# DEX-P99RS vs. Mcintosh



## thedavidian (Aug 31, 2010)

I had the intention of buying a denon HU- then i realized that there is no warranty for it in the US. and no ipod connectivity, amongst other things.

then i thought about the MX406 or MX5000/4000. but its very limited.
i read that you can even fast forwards or rewind a disc.

i love the DEX-p99RS from Pioneer because of the gadgetry: i needed ipod connectivity (i don't even have a CD player at home anymore), i needed a remote (just in case), and it has HDRadio..

my question is - what am I losing if i choose the Pioneer over the rest.

i also need help with choosing an amp (I have no clue in that area)


thanks


----------



## stills (Apr 13, 2008)

comparing the mcintosh to the pioneer is like comparing ass to titties.

they're both super, but for difffferent reasons.


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

stills said:


> comparing the mcintosh to the pioneer is like comparing ass to titties.
> 
> they're both super, but for difffferent reasons.


lol


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

You're losing nothing except for the McIntosh aesthetic. (I think that's a big loss, personally; I love the way my Mac looks.) 

By going with the Pioneer you're gaining a lot of processing horsepower. (You still need your own measurement gear, though, because for some odd reason Pioneer decided to base their autotune off of a single-point measurement rather than a spatially averaged measurement.)

With the Pioneer's processing zeroed out, they'll sound exactly the same. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to scam you.

And it sounds like to get the best out of the Pioneer you'd want to find an experienced tuner with a good suite of measurement gear. If you're paying that much for the hardware, you should be willing to pay to get the most out of it, too.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> You're losing nothing except for the McIntosh aesthetic. (I think that's a big loss, personally; I love the way my Mac looks.)
> 
> By going with the Pioneer you're gaining a lot of processing horsepower. (You still need your own measurement gear, though, because for some odd reason Pioneer decided to base their autotune off of a single-point measurement rather than a spatially averaged measurement.)
> 
> ...


I have no reason to scam anyone, and I disagree. It's hard for me to believe the sound of the Mac can be reproduced by the Pioneer.

People forget that certain headunits have a specific sound. Can the Pioneer help your stage and imaging with its processing power....yes. But will it add to the warmth and natural-ness of the music....the instrument seperation...etc. Hell no.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

sq_assasin said:


> I have no reason to scam anyone, and I disagree. It's hard for me to believe the sound of the Mac can be reproduced by the Pioneer.
> 
> People forget that certain headunits have a specific sound. Can the Pioneer help your stage and imaging with its processing power....yes. But will it add to the warmth and natural-ness of the music....the instrument seperation...etc. Hell no.


You're gonna get it!:laugh:


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> You're losing nothing except for the McIntosh aesthetic. (I think that's a big loss, personally; I love the way my Mac looks.)
> 
> By going with the Pioneer you're gaining a lot of processing horsepower. (You still need your own measurement gear, though, because for some odd reason Pioneer decided to base their autotune off of a single-point measurement rather than a spatially averaged measurement.)
> 
> ...


Jay I hear you keep saying this and I understand way, but man I will have to disagree with you. Designs just differ to much to say this. I have 3 very nice heads here, one a Dead head with no internal processing, on a dead head with internal processing and one highly modified dead head with no internal processing and they all sound different even with the processing turned off in the unit with processing. Two of them not so much, but one of them it just very noticeable. 

On one of the heads the Front and Rear outputs sound different and it is very noticeable. The only difference in the outputs is one has coupling caps in line and the other does not. Man i have not heard a difference as noticeable until I listen to this deck and it is as simple as a caps in or out. This is simply why I say it is just to bold of a statement to say they will sound the same. The circuitry could just differ to much. 

I live close enough to you so you can hear it for yourself. Will they measure different more then likely yes. Is one design inferior to the other some my say yes, some may say no, but all are very nice heads in their own right.

But I agree with you. The P99 for the OP wants will be hard to beat.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

sq_assasin said:


> I have no reason to scam anyone, and I disagree. It's hard for me to believe the sound of the Mac can be reproduced by the Pioneer.


Reality is often "hard for [people] to believe," but that does not make it less real.

The "sound" of the Mac (which is in fact no sound at all except what's on the disk) can easily be reproduced by the Pioneer. The "sound" of the Pioneer (with its advanced filtering properly employed) cannot be reproduced by the Mac, though. At least, not without an external signal processor that can create the same transfer function one created with the Pioneer.

