# Do sound quality head units exist anymore?



## StealthHunter (Jun 16, 2010)

I like to think of myself as a home audio audiophile. I don't know too much about car audio, so I joined the forum recently to seek help in putting together a new system. The last time I had a nice car system was when Nakamichi was the all and end all of audiophile car audio. Since then Nakamichi has fallen, with even Niro Nakamichi himself leaving the company and starting another business. So whats the new benchmark? Thats what I came to find out. And here are some of my findings and thoughts.

The Clarion today is not the Clarion of the 80s. Those amazing rack systems they installed into certain luxury cars are still renowned 30 years later for their build and sound quality. Clarion today is an embarrassment. 

Sony? Sony has been even a bigger disaster story. In the 70s, they basically invented the CD and CD Player together with Phillips. Today Sony is just another mass produced electronics company. 

Denon flirted with car audio once upon a time. They made some decent equipment. But now, together with their home audio line, they too have lost their novelty. 

Mcintosh? The MX406 is just some pretty thing to look at in your car for all those people who have spent thousands of dollars in Mcintosh home audio equipment.

Alpine? The list goes on and on...

Is there really a difference between the Nakamichi's of today and the big box store brands in terms of sound quality? Whats is the difference between a $1000 head unit and a $100 head unit when you're just listening to audio CD or mp3? 

Audio CDs are 16bit/44.1khz, so WTF are you going to do with a 24bit DAC? The 24bit DAC has become the audiophile's equivalent of the ricer's Type-R sticker, completely ****ing useless.

The higher end units advertise 96khz clocks while the regular units don't seem to mention the clock frequency at all. But since they are capable of playing Audio CD and are capable of lossless AAC files, I'm guessing they're around 48khz. Sure the higher 96khz clock might be nice to have but all you're doing is interpolating the 44.1khz samples found in the Audio CD. Might make the sound "smoother" but then again, if you're driving anything less than an S-Class Mercedes, you're competing with a 60+db noise floor in a car so the dynamics you would otherwise hear in a home audio system with the same capability are completely lost in the car. 

I'm an amateur jazz musician. I have an M-Audio 1010 DAC/ADC at home. I record at 24bit/96khz. Using studio monitors I can tell the difference between a 16bit/44.1khz recording and a 24bit/48khz recording. The sound seems to fill the room better with the latter. Like someone once said on the forums, its like comparing a cosy jam session to a live concert. But between a 24bit/96khz recording and a 24bit/48khz recording, I'd only be guessing. So what am I going to hear in a 16bit/44.1khz recording oversampled/interpolated to 16bit/96khz that I wouldnt hear in the original sample? Some nicely averaged noise maybe? Nothing a vintage power amp couldn't give you. Then you can rave on about how "warm" everything sounds. 

However, if you were watching Bluray or a HD DVD, which was recorded in 24bit/192khz, you would indeed get back your sound quality with a 24bit/192khz DAC. Every bit translates to a 3db increase in SNR. Coupled with the silence of your theatre room and a Bryston or Rotel amplifier, you will indeed hear every 3db increase in SNR from your high end floor standers. 

All high end head units like the P99RS, DRZ9255, C90 etc.. won't even play MP3, so you'll need an external mp3 player. This is just a marketing ploy to counter the negative connotations associated with compressed music in the audiophile world. Adding an mp3 decoder is just more code burnt into the FPGA. It costs them nothing, given they're already paying licensing fees to use the mp3 decoder in other units. It doesn't affect the SNR of the unit whatsoever.

You need to use a handheld mp3 player if you want to listen to mp3s. The output drivers on hand held mp3 player are really ****. They were designed to drive headphones. Using even the best MP3 player in the world, you will still end up with poor sound quality if you're going to be connecting it to the aux input on one of these decks. Using highend headphones is a whole different story. So if you own one of the above mentioned head units and all you play is mp3s on it, please smack yourself in the head right now. And then donate the rest of your disposable income to the poor.

