# High end headunit shootout... this time with data. Looking for headunits.



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Many years back, there was a high end shootout of headunits written up on ECA. Nothing long... just some brief subjective views on decks such as Denon Z1, Mcintosh, etc.

What I'd like to do is do a more _objective _'shootout' by gathering various high end headunits and testing the performance and providing the data to go with it. I don't have a vested interest in supplying my own subjective thoughts (ie: X sound warmer, Z had a better soundstage) because that's too hard to reliably setup in a one-man situation and I don't have the time to dedicate to making it bulletproof. 

What I'd be measuring is SNR, crosstalk, frequency response, and distortion as well as output voltage. One thing I'm most interested in seeing is how the volume pots work; are they logarithmic or linear... or something else. Does the response curve change with volume? 


I'm looking for the following headunits:

Alpine 7990
Alpine 7909
Pioneer Carrozzeria ODR RS-D7xII or RS-D7xIII
Mcintosh MX5000 with or without MDA5000
Mcintosh MX4000 with MDA4000
Denon Z1 (or any of their higher end models)
Clarion DRZ9255, HX-D2, HX-D3 (any or all)
Sound Monitor (I don't recall the exact model numbers)
Pioneer P99

Those are the ones that seem to be highly regarded amongst subjective listening so those are the ones I think would be more interesting to have data on. If you have a suggestion for others, let me know. I genuinely am interested in seeing how these different decks may measure and maybe then we can understand why some are more preferred than others. Or, why some love one and others hate it. 

The data would all be posted on my site with enough pictures to make you drool. 

I started a WTB thread for some of these but thought I'd see if anyone here would be willing to put one of the above on loan.
I know asking for loaners is a shot in the dark, but *I've already had one fellow DIYMA member offer up his MX5000+MDA5000 and it should be here this week*. (Thanks, again, btw)

If anyone has any of the above decks and wouldn't mind loaning them out for a test, LMK. Turnaround time really kind of depends on when you send it. I'm not looking to do all of them in one week. I can take up to a couple months if needed. Like you all, I've got a lot going on and I'm also trying to test about 8-10 drivers for Jerry's midwoofer shootout in Septbember.

TIA,
Erin


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Only other deck I would add Erin is the Pannytube and maybe a Sound Monitor. Wonder if Steve Mac has one he could loan for testing. There are several Sound Monitors floating, did Kirk ever sale his.


----------



## lucas569 (Apr 17, 2007)

lazy subscribe


----------



## beef316 (Dec 12, 2006)

Add c90 to the list?

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## --Kei-- (Sep 8, 2011)

I'd like to see either the clarion DRX or McIntosh MX406 as they are considered by some to be superior to their successors. (i can say that i know their frequency response will not be linear with volume changes as there is a centre tapping on the volume pot for a loudness circuit. Easy enough to bypass for those that don't want/like it though.) If you were in the UK i'd have offered up my upgraded DRX for testing. (as i have 2 working units)


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

no p99???


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The ECD-510 from the ECA test is mine and I still have it if you want an older deck to baseline against.

I have the Denon DCT-1, but I don't know how fair/good it would be for the test since it is modded and you have no stock one to base it against.


----------



## nar93da (Dec 11, 2008)

Erin-

If you want to throw the Sony c90 in there, I can get it out to you?


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

A good thread to keep track of.... Some nice gear about to be put through their paces!


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

Alpina IVA-D800????


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

subscribed.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

It'd be intresting to see how the 80PRS and new Clarion (forget the model)head units stack up against those since they have new technology.


----------



## rc10mike (Mar 27, 2008)

Wonder why the P99 isnt considered. It would be nice to see how it measures against these..


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I've already tested it and posted results in this forum about a year ago.

If someone wants to send me a p99 then I'll run it through the ringer. But it really only matters if the method I choose to use differs from what I used before. So far, it doesn't seem that way. 

Right now I'm testing waters to see what is available. This isn't intended to take flight anytime soon. I've got a lot of things to work through the next few months. but if I can get some of these decks lined up or donated over the next couple months that will be great. I can roll all the data up at the end and post fit all together rather than do a marathon test.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

Subscribed

And in MY opinion, the best HU ever, the Clarion ADCS-1. If you lived closer I'd bring mine to you. Only issues I have of lending it out is:
1) It's NIB, I want to break its cherry,
2) Due to its box size, S&H one way would be about $60. 

I have am issue of CSR where they testes one, have to dig it out and send you their findings. I've read it a dozen times but don't remember the numbers.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

that'd be cool. thanks, dude.


----------



## Lunchbox12 (Sep 4, 2011)

Looking forward to this test. Thanks for making the effort Erin, it would be nice to have head to head comparisons on the parameters you mentioned. I havent seen an objective test done on such an array of headunits. Let's hope you can get 'em all!


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

thehatedguy said:


> The ECD-510 from the ECA test is mine and I still have it if you want an older deck to baseline against.
> 
> I have the Denon DCT-1, but I don't know how fair/good it would be for the test since it is modded and you have no stock one to base it against.


It would be great if a stock one could be found and measured and then compared against this one. 

Aside from this test, I've looked at the FS thread many times, to many wants, not enough means this year.


----------



## SoundJunkie (Dec 3, 2008)

Genxx said:


> Only other deck I would add Erin is the Pannytube and maybe a Sound Monitor. Wonder if Steve Mac has one he could loan for testing. There are several Sound Monitors floating, did Kirk ever sale his.


