driven directly by my PC's S/PDIF output," but that's neither here nor there.)

IOW, what audiophools consider ****ty jitter performance is still *two orders of magnitude lower* than the lowest audible amounts of jitter. (And there are some methodological flaws with the Dolby study that suggest their numbers may actually be lower than reality.)

How much do you think Apple spends on the transport and D/A circuitry on the AirPort Express, which costs under a hundred bucks and also incorporates power supply and a wireless router into a package barely bigger than a MacBook's power supply? (Not to mention Apple's higher-than-standard markup?) Why shouldn't the cheapest HU be equal or better?


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> If one wants to learn something, and is willing to spend high three figures or even low four figures on a goddamned headunit for a car, 20 USD is pocket change. So don't be so ****ing cheap where it counts.
> 
> But, again, note the units: *several hundred nanoseconds!*
> 
> ...


Look, I understand that you don't owe anybody anything, but there is no need to "speak" the way you do to people. 

When it comes to how a person shares knowledge of a subject they know more about, there are three very basic ways it can be handled. The first is when a person wants to share everything they learn, lay it out for people, and then people can read/discuss that information if they want (Patrick Bateman is a member who does this). The second is when a person wants other to learn and encourages this by starting a topic of interest, partially discussing it, and poses questions to allow others to join in (Lycan/Werewolf poses many threads in this fashion). Lastly, there are those who have greater knowledge on a subject who choose to berate others with it. 

There are moments where you share good information. I just don't understand why you chose to type one informative post with little explination and then berate and use foul language towards people when they don't get it. It takes more time and accomplishes less than posting a solid post that explains WHY.

I mean, you posted a link to jitter and why it didn't matter in most of todays electronics. +1. Then you were a jerk about the guy who typed "gitter" instead of "jitter". Then you were a jerk to the guy who didn't want to spend $20 on buying the article. Is it really that hard to understand somebody not wanting to do that? Is it that hard to know that if you presented things in a way where it seemed you wanted to help people learn, they may just hear what you have to say instead of arguing with it?

You said most of todays DACs are transparent so that feature doesn't matter. I don't know enough about this stuff, but does it matter if there is a single DAC controlling everything or if there is one for every channel (like the P99RS)? I don't know, but would like to. 

You said a copper chassis doesn't matter? Why? We have been "taught" that the copper shields out unwanted noise. If you know why it does/doesn't matter and we don't, it would be great if you shared. 

You say a Walmart special will sound like a Mac. I think you are saying the same thing Lycan states, if it measures the same, it will sound the same. HU's can and will sound different out the box. Can it be overcome with an EQ or Line Driver? Probably so. It is like the all amps sound the same debate, all amps can be made to sound the same, but it doesn't mean they do out of the box. 

Basically, this head unit has a built in 4-way DSP, a good transport, a IPOD setup that bypasses the IPOD's internal DAC, and good output voltage. It can be used to create a better SQ based setup than most anything else can IN ONE UNIT. That is why people are excited.

In the end, you squander most any good information you share because of the aggressive way you present it. People will rarely/never learn from you because of it and while this may not matter to you at all, I then question why you even bother typing in the first place.

NOTE 1: Bikin had the most relevant post IMHO. Why have a totally opinion based review at all? I mean, it is good to know opinions, but data is important too. I wouldn't read Car and Driver if people just told me how fast the car the felt or how far it seemed to go on a tank of gas. I want my 0-60, 5-60 (more important in my opinion anyway), braking distance, road handling, mpg, interior volume, interior noise @ idle/FT/70mph, etc...

NOTE 2: I own a P01 (Japanese version) but haven't hooked it up yet. So I am as excited as everyone else about this wonderful ALL IN ONE type unit.


----------



## jonnyanalog (Nov 14, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> Just to reiterate, because how it sounds, etc is not the point I’m trying to argue (and frankly don’t care)…
> 
> My point is why didn’t they do the same test they did for this headunit as they did for the p9 (can’t find the link to pictures now, but I KNOW they did it)? They showed technical data in addition to giving subjective opinion. They have the means, or at one time did. I just find it odd they would do all of that for the p9 combo and not do it for the p99.
> 
> It’s not like they can’t afford the page space.



CA is not the CA from PrimeMedia. The CA domain was bought from Motormusicmag.com whom Bing writes for. I don't think they have anyone with significant technical knowledge doing any kind of testing. Seems like they are more about the superficial 'scene' rather than getting in depth. Maybe they should steal Springgay from PASMag or bring Navone back. lol.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

pionkej said:


> Then you were a jerk to the guy who didn't want to spend $20 on buying the article. Is it really that hard to understand somebody not wanting to do that?


Yes. It is ****ing absurd to be willing to spent huge sums of money on a piece of audio kit but be unwilling to spend a mere 20 USD on knowledge. Sorry.



pionkej said:


> You said most of todays DACs are transparent so that feature doesn't matter. I don't know enough about this stuff, but does it matter if there is a single DAC controlling everything or if there is one for every channel (like the P99RS)?


No.



pionkej said:


> You said a copper chassis doesn't matter? Why? We have been "taught" that the copper shields out unwanted noise. If you know why it does/doesn't matter and we don't, it would be great if you shared.


I suppose there could be an isolated case here and now where it might do something bordering on non-trivial for something or other. But it's really just a shiny thing for marketing people to latch onto.



pionkej said:


> You say a Walmart special will sound like a Mac. I think you are saying the same thing Lycan states, if it measures the same, it will sound the same. HU's can and will sound different out the box. Can it be overcome with an EQ or Line Driver?


I don't think "house curves" are especially common in HU's. Perhaps some "out of the box" will have a bass knob turned up or something, I don't know. 

I will concede that in a small minority of installs higher voltage preouts could be of some noise benefit, though I've yet to run across such a situation in over a decade and a half of being into this stuff as a hobbyist.



pionkej said:


> Basically, this head unit has a built in 4-way DSP, a good transport, a IPOD setup that bypasses the IPOD's internal DAC, and good output voltage. It can be used to create a better SQ based setup than most anything else can IN ONE UNIT. That is why people are excited.


I agree with all of that. I think it's an interesting piece, and never wrote or implied otherwise. I don't even have a quibble with the price, because it seems to offer great flexibility and performance while not taking up any more space than any other 1-DIN HU. (Pioneer's been on a bit of a roll lately, between this, the PRS speakers, and some of their new Class D amps.) And it has a pretty faceplate, too. 

BUT, it's simply a fact that a measurement at a single point in space is only going to be a vague statistical approximation of the actual response, which is why we use spatial averaging. So the auto-EQ feature isn't nearly as useful as it should be, or would be if it took a spatially-averaged measurement, because the data on which it bases its calculations are not as good as they could/should be. That's my only criticism of the piece.

Even with that potential for error, mind, the auto-EQ probably still going to do better than most individuals. Especially individuals who don't have a solid grasp of what's going on, and don't use measurements to guide their approach. But it has lower potential than the Audyssey MultEQ XT used by Alpine or the JBL MS8, because they start their auto-tuning processes with more accurate data.


----------



## jonnyanalog (Nov 14, 2007)

Personally, I think this is a great piece as well; everything in one chassis is a great thing. Simplicity and as few links in the chain as possible will go a long way in avoiding noise issues, increasing wire simplicity, and taking up less room esp. with todays automotive packaging constraints.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

pionkej said:


> You said a copper chassis doesn't matter? Why? We have been "taught" that the copper shields out unwanted noise. If you know why it does/doesn't matter and we don't, it would be great if you shared.


Copper IMHo is actually worse. First off it's non galvanic, and corrodes easier, note you do not see said headunits soldered shut as you see proper copper shielding. It's conductive properties don't mean much more than steel because the chassis is so small and you don't have to worry about eddy current conduction. 

I'd rather have steel.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

it's so funny watching people argue over technology ....

Jitter has been, and remains, a VERY real issue. It's measurable, it's audible, and it's _not_ a question of the DAC's used ... DAC's have, indeed, progressed well beyond our ability to hear any differences. The problem is that the DAC is only as good ... only as accurate ... as the clock that times it.

What is the source of the clock in question? Crystal oscillator, or is it recovered from a data stream? HUGE difference. One will be as pristine as the mind of man can make, the other will be littered with data-dependent timing errors, which quickly translate into amplitude errors (the _right_ sample at the _wrong_ time is, in fact, the _wrong_ sample).

How much jitter matters? Here's a crude example (crude, because it ignores the spectral distribution of the total jitter energy, but it gets the point across):

Let's say you have 100 nanoseconds of jitter. Let's translate this _timing noise_ into an amplitude "error" or _noise_, by reflecting that timing error through the max rate-of-change of a 1 Volt, 2kHz signal (this example will clearly demonstrate that jitter is modulated much more significantly by higher-frequency signals). Max rate of change of a 1V, 2kHz signal is : 1 volt in 80 microseconds. So 100 nanoseconds will translate to 100nsec/80usec = 1.25mV of amplitude error, or noise. Congratulations : the 100nsec of noisy clock just turned your 24bit DAC into something just worse than a 10bit DAC 

Howabout 10nsec of jitter? If modulated by the same 2kHz signal, the noise will be about 0.125mV compared to 1V ... equivalent to about a 13bit DAC (at 2kHz, that is ... higher freq modulating signals will be worse, lower freq modulating signals will be better).

Yes ... jitter remains a serious issue.