So what do you actually get from a P99RS, DRZ9255,C90, RFX8250, etc..that you don't get from a $100 unit? Twenty bucks worth of brushed aluminium and a copper box? Very good preamps I'm assuming. But really, is it that much better than a regular Pioneer or Kenwood, or Alpine unit ? After you cross a certain price point the analogue components (capacitors, inductors, resistors, etc...) are all going to be of the same quality, if not the exact same components, manufactured in the same factories. The only differences would be board layout and microprocessor features. 

Some companies have patented digital and analogue filters that their marketing dept tries to squeeze as much cash out of as possible. eg, Nakamichi's Harmonic Time Alignment. Unless your notion of what good sound quality is and and the manufacturer's perception matches, you are not going to get the benefit of any of these fancy secret filters. 

If you don't buy the high end decks, you end up with some really cheap polished plastic ****, that looks more like a kitchen appliance than a piece of high end audio equipment. Eg. P99RS vs the DEH-* line. 

I have a "real" Pioneer receiver at home. All brushed aluminium face, aluminium knobs and hardwood case. And you know what? Its just a lowly SX-780. Hardly the highend unit of its time. 

All you get from buying a $1000 head unit is the Placebo effect. No extra sound quality. Just like how today you pay for the status of owning a Mercedes, and not for the once famous build quality of days gone by.

I was seriously considering buying a DRZ9255 from one of the forum members recently. But then I asked myself, what am I really getting?

Phew... that should keep the shoutbox free of my groaning for a while


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

when you record don't go for 96K, try 88.2K and listen to the end results on consumable meda. I like 88.2 WAY better. Back to the show 

The ipod dock connector has a wonderful output, not hot, but clean as a whistle and many have a decent DA in them, possibly better than your m-audio, and they play lossless


----------



## crzystng (May 2, 2008)

:rimshot::lurk:


----------



## sam3535 (Jan 21, 2007)

StealthHunter said:


> Just like how today you pay for the status of owning a Mercedes, and not for the once infamous build quality of days gone by.


infamous means bad. jus sayin.


----------



## bboyvek (Dec 16, 2008)

you wont hear a difference among hu, just get the one you like and has the functions you need... Having said that, I like how the mcintoshs/nakamichis look


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

I bought my 9255 for what it's capable of doing. Your 100 dollar HU cannot run 3 way+sub active, it doesn't have TA, etc.
If you wanna add a bunch of extra crap to do all that then be my guest....


----------



## chipss (Nov 13, 2009)

In the case of the P99RS 
gives you ta/ and a eq that’s does wonderful things for your soundstage. 
A built in crossover that will do a 3 way active front stage. 
Ability to flip phase on each driver, turn drivers on and off, 
Ability to do all this right on the head unit. 
Once ya start tuning it all makes sense…

Some day ill have one….


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

StealthHunter said:


> You need to use a handheld mp3 player if you want to listen to mp3s. The output drivers on hand held mp3 player are really ****. They were designed to drive headphones. Using even the best MP3 player in the world, you will still end up with poor sound quality if you're going to be connecting it to the aux input on one of these decks. Using highend headphones is a whole different story. So if you own one of the above mentioned head units and all you play is mp3s on it, please smack yourself in the head right now. And then donate the rest of your disposable income to the poor.


You may find this interesting...maybe not. Seems your mind is already made up.
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-3gs-unloaded-headphone-out-measurements.html


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

*Buy a wide variety of HUs and test out yourself....then come back and tell us what you find 

You do make some valid points though *


----------



## Horsemanwill (Jun 1, 2008)

the p99rs and the p01 play mp3s btw


----------



## Salad Fingers (Jun 14, 2009)

StealthHunter said:


> All high end head units like the P99RS, DRZ9255, C90 etc.. won't even play MP3, so you'll need an external mp3 player. This is just a marketing ploy to counter the negative connotations associated with compressed music in the audiophile world.