I have Steve's other Bottlehead in my truck, both mine and the one Steve kept have been modified. I happen to have a Sound Monitor but am a bit reluctant to send it due to its rarity. 

DAT runs a modded Panny also but I think he might have a second one. MACS should have a SM.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Q-Authority (Mar 31, 2008)

Would love to see the results. Would especially like to see frequency vs volume plots, as that has always intrigued me, but it is rarely ever talked about. Good luck.

Also, what about the Nakamichi CD-700II? Have you done it previously, with all the same tests?


----------



## acidbass303 (Dec 3, 2010)

Subscribed


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

I'd like to see an Eclipse 8443 or 8053 thrown in the mix.


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

Let me know if you need a 7990 closer to the test. I would like a subject review of all the HU's if I send mine.. Or maybe Eric we can hold something like that, we got a few decks out our way...... Now if I could just find some good old bench testing equipment....


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

SoundJunkie said:


> I have Steve's other Bottlehead in my truck, both mine and the one Steve kept have been modified. I happen to have a Sound Monitor but am a bit reluctant to send it due to its rarity.
> 
> DAT runs a modded Panny also but I think he might have a second one. MACS should have a SM.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Yeah, hard for me to part with my stock Panny, the other Panny is with Matt R right now.

Simply one of the BEST DECKS around IMHO.


----------



## SoundJunkie (Dec 3, 2008)

matdotcom2000 said:


> Let me know if you need a 7990 closer to the test. I would like a subject review of all the HU's if I send mine.. Or maybe Eric we can hold something like that, we got a few decks out our way...... Now if I could just find some good old bench testing equipment....


We can put together a subjective review on this end. Here in H Town just between our teammates and friends we have the following:

Alpine F1 Status 7990 and 7990j
Sony C90 with XDP 4000
Panasonic Bottlehead
Sound Monitor DTA-500X and ICD500X
Sound Monitor DTA-450X
Pioneer ODR combo
Denon DCT 100
McIntosh MX4000 and MDA4000
McIntosh MX5000 and MDA5000 and MPM4000 meters

Hmmmm

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Libertyguy20 (Jun 6, 2012)

Could you also expand your objective data analysis to pre-amps that use either/or both: high level, rca and optical outputs?

It would be interesting to compare the data of the HU's to the data of the pre-amps....since they are supposed to clean up the signal...at least some of them. perhaps that is round 2.

Having a research background myself, I would recommend, Bikinpunk, that you go out of your way to make as long a list as possible of the many many variables that you will need to control and end up controlling so that you will truly be measuring apples to apples all the way down the line. otherwise, the results will appear accurate and comparable but in truth they will be less than so....just my two cents into your research project.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

SoundJunkie said:


> We can put together a subjective review on this end. Here in H Town just between our teammates and friends we have the following:
> 
> Alpine F1 Status 7990 and 7990j
> Sony C90 with XDP 4000
> ...


Not gonna happen bro, I dont feel like being bashed for thinking my Macs sounds different from my 7990, which sounds different from the panny, which sounds different from my denon, etc... And its my "placebo effect" that tells me which is better.  Tired of having to defend myself.

Cheers!
~C


----------



## SoundJunkie (Dec 3, 2008)

SouthSyde said:


> Not gonna happen bro, I dont feel like being bashed for thinking my Macs sounds different from my 7990, which sounds different from the panny, which sounds different from my denon, etc... And its my "placebo effect" that tells me which is better.  Tired of having to defend myself.
> 
> Cheers!
> ~C


Blind "taste test"! But we are now cluttering up Erin's thread....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JeremyC (Dec 20, 2007)

I have an Eclipse 7200 MKII setting in the garage if you want to add it in.


----------



## nickalways4u (Dec 31, 2011)

I have the Panny Bottlehead with the stock GE tube, but i guess sending it from here would cost a fortune.

Anyways looking forward to the Test.
Best of luck.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

I think the whole point of this test was to see why different head units may or may not sound different. If a head unit really sounds different than another head unit, then there is a reason for it and it can be measured. It all comes back to the "if it measures the same, it sounds the same". The point of this is to figure out where they measure differently.


----------



## chargedtaco (Feb 27, 2008)

Damn, would have loved to send in my Matt Roberts modded DRZ9255 for the shootout but I just sold the backup DRZ and would be without tunes if I sent it in.


----------



## asawendo (Nov 22, 2009)

I'm very curious about bikinpunk test since I have done subjective listening on all the decks aforementioned before. I want to know the objective result without being influenced by their brand. So definitely this going to be very interesting for me. Thx a lot Erin!

Best regards

Wendo


----------



## triatletadan (Mar 17, 2009)

I wrote my Revision of my test here. I've Beem tested mx5000 alone, mx5000 & mda5000, mx4000 & mda4000, nakamichi MF41, clarion DRZ9255
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...mx5000-drz9255-pioneer-odr-alpine-7990-a.html


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I deleted it. Nothing against you, but I'm trying to keep a WTB thread just that.

If you want to add your $.02 here feel free, but keep in mind that the goal of this thread is to provide objective data to explain maybe why you heard what you heard and I'm not looking to start any arguments (not that you were). 

Just want to make that clear.

Thanks,
Erin


----------



## lucas569 (Apr 17, 2007)

i wish i could send you some mcintosh units i had (jdm subaru models) just for curiosity.