Keep in mind I'm not a partisan for the Pioneer. I don't own one, and the chances of me ever owning one are only slightly nonzero. I use an external processor with less flexibility but a superior auto-tune compared to the Pioneer's onboard processing so most of its real benefits are moot to me, and I like the way my McIntosh HU looks too much! But for someone who's not interested in the autotune feature - Pioneer's doesn't rely on valid measurements because it's a single-point system rather than a spatially-averaged system, so it's not as good as Audyssey's or JBL's - and doesn't want an external signal processor that Pioneer is probably the best thing currently on the market.



sq_assasin said:


> People forget that certain headunits have a specific sound.


No, they don't.



H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> Jay I hear you keep saying this and I understand way, but man I will have to disagree with you. Designs just differ to much to say this.


How "designs" differ just isn't relevant to this discussion. There are many different paths to achieve the same end result. And yes, there are examples of digital sources that are incompetently designed from the start (there has been some talk on this forum of a Clarion HU line with so-poor-that-it's-audible S/N problems). There are probably more examples of "high end" HU's "modded" by incompetent audiophool hacks, where in the name of fitting boutique-brand parts to a board they ruin a perfectly good circuit.



H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> On one of the heads the Front and Rear outputs sound different and it is very noticeable. The only difference in the outputs is one has coupling caps in line and the other does not.


I suspect the difference is probably just a level-based one. A level that's a squidge hot or cold isn't a valid reason to spend megabucks on one part vs. another...



H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> Will they measure different more then likely yes. Is one design inferior to the other some my say yes, some may say no, but all are very nice heads in their own right.


If one measures audibly inferior to another and the variance is so great that it's audible, the inferior measuring one not a "very nice head." It is, in fact, simply not a high fidelity audio component.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

Believe what you want to believe, i will keep in my own thoughts on that regard (seems to be pointless here) but the fact remains that the McIntosh and P99RS are two different animals with two different purposes/goals. Pick the one that suits your needs...that being said I got a LNIB Pioneer DEH-P01 (Japan-spec DEX-P99RS but comes with its own 6ch external amp and rumored "better" internals)


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

First, serious question about your P-01: is the amp bridgeable to three channels? If so, and you're willing to separate the amp from the head, PM me. 

Second, how are they that different? They're both attractive, expensive digital sources. Yes, the McIntosh trades more on aesthetics, brand snobbery, throwback/retro looks and heritage, while the Pioneer_ trades more on just being able to do more stuff. 

But I think it's pretty clear that the market for people willing to pay lots of money for a car audio digital source is small, and all of the firms that serve the market are all chasing after all of those potential customers.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

I need to look in the manual and see if the amp is bridgable but unfortunately I will not separate it from the DEH-P01

They are different because they are designed for similar but different end-users. Asthetically is debatable. If you are saying that all well made HUs are the same, then thats a mute point. Now the DEH-P01 has DSP functions while the McIntosh does not, now which one is better?


----------



## GENEXXA (Aug 30, 2010)

What is the biggest difference of the P99RS and MX5000?
Im wondring on buying a MX5000.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

azngotskills said:


> Now the DEH-P01 has DSP functions while the McIntosh does not, now which one is better?


Um, how is that anything but a restatement of my second post in this thread:



DS-21 said:


> The "sound" of the Mac (which is in fact no sound at all except what's on the disk) can easily be reproduced by the Pioneer. The "sound" of the Pioneer (with its advanced filtering properly employed) cannot be reproduced by the Mac, though. At least, not without an external signal processor that can create the same transfer function one created with the Pioneer.





GENEXXA said:


> What is the biggest difference of the P99RS and MX5000?
> Im wondring on buying a MX5000.


Looks and DSP.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> First, serious question about your P-01: is the amp bridgeable to three channels? If so, and you're willing to separate the amp from the head, PM me.
> 
> Second, how are they that different? They're both attractive, expensive digital sources. Yes, the McIntosh trades more on aesthetics, brand snobbery, throwback/retro looks and heritage, while the Pioneer_ trades more on just being able to do more stuff.
> 
> But I think it's pretty clear that the market for people willing to pay lots of money for a car audio digital source is small, and all of the firms that serve the market are all chasing after all of those potential customers.


snaimpally is selling the little amp, you can ask him for more details. But after I use this amp, I until today never hook back my JL Audio A6450 despite my midbass sounds a bit weak



azngotskills said:


> I need to look in the manual and see if the amp is bridgable but unfortunately I will not separate it from the DEH-P01
> 
> They are different because they are designed for similar but different end-users. Asthetically is debatable. If you are saying that all well made HUs are the same, then thats a mute point. Now the DEH-P01 has DSP functions while the McIntosh does not, now which one is better?