Actually the P99RS will play MP3, WMA, AAC, and WAV files on a disc or USB hard drive. It already has USB built on (so no extra parts like the 9887), and will do full function iPod control through the head unit with a simple USB to iPod chord. It will even play Apple Lossless files with full sound quality because it has an industry first "direct digital bit pipe from the iPod/iPhone to the DSP and DAC"... pretty cool as I use the Lossless format. You can even add bluetooth for your phone to this unit, and it will bluetooth music as well. I would say that this is a high end head unit worthy of the money. The DRZ9255 doesn't have all of these features, but for what you can pick one up for second hand (wink wink) it still has a **** ton of convenient sound features (you don't need any external processor to run a 3 way active front plus sub with the crossover capabilities or time alignment). It has two aux in's, so you could use one of these guys...

Pac-Audio.com Product Details | iPod Integration for your car and More by Pac-Audio - Connecting you to the future

... and get a fixed signal out of the iPod/iPhone to the head unit and charging. If you don't want to use the device to control it, and aren't happy with the convenience features, just do what I had considered and run something like this...

Kenwood KIV-BT900 Digital media receiver at Crutchfield.com

...and run the front out of it to one of the aux in's of the DRZ... They aren't worthless, they are actually a very practical alternative to a decent HU added with a separate processor/crossover.


----------



## chipss (Nov 13, 2009)

my 880 will play mp3 as well....
I love the P99RS but that price ouch, my 880 nib, was $300 but they seemed to vanish off the face of the earth 6 months ago, the 800's as well.

glad I got one before they were gone...best bang for the buch sq head unit I have ever owned.


----------



## crzystng (May 2, 2008)

I specifically remember the "Denford" (Denon created in conjunction with Rockford Fosgate) Plaid MP3's. Also I know the 9815's-9887's do as well, however they are not considered true "audiophile" quality. Just the next best thing for those WITH a budget.

However, I think those are a little off track as a true "audiophile" will nit pick all day at even some of the best compressed MP3 files.


----------



## cyberdraven (Oct 28, 2009)

I guess we've fancied much on tuning- EQ, TA, Crossovers. I would personally have a "decent" sound with a dead center, having wide soundstage and proper imaging than having an Analog sounding system with no proper alignment. We just couldnt live without tuning in car audio because of the car environment.

Back in the days, most hi-end stuff are dead heads with bass and treble knobs. Needless to say, many opted to have an outboard processor and crossover. To sum it up, advances on technology invented a package solution in the form of a single deck.


----------



## JdotP17 (Apr 24, 2010)

In my opinion Headunits are very poor pieces of audio equiptment, just look at their size, how can you possible cram in all that technology, features and proper space managment, cabling and a decent power supply in a box the size of a CD drive.

If you want top quality sound in your car the easiest solution is simply, buy a laptop connect it to an external DAC via opitcal then an EQ Fader box (with Front and Rear + Sub woofer outputs to Crossover box (Only for Active) to speakers. Job done.

You know have all the features possible in the entire audiophile world avalible through the laptop, the quality of home audio Digital to analog converter (i.e if you prefer non-oversampling go ahead) and the functions of a fader control to fader front to rear not that youll ever use your rear speakers if your a real audiophile.

Thats my opinion, ive tried a few headunits and they all sound so very digital and tinney, very unnatural sounding of which is only really good for Dance, Drum and Bass and Hip Hop genres of music (surprise surprise).

P.s You want really good quality amplifiers, speakers e.t.c, look outside of America. Focal for speakers (British/French), Genesis series 3 for amplfiers (British) and possibly ( I know very little) Morel/Focal for Subwoofers.

Thanks.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

StealthHunter said:


> Audio CDs are 16bit/44.1khz, so WTF are you going to do with a 24bit DAC? The 24bit DAC has become the audiophile's equivalent of the ricer's Type-R sticker, completely ****ing useless.