----------



## pyropoptrt (Jun 11, 2006)

Erin, I can send or bring you: Sony C90, Sony CD-910, Eclipse ECD-415 (I need to double check the model number, it may be a ECD-414), and a Eclipse 8443 (I think I still have this unit). Just let me know if you want to borrow any of these.


----------



## req (Aug 4, 2007)

i hope you find some good info erin. too bad i cant send my car pc lol! if you bring **** to test you could possibly do it at finals? hahha.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

pyropoptrt said:


> Erin, I can send or bring you: Sony C90, Sony CD-910, Eclipse ECD-415 (I need to double check the model number, it may be a ECD-414), and a Eclipse 8443 (I think I still have this unit). Just let me know if you want to borrow any of these.


that c90 would be pretty cool to add.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

The mcintosh mx5000+mda5000 should be here this week. I'll run the tests and get it back out asap but likely won't post any data for anything until I've completed all the tests I think I can.

I plan to take a lot of pictures and, when possible, "gut" shots of the decks because I know a lot of people like that sort of thing. I do. 

As for the testing timeline, I'll actually probably be dragging this out in to December. I've got a _lot _of drivers to test and then some stuff of my own to get in order through October. After that, I'll be freed up a bit more and am planning on that time to start focusing on this headunit shootout more. 


*If anyone has any of the decks mentioned above to loan, let me know. *
I'm trying to not spend $600-1000 on a headunit just to test but if it comes down to it and I have to, I'll try to make it work financially. I was going to buy these to test and resell. I had some time to consider what I was doing and realized I was going to put myself out a lot of money if I tried to buy everything so I'm going to see what I can get loaned for the test and buy what I feel is really needed to round it out should it not be tested at the end. So, if you have anything you wouldn't mind loaning to me for the test it would benefit a lot of people.


----------



## Krisfromtampa (Aug 6, 2012)

I hope you guys don't get mad for asking but is there a difference in quality between the odr rs-d7xii and rs-d7rii


----------



## Libertyguy20 (Jun 6, 2012)

I have a perfectly working Sony XDB-4000x if you would like for testing with the c90, but not sure exactly where the software is nor the optical digital out that goes with it. In fact, do computers these days still have serial connectors (or attachments to connect) these days...lol.

If you want it for testing, PM me. Actually trying to sell it, but not too much demand these days.


----------



## Complacent_One (Jul 2, 2009)

I have a CDA-7949 that i would be willing to ship for the test. I pay the shipping out, you pay the shipping back...do with it what you will, just make sure it is working when you send back... It is just sitting on a shelf so no rush, and i have a feeling, that it is just as capable as any on the list....Just my opinion.....

One reservation, must test in Black Out mode and see if there is a difference in the output characteristics.

Let me know..and you will have it next week....


----------



## nigeDLS (Nov 5, 2011)

Krisfromtampa said:


> I hope you guys don't get mad for asking but is there a difference in quality between the odr rs-d7xii and rs-d7rii



To my knowledge they are just for different markets. 

They do a version 3 as well, which i believe is a Japanese domestic market model.


----------



## aV8ter (Sep 4, 2009)

Care to add my DVA-7996 to the list? Let me know an address if so and it'll be in the mail.


----------



## Q-Authority (Mar 31, 2008)

I've got a really bitchin' Sparkomatic I would like to see tested. Sure the test group wouldn't be complete without it. 

Fortunately, I have a back-up Kraco I can use while it's away.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

bassfromspace said:


> I'd like to see an Eclipse 8443 or 8053 thrown in the mix.


I agree.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

SoundJunkie said:


> We can put together a subjective review on this end. Here in H Town just between our teammates and friends we have the following:
> 
> Alpine F1 Status 7990 and 7990j
> Sony C90 with XDP 4000
> ...


Why the 4000x with the C90? The C90's DACs are better than the 4000x and it doesn't need it to operate.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Erin I would take the offer and test that 8443 also, unless you have access to an 8053. I would not be oppossed to seeing an 8455, IMO last of the good Eclipse Decks. IMO it helps round out the super high-end mixed with stuff most can afford. We be good for people see how they stack up and if there is a gem in rough so to speak.

The only Eclipse deck I still have anymore is a CD8455. Wish I still had all the high-end decks I had before, wait no I don't I like having the cash better.


----------



## tnbubba (Mar 1, 2008)

hmmmmmmmmm


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

I _could_ send in my Ural CCD but it'd cost a fortune in postal fees, plus I'm not too fond of the thought of it being hurled around by couriers.


----------



## JeremyC (Dec 20, 2007)

Genxx said:


> Erin I would take the offer and test that 8443 also, unless you have access to an 8053. I would not be oppossed to seeing an 8455, IMO last of the good Eclipse Decks.


I had an 8455, and I replaced it with the 7200. Yes the 8455 is an amazing deck, but the 7200 was better.


----------



## Sound Suggestions (Dec 5, 2010)

Subscribed!


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

Sorry man, I can't find my issue of CSR that had the review of the Clarion ADCS-1. It's freaking me out a bit because I know I couldn't ever get rid of that issue nor let it lay around unprotected.

I'm still looking for it though.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

I've got a NIB Eclipse CD-8053 and a used Sony CDX-C90 I could send your way, with or without the XDP-4000X processor. (You can use a USB-to-DB9 Serial Adapter cable to connect the XDP-4000X to your computer.)

LMK.