Some things in audio marketing don't matter. But some things do. Can't dismiss all of it as nonsense.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> Just to reiterate, because how it sounds, etc is not the point I’m trying to argue (and frankly don’t care)…
> 
> My point is why didn’t they do the same test they did for this headunit as they did for the p9 (can’t find the link to pictures now, but I KNOW they did it)? They showed technical data in addition to giving subjective opinion. They have the means, or at one time did. I just find it odd they would do all of that for the p9 combo and not do it for the p99.
> 
> It’s not like they can’t afford the page space.




IMHO the P01 or P99RS is great but not so good, it actually did do as well as my DRZ9255...or my friend MX4000 but everyone has their own opinion.

I had one and sold it, I just didn't like all the stuff jammed into the HU. if they went back and designed all the new processing power into a new DEQ P9 it would be much better and the digital back is much easier than 4 sets of RCA's.

Plus really didn't like the small screen it has.

Well worth the $$$ but not as good as other HU's and separate processors.

Plus I know of 3 guys that have had their HU's in service to be repaired, heat issues and a bad USB.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Here's some fun ... using the basic arithmetic of my last post, tell us how much jitter becomes significant if the signal of interest is 1kHz (i used 2kHz, don't let that confuse you), and you're trying to preserve a noise floor consistent with :

1. 16-bit performance
2. 18-bit performance
3. 24-bit performance

Remember ... jitter isn't your _only_ source of errors in a signal reproduction chain  So it's not unfair to "seek" 24-bit performance from this source of noise, much like we seek 24-bit quantization performance (at least) from the DSP's we use.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

lycan said:


> Let's say you have 100 nanoseconds of jitter.


How about instead we just say that cheap components considered to "stumble" in jitter performance still have levels of jitter two decimal places less than your example, and call it a day? (See Atkinson, supra.)

Also, just because math says some variable might have an effect, that does not mean that the effect is _audible._ The only thing that can determine the audibility of such a thing is, well, a study that focuses on audibility. The peer-reviewed study cited above did not show jitter to be audible, below several hundred ns.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

DS-21 said:


> How about instead we just say that cheap components considered to "stumble" in jitter performance still have levels of jitter two decimal places less than your example, and call it a day? (See Atkinson, supra.)
> 
> Also, just because math says some variable might have an effect, that does not mean that the effect is _audible._ The only thing that can determine the audibility of such a thing is, well, a study that focuses on audibility. The peer-reviewed study cited above did not show jitter to be audible, below several hundred ns.


You really need to read _both_ examples I created. Or, use simple arithmetic to _scale_ the answer ... from _either_ example.

No ... the math, all by itself, will NEVER tell you what's audible. That's why i compared the result to how many bits the DAC's process accurately. I think lower-bit DAC's were referenced by someone earlier in this thread ... as an example of older, lesser-performing equipment 

Jitter "matters", in the same way that technological progression from 14-bit to 16-bit, 18-bit and ultimately 24-bit DAC's and processors "matters".


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree, clocks make a BIG difference but is this difference notable in a car headunit? 

In the beginning days of fully digital radio plants we would run for WEEKS then ahve days of dead air pages, crashes, you name it. 

3 words solved it

Apogee Big Ben.

Apogee Electronics > Products > Big Ben

Said apogee big-ben also improves the sound of fully digital concert systems where you have a bunch of clocks fighting several digital desks and outboard units, computers, you name it.

again, is a clock THaT important in a CD player/etc? IMHO probably not.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

lycan said:


> You really need to read _both_ examples I created. Or, use simple arithmetic to _scale_ the answer ... from _either_ example.


Why? If actual audibility studies show that something is only audible when present in levels far in excess of what even crap equipment will provide, who cares about it?



lycan said:


> Jitter "matters", in the same way that technological progression from 14-bit to 16-bit, 18-bit and ultimately 24-bit DAC's and processors "matters".


For consumer use, nobody has ever shown that moving beyond 16-bit makes an audible difference. Going from early 14-bit DACs to 16-bit DACs has been shown to be audible.

For music _production,_ as opposed to reproduction, there are sound arguments for more.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> I suppose there could be an isolated case here and now where it might do something bordering on non-trivial for something or other. But it's really just a shiny thing for marketing people to latch onto.





chad said:


> Copper IMHo is actually worse. First off it's non galvanic, and corrodes easier, note you do not see said headunits soldered shut as you see proper copper shielding. It's conductive properties don't mean much more than steel because the chassis is so small and you don't have to worry about eddy current conduction.
> 
> I'd rather have steel.


DS-21. Do you see the difference? You KNOW it is useless. You either don't know WHY it is useless so you can't explain or you just don't WANT to explain. Either way, it seems you are only good for yes/no answers with a bunch of hateful/angry/bitter filler.

I still stand by my comment. If you don't care to contribute or forward a conversation, then why waste the time to comment at all?


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

DAT said:


> Plus I know of 3 guys that have had their HU's in service to be repaired, heat issues and a bad USB.


Do you know if they were sent back to Pioneer for service or if a different repair shop worked on them? Will Pioneer service it for a fee if it is used/not under warranty? I'm just asking because I have the P01 and bought it outside the group buy from another forum member. I haven't hooked it up yet, but IF I do have a problem, I would like to send it somewhere that others have had luck with.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

You have a year warranty from the manufacturer. It's based on the date stamped on the unit, regardless if you have a receipt or not. It says so on my product/warranty registration card.


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

Does it have a pico fuse?


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

chad said:


> Does it have a pico fuse?


lol...don't know. Taped all my rca's, and made sure connections were secure before powering to avoid any chance of blowing it if it does.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

arggghhh ... OK, since I've got some free time.

Broadly speaking, there are two problems with most papers i've read on jitter (i designed audio DACs for Crystal Semiconductor, so i used to be pretty pluged-in). No ... i don't claim to have read them all, but here's why most of them tend to be not quite worth the paper they're printed on:

1. Jitter is a COMPLICATED topic! It's complicated, more so than most audio issues, because it requires a _modulation_ by a signal to even manifest itself. Here's the easy way to appreciate what i'm talking about: if the signal of interest is pure-DC, then NO amount of jitter is going to matter. For DC signals, all signal values are the same, so it doesn't matter if there's any "timing errors" in the reproduction ... there's just no way for errors-in-time to "reflect" as errors-in-amplitude. Now certainly, the audio bandwidth doesn't include DC ... this is just an extreme example to illustrate a "signal dependency".

Then, you've got to consider not only the rms value of the jitter itself, but also it's spectral distribution. Just like the ear is differently-sensitive to noise over different bandwidths, we must consider the _spectral-content_ of the jitter itself.

Finally, depending on the type of DAC used, you may ultimately realize some beneficial _filtering_ of the jitter that ultimately shows up in the amplitude spectrum. Alternatively, you may have a DAC architecture (current-steered, rather than switched-capacitor) that is _more_ sensitive to jitter.

So here's what we're dealing with : you've got a spectral distribution of an input audio signal, which _modulates_ the spectral distribution of the jitter, to ultimately manifest in the amplitude spectrum, finally followed (perhaps) by some beneficial filtering or exaggeration (depending on the DAC architecture).

So for any jitter test, you've got to carefully comprehend : the source & nature of the jitter (so you know it's spectral content), the signal or music being played (so you know the "modulating" content), and the type of DAC being used.

*It's just TOO complicated to sumamrize with a simple rms-level of jitter that may, or may not, be audible* 

2. Even if you _could_ determine an rms-threshold for jitter, that in itself is not quite the end of the story ... because, as i've suggested, there are MANY error or noise sources that contribute to signal degradation in any audio reproduction chain. If _all_ of these errors were set right at the threshold of audibility, then the combined summation could easily result in a sonic nightmare.

Here's what i mean : Let's say, very crudely, that all of the possible error sources all manifest as uncorrelated white noise, that's additive to our precious signal (we just demonstrated that jitter must be modulated, so it's certainly more _multiplicative_ than _additive_, but let's keep things simple). Each source is set at the threshold of audibility. Well, they will ALL combine (as powers, since they are uncorrelated) to significantly (perhaps) increase the noise floor to a level of audibility ... with no single source being the "main culprit". You've got jitter, quantization noise in the converters, thermal noise in the analog electronics, power supply noise creeping into the signal path, quantization noise in the digital signal processors (DSP's) ... plus a bunch that i'm missing off the top of my head.

If every one of these sources were set at the "limit of audibility", then the combination could easily sound pretty damn noisy!

That's the main justification for converters that are accurate beyond 16 bits, digital signal processors that are _at least_ 24 bits, etc.

*In short, any single error source must be established well below the limit of audibility, or else the combination can easily rise above that threshold.*

Make sense?


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

you lost me at "argggghhh" kidding.

Makes perfect sense...In other word if "this" is barely audible and "that" is barely audible...adding all the this or that's can be very audible. So when you look at all of the little things they do to the unit each one by itself may not be the "be all end all" of performance features...but adding them all together is what can make one unit stand out as better/different than another.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

gymrat2005 said:


> you lost me at "argggghhh" kidding.
> 
> Makes perfect sense...In other word if "this" is barely audible and "that" is barely audible...adding all the this or that's can be very audible. So when you look at all of the little things they do to the unit each one by itself may not be the "be all end all" of performance features...but adding them all together is what can make one unit stand out as better/different than another.


Yes, that's my _second_ point 

It's not as bad as it sounds, because the noise (or error) sources are often "uncorrelated", which means (crudely) that they add as powers ... or variances.