24 bit converters are very necessary on almost all newer headunts because they are needed for more accurate DSP work. 

On the ADC it allows a clean conversion without degradation of an analog source like a quality AUX input. It also gives the DSP a more detail description of the 16/44 signal so the it can process be more accurately.

On the DAC side it is needed because the signal leaving the DSP will be at or at a higher quality then 24 bits. So why convert it back down to analog with a 16 bit converter when you will get an increase in quality by doing it at 24 bit. Even though the signal is originally not more then 16 bits, that does not mean that you won't degrade it further by doing a 16 bit D to A on it. Look at the thread posted above of the iPhone measurements. Notice what happens to a 16 bit signal from an iPhone when sampled at 16 bits versus 24 bits. The same things happens when a 24 or 32 bits DSP signal is truncated to 16 or 24 bits, but in reverse instead.


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

SQ headunits in a car is mosty about DSP ability if anything. Most of your points are valid so what really matters is having some form of room correction to make up for improper speaker placement and reflections.


----------



## chipss (Nov 13, 2009)

back to the op qestion,I would say, no not many, its all about dvd, nav, blue tooth,back up cams and ipod, thats the bulk of what is out there, and very few sq type units anymore...in the usa...the P99RS for me is the only head unit out there new I like...that I can afford...

the carputer is a cool idea..


----------



## SQ'in (Oct 28, 2009)

how about a head unit that is stricky SQ, no features just great transport signal and no amp. Like for people who have a Bit 1 or EQT's or MS-8 etc etc... is there a deck like that?


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

JdotP17 said:


> In my opinion Headunits are very poor pieces of audio equiptment, just look at their size, how can you possible cram in all that technology, features and proper space managment, cabling and a decent power supply in a box the size of a CD drive.


The same way you can cram 160gb worth of memory, a DAC, and plethora of other things like a miniature processor and operating system into a little box the size of an Ipod or other MP3 player. Or 900 watts RMS of amplification into an amplifier the chassis size of what used to be a small 2 channel in the 80s or early 90s. Moore's law is a beautiful thing  I mean look at the JBL MS-8, the thing is basically a supercomputer on top of offering a LOT of outputs both in preamp outs as well as being capable of driving 8 speakers itself. In a pretty damn small chassis. The only thing the chassis size of a HU limits is a dedicated power supply such as something like toroidal transformers. But in all reality since we're talking about SQ headunits I'd say a deadhead would be preferred anyway to the "purists". And for each one of us that wants a deadhead there are probably 1000 that either don't want one or don't care whether it has an amplifier is in there or not. Alpine wouldn't have axed the deadhead if the thing sold. In a moving vehicle it makes no difference whatsoever in audible performance.

Realistically the purist class A or extreme A/B, tube amp, crowd spending thousands upon thousands on sources are going the way of the dodo bird. For a lot of different (very good) reasons. People don't want gigantic amplifier/receiver racks clogging up their cars and living rooms just like they don't want big monkey coffins sitting right beside the TV anymore. Especially when the difference in said components is very little other than the level of DSP capability and power offered



JdotP17 said:


> You want really good quality amplifiers, speakers e.t.c, look outside of America. Focal for speakers (British/French), Genesis series 3 for amplfiers (British) and possibly ( I know very little) Morel/Focal for Subwoofers.


Honestly I have to disagree. I agree that Europe offers a LOT of excellent speakers in the form of DIY drivers, but in terms of prepackaged dedicated car audio sets, they offer nothing with a real advantage. In terms of amplifiers Zapco makes amps as good as anybody's (Genesis amps are great as well). The JBL 660GTI midbass driver will chew up and spit out anything that comes from Focal's car audio lineup as will a lot of different tweeters. Subwoofers, well I'd put a JL W7, JBL GTI, Aurasound's many subs, against anything that comes out of Morel or Focal's camp. But I'm not saying that in an america rules kind of way, as American car audio has degraded since the 90s but is starting to show some promise again. What I'm saying is great speakers come from everywhere and people would be doing themselves a disservice limiting themselves in that sense


----------



## StealthHunter (Jun 16, 2010)

chad said:


> The ipod dock connector has a wonderful output, not hot, but clean as a whistle and many have a decent DA in them, possibly better than your m-audio, and they play lossless


Better than the M-Audio? Highly unlikely. The very music you are playing on your iPod was likely recorded using M-Audio gear.