Nope, the amp cannot be bridged.


----------



## GENEXXA (Aug 30, 2010)

Which have the best DSP?


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

DS-21 said:


> Um, how is that anything but a restatement of my second post in this thread:


Can I not state my opinion smarty?  But seriously, you have to admit that you cant say that ALL HUs sound the same, then add the stipulation once you turn off all DSP functions or take out anything that can contribute to altering sounds. Sounds like the Richard Clark Amp Challenge doesn't 



GENEXXA said:


> Which have the best DSP?


Are you serious??? The McIntosh doenst have any DSP


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

azngotskills said:


> Can I not state my opinion smarty?  But seriously, you have to admit that you cant say that ALL HUs sound the same, then add the stipulation once you turn off all DSP functions or *take out anything that can contribute to altering sounds.* Sounds like the Richard Clark Amp Challenge doesn't
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious??? The McIntosh doenst have any DSP


That is my point. All sound the same is just to bold of a statement.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

azngotskills said:


> Can I not state my opinion smarty?  But seriously, you have to admit that you cant say that ALL HUs sound the same, then add the stipulation once you turn off all DSP functions or take out anything that can contribute to altering sounds.


Of course you can! In fact, it's idiotic not to.

Otherwise, you're just comparing features, but doing so in an intellectually dishonest way.


----------



## GENEXXA (Aug 30, 2010)

Didn't know that the McIntosh didn't have DSP. 

Does it exist extra equipment to the MX5000, like DSP's?


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

What music do you listen to? Is it modern day, brick wall compressed, loud as all get out, loudness war discs? 

OR

Do you listen to older, quality recordings such as Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs/Ultradisc, CBS/Sony Mastersound, etc?

If you mainly listen to the modern day, brick wall compressed discs, then it is function of garbage in/garbage out. In other words, your choice of head unit would be the least of your worries.


----------



## GENEXXA (Aug 30, 2010)

Listen to mostly old music.
But can listen to pop.

Im going for an SQ HU, and today I have Alpine CDA-9887.


----------



## Catman (Mar 18, 2008)

GENEXXA said:


> Didn't know that the McIntosh didn't have DSP.
> 
> Does it exist extra equipment to the MX5000, like DSP's?


The McIntosh doesn't 'need' DSP ...it is for serious SQ installations where a system in properly designed and installed.

The Pioneer is for people who just pick out a bunch of stuff from a shiny catalog and install it with no thought ...then 'fix it' with DSP (band aid) after the fact.

>^..^<


----------



## GENEXXA (Aug 30, 2010)

Since I am new in the "SQ Game", and dont have all the expericene with adjusting Time Allignment, EQ, etc properly. Mayby I just take a MX5000 

But I have some friends (one is EMMA winner of 2009), that CAN adjust those things properly, and can teach me. (Have adjusted the 9887 after theirs suggestions, AND IT GOOOOD). Mayby I need a HU with a good DSP.

MX5000 + Audison BitOne?


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

Catman said:


> The McIntosh doesn't 'need' DSP ...it is for serious SQ installations where a system in properly designed and installed.
> 
> The Pioneer is for people who just pick out a bunch of stuff from a shiny catalog and install it with no thought ...then 'fix it' with DSP (band aid) after the fact.
> 
> >^..^<


That a boy. It's about time someone spoke the truth. 

A big FAT.....AGREED!!


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Catman said:


> The McIntosh doesn't 'need' DSP ...it is for serious SQ installations where a system in properly designed and installed.
> 
> The Pioneer is for people who just pick out a bunch of stuff from a shiny catalog and install it with no thought ...then 'fix it' with DSP (band aid) after the fact.
> 
> >^..^<


A big fat disagree from me. Regardless of the install there are going to be things about a car environment that just can't be fixed. Unless you're saying that a ridiculously modified interior is a requirement for a serious SQ install, and that everything else is improperly designed I don't think your statement is accurate. The simple fact that we sit off center in our cars is something that really cannot be fixed without extensive modifications, to the point that the car isn't even drivable, or dsp.

I will agree that too much important can be placed on dsp vs having quality parts to begin with, but using even the highest quality components isn't going to necessarily yield high quality results.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

gijoe said:


> A big fat disagree from me. Regardless of the install there are going to be things about a car environment that just can't be fixed. Unless you're saying that a ridiculously modified interior is a requirement for a serious SQ install, and that everything else is improperly designed I don't think your statement is accurate. The simple fact that we sit off center in our cars is something that really cannot be fixed without extensive modifications, to the point that the car isn't even drivable, or dsp.
> 
> I will agree that too much important can be placed on dsp vs having quality parts to begin with, but using even the highest quality components isn't going to necessarily yield high quality results.