Now any good scientific method will tend to _isolate_ these sources, and determine the audibility of each  That's fine ... except that it's impossible to identify a single "number" for jitter, due to the complications i mentioned. Then it's up to the system designer, to make sure that all the errors combined ultimately remain below the audibility threshold.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Here's what I look for in jitter performance: I dissect the schematics of the unit in question, and look for the source of the clock that times the DACs. If it's a local crystal oscillator (might be used in conjunction with an asynchronous sample rate converter, depending on the data source), then i put the topic to bed 

I'm not trying to be cute ... like i said, it's just too complicated to assign a single number.


----------



## HiVi Guy (Jan 16, 2010)

pionkej said:


> I have the P01.


Seriously! I want to hear it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

chad said:


> Does it have a pico fuse?


I LOL'd and then I realized, wait... he could be serious.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

HiVi Guy said:


> Seriously! I want to hear it.


x2. I wanna get my grubby hands on it.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

They should have left out the CD transport and lowered the price a little so that people could buy an iPod with the pocket money.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

HiVi Guy said:


> Seriously! I want to hear it.


It's not installed yet. I am hoping to get everything in the car by July...if I'm lucky. It sucks that all I'm down to is the boring stuff, wire and deadener, but I'm going to do this right, so I am waiting!


----------



## AVIDEDTR (Sep 11, 2008)

DAT said:


> Plus I know of 3 guys that have had their HU's in service to be repaired, heat issues and a bad USB.


That's interesting....I drove from Toronto Canada to Daytona Florida and back with the P01 running for whole trip. Not one issue. Same with my USB. Ipod is left in the car - ZERO issues. I shut the display off at all times, this may help!


DAT said:


> Well worth the $$$ but not as good as other HU's and separate processors


^^I don't agree with that at all, but that's just me


----------



## jstoner22 (Jun 30, 2009)

AVIDEDTR said:


> That's interesting....I drove from Toronto Canada to Daytona Florida and back with the P01 running for whole trip. Not one issue. Same with my USB. Ipod is left in the car - ZERO issues. I shut the display off at all times, this may help!
> 
> ^^I don't agree with that at all, but that's just me






interesting indeed.
pioneer has had mine for a week now. not to happy needless to say.
i did not leave my ipod permanently connected to the unit. and this is where my problem arose, after a week of use, the deck had a meltdown with the usb and could not "communicate" with the ipod anymore.
so be wary if you take your ipod with you when you leave the car.
i still plan on seeing the fit btw! looks like a sweet install!


----------



## AVIDEDTR (Sep 11, 2008)

jstoner22 said:


> interesting indeed.
> pioneer has had mine for a week now. not to happy needless to say.
> i did not leave my ipod permanently connected to the unit. and this is where my problem arose, after a week of use, the deck had a meltdown with the usb and could not "communicate" with the ipod anymore.
> so be wary if you take your ipod with you when you leave the car.
> i still plan on seeing the fit btw! looks like a sweet install!


Mine never get's disconnected behind the HU. It goes thru a USB extender that has a female end to a perma fixed aux port I custom made to look factory.

Sorry to hear yours is out already. (knock on wood for mine):worried: I love it.


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

mine works fine. I'm constantly taking my Gen 7 160 Classic in and out to upload music to it. Been about a month now with no hickups ::knocks on wood::


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

lycan said:


> *In short, any single error source must be established well below the limit of audibility, or else the combination can easily rise above that threshold.*


You're being obtuse about things that are largely irrelevant in actual use. (To say nothing of real-world use _inside a car._)

You keep writing about things "at the limit of audibility," when it's been established that stuff considered to measure badly is still orders of magnitude below any known audible thresholds. (See, e.g., Apple AirPort Express jittter measurement, supra.) The same holds true for the other variables you mentioned. Absolutely transparent electronic components today (and for quite a while before today) are commodity parts.

Really, it appears you're trying to use techie-sounding words to make a ******** "system synergy" argument.


----------



## jstoner22 (Jun 30, 2009)

pionkej said:


> Look, I understand that you don't owe anybody anything, but there is no need to "speak" the way you do to people.
> 
> When it comes to how a person shares knowledge of a subject they know more about, there are three very basic ways it can be handled. The first is when a person wants to share everything they learn, lay it out for people, and then people can read/discuss that information if they want (Patrick Bateman is a member who does this). The second is when a person wants other to learn and encourages this by starting a topic of interest, partially discussing it, and poses questions to allow others to join in (Lycan/Werewolf poses many threads in this fashion). Lastly, there are those who have greater knowledge on a subject who choose to berate others with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sex Cells (Jul 21, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> Which is sad that it takes a hobbyist, who is using very basic tools to do.
> 
> This isn't a knock against Jorge, because I specifically asked him to do the test so I could compare a ‘reference’ deck against the results I got from my z110bt. I’m just saying. Both Jorge and I are hobbyists who used a laptop and a modded XLR cable to do these kind of tests. It’s sad that a source such as CA&E doesn’t have, or at least doesn’t show, the ability to do any actual measurements. Everything they said in that article, I got from Jorge and the rest of you guys. Moreover, I got FR results from Jorge and nothing from that article.
> 
> ...


Similar to how I've felt about them. I never saw it as a loss when they _disappeared _because their reviews never meant much to me in the first place.

One less magazine on the shelf, oh well.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

DS-21 said:


> You're being obtuse about things that are largely irrelevant in actual use. (To say nothing of real-world use _inside a car._)
> 
> You keep writing about things "at the limit of audibility," when it's been established that stuff considered to measure badly is still orders of magnitude below any known audible thresholds. (See, e.g., Apple AirPort Express jittter measurement, supra.) The same holds true for the other variables you mentioned. Absolutely transparent electronic components today (and for quite a while before today) are commodity parts.
> 
> Really, it appears you're trying to use techie-sounding words to make a ******** "system synergy" argument.


Classic ignorance, from someone who didn't understand an earlier point : you can't "capture" an audible jitter spec with a _single number_.

You have even contradicted yourself, and it's been pointed out. You have suggested that older 14-bit DAC's were "inferior", in some sense. Earlier, I did some simple math to indicate a level of jitter that is "consistent" with 14-bit performance ... and it sure as hell wasn't anywhere near 100 nanoseconds 

And i'm sorry that you don't understand that error sources add (as variance)  If you use a good DAC whose performance is limited to 16 bits, and feed it with a clock that has jitter corresponding to a 16-bit noise floor, the ultimate performance you get will _not_ be as good as 16 bits. It has nothing to do with your imagined "system synergy" ... it's simple math, of adding uncorrelated noise sources.

Yes ... audio electronics are improving. We can now point to good practises, and bad practises, in most designs. But not ALL of the bad practises will be apparent in the spec sheet. And I, for one, have not seen enough solid evidence that allows me to conclude that any & all pieces of audio electronics will be sonically indistinguishable.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

lycan said:


> You have even contradicted yourself, and it's been pointed out. You have suggested that older 14-bit DAC's were "inferior", in some sense.


Classic inability to read or understand the words that are put in front of you.

The very first generation CD players had 14-bit DACs, with whatever level of jitter they may have had. They were found audibly different from later CD players, with whatever level of jitter they may have had, in controlled listening tests. (I'm not sure they were even measuring jitter in the mid-early 1980s.) Since then, there has _not been a single controlled listening test showing a difference between nonbroken digital sources._ Be they all-in-one boxes or separate transport-DACs.

That's all that matters. Everything else is just annoying hand-waving and apologism for idiots by someone who really should know better.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

DS-21 said:


> Classic inability to read or understand the words that are put in front of you.
> 
> The very first generation CD players had 14-bit DACs, with whatever level of jitter they may have had. They were found audibly different from later CD players, with whatever level of jitter they may have had, in controlled listening tests. (I'm not sure they were even measuring jitter in the mid-early 1980s.) Since then, there has _not been a single controlled listening test showing a difference between nonbroken digital sources._ Be they all-in-one boxes or separate transport-DACs.
> 
> That's all that matters. Everything else is just annoying hand-waving and apologism for idiots by someone who really should know better.


Once again, sidestepping the issue.

Please define "broken". You have used the word, not me.

I suppose you'll define it like this : if two "digital sources" were, in fact, found to sound "different" in controlled listening tests, due to _any_ cause or combination of causes, the one that sounds ... what, exactly ... "worse"? ... would, by _your_ definition, be "broken".

I admit, I have not read all listening tests of all "digital sources". However, in order to arrive at _your_ conclusion that _all_ audio electronics (unless "broken") sound indistinguishable, one would need both a pretty thorough understanding of error sources and their correlation to controlled listening tests, as well as a pretty exhaustive survey of all consumer electronics manufactured to date. I've seen evidence of neither in this thread.

I agree that we have "virtually" arrived at this state for very old classes of rather simple electronic devices ... like preamps and power amps. Error sources known, and well understood. Decades of listening tests, to correlate what is _measured_, with what is _heard_.

Perhaps we've also "arrived" at the same state with ALL audio electronics ... including digital signal processors and digital compression algorithms, naturally, unless they're "broken" ... and I'm just out-of-touch. But as i've stated earlier, i have yet to read a paper on jitter that really comprehends all realistically possible spectral distributions of the jitter energy itself, all realistically possible spectral distributions of the modulating signal, and all realistically possible DAC sensitivities to jitter.