UNBROKEN said:


> I bought my 9255 for what it's capable of doing. Your 100 dollar HU cannot run 3 way+sub active, it doesn't have TA, etc.


What is with this fascination for "active" (what a horrible misnomer even). You do realise that if you're playing the aux jack from an iPod you are actually degrading the sound quality by using the DSP? The analogue signal needs to be first digitised, then run through the digital filters, and then converted back to analogue. All these stages increase the SNR of your signal. You're better off using the simpler analogue crossovers in your amplifier. 



Salad Fingers said:


> Actually the P99RS will play MP3, WMA, AAC, and WAV files on a disc or USB hard drive.


Oh, my mistake. Thanks. 



chips said:


> I love the P99RS but that price ouch, my 880 nib, was $300 but they seemed to vanish off the face of the earth 6 months ago, the 800's as well.
> 
> glad I got one before they were gone...best bang for the buch sq head unit I have ever owned.


Wooferetc has the P800RS listed on their website. DEH-P800PRS - Pioneer Premier CD Receiver with High Quality Audio

I've heard wooferetc is terrible to deal with. Probably best call to confirm stock first. Then call again to confirm a second time 

Not too difficult to look at not, has all the features everyone wants. Why should you pay anymore for anything else?



t3sn4f2 said:


> 24 bit converters are very necessary on almost all newer headunts because they are needed for more accurate DSP work.
> 
> On the ADC it allows a clean conversion without degradation of an analog source like a quality AUX input. It also gives the DSP a more detail description of the 16/44 signal so the it can process be more accurately.
> 
> On the DAC side it is needed because the signal leaving the DSP will be at or at a higher quality then 24 bits. So why convert it back down to analog with a 16 bit converter when you will get an increase in quality by doing it at 24 bit. Even though the signal is originally not more then 16 bits, that does not mean that you won't degrade it further by doing a 16 bit D to A on it. Look at the thread posted above of the iPhone measurements. Notice what happens to a 16 bit signal from an iPhone when sampled at 16 bits versus 24 bits. The same things happens when a 24 or 32 bits DSP signal is truncated to 16 or 24 bits, but in reverse instead.


Very correct. I completely forgot about that. Because people are relying on the digital filters in these units, the digitised signal must be as close to the original analogue for adequate reproduction. Thus the need for higher resolution DACs. Good point 



JdotP17 said:


> In my opinion Headunits are very poor pieces of audio equiptment, just look at their size, how can you possible cram in all that technology, features and proper space managment, cabling and a decent power supply in a box the size of a CD drive.
> 
> If you want top quality sound in your car the easiest solution is simply, buy a laptop connect it to an external DAC via opitcal then an EQ Fader box (with Front and Rear + Sub woofer outputs to Crossover box (Only for Active) to speakers. Job done.
> 
> You know have all the features possible in the entire audiophile world avalible through the laptop, the quality of home audio Digital to analog converter (i.e if you prefer non-oversampling go ahead) and the functions of a fader control to fader front to rear not that youll ever use your rear speakers if your a real audiophile.


This is actually a very cool idea. Because many manufactures (eg. Maudio, RME, Echo etc.. ) make USB or Firewire studio quality (24bit/192khz) DACs. Only trouble is that keeping a full fledged laptop in a car may be a little unpractical. Thus the car computer is indeed a great option if one can do it properly. Using perhaps a mini-ITX motherboard with an M-Audio Audiophile 192 sound card (M-AUDIO - Audiophile 192 - High-Definition 4-In/4-Out Audio Card with Digital I/O and MIDI) one can make something quite excellent. 