There are multiple cars winning first place trophies as we speak using NO PROCESSING. Building a TWO SEATER SQ car can be done with no processing as long as you know what your doing in the install phase.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

sq_assasin said:


> There are multiple cars winning first place trophies as we speak using NO PROCESSING. Building a TWO SEATER SQ car can be done with no processing as long as you know what your doing in the install phase.


What organization are these cars winning SQ competitions in with no processing? 

MECA? IASCA? 

Wait, let me guess... USACi? The one that touts being the Loudest sport on earth. Not too long ago, they had a hard time scrounging up 5 competitors for one of the SQ classes in finals.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

ChrisB said:


> What organization are these cars winning SQ competitions in with no processing?
> 
> MECA? IASCA?
> 
> Wait, let me guess... USACi? The one that touts being the Loudest sport on earth. Not too long ago, they had a hard time scrounging up 5 competitors for one of the SQ classes in finals.


Lol. Coming from a guy who claims car audio is dead to him but continually comes to this forum spewing off comments about various things he knows nothing about.

Everyone: if you have any common sense, you will disregard every statement this guy makes. Thus, the reason his question was not addressed.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

GENEXXA said:


> Since I am new in the "SQ Game", and dont have all the expericene with adjusting Time Allignment, EQ, etc properly. Mayby I just take a MX5000
> 
> But I have some friends (one is EMMA winner of 2009), that CAN adjust those things properly, and can teach me. (Have adjusted the 9887 after theirs suggestions, AND IT GOOOOD). *Mayby I need a HU with a good DSP.*
> 
> MX5000 + Audison BitOne?


Definitely. Or even better, a great head unit with a great DSP.

DEX-P99RS.

It is a digital media server (if you include the iPod) that interfaces directly with a 32 bit float DSP. Which then goes to a high quality analog output stage. All from one chassis and with the option for CD and other accessories.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

sq_assasin said:


> Lol. Coming from a guy who claims car audio is dead to him but continually comes to this forum spewing off comments about various things he knows nothing about.
> 
> Everyone: if you have any common sense, you will disregard every statement this guy makes. Thus, the reason his question was not addressed.


You don't see me asking for advice on new purchases do you? Eh Jimmy boy, or whatever name you are going by this week.

The fact of the matter is that USACi is a joke of an organization here in the Gulf States. They told an SQ competitor that he needed another pair of midbass drivers in his doors and he could use some color matched interior panels to spruce up the appearance of his install. Yeah, color matched panels have a lot to do with SQ. It would kind of explain why cars with passive crossovers and no processing are doing so well too.

If these guys win MECA or IASCA going head to head against vehicles with processing, maybe I will take merit in what you say. Until then, everything you type should be disregarded just as everything I type.


----------



## thedavidian (Aug 31, 2010)

i love the way it looks as well. for me its one of the main focal points of the presentation...

are there any other units that perform well that i wouldn't find in Fast / Furious?
all the other 'good ones' look like.... well--- toys. :/


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

Catman said:


> The McIntosh doesn't 'need' DSP ...it is for serious SQ installations where a system in properly designed and installed.
> 
> The Pioneer is for people who just pick out a bunch of stuff from a shiny catalog and install it with no thought ...then 'fix it' with DSP (band aid) after the fact.
> 
> >^..^<


Hey Pussyman, if you actually believe that ****, then why won't you answer my challenge? Fraidy-cat??

Tell you what, let's change it a bit. You won't even have to bring gear. We can use my McIntosh. Same other terms ($25,000 each in escrow, winner takes all), except that I pledge to use the money I win from you for flood relief efforts in Pakistan? How about we listen for improvement, not difference. And compare whatever HU you want in whatever system you want without processing, to the same system with my DSP processor (Alpine PXE-H650, running Audyssey MultEQ XT)?



sq_assasin said:


> That a boy. It's about time someone spoke the truth.
> 
> A big FAT.....AGREED!!


My challenge to Pussyman stands for you, too, if you're willing to come to ATL on your own dime.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

thedavidian said:


> i love the way it looks as well. for me its one of the main focal points of the presentation...
> 
> are there any other units that perform well that i wouldn't find in Fast / Furious?
> all the other 'good ones' look like.... well--- toys. :/


Your OEM unit with a standalone processor such as a JBL MS-8 or Alpine PXE-H660.