Until that stage is reached, i stand by my point : there's no valid conclusion that _any_ listening tests are indeed _exhaustive_, especially for newer (last twenty years, or so) artifacts of errors that even most audio engineers would fail to describe accurately.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

Dude,
Don't mess with the Lycan when it comes to semicondictors. Seriously. You don't know what you're getting into. Seriously. Stop now.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

By the way, i just downloaded the AES paper on jitter, and gave it a casual review. If anyone is interested in an objective summary, let me know  I think the data and conclusions would be ... interesting


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

jstoner22 said:


> interesting indeed.
> pioneer has had mine for a week now. not to happy needless to say.
> i did not leave my ipod permanently connected to the unit. and this is where my problem arose, after a week of use, the deck had a meltdown with the usb and could not "communicate" with the ipod anymore.
> so be wary if you take your ipod with you when you leave the car.
> i still plan on seeing the fit btw! looks like a sweet install!


Have you tested the iPod on other devices since the deck stopped working. I am using an F90-bt and have a bit of a suspicion. I have had TWO iPods develop i/o issues when used exclusively with the f90. The first unit stopped outputting audio through both the dock connector and the headphone out. The failure was preceeded by some static on the input. The second iPod stopped recognizing data devices connected to the dock connector. I cannot get the deck to recognize it is connected, even though the unit will charge when hooked to the pioneer. This has also left me unable to upload or download data off the iPod. On the second unit, audio is still output when hooked into a non-controlling dock (older speaker dock) and the headphone out works. 

My speculation is that the deck contributed to the failure of a pair of iPods, but short of an extended bench test hooked up to lots of equipment I don't have access to, I have no way to prove it.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> Dude,
> Don't mess with the Lycan when it comes to semicondictors. Seriously. You don't know what you're getting into. Seriously. Stop now.


It's cool Andy, I know where he's coming from. He gets on my nerves, but he needn't stop.

DS-21 often takes an "extreme" position, to "pull" the audio quagmire off-center, and far from the tweako snakeoil that so often permeates the market & minds of audio hobbyists. The problem is, his tone & attitude are often non-productive, in the sense that he turns many would-be students _away_ from science.

I prefer a different approach. As best i can, i like to help _educate_, so that the reader can make _informed_ decisions about which marketing hype they can ignore, and which might have some real merit.

And toward that end, i'll re-state my offer ... i'll be happy to provide an objective review of the quoted jitter paper


----------



## jstoner22 (Jun 30, 2009)

alachua said:


> Have you tested the iPod on other devices since the deck stopped working. I am using an F90-bt and have a bit of a suspicion. I have had TWO iPods develop i/o issues when used exclusively with the f90. The first unit stopped outputting audio through both the dock connector and the headphone out. The failure was preceeded by some static on the input. The second iPod stopped recognizing data devices connected to the dock connector. I cannot get the deck to recognize it is connected, even though the unit will charge when hooked to the pioneer. This has also left me unable to upload or download data off the iPod. On the second unit, audio is still output when hooked into a non-controlling dock (older speaker dock) and the headphone out works.
> 
> My speculation is that the deck contributed to the failure of a pair of iPods, but short of an extended bench test hooked up to lots of equipment I don't have access to, I have no way to prove it.




well the second scenario is close to what i am dealing with. The ipod still however connects an interacts with my computer just fine though.

the interaction with the deck is the same though.

i have used my ipod on one older kensington docking station a couple days ago as well with no issues.

....this is sounding pretty sketchy with pioneer/ipods :S



have you any success with fixing the issue? or at least figuring out why the deck may cause issues?


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

jstoner22 said:


> well the second scenario is close to what i am dealing with. The ipod still however connects an interacts with my computer just fine though.
> 
> the interaction with the deck is the same though.
> 
> ...


The first time my RCA input/output harness was loose on the back of the radio. This could have potentially caused some voltage or grounding issues. The second time, however, I haven't figured out. I am also out of iPods and having a hard time dropping the money on yet ANOTHER one. The way the F90 interfaces with my iPhone is pretty poor, resulting in lots of noise and failures to connect. I figured I would wait till I got my P99 and pick up a new iPod, that way the warranty period would overlap in the very least.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

K, so this is not marketing BS? 

"New High-Precision Sound Master Clock Circuitry
The latest integrated circuits require superior clock signal quality to handle digital data accurately without distortion at ever-higher speeds. Imagine the old fi lm projectors from school - if the timing was off , the image and sound was distorted. The same thing can happen with digital sound, thus the importance of the sound master clock.

Inherited from ODR technology, this is the first use in a regular head unit. The Sound Master Clock Circuitry generates clock waveforms to read and process digital signals with ultra-precision, *and eliminate jitter noise in transmission. The result is faithful playback of the original source"*

I ask because I have a 6 year old high resolution soundcard that's only 100 bucks:

" Type: low-noise, 3-pole low-pass differential filter 
D/A converter: AK4395 
Level: -10dBV nominal, 6dBV max (unbalanced) 
Frequency Response (20Hz - 20kHz): + 0.05/-0.10dB, 
Dynamic Range (1kHz, A-weighted): 116dB (measured at the outputs, not the DAC chip spec)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted): 116dB 
THD+N (1kHz at -1dBFS): -100dB (.001%) 
Stereo Crosstalk (1kHz at -1dBFS): < -109dB 

Internal crystal sync at 44.1, 48, 96, 192kHz"

If I play "high bit" test track of 16 bits and 44 kHz (ie a track with the lowest noise floor possible other then a zero bit track which activates a zero bit mute) at full volume setup on the cards mixer. I here a clear hiss through some very good headphones and a direct connection to a receiver's headphone amp that is dead silent with a zero bit track playing.

But then when I play a high bit track of 24 bits and 44 kHz through that same setup. I have no audible noise floor, NONE, at full volume. 

Doesn't that mean that the noise I hear can be no lower because it _is_ the at actual limits of a CD file's resolution. 

How can a new high end head unit claim to remove noise that is not there because of the clock but because of the file being played?


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

I'd love to hear it Lycan. Again, I was involved with subjective testing with regards to jitter back in the day, and the differnces were very noticable when downstream from the transport was some phenomenal digital equipment. So I would love to hear your "nuts and bolts" synopsis of the artical as again, this post was originally written for the 99prs and the attention they payed the clocking is what interested me to purchase this unit in the first place.


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Classic inability to read or understand the words that are put in front of you.
> 
> The very first generation CD players had 14-bit DACs, with whatever level of jitter they may have had. They were found audibly different from later CD players, with whatever level of jitter they may have had, in controlled listening tests. (I'm not sure they were even measuring jitter in the mid-early 1980s.) Since then, there has _not been a single controlled listening test showing a difference between nonbroken digital sources._ Be they all-in-one boxes or separate transport-DACs.
> 
> That's all that matters. Everything else is just annoying hand-waving and apologism for idiots by someone who really should know better.


Dude, what's up with the attitude that anyone who points out gaps in your stuff can't read or something? I'm sure there are some smart people on this forum who aren't you. 

I can't imagine a big difference in the sound quality of car stereos of reasonable quality so long as we aren't talking about different power, eq and all that. Still, don't be such a jerk.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> K, so this is not marketing BS?
> 
> "New High-Precision Sound Master Clock Circuitry
> The latest integrated circuits require superior clock signal quality to handle digital data accurately without distortion at ever-higher speeds. Imagine the old fi lm projectors from school - if the timing was off , the image and sound was distorted. The same thing can happen with digital sound, thus the importance of the sound master clock.
> ...


BIG topics.

First of all, the marketing description used for some technology may be plain silly, and yet the technology may still have some merit. Case-in-point : the film projector analogy is dumb.

When it comes to digital signal transmission, and the relationship of the digital signal to the clock that times the DAC, there's a couple ways to do it. The oldest method is a terrible standard called S/PDIF. The master clock is near the data storage mechanism, the data is sent down the transmission line, and the DAC is timed by a clock that is "recovered" from the data. It's technically terrible, because it puts the clean clock where it's not needed. But it saves an extra conductor. It was picked because it's cheap.

Another method, and probably used by ODR (i've studied the schematics, but it's been awhile), actually puts the clean clock where it's needed ... right near the digital/analog interface. But the transport, and the data read from it, is no longer "synched" to the DAC. So you need this wonderful little piece of technology "in between" called an asynchronous sample rate converter. With all due respect to anyone that thinks these all sound the same, the first generation of these devices were pretty bad ... they measured bad, and sounded worse. But they have improved in the past decade, to the point where it is now simply the best way to perform signal transmission in an environment that still maintains some backward compatibility with S/PDIF. IF ODR is using it, it is worthy of mention 

The BEST way is, unfortunately, not compatible with S/PDIF. The best way is to put the clean clock where it belongs, next to the DAC, and actually slave the transport to the DAC. But that takes ... horrid as it sounds ... an extra conductor.

Now it's CERTAINLY a fair point to ask : how much of this is audible? My answer, throughout this thread, is this : it's hard to boil it down into a single number! So, i too look for systems where the clock is done INTELLIGENTLY. And it would _seem_ that ODR fits the bill 

Now, i think i understand another question from above to be : If i can already "hear" the 16-bit noise floor (which is not outside the realm of possibility, depending on system gain settings, speaker sensitivity, and a host of other variables), how much "better" does the jitter performance need to be? Do i care, if the jitter performance is "below" that?

Two points, in response : Jitter is not an independently additive source of noise (unlike quantization noise). Instead, it's CORRELATED to the main signal. That creates a possibly more objectionable "form" of noise. Secondly, if the jitter is more like low-level "tones", rather than white noise, those can be picked out by the ear at levels _below_ the noise floor (same reason we can pick out isolated voices or conversations in loud, noisy restaurants).