I'd like to see all of these tested against the iBasso DX100.


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

smgreen20 said:


> Sorry man, I can't find my issue of CSR that had the review of the Clarion ADCS-1. It's freaking me out a bit because I know I couldn't ever get rid of that issue nor let it lay around unprotected.
> 
> I'm still looking for it though.


What year was that?

I have every issue except for the first 2 or 3 years. I think I started collecting religiously Summer 1989....before that I just just stole issues here and there from my friend.


----------



## Neil_J (Mar 2, 2011)

bikinpunk said:


> What I'd be measuring is SNR, crosstalk, frequency response, and distortion as well as output voltage.


I'd love to see jitter measurements, but fancy equipment like that is hard to come by :-/


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Yea. I've got a test plan I'm working on. It's hard to do what I want in an easy fashion. And some things simply cannot be measures to the degree is like giving my pc based setup. But it'll have to do because an AP unit is about $4k used. And I couldn't even justify a couple hundred much less four thousand. 


I'm still putting this on hold though. I have a couple decks I'm going to test but I'm holding off on requesting more until closer to Winter.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Erin-This bull crap, I need your test reports so I have something to look forward to stuck here in Saudi Arabia. Well I guess I will still be here in the winter time so it will give me something to do then.LOL


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

you're welcome, Brian!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Just an update for those who may be interested. It's a bit of a mix between subjective and objective. No data to post but if someone wants to see what I measured rather than just take my word for it, LMK and I'll post it up. 

I've bought about 4 cd players in the last 2 weeks. And I've been provided an MX5000+MDA5000 to test as well. I've been trying to pick a headunit I like that has features I want but doesn't sacrifice sound quality. That’s where this thread idea started. So, outside of these old school decks that I’d be interested to objectively test, I bought a few new model decks to play around with for my own personal use, looking to find the one that has great performance and features. I thought it would be easy and it turns out, it's not. 

One of the new model decks I purchased was the JVC KD-A95BT. JVC hasn't necessarily been touted as “SQ” but I thought the product looked good and they touted some good featuers (BB DAC, 5v preout, etc). It measured pretty well on my bench: I got about 2.6V rms output and if I boosted the source level volume (SLA) to max, I got 3.6Vrms. 

I also picked up an Alpine IVE-S920HD last Friday from Best Buy because they have a good return policy and I wanted to be able to test the deck over the weekend. Did some bench testing and everything seemed alright. The Alpine does 1Vrms out the gate. If you boost SLA to max you get about 3.3Vrms. 

_And, let’s take a detour…
The Alpine had lower performance numbers in Rightmark vs that of some other decks. BUT… that seems to be my real issue with RightMark. If you have a higher voltage going in to the soundcard being used to measure, the results are limited by the input voltage capability. Therefore, some functions of the test are limited to that voltage and if a headunit has the capability to go higher, then you’re still stuck at whatever the sound card can take. Bottom line is, RightMark is not always indicative of the real device performance under test, I'm finding (and it's why I likely will not be doing any more electronics testing until I can find a more suitable platform that measures more accurately).
_

So, blah, blah, blah.. get to the point, Erin...

Well, after measuring the decks with my test gear, I did a blind test… or, should I say.. my wife did the blind test. Double blind. I measured both decks' pre-out voltage in steps so I knew exactly where they were matched on the volume scale. I then grabbed one of my Scan Speak 2.5 way towers and brought it outside in to the garage, hooked it up to my QSC 1202 amp (my test amp) and set up a double-blind test for my wife. She had no idea what she was listening for or to or why. She couldn’t see the headunits being tested. She just knew that I made her sit in the fold out chair in the garage in front of a speaker and played the music too loud for 11pm. I had already done my own un-blind testing and knew what I heard because it was clearly audible. I wanted to see if she, someone who was totally unknowing to the goal, would say. I made 2 CDs: same thing on both. Each deck had its own copy of that CD which included Dire Straits' "Money For Nothin" and a 10,000 Maniacs track "Like the Weather". I had a A/B switch set up for RCA outputs and I had both decks playing the same song and would simply toggle between them to do very quick A/B analysis. I would play different parts of the songs and then switch over to the other, where it was paused and ready to pick up. The segments of tracks were no longer than 10s each. I picked certain parts that focused on different things. IE: The drums, male/female vocals, top end, etc. So, if the drum had a part I wanted to focus on at 1:07-1:25, I’d set both decks up to start at 1:07 and play it for about 10 seconds, then pause it and play the other one and flip the A/B switch over. This is just about as objective of a subjective test as I could hope for. 


JVC KD-A95BT vs Alpine IVE-S920HD Conclusion:
The takeaway is this: The JVC had audible distortion. To the point where even she looked at me and asked if I had a blown speaker. She also commented that the Alpine seemed to have more “life” to it… and while we kept the subjective terms to a minimum, she wound up preferring the “first one” in each test; the “first one” was the Alpine. I agreed.
The JVC also had a MUCH higher noise floor as volume increased. Again, even level matched. It was so high, I could hear it from the speakers standing 10 feet away. I measured the unit again in varying volume increments and did the same for the Alpine. What the data showed was what I heard; increasing noise floor with volume increase. I almost wonder if I got a bad unit, but regardless, I got what I got.