I agree with you about the others looking like toys. Well, the Pioneers look much better in person than I would have expected, but most of them do like they were designed by 14 year-old videogame addicts with glandular issues. Which is why I went for the McIntosh.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Having been a competitor and judge since 2001 in IASCA and MECA, I don't recall a single car that has done any such thing...much less a 2 seat judged car.



sq_assasin said:


> There are multiple cars winning first place trophies as we speak using NO PROCESSING. Building a TWO SEATER SQ car can be done with no processing as long as you know what your doing in the install phase.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> Having been a competitor and judge since 2001 in IASCA and MECA, I don't recall a single car that has done any such thing...much less a 2 seat judged car.


Maybe you should do some research. You are living in a processing bubble.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> Hey Pussyman, if you actually believe that ****, then why won't you answer my challenge? Fraidy-cat??
> 
> Tell you what, let's change it a bit. You won't even have to bring gear. We can use my McIntosh. Same other terms ($25,000 each in escrow, winner takes all), except that I pledge to use the money I win from you for flood relief efforts in Pakistan? How about we listen for improvement, not difference. And compare whatever HU you want in whatever system you want without processing, to the same system with my DSP processor (Alpine PXE-H650, running Audyssey MultEQ XT)?
> 
> ...


I am sure that's my goal. Travel all the way to ATL to meet some weirdo that wants to argue with people on an internet forum all so I can make a subjective opinion that has already been established by years of experience through buying, installing, and selling just about every piece of equipment that has been made in the past 20 years. 

I have better things to do and the truth is in the facts. Not in the words of the people of DIYMA that live in a world where processing is absolutely needed to have a great install. The fact is....your installation skills are lacking. How do you feel? Incompetant maybe?


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

sq_assasin said:


> I am sure that's my goal. Travel all the way to ATL to meet some weirdo that wants to argue with people on an internet forum all so I can make a subjective opinion that has already been established by years of experience through buying, installing, and selling just about every piece of equipment that has been made in the past 20 years.
> 
> I have better things to do and the truth is in the facts. Not in the words of the people of DIYMA that live in a world where processing is absolutely needed to have a great install. The fact is....your installation skills are lacking. How do you feel? Incompetant maybe?



My question is, what fact? You have mentioned mythical competition winners, from a competition that is 100% subjective in judging, of which the competition is so small that everyone receives a trophy.


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

I was in a competition recently where there was only one trophy awarded. The winner was running a DEX-P99RS.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

Catman said:


> The McIntosh doesn't 'need' DSP ...it is for serious SQ installations where a system in properly designed and installed.
> 
> The Pioneer is for people who just pick out a bunch of stuff from a shiny catalog and install it with no thought ...then 'fix it' with DSP (band aid) after the fact.
> 
> >^..^<


The reason why such claims are pure nonsense becomes obvious when we realize that the car's ENVIRONMENT is doing a whole lot of nasty PROCESSING to our precious audio signals. Sure, the environment is performing its nasty processing in the _acoustic_ domain, rather than the _electrical_ (or "DSP") domain ... but that doesn't matter a bit to someone who understands signal processing in _all_ domains.

Some examples of processing that the car's environment performs :

1. Reflections ... easily modeled by first-order image theory.
2. Cabin gain ... easily modeled by vehicle's transfer function in the bass
3. Non-centered listening ... not-so-easily modeled by ITD (including phase) and IID transfer functions
4. VERY different response for largely-distant (compared to room size) listeners
5. Random resonances & cancellations
6. Additive noise

To a signal-processing guy, all of these nasties can be modeled as undesirable transfer functions (well, we tend to like the cabin gain). We use installation techniques, as well as manipulations to the electrical signal (via analog or digital processing) to COMBAT, invert, or "un-do" these nasty transfer functions.

Dis-avowing _any_ of the tools at your disposal to combat the car's nasty environment ... based on nothing more than a religious aversion to DSP ... is just plain closed-minded. The signal that reaches your ears will be whole lot LESS "pure", if you don't use every tool possible to "un-do" the nasty processing that the car is performing on your signal.

In short : the car is performing ASSLOADS of processing to your precious audio signal. Don't dismiss ANY tools at your disposal to combat that nasty processing!


----------



## thedavidian (Aug 31, 2010)

sq_assasin said:


> Most, if not all, true high end headunits do NOT have a true ipod interface/connectivity. It's about playing a CD as accurately as possible. Not compressed data.


the thing is i don't buy cd's anymore. i don't mind burning mp3 cds in lossless uncompressed format (i know how to do that)

but switching between cds every time i wanna change up tunes is so 90's.