We would ALL like simple, yes or no, black or white answers. They're not always readily found


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

lycan said:


> It's cool Andy, I know where he's coming from. He gets on my nerves, but he needn't stop.
> 
> DS-21 often takes an "extreme" position, to "pull" the audio quagmire off-center, and far from the tweako snakeoil that so often permeates the market & minds of audio hobbyists. The problem is, his tone & attitude are often non-productive, in the sense that he turns many would-be students _away_ from science.
> 
> ...


You should see the stuff he posted in the health care thread! Man, if you disagree with him he turned into a Tasmanian Devil or something. Well except the Taz was down with the bacon!

Anyway, thanks for the balanced read!


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

gymrat2005 said:


> I'd love to hear it Lycan. Again, I was involved with subjective testing with regards to jitter back in the day, and the differnces were very noticable when upstream from the transport was some phenomenal digital equipment. So I would love to hear your "nuts and bolts" synopsis of the artical as again, this post was originally written for the 99prs and the attention they payed the clocking is what interested me to purchase this unit in the first place.


OK 

Let's review the AES paper referenced, by starting ... at the end, naturally. I'm doing it as a "grabber" ... i'm sure there won't be very many willing to stick with a review, through all the gory details.

The final paragraph of the conclusion:

"_*It should not be assumed that jitter-induced distortion is a non-issue. Distortion induced by jitter is a real phenomenon and work to reduce its effects should continue*. Although the threshold of audibility was found to be relatively high in the authors' experiments, *the effect of all distortions in the audio chain is cumulative and it is reasonable to reduce them to the lowest practical levels*. Manufacturers of DACs may find the methodology for evaluating jitter susceptibility presented in this paper useful in characterizing and presenting meaningful jitter specifications for their products._"

I've obviously put a few sentences in bold type. Should we conclude that jitter is a non-issue? Didn't someone mention earlier, that errors in the reproduction chain are additive?   Finally, would someone reading this conclusion be led to believe that the final word has already been written, in terms of how DAC manufacturers _specify_ their sensitivity to jitter?

Fear not, more to follow. And we'll see how well the authors address the 3 main difficulties in analyzing jitter (that i mentioned earlier): spectral distribution of jitter, spectral distribution of the main signal that modulates the jitter, and jitter sensitivity of different types of DACs. 

(Honestly, these authors do about as good a job as we can expect)


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

Guys, really...how about you start a "high level discussion on the topic of jitter" thread.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

alachua said:


> Guys, really...how about you start a "high level discussion on the topic of jitter" thread.


probably not a bad idea. I'm already bored.

dude i was born in Scranton, PA.


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

lycan,

Would it be correct to say that your issues with two low level sources of noise combining into a more significant level of noise is similar to the way in control system terms, two stable systems can be combined and result in an unstable system?

BTW, your posts are very interesting to read.



lycan said:


> probably not a bad idea. I'm already bored.
> 
> dude i was born in Scranton, PA.


Did someone really crash a truck with 30,000 lbs of bananas in your town?


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

Snail said:


> lycan,
> 
> Would it be correct to say that your issues with two low level sources of noise combining into a more significant level of noise is similar to the way in control system terms, two stable systems can be combined and result in an unstable system?
> 
> ...


Not only did that really happen, but his actual destination is less than a mile away from my apartment!



Wikipedia said:


> On March 18, 1965, a 35-year-old truck driver named Gene Seski[2] was on his way to deliver a load of bananas to Scranton. He had been an employee of a man named Fred Carpentier, who operated a small truck line in Scranton. He was returning from the boat piers at Weehawken, New Jersey where he picked up his load. While the exact information is somewhat lost in time, the load was clearly destined for the "wholesale block" on the western edge of Lackawanna Avenue in Scranton, the local A&P Warehouse or to "Halem Hazzouri Bananas", the premier banana purveyor in the area at the time. He was driving a 1950s Brockway diesel truck tractor with a 35-foot semi-trailer. The truck was headed down Rt. 307 when the driver lost control. The "two-mile" descent extends from Lake Scranton down to the bottom of Moosic Street, where the truck eventually crashed was the SW corner of Moosic St and S. Irving Ave. For some reason, the truck cruised into Scranton at about ninety miles-per-hour sideswiping a number of cars before it crashed, killing the driver and spilling bananas everywhere when the rig came to rest. The road was then closed for cleanup as Johnson's Towing Company helped out in the recovery. Trucks over 21,000 lb (9,500 kg) are no longer allowed to travel that route. To this day, concrete barriers remain in front of the old Granito's store, to prevent runaway trucks from crashing through the front of the store.


hrmm...that quote does leave me wondering, who IS the premier banana purveyor in the area _now_?


----------



## Salad Fingers (Jun 14, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> The only problem I have ever had with CA&E is that everything they review is terrific! I don't ever remember in a product review them saying, "well, it sounded just ok" or "the sq of this HU just plain sucked". I know they had a sq rating system, but they are way to politically correct for me to take any of their reviews seriously.
> 
> The new Pioneer HU is really sexy though....not sexy enough to buy without making sure the sound lives up to the billing, but sexy none the less.


I'm not reading all four pages of this thread, but I must comment on this. As most things, I think it has to do with money. If Pioneer is paying your magazine X dollars in advertising money to put their ad's on the pages, then you can't say anything bad about their product. If you did, you risk them pulling their ad's out of the magazine, losing you money. Also, I'm sure all these companies send the equipment to the publication for free. This is good for both of them. It is free advertising for the company, and it is something to fill the pages and entice people to buy the magazine. More money for the publication, more advertising for the company, more sales for the company, more money to put back in to advertising in the publication!!!!! It is just good business, just not necessarily good for the customer who is looking to buy a set of speakers (for example). He is looking at a review on some $150 Rockford coax's getting a 78 in overall, then some $2000 Morel components get an 89 (these are just random example numbers, but aren't out of the realm of possibility). It makes it really hard for someone who doesn't know any better to make an informed decision, and even harder when they don't have a lot of money to try to justify spending another ~$2k on something for a seemingly small increase in performance. Sorry if this is way off topic, but I just wanted to point it out


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Snail said:


> lycan,
> 
> Would it be correct to say that your issues with two low level sources of noise combining into a more significant level of noise is similar to the way in control system terms, two stable systems can be combined and result in an unstable system?


Not really.

There's two cases of interest :

1. Two sources of uncorrelated, wideband or "white" noise. This is identical to adding two uncorrelated random variables in statistics. The powers, or variances, simply add, to yield the power in the resultant sum. "sigma(total) squared equals sigma(1) squared plus sigma(2) squared". It's not a _dramatic_, or even _linear_ sum ... because the _powers_ add. And for the case-in-point, it's probably fair to say that quantization errors in the converters (that may be the dominant source of error, limiting them to 16-bits, 18-bits, 20-bits, etc.) are _uncorrelated_ with the jitter on the clock source of the DAC. So these errors are cumulative, in the "squared" sense.

2. One source of wideband or "white" noise, added to another error source that more resembles a single tone. The powers still add in this case, if the errors are uncorrelated, but the human ear has a fantastic ability to pick-out a single "tone" at a power level well _below_ a wideband noise source.

But the bottom line is that the errors are _cumulative_, as the referenced paper directly reinforces. So you can have a DAC with quantization noise right below the level of audibility, and use a clock whose jitter is right below the level of audibility, in a circuit whose analog thermal noise is right below the level of audibilty, etc. and _still_ end up with an audible noise floor 

*So ... wouldn't this whole "additive noise mess" simply show up in the single SNR specification of the device or system in question?* Mostly, yes, but not completely ... because when it comes to jitter in particular (the source of our debate), it's complications (due to modulations) make it hard to identify a "worst case of audibility", and therefore make it hard to spec with a _single number_.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

lycan said:


> Once again, sidestepping the issue.
> 
> Please define "broken". You have used the word, not me.


Please don't be so ****ing obtuse. To use Webster's Third (a bit of a dig at Justice Scalia, you understand), "broken" means one of the following:


Webster's Third said:


> "Main Entry: bro·ken
> Pronunciation: \ˈbrō-kən\
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old English brocen, from past participle of brecan to break
> ...


In context, it means "more than a reasonable tolerance off from published specifications in something known to be audible."



lycan said:


> I admit, I have not read all listening tests of all "digital sources". However, in order to arrive at _your_ conclusion that _all_ audio electronics (unless "broken") sound indistinguishable, one would need both a pretty thorough understanding of error sources and their correlation to controlled listening tests,


Actually, one doesn't. The source doesn't matter, if it's been repeatedly shown to be inaudible. Most specsmanship in audio electronics today is just meaningless prick waving.



lycan said:


> Perhaps we've also "arrived" at the same state with ALL audio electronics ... including digital signal processors and digital compression algorithms, naturally, unless they're "broken"


If one DSP has the same measured effect as another, it's perfectly reasonable to say they should sound the same. Compression...well, some might. But the possible differences are of such greater orders of magnitude than one could possibly find between any two digital sources that it's just intellectually dishonest to bring them up in the same context.



lycan said:


> i have yet to read a paper on jitter that really comprehends all realistically possible spectral distributions of the jitter energy itself, all realistically possible spectral distributions of the modulating signal, and all realistically possible DAC sensitivities to jitter.


And I have yet to read about or participate in any controlled listening test between properly working digital sources that showed any sonic differences between any two digital sources. Except one of the early SMWTMS tests that showed audible differences between first-gen 14-bit CD players and later CD players. So I don't give two ****s about jitter in a consumer audio context. And as long as your CD player isn't from 19-****ing-82 you can't reasonably expect sonic differences in digital consumer audio equipment, either. Even though, given that you've designed them, you have a vested interest in believing that there are differences in them.