T3mpest said:


> SQ headunits in a car is mosty about DSP ability if anything. Most of your points are valid so what really matters is having some form of room correction to make up for improper speaker placement and reflections.


You hit the nail on the head. I think thats the best way of summarising the dilemma. The car is a very hazardous environment. High quality audio playback is simply not possible without significant filtering and correction. Thus the best head units, ie the so called "SQ head units" are actually no better at reproducing sound than the entry-level units. But its their ability to allow the listener to make use of advanced digital filtering techniques that makes them more capable of creating a better sounding environment.

At the end of the day, its all about "tuning". 

Lots of great ideas on this forum!


----------



## Dangerranger (Apr 12, 2006)

StealthHunter said:


> All you get from buying a $1000 head unit is the Placebo effect. No extra sound quality. Just like how today you pay for the status of owning a Mercedes, and not for the once famous build quality of days gone by.


Really mercedes is a great example. Because realistically the Mercedes product of old wasn't made any better than any other vehicle on the market in terms of the manufacturing process. The materials used weren't better, the methods were just as crude, but their quality came in the form of spending tons of time and money on inspection, then charge a price to make up for it and you're done. If it didn't pass, throw it back to recycle and try again. Then you had companies like Toyota and others changing the manufacturing process and building better and better cars EFFICIENTLY, and companies like Mercedes just flat out couldn't keep up. For good reason. Even Porsche sent their engineers to study Toyota's (their Japanese) manufacturing to implement and it helped them immensely. Chrysler actually helped Mercedes more than Mercedes helped Chrysler. Look at the "base" cars of today versus the base cars of the 1980s, versus the luxury cars of yesteryear and the luxury cars of today. The luxury cars haven't changed much, but the quality of even the lowest level cars of today have improved so much that the gap has narrowed immensely.

Same thing in the "good ol' days" of car audio. "Handmade" is highly overrated. I'll trust a modern machine over whatever "expert" decides he needs to dope my tweeters any day of the week. The best drivers of the day were adaptations of existing home and pro audio designs where the R&D was there to begin with and minor modifications were all that was needed. People tend to remember things a lot better than they really were. Back then, the equipment just wasn't available and affordable like it is now. CAD, FEA, CNC machining, Klippel machines, laser interferometers, all have helped current product immensely from the design process to the final product. It's why people can make anything worth a damn that comes out of Asia to begin with. They've all but guaranteed a quality product BEFORE the speaker is glued together, and inspection will take care of the rest (with far fewer rejects than there used to be). It's also freed up a whole lot more money for research and development. Sad as it is to admit, it's pretty hard for the "little man" to push a product across the table that's comparable for the money compared to a larger company. It's not like they've got an anechoic chamber, klippel analyzer, or interferometer sitting around in their basement. Keep in mind that the current products on the market aren't what they're capable of, they're what will sell. And features sell in this day and age.


----------



## StealthHunter (Jun 16, 2010)

Dangerranger said:


> Really mercedes is a great example.


Lets not use cars in analogies anymore. We all seem to know something about audio, sadly the same can't be said about cars


----------



## chad (Jun 30, 2005)

StealthHunter said:


> Better than the M-Audio? Highly unlikely. The very music you are playing on your iPod was likely recorded using M-Audio gear.



We shall talk about my background some time on the baw 

M-Audio is bottom feeder stuff, yes I own some... because it's affordable.

The DA's in the 5.5G and lower ipods are no slouches


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

StealthHunter said:


> What is with this fascination for "active" (what a horrible misnomer even). You do realise that if you're playing the aux jack from an iPod you are actually degrading the sound quality by using the DSP? The analogue signal needs to be first digitised, then run through the digital filters, and then converted back to analogue. All these stages increase the SNR of your signal. You're better off using the simpler analogue crossovers in your amplifier.