Pics of this test:























*Mcintosh MX5000/MDA5000 vs Alpine IVE-S920HD:*
Then I compared the MX5000+MDA5000 to the Alpine. The MX5000 tested well on the bench, but the voltage out on the Mc stops at 0.7 vrms. No clipping. It just maxes out there. 

I level matched both decks at 0.7v out (So, the Alpine was limited at 24/35 on the volume) and... well... they pretty much sound the same. That is to say, there was no real audible difference heard by either of us. I'd pretty much be lying to myself if I said there was clear separation; enough separation for me to not write it off as psychoacoustics. Maybe we don’t have golden ears but that’s what the result was. If anything, the Alpine seemed to have better range and it’s likely attributed to the extra “headroom” on the volume knob whereas the MX5000 was max’d out.
Noise floor: The mc and alpine have pretty much the same. Ear up next to the speaker test, the alpine actually had a bit less when switching between the two. 

So, with that said, I evaluate based on feature set and usability next. The alpine does everything the mc does and it has gps, iPod, Bluetooth and higher voltage out giving more volume wiggle room all things equal down the chain. The one thing it doesn’t have is the simple, old school look of the Mcintosh. I like the Mc look but I couldn’t personally handle running it in a daily driver. 

One thing I will say is that the Mc has a measured top end rolloff compared to the others. I can’t remember how much, but I think It was only about 0.3dB more (keep in mind the impedance matching of the test rig causes rolloff on both ends of the spectrum).

Pics:

































That’s it. 

-	Erin


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> I level matched both decks at 0.7v out (So, the Alpine was limited at 24/35 on the volume) and... well... they pretty much sound the same.


Well, I'd thought this would've stirred some reaction but it looks to have passed undetected so far. 

Although I'd very much like to be the owner of such fine equipment (I mean the McIntosh), I've always felt that some recent or current HU's should indeed reach or even surpass the quality of those old, well respected, reference point units. It's happened with amps, speakers, subs, why not with HU's? 

The romantic in me feels numb and my technocrat side is having a party, I'll tell you that. :mean:

I re-read this. I'm one weird fella.

PS: I wonder, would your results be different if you were using a pair of speakers instead of just the one? Perhaps the HU's would behave differently in channel separation and staging. Now you were comparing only their sonic signature.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

The mc has MUCH worse measured separation. If it were the other way around then maybe I could see where some may have a leg to stand on. 

Measured crosstalk is an easy measuremt to trust. if its high, it's not something that will help it perform better. Having said that, I'm not really a stickler for it. I'm not writing it off. Just saying in the cases where it's easily worse, especially in higher frequency, there's no need to test the audibility to hope the mc would perform better because te truth is it won't help it. :/

So, given that, if there were an audible difference, the mc would not get the benefit of it.


----------



## Q-Authority (Mar 31, 2008)

I gotta say that I somehow misunderstood, and thought that two speakers were being used for the blind test, as is usual. Never heard of a single speaker test before. Really appreciate what you are trying to do, but not sure that a single speaker test provides a lot of validity in many aspects. Other than perhaps for simple noise floor confirmation, I'd want a proper stereo setup, if only to properly check both channels against each other, etc.

I'm still hoping to see frequency output vs volume output specs/plots.

Anyway, good luck on this.

EDIT: Would be interested in hearing if significantly worse channel separation actually makes much of a difference, if at all, in listening tests. As well with other measured specs.


----------



## piyush7243 (Sep 9, 2009)

bbfoto said:


> I've got a NIB Eclipse CD-8053 and a used Sony CDX-C90 I could send your way, with or without the XDP-4000X processor. (You can use a USB-to-DB9 Serial Adapter cable to connect the XDP-4000X to your computer.)
> 
> LMK.
> 
> I'd like to see all of these tested against the iBasso DX100.


Sorry for highjacking the thread. 

I might be interested in the Sony combo. Could you please pm me the price shipped to lower 48. 
I take take it after the test 

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Let me ask you this: would worse separation make the mcintosh better? Think about this. Consider how ILD & ITD work. The Mc's crosstalk was about 20dB or so higher (recalling results from memory) than the Alpine on the high end (not a good thing). Lower performance in stereo separation lends to a less focused stage because there is less clear separation in L/R signal. Consider not only a stage, but hard panned information where there is crosstalk bleedthrough. That guitar in the far right may have some more left side pull to it because the two channels aren't clearly separated. Of course, this is assuming that the level of crosstalk is audible. 

My purpose of single speaker listening is simple: To identify differences in tonality or other subjective terms ... to some degree... but mainly to see if I hear anything "wrong". Sometimes I will test all the pre-outs separately. One speaker allows you to hear more distinct differences. One especially being distortion; considering a second speaker adds 3dB to the output and may hide something you may otherwise catch in mono. 

If anything, the mcintosh fared better in mono because it's higher crosstalk level wasn't allowed to be shown in a one speaker test.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

What's the threshold of being able to hear the cross talk differences?


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Of course, I'm already starting to feel that those who may want to believe the Mc has to be better are gathering. You guys may now see why I don't give subjective opinions anymore.


Erin, I sincerely hope you didn't take my post in that way. For what it's worth, I was trying to say the exact opposite! And I for one value your opinion. Opinions are meant to be subjective anyway.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> What's the threshold of being able to hear the cross talk differences?


~-30dB. Well above (ie worse) what even the ****tiest source component is capable of.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Great so far Erin. Thanks for the work on this. I think once you are done if put up all the data on your website that would be great. I would think that would help with people wanting to argue a majority of the subjective stuff. 