I will give you credit for finding boilerplate in the cited paper and attempting to elevate it to mean something for consumer digital audio, though.



Snail said:


> Dude, what's up with the attitude that anyone who points out gaps in your stuff can't read or something?


I wouldn't expect someone like you to realize that I was merely aping the tone of the post to which I replied.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

DS-21 said:


> Please don't be so ****ing obtuse. To use Webster's Third (a bit of a dig at Justice Scalia, you understand), "broken" means one of the following:
> 
> 
> In context, it means "more than a reasonable tolerance off from published specifications in something known to be audible."


In other words, you're mis-using the word ... Webster's definitions don't fit yours. And please tell me ... which "published spec" captures the jitter performance of the clocking system?


> Actually, one doesn't. The source doesn't matter, if it's been repeatedly shown to be inaudible. Most specsmanship in audio electronics today is just meaningless prick waving.


No real argument, about the specsmanship game. Except of course, that you're contradicting yourself ... _again_. Your mis-definition of the word "broken" requires some performance relative to published specs. Either the specs matter, or they don't. Which is it? The specs can't be meaningless, if they're required to determine if something is "broken".


> If one DSP has the same measured effect as another, it's perfectly reasonable to say they should sound the same. Compression...well, some might. But the possible differences are of such greater orders of magnitude than one could possibly find between any two digital sources that it's just intellectually dishonest to bring them up in the same context.


I won't ask you for your definition of "intellectual dishonesty" 


> And I have yet to read about or participate in any controlled listening test between properly working digital sources that showed any sonic differences between any two digital sources. Except one of the early SMWTMS tests that showed audible differences between first-gen 14-bit CD players and later CD players. So I don't give two ****s about jitter in a consumer audio context. And as long as your CD player isn't from 19-****ing-82 you can't reasonably expect sonic differences in digital consumer audio equipment, either. Even though, given that you've designed them, you have a vested interest in believing that there are differences in them.


*There IS a report of controlled listening tests that demonstrated a statistically significant, audible difference in transports ... in this very thread!* (i know you responded with a "boilerplate" of your own ... "something else must be going on", or some such drivel). Here it is again, the very test you've been requesting :

_"Jitter is much more than marginal, it is a measurable, tangible factor in recreating an analog waveform from a digital sample. I learned of it's importance during my training at Meridian Electronics in Georgia. For almost 7 hours we were subject to numerous A/B blind studies using their transport against a DAT machine (Panasonic I think), a run of the mill Denon CD player with digital out, and a higher end Cal Labs Icon, and you could pick Meridan's transport 10 out of 10 times"_. gymrat2005

Yes, I'm choosing to give validity to this post, rather than write it off as nonsense. And I'm attempting a technical discussion, to help understand the possible reasons to explain the outcome. (I've never designed a CD player, by the way. Only the DACs inside. So my only "vested interest" is/was in understanding the clocks that timed the chips I designed. And it wasn't in 1982 ... I was still in college).

Nice continued use of profanity, by the way. A last resort, when logical discussion fails you?


> I will give you credit for finding boilerplate in the cited paper and attempting to elevate it to mean something for consumer digital audio, though.


Thank you  Interesting that you choose to ignore the conclusions from _your own_ citation. You didn't believe, or understand, that errors are cumulative. You wrote jitter off as a non-issue. The paper's conclusions do NOT support your "opinions". Did you even read the papers you cited? No wonder why you jumped on others, who didn't pay the twenty bucks!

This is fun  wonder what's next ... more profanity & personal assaults?

But alas, discussions with this individual have become pointless. If anyone is interested in a more meaningful technical discussion of jitter, we can carry it elsewhere ... as requested. And we'll see how well the authors of the referenced AES paper understand the complexities of jitter (they do a pretty good job).

Yep, i'll gladly give DS-21 the last word, if he wants it  I'm out!


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> I wouldn't expect someone like you to realize that I was merely aping the tone of the post to which I replied.


My apologies. I didn't realize that others had taken the "I'm an *******" tone with you first. 

Are you going to apologize for misrepresenting your article? It didn't say jitter was a non-issue now did it.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

Come on people!









Seriously? This is all DS-21 is. He's not backing up his bluster with anything except technobabble. Do we see him out in the trenches actually running in SQ comps? No, that's beneath him. He's like the engineer who tells the assembly line to change something without knowing how to put the machine together. He doesn't lead from the front. That might get his hands dirty. 

I'm thinking the Southpark gang received the inspiration for








from DS-21

...nope...

Wouldn't suprise me one bit.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ no offense, but you've not provided anything positive to this thread either. The two posts by you (maybe there's more?) have only been in reply to Jay's posts. By definition, you'd be a troll, too. Regardless of how much you dislike him, at least he's staying on topic.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

*"Jitter is much more than marginal, it is a measurable, tangible factor in recreating an analog waveform from a digital sample.* I learned of it's importance during my training at Meridian Electronics in Georgia. For almost 7 hours we were subject to numerous A/B blind studies using their transport against a DAT machine (Panasonic I think), a run of the mill Denon CD player with digital out, and a higher end Cal Labs Icon, and you could pick Meridan's transport 10 out of 10 times". gymrat2005

Unless I am not understand, this means that the digital outputs are distinguishable from one another. Correct?

Below are some graphs from test results I just ran using Rightmark Audio Analyzer. I tested the SPDIF output of my "run of the mill" Sony DVP-NS400D DVD player (a *10 year old and $250 MSRP player). Externally synced by the player.

The test was run by burning the RMAA test file to a CD in CD audio format and playing it back through the player into my sound card's digital input. Then analyzed by the software.

I set it to recorded at 24bits/44kHz so that it would give a more accurate representation of the signal coming in. 

What you see below are noise floor and IMD+Noise graphs, plus an EXTREME zoom on a random portion of each of the normal sized graph (please notice the increments on the x and y axis so you get an idea of just how zoomed in it is, ie 1Hz by .05dB increments).

The green portion of the graphs are the results for a software analysis of the test files run through the player being tested. That results is ALWAYS the same, as it is a bit analysis of a file. The white areas are the results of the player tested. Whenever you see a white part showing through the green line, it means that something happened and the sound was degraded somehow. 

You can see that even when zoomed in to a 1Hz by .05dB scale, there is NEVER a white area to be seen.

Noise Floor:










Noise Floor Zoom:










IMD+Noise:










IMD+Noise Zoom:










I won't bother showing the results for the other test comparisons because they are also identical to the reference test file.

What do these results indicate in relation to what we can hear? Is there stuff that is audible to our ears yet does not show up on these standard test? I dunno, but when I look at a noise floor at -130dB and it has an identical frequency spectrum to the original, I wonder.*


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

Fair enough. I suppose the difference between "Jay" and myself is that I actually own the source unit we're discussing.

My problem with him is that he doesn't seem to be anything but an extremist. His insinuations that no one else is correct except him is foul. What I don't see...stated again...is constructive proof to back up his numbers.

One can sit here and say this unit is not as good as what he or someone else is using, but if he can't back up all his numbers with something else...that's all they are to me, numbers.

You and I have been around each other on Sounddomain for years I'd be willing to bet. I don't come out this strongly against someone unless it's warranted. This "Jay" person continuously rails against good proven products. So, at what point does one say, put up or shut up? He strikes me as an armchair, monday morning quarterback who has all these theories but doesn't do anything with them except say that everyone else is lower than he is.

Having seen a few things, I tend to look at the numbers and then give some practical application. There's only so much measuring one can do before you actually move on the plan. If all one does is sit there and spout off without any action to backup those numbers...that is the definition of a "wanna be".

Troll? Only to him. He's got the worst most close-minded one dimensional attitude I've come across in a long time.

The next question is, well what am I bringing? You'll see in less than a month. Certainly with the terrible source I'm using, I might as well just not start...if it were up to "Jay".


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

lycan said:


> In other words, you're mis-using the word ...


Why are you being too thick to get the difference between denotation (dictionary definition) and connotation (word usage in context). I could fit my usage under several of those definitions without trying too hard.



lycan said:


> IEither the specs matter, or they don't. Which is it? The specs can't be meaningless, if they're required to determine if something is "broken".


Um, the specs show how the manufacturer intended the component to perform. That's all. If it's off from them by more than a reasonable tolerance, it is a reasonable inference that it is broken. 



lycan said:


> I*There IS a report of controlled listening tests that demonstrated a statistically significant, audible difference in transports ... in this very thread!*


Sorry, not buying it. You know as well as I do that if Bob Stuart had serious controlled listening tests that showed greater justification for his products and went against the established science, there'd be peer-reviewed papers all over the place. Given none, we can surmise that a) the test was rigged; or b) the poster's recollection is incorrect.



lycan said:


> And I'm attempting a technical discussion,


A technical discussion is fine theory, and I'd sit back and try to learn something *if you weren't making unsubstantiated claims about audibility.*

but in practice it's worthless because *no reputable controlled listening test has ever shown a difference in digital sources, outside of first-generation players sounding different from later ones.*

You can wave esoteric technical **** around all you want. Yes, you can run rings around me (and probably everyone else here) in that area. 

But really, who gives a **** if, in a consumer audio context, *the things you're waving your prick around about have never been shown to be audible?*



lycan said:


> INice continued use of profanity, by the way. A last resort, when logical discussion fails you?


Profanity is used by intelligent people to hammer a point home. You know that.



lycan said:


> IYou wrote jitter off as a non-issue.


*Controlled listening tests* establish jitter as a non-issue in consumer audio equipment. Big difference.



sqcomp said:


> Fair enough. I suppose the difference between "Jay" and myself is that I actually own the source unit we're discussing.