"Most, if not all, true high end headunits do NOT have a true ipod interface/connectivity."

i would like to know other brands names in the same aesthetic and performance category of denon and Mc


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

sq_assasin said:


> There are multiple cars winning first place trophies as we speak using NO PROCESSING. Building a TWO SEATER SQ car can be done with no processing as long as you know what your doing in the install phase.


You are so full of ****!!

Who are these competitors, I personally know 4 world champions from last years car audio finals alone, and they all have processing, so who are these people you speak of????

what needs to be done to incorporate a proper install without needing processing??

I guess since no processing is needed these supposed world champions are running passives crossovers as well, like people did back in 1995. Even though back then they have analog eq's, but I am sure you don't even know what they even are.

The Best car audio competitors in the us all use processing Biggs, Buwalda, Elderidge, Matt Roberts, ect... These guys are the best of the best are you claiming you know more than them?? or that you install ideologies are better than theirs?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I attend every major show in the region (being the south since I live in North Carolina) and have since 2001, but the only car that I've seen do what you have claimed was Marky's Probe...but he hasn't shown Iggy regularly in probably 4 years.

Why don't you come up with some names of people who are doing what you are claiming. I personally know just about everyone who has been competing for nearly the last decade. 



sq_assasin said:


> Maybe you should do some research. You are living in a processing bubble.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Hell this guy probably designed the DAC chip in the Mac..WTF would he know about it?



lycan said:


> The reason why such claims are pure nonsense becomes obvious when we realize that the car's ENVIRONMENT is doing a whole lot of nasty PROCESSING to our precious audio signals. Sure, the environment is performing its nasty processing in the _acoustic_ domain, rather than the _electrical_ (or "DSP") domain ... but that doesn't matter a bit to someone who understands signal processing in _all_ domains.
> 
> Some examples of processing that the car's environment performs :
> 
> ...


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

sq_assasin said:


> Maybe you should do some research. You are living in a processing bubble.


Do you know who this guy even is?????

I don't know him personally, but I KNOW who he is, and he is a very, very well respected person in the car audio community. THIS proves you know nobody, and nothing, or you would not have pissed in this guys bed.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

Linear Power & Blues Car Audio - SSA Car Audio Forum


Haven't heard them, but the word is they are smoking people with the only processing being a Linear Power 4 band Preamp/EQ.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

The only was someone is winning with that piece of Junk is by default!

You said you knew people!

I WANT NAMES!!!!

YOU have nothing, your a Troll!


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

mmiller said:


> The only was someone is winning with that piece of Junk is by default!
> 
> You said you knew people!
> 
> ...


And you go around talking **** and adding nothing to this conversation. I backed up my statement with facts. You call names and call me a liar when the point standings speak for themselves.

This isn't 5th grade buddy. Grow up.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

you said he had no processing and he is running an eq, that is processing.

\thread


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

chefhow said:


> you said he had no processing and he is running an eq, that is processing.
> 
> \thread


A 4 band preamp/eq and almost always set flat.


The point is, they are winning. Install can do alot and that was the whole point. Processing should be an after thought if needed after a proper install. Not planned from the beginning to make up for a ****ty install.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

[delete]


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

If its flat then it shouldnt be needed. Anyone who competes and knows how to tune a car knows that eq boost and cut with the correct crossover points can make a HUGE change in how a car and its reflections set the staging. Either you have processing or you dont, and if you dont then you run nothing but that McIntosh HU or transport to the passive xovers.


"Haven't heard them, but the word is they are smoking people with the only processing being a Linear Power 4 band Preamp/EQ" 
I thought you said you havent heard them but then you say its almost always flat, well how do you know?


----------



## GENEXXA (Aug 30, 2010)

Install is 70% of the sound, 20% is signal processing, and last 10% is equipment. (Not my words, but an SQ head in sweden)

You can reach high in an comp with just great install, but to win, you need the last 30%.
That is what I can see in the EMMA (European Mobile Media Association) winning cars. Not seen in real life, but in builds logs.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

chefhow said:


> If its flat then it shouldnt be needed. Anyone who competes and knows how to tune a car knows that eq boost and cut with the correct crossover points can make a HUGE change in how a car and its reflections set the staging. Either you have processing or you dont, and if you dont then you run nothing but that McIntosh HU or transport to the passive xovers.
> 
> 
> "Haven't heard them, but the word is they are smoking people with the only processing being a Linear Power 4 band Preamp/EQ"
> I thought you said you havent heard them but then you say its almost always flat, well how do you know?


It's used for the preamp function mostly.