Your findings so far support why I no longer own any of the well regarded SQ HU and ended up selling what I had left a couple years ago. Once I did a direct swap in the truck and car to a DD and me, Todd nor Mark noticed a difference I went for the money in my pocket. 

I am disappointed that the JVC did not do great as it has a ton of features that I like plus the looks I like. Looks like I will be sticking with the 80PRS and DD. If the HU works as it should and it has the features that is the direction I go now.


----------



## chevbowtie22 (Nov 23, 2008)

I'm torn on all of this too. I for one have never heard a McIntosh unit in person but what I've read/heard I would have expected it to fair better. The JVC half way surprises me as well. Not that I expected it to do real well but the specs lead me to believe it would also do better. 

I really appreciate this review in the fact that I am in the market for a cd sq unit for my install. I was kicking the idea around of picking up one of the higher end older units like the drz9255 or something similar. Maybe I won't be as concerned with old school quality as maybe value per dollar. Thanks again Erin for your hard work on all your reviews.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Put the MAC up against your iphone Erin, lets get this party _really_ started. epper:


----------



## Q-Authority (Mar 31, 2008)

Actually I am glad/surprised not to hear more from Mc fans, not that I wanted your thread cluttered with numerous objections, lol, just a little surprised. I have no opinions on it one way or the other, just curious to see if stereo listening tests bear out the measurement differences.

As for channel separation, and probably some other measurements as well, I think exceptional measurements can sometimes be a bit misleading, as I don't think they are always that important, especially considering what the average recorded music level really is (not nearly as high as many people think). I have listened to top of the line cassette decks that can only muster 60db or so of channel separation, and yet they sound superb. That being said, poor channel separation specs on a modern day component may lead one to suspect its overall specifications, as it should be fairly easy to produce very good specs such as those.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

Erin,

No surprise on these results IMO. One thing I am interested in is your old evaluation of the 9100 vs 505. While the 505 measured better did you ever do an audibility test similar to these? 

That 117 is just fugly in my dash and I really want to pull the trigger on a double din unit but have been hesitant because of the direction Alpine HUs have been migrating in terms of SQ and build quality. The 117 does everything that I need but the feel is sub par and again it's just plain fugly in the dash. 

Charles


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

n_olympios said:


> Erin, I sincerely hope you didn't take my post in that way. For what it's worth, I was trying to say the exact opposite! And I for one value your opinion. Opinions are meant to be subjective anyway.


no worries. I edited my post anyway.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

SSSnake said:


> Erin,
> 
> No surprise on these results IMO. One thing I am interested in is your old evaluation of the 9100 vs 505. While the 505 measured better did you ever do an audibility test similar to these?
> 
> ...


I never did a subjective test on the 505 vs 910. I had both in the car for a bit. I had the 505 in there for over a year but the 910 came out after my debacle with the h800 and I didn't see the point in keeping it since I bought it mainly to pair with that processor.


I actually saw the 920HD at BB and thought it looked really sharp in person. All the pictures I've seen online make it look ugly but in person it looks real sharp. I kind of expected its performance to be along the same line as the others and measurements seem to indicate this. But when I tested it with the tower speaker, I was happy to find that they didn't translate in to anything very audible. Even if I bumped the SLA to max there were no issues. 

I am likely going to take this deck back to BB, though, and wait for the IVE-535HD. I'd really like to hang on to this but to be honest, it's too costly for me to keep around. It's essentially the same in most regards except it has no GPS. It may or may not have the dsp this one has, too, but to be honest I've not really looked that hard because I have an external DSP and don't need the internal one anyway.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

Sub'd, 

Love the hard work ERIN, regardless of the results, it's your test / findings, and you will always have members that agree or disagree.

So far so good!!


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

While I know they might not fit into the "high end head unit" category, I'd love to see the DEH-80PRS and CZ702 compared as a part of this. These guys are readily available and many of the discontinued models are getting harder and harder to find. Not to mention not having many of the features so many people look for in a modern head unit. It would be really interesting to see if these moderately priced options from Pioneer and Clarion are capable of hitting well above their weight class.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Q-Authority said:


> Actually I am glad/surprised not to hear more from Mc fans, not that I wanted your thread cluttered with numerous objections, lol, just a little surprised. I have no opinions on it one way or the other, just curious to see if stereo listening tests bear out the measurement differences.
> 
> As for channel separation, and probably some other measurements as well, I think exceptional measurements can sometimes be a bit misleading, as I don't think they are always that important, especially considering what the average recorded music level really is (not nearly as high as many people think). I have listened to top of the line cassette decks that can only muster 60db or so of channel separation, and yet they sound superb. That being said, poor channel separation specs on a modern day component may lead one to suspect its overall specifications, as it should be fairly easy to produce very good specs such as those.


Agreed all around.

My point was more to say that the spec'd performance of the Mc was worse, so at best it wouldn't surpass the Alpine in that regard. Otherwise, I didn't notice any differences to speak of. 

And I'm not bashing on the mc. I still think it's a beautiful deck. My wife says "it looks like it's from the 70s" and she's pretty much correct. lol.

My post wasn't really to downgrade either. Really, it more to kind of go against the notion that modern day decks can't perform as good or better than the ones we hold on a pedestal. Considering there's at least 10 years technology difference, it's really no surprise as Charles said above. 