What does that have to do with anything?



sqcomp said:


> One can sit here and say this unit is not as good as what he or someone else is using, but if he can't back up all his numbers with something else...that's all they are to me, numbers.


Obviously, you're misrepresenting my position. For people who haven't been following the thread, here is what has the extremist audio-as-religion nuts panties in a giant collective wad:

-As a digital source exclusive of signal processing capability, it's exactly the same as any other, be it Dual or McIntosh or anything in between. Digital sources are commodity parts.

-This particular one has a lot of built-in flexibility in processing that, in the hands of a skilled tuner supported by appropriate measurement equipment, is very, very useful. 

-As an auto-EQ system, it is limited by reliance on a single measurement. Anything using a one-point measurement as opposed to a spatially averaged measurement is simply working with data that's not as accurate. However, even given those limitations it is likely to give markedly better results than "tuning by ear" for people lacking experience and familiarity with audio measurement systems.

IOW, three claims any reasonable, informed person would find utterly uncontroversial.


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

DS-21,
Why are you being such an *******. It's clear you have a decent knowledge of this stuff but you are too stupid to know when to shut up when others like lycon clearly know more. 

For that mater why be an ******* every time someone says something you disagree with? Are you so certain that you are never wrong that it's OK to be a tool even when you are right (which appears to be less often than you think).

In short, please remove your head from your sphincter, have some tasty bacon and shut the hell up!

Edit:

Perhaps rather than just being an ass myself we could turn this into a constructive post. Jay, what's your purpose in posting? Presumably to share knowledge with others and to help them out. To that end, isn't it better to be constructive rather than confrontational in your disagreements? I mean if you are trying to help me see the error in my ways the best way to do it isn't to insult me! Do you win friends and influence people by belittling them and making them think you are arrogant?

Take the topic of this post. We have a knowledgeable person saying jitter can be audible depending on circumstances. You are arguing that it doesn't mater. Well you are probably right. But wouldn't it have been better to say something like:


Nice version of DS-21 said:


> Jitter isn't worth making a fuss over. While perhaps it can become audible in some cases and maybe it can be detected via a double blind listening test but is it worth worrying about? I mean if we can just barely notice in a double blind test then perhaps the difference is so small as to not worry about. I mean it's not like my car is a quite place. Between the engine and road noise and all the horns who cares about a small loss in quality due to jitter. Put that money into things like sound damping material and a pair of fuzzy dice. In the end you won't notice the difference in SQ but you will notice the savings. If you are really interested I can provide a link to a good, pier reviewed article on the subject.


Wouldn't that get the same point across?


----------



## gymrat2005 (Oct 4, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> I won't bother showing the results for the other test comparisons because they are also identical to the reference test file.
> 
> What do these results indicate in relation to what we can hear? Is there stuff that is audible to our ears yet does not show up on these standard test? I dunno, but when I look at a noise floor at -130dB and it has an identical frequency spectrum to the original, I wonder.


The classes I attended were necassary to be a retailer authorized to install Meridian's products. I would estimate roughly 50% of our time was spent in the classroom pouring over technical data and cunducting different tests using various different machines. The other time was split between general product knowledge and subjective listening tests. A small portion was spent messing with Faroudja's latest offerings for video including, which was at the time, a very unique line doubler. I'm at work now, but when I get some time I will email Meridian and see if they can tell me the testing equipment used in the classroom. I certainly never claimed to be any type of engineer, but I have been around plenty of high end equipment over the years, and have developed a pretty decent ear when it comes to subjective listening. I mention this because the differences I was able to discerne during this specific testing were very apparent. And to be honest noise floor was not something that I remember as being different. What did stand out were tonal differences such as added sibilance, decreased soundstage width and depth, etc... Also as stated this was several years ago, and perhaps the standards have changed to marginalize the differences between the "entry level" and the "esoteric" but it doesn't mean the testing we were part of wasn't both valid and controlled. Perhaps lycan may chime in as to what equipment is used in measuring this "phenomina" known as jitter. 

I know the original reason for this thread were to link us to a review, which without argue was nothing more than a fluff piece written by a publication which is obviously pressured to focus on the positive perfomance aspects of a given piece of electronics rather than performing tests that might show it in a not so favorible light. With that said, I don't feel the "jitter" talk is that far off point, a liitle sidways maybe, but it still pertains to the subject of the DEX-P99RS, as pioneer recognizes that aspect of the unit as superior in the marketing materials.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

gymrat2005 said:


> I know the original reason for this thread were to link us to a review, which without argue was nothing more than a fluff piece written by a publication which is obviously pressured to focus on the positive perfomance aspects of a given piece of electronics rather than performing tests that might show it in a not so favorible light.


I'm not sure I agree with your quoted characterization. 

I don't see anything that might lead one to expect less than stellar measured performance (well, picofuses, maybe, if it uses them).

What's more likely the case than any pressure to focus on the positive is that the reviewer and/or the publication just don't have the technical chops to do anything meaningful.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Snail said:


> Why are you being such an *******. It's clear you have a decent knowledge of this stuff but you are too stupid to know when to shut up when others like lycon clearly know more.


Oh grow the **** up.



Snail said:


> Take the topic of this post. We have a knowledgeable person saying jitter can be audible depending on circumstances.


With absolutely no reference to any actual study of audibility, whereas every published controlled listening test has shown any difference between nonbroken digital sources of competent design. 

Please edit your above post to make it clear that I did not actually write any of the things in your needlessly muddled "Nice version."

I'm just not going to indulge in worthless platitudes such as your suggested "While perhaps it can become audible in some cases and maybe it can be detected via a double blind listening test," because it *hasn't.* And I wouldn't write a sentence reading "I mean if we can just barely notice in a double blind test " because it's just plain wrong on fact. It *has not* been audible (which is a synonym for "can be detected via DBT") in any study, at the levels present in even badly-measuring consumer audio equipment. (See measurements of the Apple AirPort Express's analog outputs, supra.)

I just don't see any reason to concede anything to idiotic viewpoints that are contrary to reality. If that makes me an *******, fine. Or rather, if people who are for some reason invested in preserving mythology over exploring what's actually audible think I'm an *******, well, from their perspective I am.


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Oh grow the **** up.


That isn't exactly a very mature comment. Perhaps you should do the same. 



> With absolutely no reference to any actual study of audibility, whereas every published controlled listening test has shown any difference between nonbroken digital sources of competent design.
> 
> Please edit your above post to make it clear that I did not actually write any of the things in your needlessly muddled "Nice version."


I know you didn't. I think any reader could figure out that. And even if we leave out the part where I implied a benefit of the doubt could be given to the views and expertise of others, the rest of the comment would still be a better way to deliver your information. 



> I'm just not going to indulge in worthless platitudes such as your suggested "While perhaps it can become audible in some cases and maybe it can be detected via a double blind listening test," because it *hasn't.* And I wouldn't write a sentence reading "I mean if we can just barely notice in a double blind test " because it's just plain wrong on fact. It *has not* been audible (which is a synonym for "can be detected via DBT") in any study, at the levels present in even badly-measuring consumer audio equipment. (See measurements of the Apple AirPort Express's analog outputs, supra.)
> 
> I just don't see any reason to concede anything to idiotic viewpoints that are contrary to reality. If that makes me an *******, fine. Or rather, if people who are for some reason invested in preserving mythology over exploring what's actually audible think I'm an *******, well, from their perspective I am.


I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Let's start over. I'm not trying to get you to admit to something that you disagree with. Rather than getting hung up on the part where I suggested where the other side might be right lets just skip that part. What about the part where you simply explain in a friendly manor something like this


Nice version of DS-21 said:


> All this talk about jitter and everything is good but the differences we are talking about are really well below the level of audibility. Happily, the state of car audio art today is such that all digital stuff does sound the same unless it is damaged or was designed to be something other than neutral. This may sound dismissive but consider the upside. This means you will get far more bang for you buck if you put money in things like sound deadening for your car instead of say putting an extra $100 into a head unit that has more features than you will use simply because it might have better sound quality. If you want the added features, looks, etc well then spend the money. I'm simply suggesting that from the view of SQ and SQ alone you aren't getting anything for you money. I would rather see forum members purchase wisely than get taken for a ride by iffy marketing claims.


Again, wouldn't something like that get your point across yet not put the recipient of the message on the defensive? My real point wasn't to get you to concede anything you don't agree with but to suggest that a more friendly tact would go a long way to making people want to actually listen to what you have to say. I mean I guess I just assume that you post in an effort to educate and help people. If I'm wrong please let me know.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

gymrat2005 said:


> The classes I attended were necassary to be a retailer authorized to install Meridian's products. I would estimate roughly 50% of our time was spent in the classroom pouring over technical data and cunducting different tests using various different machines. The other time was split between general product knowledge and subjective listening tests. A small portion was spent messing with Faroudja's latest offerings for video including, which was at the time, a very unique line doubler. I'm at work now, but when I get some time I will email Meridian and see if they can tell me the testing equipment used in the classroom. I certainly never claimed to be any type of engineer, but I have been around plenty of high end equipment over the years, and have developed a pretty decent ear when it comes to subjective listening. I mention this because the differences I was able to discerne during this specific testing were very apparent. And to be honest noise floor was not something that I remember as being different. What did stand out were tonal differences such as added sibilance, decreased soundstage width and depth, etc... Also as stated this was several years ago, and perhaps the standards have changed to marginalize the differences between the "entry level" and the "esoteric" but it doesn't mean the testing we were part of wasn't both valid and controlled. Perhaps lycan may chime in as to what equipment is used in measuring this "phenomina" known as jitter.
> 
> I know the original reason for this thread were to link us to a review, which without argue was nothing more than a fluff piece written by a publication which is obviously pressured to focus on the positive perfomance aspects of a given piece of electronics rather than performing tests that might show it in a not so favorible light. With that said, I don't feel the "jitter" talk is that far off point, a liitle sidways maybe, but it still pertains to the subject of the DEX-P99RS, as pioneer recognizes that aspect of the unit as superior in the marketing materials.