Point proven, so now try to nitpick something else. Winning with no digital processing. Step your game up.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

Im winning with processing and perfectly fine with it. My goal is to reproduce the sound as it was intended to be heard from the studio. That would include using an EQ and some TA to give me a nice tight center. The width and height in my sound stage come from the install.

And thats not nit picking thats just calling you out on the facts that you have provided, if you want me to nit pick I will.


----------



## lycan (Dec 20, 2009)

All CD players have SUBSTANTIAL _digital processing_ (quantizers, oversamplers, interpolation filters) ... is that because of ****ty installation?

Digital crossover filters are superior, in just about every way one can quantify or measure, than analog crossover filters. Digital crossover filters are _digital processing_. Do we use them because of ****ty installation ... or because we haven't yet invented the perfect point-source loudspeaker?

It's naive to think that one can avoid digital processing. It's silly to want to.

And it's just plain ignorant to ignore the long list of processing that the car's environment does to the signal, or assume that it can all be "best solved" with physical installation techniques alone. What's the scientific basis for that conclusion?

DSP is not the "lazy man's" way out. It's just but one tool, among several, in a wise man's arsenal.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

chefhow said:


> Im winning with processing and perfectly fine with it. My goal is to reproduce the sound as it was intended to be heard from the studio. That would include using an EQ and some TA to give me a nice tight center. The width and height in my sound stage come from the install.
> 
> And thats not nit picking thats just calling you out on the facts that you have provided, if you want me to nit pick I will.


Don't get me wrong. I respect your path and what you are doing. People just think that is the only option when it isn't. Nothing wrong with DSP, it just always isn't a neccesity.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I know Ray Rayfield personally (he owns Linear Power in case you didn't know). I have heard his truck with the modded LP gear and Blues speakers. Does it sound good? Yeah. Would it win a national level SQ competition? No.

Winning a first place trophy at a show where there aren't many good cars doesn't say much. But I just have a 2nd and 3rd at IASCA Finals...what do I know about competition? Never mind the fact that I've judged SBN one year and have judged Elite Summer Nationals for 4 of the 5 years Joe has put it on.

You haven't backed anything up with facts.

And to argue about signal processing with a guy like "lycan" is like pissing in the wind. I mean the man only was one of the designers of the first multibit DAC...Sr. VP of R&D at Crystal Semiconductor before co-founding Silicon Labs. To say he knows something about digital audio is an understatement...his 100+ patents in the field says he knows a thing or three.


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I know Ray Rayfield personally (he owns Linear Power in case you didn't know). I have heard his truck with the modded LP gear and Blues speakers. Does it sound good? Yeah. Would it win a national level SQ competition? No.
> 
> Winning a first place trophy at a show where there aren't many good cars doesn't say much. But I just have a 2nd and 3rd at IASCA Finals...what do I know about competition? Never mind the fact that I've judged SBN one year and have judged Elite Summer Nationals for 4 of the 5 years Joe has put it on.
> 
> ...


Which truck are you refering to? Ray doesn't even have his own personal truck done and competing.

The only truck with Blues/Linear Power that was competing LAST year won it's region and then went on to place fourth at finals. A very close third, and that was with the OLD Blues speakers from the early 90's. Not the newest releases that have been doing well this year.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I've heard his Lighting 5 or 6 years years a go.

I can't view everything on SSA, but are these guys doing USACi?


----------



## sq_assasin (Nov 10, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I've heard his Lighting 5 or 6 years years a go.
> 
> I can't view everything on SSA, but are these guys doing USACi?


You have to create an account to view the posts on SSA. 

Yes, USACi.

Ray's lightning hasn't been redone and is not competing at the moment, but I think it's in the works when he has time. I don't think it has had a new system in 10+ years.

There are multiple guys on the LP/Blues team that are cleaning up these days.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Good for Ray. I was pretty impressed with his truck many moons a go. I am about as die hard LP fan as it gets.


----------



## ds1919 (Dec 29, 2010)

GENEXXA said:


> Didn't know that the McIntosh didn't have DSP.
> 
> Does it exist extra equipment to the MX5000, like DSP's?


I would strongly recommend you go to each manuf's website and look at the units....


----------



## ds1919 (Dec 29, 2010)

Catman said:


> The McIntosh doesn't 'need' DSP ...it is for serious SQ installations where a system in properly designed and installed.
> 
> The Pioneer is for people who just pick out a bunch of stuff from a shiny catalog and install it with no thought ...then 'fix it' with DSP (band aid) after the fact.
> 
> >^..^<


ya know, 99% of the time I would agree, but this deck seems to have broken thru a barrier that Pioneer has never "pioneered". It is quite well made (clarion made one back in 98-99 kinda the same for $1300). I always swore to myself that I'd never let a Pioneer rest in my car, but am seriously thinking this one over. Of course, I would defly compare with a McIntosh hu, my Nak hu, and perhaps other high end units, before I make any plunge. 