Ultimately everyone has to make a purchase decision on their own needs. What I have found more and more with electronics is it's simple: buy what works for your needs. Unless there's a problem, then it's not worth fretting over the possible differences. At least with modern day electronics. In the case of the JVC, I was pretty bummed because I thought it was going to be a great substitute for my Pioneer 80prs but the issues I found with it were too obvious to ignore. I still do wonder if it was somehow faulty, but alas, the fact that it made it out of the factory and to my house tells me there's a problem _somewhere_ (either in the QC chain or the design).


----------



## Q-Authority (Mar 31, 2008)

Yeah, no, I completely understand. I am as interested as anyone in seeing how modern decks compare to the older SQ ones as well.

It appears that the Alpine uses 24 bit dacs, if I'm remembering correctly, though they don't necessarily make it easy to find such info anymore, lol. I know 1 bit dacs can sound just fine, but I'm still happy to see Alpine doesn't use those all the way across the board anymore.

Will look forward to future comparisons, and maybe this will sway me a bit regarding modern decks and all their insane built-in gadgets, lol.


----------



## smgreen20 (Oct 13, 2006)

GlasSman said:


> What year was that?
> 
> I have every issue except for the first 2 or 3 years. I think I started collecting religiously Summer 1989....before that I just just stole issues here and there from my friend.


Iirc, May/June '93.


----------



## oilman (Feb 21, 2012)

Thanks for your time! Sub'd 


Damn auto correct


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Erin, great info so far. Thanks for all of the time you've taken to evaluate these HUs! 

Wondering if you would be interested in testing the Line Outs of my Squeezebox Touch if I paid for round-trip shipping? It's supposed to have Redbook CD standard 2v line outs, and IME it's been one of the cleaner source units that I've tried for the money. You can plug in a USB thumb drive or SD card into it with your test files. You could even try it in your Civic connected via optical or coaxial to see what you think. LMK

I hope a Sony ES CDX-C90 with good internals (these things are getting old) makes its way onto your bench as well. Looking forward to more of your findings either way!

Thanks again for your time and effort.

- Billy B.


----------



## n_olympios (Oct 23, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Really, it more to kind of go against the notion that modern day decks can't perform as good or better than the ones we hold on a pedestal. Considering there's at least 10 years technology difference, it's really no surprise as Charles said above.


And I before him. 

How much was the 920HD? I'm asking because the european equivalent (920R, which isn't available yet) is going to be flipping expensive from what I hear!


----------



## Roberto (Jul 1, 2011)

I really appreciate what you are doing, i would love to see Mcintosh and Clarion as for me they are the best deck ever made and the most natural sounding.

How about adding Kenwood Excelon series in list, i heard a lot of good reviews/praise about these decks?

Thanks for your time and great effort.

Roberto


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

What kind of equipment did you use, Erin? 

Would also like to see a Kenwood Excelon HU added - just got ahold of a DNX-9990HD (first double din ever for me) and I can say I'm impressed by the sound of those OEM speakers  lol 

Kelvin


----------



## Roberto (Jul 1, 2011)

subwoofery said:


> What kind of equipment did you use, Erin?
> 
> Would also like to see a Kenwood Excelon HU added - just got ahold of a DNX-9990HD (first double din ever for me) and I can say I'm impressed by the sound of those OEM speakers  lol
> 
> Kelvin


I would second Kelvin on that, few days back i managed to audition Kenwood Excelon Din 1 for the very first time and i am really impressed..


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

I'll add my suggestion on the Excellon as well. While KW doesn't get a lot of hype they were solid decks several years ago and one of the alternatives I was considering. If BB has a liberal return policy I may be able to help acquire one for testing.


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

Did you by chance run the Mc with the outboard DAC?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

danno14 said:


> Did you by chance run the Mc with the outboard DAC?


The bolded comparison label clearly states the head unit *+* external DAC.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

subwoofery said:


> *What kind of equipment did you use, Erin?*
> 
> Would also like to see a Kenwood Excelon HU added - just got ahold of a DNX-9990HD (first double din ever for me) and I can say I'm impressed by the sound of those OEM speakers  lol
> 
> Kelvin


What do you mean?


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

t3sn4f2 said:


> The bolded comparison label clearly states the head unit *+* external DAC.


Pfftt! 
Silly me!

Erin- were you able to discern a difference with the dac vs. without? Quite enlightening thus far... Thanks for doing this.


----------



## asawendo (Nov 22, 2009)

Thanks Erin

Interesting result for me but I try to be an objective person instead of my preferences on highend head unit like McIntosh, Alpine F1, Clarion, Denon, Sound Monitor etc.

Regarding your test, IMHO it was an objective result so I have no doubt with your methodology. I'm still waiting for another Highend HU comparison test like Sound Monitor CDT450x and Denon DCT1 or Nakamichi CD700

Keep up your great and valuable test! Thank you.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> What do you mean?


If Erin do post the results on his website, I'd like to do the same test myself with my DNX-9990HD, CD7000, CD7200mkII - and compare the results  
Shipping those from Tahiti would cost a lot of money 

Why do you ask?  

Kelvin


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

subwoofery said:


> If Erin do post the results on his website, I'd like to do the same test myself with my DNX-9990HD, CD7000, CD7200mkII - and compare the results
> Shipping those from Tahiti would cost a lot of money
> 
> *Why do you ask?*
> ...


Just didn't understand what exactly you wanted to know. 