By the way, I didn't mean "I wonder" like I wonders about your claims of what you heard. I meant that I wonder what could be so obvious yet not change a distortion test graph, not even at a .001dB scale.

If the jitter affected something so outright and obvious as tonality, then I would have to think that it would manifest itself as some type of IM harmonic distortion. No matter how small. Something!

No?


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

DS-21 said:


> Oh grow the **** up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You still haven't replied. Wouldn't it be better to actually actually say something along the lines of this when people disagree?


a nice DS-21 said:


> All this talk about jitter and everything is good but the differences we are talking about are really well below the level of audibility. Happily, the state of car audio art today is such that all digital stuff does sound the same unless it is damaged or was designed to be something other than neutral. This may sound dismissive but consider the upside. This means you will get far more bang for you buck if you put money in things like sound deadening for your car instead of say putting an extra $100 into a head unit that has more features than you will use simply because it might have better sound quality. If you want the added features, looks, etc well then spend the money. I'm simply suggesting that from the view of SQ and SQ alone you aren't getting anything for you money. I would rather see forum members purchase wisely than get taken for a ride by iffy marketing claims.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

How about something constructive from me? 

According to some internet commando, who had probably never even heard this piece, I'm only wasting my time and money looking for ever elusive "SQ".

Well, I purchased this becasue it fit my needs. I wanted a source that was built well, that would last a long time, that had better specs as general guide for performance versus other sources out there, that fit my system layout, that gave me more flexibility that any other source that I know of on the market...and one that our favorite hater would be guaranteed to loathe.

It has met all my requirements, it has superior build quality. The layout of the controls and the remote make operation relatively easy given all that this source can do. It brings the processing into one location. It gives me top notch signal reproduction. It does look good.

If I didn't want the processing, I may have purchased a Denon DCT piece. The thing is, none of the other choices that I had at the time of purchase measured up. I am receiving too much for my money in the Pioneer piece. I refuse to say that the P-01 sounds better than a DCT Z-1 (for example). It DOES have more standalone flexibility! That part is undeniable.

I've already put a LOT of time and money into sound deadening, component selection and placement. I don't have the money to be able to vertically bi-amp four Audison Thesis Venti amps...so I settled for something less expensive. All of the components I'm using including the subwoofers that have a PROVEN track record of success in the only practical application that can pit different pieces against each other (competition). This must be an affront to our favorite elitest naysayer. 

Being taken for a ride is only going to happen if I listen to him. If I did, I'd purchase some deck that can't measure up completely to my needs. I'd be plugging in standalone processors and using pieces of lesser quality. I don't recall being able to find another deck that does everything that this can do in the same footprint.

If using a component that meet my needs more completely that ANYTHING else on the market is being taken for a ride or throwing myself into present audio mythology...then so be it. DS, you have not offered one iota of a solution, only criticism.

Captain Caveman


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

sqcomp said:


> who had probably never even heard this piece,


Why does one need to "hear" what is in all probability a perfectly transparent digital source? 

The only thing that would be remotely interesting would be to see if the displayed signal processing is what is actually output. My hunch is that the displays are pretty accurate, i.e. if you dial in a crossover with a specific frequency at a specific slope or a parametric EQ band of a given center and Q, that's basically what you'll get. But that is just speculation based on manufacturer reputation.



sqcomp said:


> Well, I purchased this becasue it fit my needs. I wanted a source that was built well, that would last a long time, that had better specs as general guide for performance versus other sources out there, that fit my system layout, that gave me more flexibility that any other source that I know of on the market...


All perfectly smart, reasonable reasons about which nobody could reasonably quibble.



sqcomp said:


> and one that our favorite hater would be guaranteed to loathe.


Since you named me later, I assume you're talking about me with this line, idiotic and anti-factual as the designation may be. And my retort to that is:
Seriously, can you ****ing read?

With the exception of identifying a flaw in the auto-calibration routine that's fairly obvious to anyone who's been around modern audio for a while (single-point measurement vs. a proper spatial average), I haven't said anything remotely negative about the piece, let along anything that could amount to "loathing." What I've actually written is that it's attractive, a reasonable value considering the extra processing in the box, and that even though the measurements upon which it bases its auto-EQ are flawed it will still result in a superior measuring and sounding system than most "tuners" without sophisticated measurement gear could hope to effect. 

If that constitutes loathing...then wow. You must consider utter sycophancy "fair and balanced."

That said, I'm glad you hold my views in such stock that they influence your purchases. 



sqcomp said:


> If I didn't want the processing, I may have purchased a Denon DCT piece.


That would have been another sonically transparent, well-built, and adult-looking choice. (My problem with "Wal-Mart" HU's, and most Japanese brands, is not that they perform badly, because they don't. It's that they're ugly and distracting-looking.) 

I ran a Denon DCT-950r in three different vehicles from 1994-2009. It was only after discovering that a Clarion box could allow a McIntosh HU to rudimentarily at least charge and control an iPod that I ditched the Denon. Yes, the Mac is more attractive to me, both because of its appearance and because of brand-snobbery. But if the Denon could've controlled and charged my iPod I'd still be using it, as then my marginal cost of the change would not have exceeded my marginal benefit derived therefrom.

Today, if I didn't already have the Mac and the Alpine Audyssey MultEQ XT box, I'd likely consider this HU even though it's still a little too "techie" looking for my daily driver's very vintage Anglophillic wood-and-tan-leather interior. (Nothing fits that aesthetic as well as the Mac.) Who knows, I may consider this Pioneer piece or one of its successors in the next couple model years for the DS, too. Though chances are I'll just keep the Denon in that dash and plug the iPod directly into a JBL MS8 when I redo that system in the next couple years.



sqcomp said:


> I refuse to say that the P-01 sounds better than a DCT Z-1 (for example). It DOES have more standalone flexibility! That part is undeniable.


Another logical, reasonable comment that exactly mirrors what I've been writing on this entire thread! 



sqcomp said:


> All of the components I'm using including the subwoofers that have a PROVEN track record of success in the only practical application that can pit different pieces against each other (competition). This must be an affront to our favorite elitest naysayer.


Grading along artificial criteria in a parked car is largely irrelevant to the ostensible raison d'être of car-fi, which is to provide enjoyable musical accompaniment while driving, but you were doing so well up until this point. 



sqcomp said:


> If using a component that meet my needs more completely that ANYTHING else on the market is being taken for a ride or throwing myself into present audio mythology...then so be it. DS, you have not offered one iota of a solution, only criticism.


Nobody said you're being "taken for a ride" in preferring this particular box over another box. Tthough one could argue that you've been "taken for a ride" in whatever effort and funds you've put into improving your reading comprehension. 

My *one criticism of the DEX-P99RS** - use of a single-point measurement for the auto-EQ, also implies the solution. Since you don't seem to be able to grasp that solution, let me spell it out: a future version, or a firmware update, should update the measurement routine for the auto-EQ to take multiple measurements at defined points around the car, rather than relying on an inaccurate single-point measurement.

*As opposed to criticism of the _review article,_ or various idiocies posted about the audibility of jitter at levels present in even poorly-performing modern consumer audio equipment. And even there, the solutions are obvious. One can't get back the time wasted in reading the useless CA&E fluff piece, so there is no "solution" there. But one can safely ignore people braying about jitter in the context of consumer audio equipment as lacking any sort of empirical support at all from even a single controlled listening test for their position.


----------



## Snail (Mar 22, 2010)

Well DS-21 that was closer to a nice reply. Still, why do you want to be so, well frankly, rude in your posts? Seriously dude, a smart person would definitely understand it's better to treat people with respect. It's the honorable thing to do and the civil thing to do. I would hope you can see that. Again I ask, why do you post? Is it to inform, to educate or just to chat about the subject?


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> Why does one need to "hear" what is in all probability a perfectly transparent digital source?
> 
> The only thing that would be remotely interesting would be to see if the displayed signal processing is what is actually output. My hunch is that the displays are pretty accurate, i.e. if you dial in a crossover with a specific frequency at a specific slope or a parametric EQ band of a given center and Q, that's basically what you'll get. But that is just speculation based on manufacturer reputation.


Here you go. 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...rrozzeria-deh-p01-freq-respose-eq-x-over.html

This is what the 'review' from the magazine should have looked like. At the very least, they should have had a few measurements to go along with the writers 'impressions'.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ pretty much what the first page of this thread says.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

alachua said:


> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...rrozzeria-deh-p01-freq-respose-eq-x-over.html
> 
> This is what the 'review' from the magazine should have looked like. At the very least, they should have had a few measurements to go along with the writers 'impressions'.


I missed that one. Would be professional reviewers of audio electronics should go to the above link and take notes.


----------



## Hextall 27 (Jan 20, 2010)

Anyone know what the CD Sampling rate of this things is?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Hextall 27 said:


> Anyone know what the CD Sampling rate of this things is?


44kHz, since that is the sample rate of the media being played. If there is a sample rate conversion done in the DSP section.....I dunno.


----------