Probably true, but it depends on the quality of each of the two. Although the active head unit will win that battle regardless since you'd be hard pressed to find someone that is only going to utilize those functions that can be found on both your examples. Everyones is going to use the EQ, level adjustments, phase, T/A, and more slope choices that the analog processing of an amp won't have. How else are you going to lower that tweeter level on that amp when the gain is already as low as it can go.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

t3sn4f2 said:


> On the DAC side it is needed because the signal leaving the DSP will be at or at a higher quality then 24 bits.


This depends all on the chip.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> This depends all on the chip.


You're saying that the quality of the d to a depends on the chip quality correct?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

StealthHunter said:


> This is actually a very cool idea. Because many manufactures (eg. Maudio, RME, Echo etc.. ) make USB or Firewire studio quality (24bit/192khz) DACs. Only trouble is that keeping a full fledged laptop in a car may be a little unpractical. Thus the car computer is indeed a great option if one can do it properly. Using perhaps a mini-ITX motherboard with an M-Audio Audiophile 192 sound card (M-AUDIO - Audiophile 192 - High-Definition 4-In/4-Out Audio Card with Digital I/O and MIDI) one can make something quite excellent.


Why is it impractical? I was installing laptops in cars since '99 or so. Laptop + docking station can be a very simple solution if you don't want to go the whole car PC route..


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

t3sn4f2 said:


> You're saying that the quality of the d to a depends on the chip quality correct?


No, I'm saying if the DSP is not upsampling and also isn't making use of increased bitdepth, then 24/96 isn't necessary. Also, some DSP chips will upsample internally but automatically downsample. I don't know what HUs are using these days, but I'm highly suspicious that the 24 bit thing might be a bit of ********.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> No, I'm saying if the DSP is not upsampling and also isn't making use of increased bitdepth, then 24/96 isn't necessary. Also, some DSP chips will upsample internally but automatically downsample. I don't know what HUs are using these days, but I'm highly suspicious that the 24 bit thing might be a bit of ********.


Oh ok


----------



## sniper5431 (Dec 8, 2009)

SQ'in said:


> how about a head unit that is stricky SQ, no features just great transport signal and no amp. Like for people who have a Bit 1 or EQT's or MS-8 etc etc... is there a deck like that?


Alpine 7909.

I did a side by side comparison for a month between a 9887 and the 7909. No comparison in SQ. All my sound processing is done externally. I have 2 7909's they both read burned cds with no problems


----------



## SQ'in (Oct 28, 2009)

great piece of history but i woudn't mind feeding my bit one with optical


----------



## jimmy2345 (Jul 12, 2010)

sniper5431 said:


> Alpine 7909.
> 
> I did a side by side comparison for a month between a 9887 and the 7909. No comparison in SQ. All my sound processing is done externally. I have 2 7909's they both read burned cds with no problems


I agree. I have owned, and compared, every high end SQ deck there is including the forum boner here....the Clarion DRZ9255. The Alpine 7969 comes ahead of all EXCEPT the 7909. Super SQ deck that no one can deny.


----------



## davidmacq (Oct 12, 2008)

Love my cdx-c90 + xdp-4000x but thinking of trying a drz-9255...


----------



## snaimpally (Mar 5, 2008)

StealthHunter said:


> Better than the M-Audio? Highly unlikely. The very music you are playing on your iPod was likely recorded using M-Audio gear.


Doubtful that it was recorded using M-Audio gear but the parent company is Avid, which also owns Digidesign which makes ProTools, which all the studios use. It was probably recorded using Digidesign gear. M-audio is their consumer and prosumer level stuff. I own the M-audio 2496 card and its great but I know the pros don't use it.


----------



## snaimpally (Mar 5, 2008)

To the OP, you should really hear the DEH-P01. (FYI, I too am an amateur musician. I too have been into home audio for a long time.) The DACs and DSP processing are superb. One of the best quality HUs available today IMHO.


----------