I like the idea of having DSP. Back in the day (80's), I used to have to custom make Xovers with various slopes and points, and experimenting with different components (air core, iron core, metalized polyprope or mylar caps, Solen or Siderial, etc etc). And I had to try Zobel networks matched to various amps, and attenuators etc etc. All this to design a system suitable for my latest rides. It was a ton of work! The DSP handles all this easily. Does it create more noise, phase issues, quality issues? That depends on the design of the system, not the fact that the deck has DSP. I would be more worried about the DAC clock timing and its quality more than the DSP. But, they advertise that it is all good stuff. Almost looks like a McIntosh specs/details page online haha. 

High end home systems require tuning also, they're not plug and play. Many countless weeks/months, sometimes years, go into making it sound right. Changing Xovers, Xover points, components, etc. Every home is different just like every car interior is different. DSP is a simple way of tuning, and I really like this automated feature, as long as it's quality is TOP notch.
Cars are much more challenging to get right, than homes....
side note:
One thing I found out on AudioControl's website, is that they say that the ipod bass is lost during the transfer from it to head units. So they designed some little gadget to compensate for it. BUT, its only good thru the headphone output, not for usb. I asked if they could build one but they said no. check out the specs on it tho, looks good.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

ds1919 said:


> ya know, 99% of the time I would agree, but this deck seems to have broken thru a barrier that Pioneer has never "pioneered". It is quite well made (clarion made one back in 98-99 kinda the same for $1300). I always swore to myself that I'd never let a Pioneer rest in my car, but am seriously thinking this one over. Of course, I would defly compare with a McIntosh hu, my Nak hu, and perhaps other high end units, before I make any plunge.
> 
> I like the idea of having DSP. Back in the day (80's), I used to have to custom make Xovers with various slopes and points, and experimenting with different components (air core, iron core, metalized polyprope or mylar caps, Solen or Siderial, etc etc). And I had to try Zobel networks matched to various amps, and attenuators etc etc. All this to design a system suitable for my latest rides. It was a ton of work! The DSP handles all this easily. Does it create more noise, phase issues, quality issues? That depends on the design of the system, not the fact that the deck has DSP. I would be more worried about the DAC clock timing and its quality more than the DSP. But, they advertise that it is all good stuff. Almost looks like a McIntosh specs/details page online haha.
> 
> ...


That's BS, not from you, from them.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/member-product-reviews/77343-iphone-3gs-unloaded-headphone-out-measurements.html

Those measurements are done in through a typically line input that you would find on a head unit. In fact, that line in used is a WAY more difficult load for an iDevice then any head unit line in since it has an unusually low input impedance of 2.2kohms, and a lower sensitivity then 1 volt which doesn't let it be driver to an optimum level by the iDevice's line output voltage.

The only time there should be a roll off in the bass is when there is an extremely low impedance such as you find with a headphone connected. Which is probably where they are getting the data to back up what they say. Although they forget to mention that a head unit AUX input is not a difficult load. 

USB would not suffer any of those short comings since it is a digital stream leaving the Codec (harware) in the iDevice to the DSP or USB transceiver chip of the head unit (in cases where a "USB" input is not actually digital all the way to the DSP chip but instead is converted to analog in the USB transfer chip and is treated like another analog source). It is a bit perfect transfer chain.


Edit: After looking at there web page for the product, this is what that product is meant for. It's used (try) to restore low bass from VERY low bit rate compressed tracks (ie 64kbps or likely below that). Things like satellite radio, free poor quality internet streams, stuff like that that uses high compression which kills the bass (among other things) in order to save bandwidth, space, and protect the content by keeping the option of buying the higher bitrate or CD tracks.

They automatically and incorrectly throw in the iPod in the mix not because it suffer itself from a low in low end, but because many people load it with very low bitrate files and also because many free low bitrate streaming apps now come on those devices. There is nothing wrong with the product if you are someone that uses those type of low quality media, just the marketing is a little misleading. They not say "iPod". They should say "portable devices playing very low bitrate music files".

One problem I do see with it is that if all music sources are going through that one input, which they will be when uses a multi source head unit, then when the bass is restored to normal on the low bitrate tracks it will result in an exaggerated low end on high quality media that did not have a problem. For instance, you dial in the bass for a SAT station then you switch over to CD and no it thinks the regular bass information is lacking and over extends it (ie boomy).


----------