If you're going to do this type of comparison yourself, remember that you need to level match precisely. As well defeat any FR processing in the head unit. You also need to do a FR analysis to see if there still remains any FR contouring. That will screw up the test and the one with the happy face curve is going to win. Chances are though that good quality head units are going to be flat enough when processing is defeated though, so that won't be much of a worry.


----------



## RattyMcClelland (Nov 28, 2008)

Good thread. 
Iv just swapped out my MX406 for a DRZ9255. In direct mode the DRZ sounds better and with processing it sounds better than the Arc DXE i had attatched to the MX406. To me anyway.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Thanks for the great review, I was nervous that the styling and name of McIntosh might have skewed the results upwards for them, but your review of the McIntosh head units, just further solidifed my trust in your reviews.

I might be able to pull my Nakamichi TP-1200II out for this.


Erin, about 20 years ago I boought bought the MX-406 and the Mcintosh MX4000 with MDA4000. 

I connected them to Infinity Reference Standard RS1-a's and Bryston Amps. A excellent $10,000 plus system.

I compared them to a 25 year old Apt Holman Pre-amp. Which is a good bang for the buck solid state pre-amp that was professional in layout but also had reasonable high fidelity .

I know this may upset some people....and I loved the styling on the McIntosh units and I do have other McIntosh gear.

I felt that the units did not deliver superior SQ at all. The more expensive MX 4000 was Just a different kind of "wrong"... mostly a lateral move in SQ (the 2 octaves of cloudy muddiness maybe shifted an octave or two) . I returned them both. I wouldn't say I was completely surprised as I have never been much of a fan of McIntosh line level units or DACs, and even McIntosh Home amplifiers never really impressed me compared to say Bryston, Threshold, and in tubes Audio Research. So given the voicing of the units....I wasn't shocked. 

In contrast even much older Nakamichi units had more clarity and what seemed to me a more balanced Frequency response. Still not perfect but better. 

Though even older Naks had some issues. They never seemed to have extended HF response, and lacked really authoritative delineated bass...but these are tiny single DIN units, not home Pre-amps.

I have a Nakamichi TP-1200 MKII (Same as the TP-1200 but with deleted tone controls and upgraded electronics parts) which sounds very much like a very favorably reviewed home preamps in the $2500- $3500 range.

I prefer the sound of my Nakamichi , clarity, sound stage, image depth, and focus to ANY current McIntosh solid state home pre-amp regardless of price.

The TP-1200 II is super overkill for car. Its not really a fair comparision either as it has a completely separate REMOTE pre-amp box (which is large) , vibration isolation with springs and elastomer suspension, so you avoid picking up noise from the front to rear of the car.

Why other manufacturers did not follow the..... " trunk located remote pre-amp model" for their highend units made little sense to me. I think money on currently available electronics for line level would be better spent on IOS devices feeding a DAC, computer audio, or a Pro Audio high resolution DAC that can run off of 12 volts..., I am currently thing about upgrading my current Apogee Mini DAC to a Lynx Studio Technology HILO DAC. 



In my rather inexpereinced car audio opinion...and somewhat varied experienced Hi-End Home Opinion..it is my feeling that the car audio source units historically have been the weakest link in the chain. Where as..oddly the amplifiers...seeing as they have tons of current available are often less limited than many high end home amps runnning with a bunch of other power gobbling and polluting devices off a saggy 110-120 vt 15 amp home circuit.

Seeing as many here also use home speaker drivers of high quality, speaker drivers are not a limiting factor. In trying to get home like performance out of car gear.

It's the source... 

There are few if ANY (I have not heard any) home pre-amps of good SQ that could be crammed into a single DIN sized box. Audio Alchemy (Dusty V.'s company) made a few ones that had good reviews. Wes Phillips of Stereophile liked them enough to put them in a Jeep and reviewed it) but never did a good enough install to evaluate them fairly. 

Given the extreme low production numbers and very few dealers willing to carry $$$ top line units, the bang for the buck simply isn't there in car source units. Compare that to a huge recording industry, or the Audiophile industry where component parts cost is less of an issue as they are not trying to hit dealer requested price points, and you have better potentional for good sound per dollar. 

Now I know you are saying..."but those are not car audio pieces." Well many DIYMA people use speakers that are made for home audio not car audio..


I think your next comparision to serve the DIYMA community might be to compare HIGH END Consumer + professional, DACS with volume control that are capable of running off of 12 volts and easily adapted for car audio high end use.


I own 5 McIntosh amps, It's too bad the head units are not in the same sonic league.

Erin, Oddly, I ended up buying your review/personal pair of Scan Speak 12M midranges off someone else who bought them from you. Keep up the trustworthy reviews!


----------



## customtronic (Jul 7, 2007)

I would offer up my Panny but it is so heavily moddified that it would not be of any use to this test, plus it does not have RCA outputs, it has 16v balanced Symbilink outputs.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Golden Ears said:


> In my rather inexpereinced car audio opinion...and somewhat varied experienced Hi-End Home Opinion..it is my feeling that the car audio source units historically have been the weakest link in the chain. Where as..oddly the amplifiers...seeing as they have tons of current available are often less limited than many high end home amps runnning with a bunch of other power gobbleing and poluting devices off a saggy 100/15 amp home circuit.
> 
> Seeing as many here also use home speaker drivers of high quality, speaker drivers are not a limiting factor.
> 
> It's the source...



That's a somewhat odd stance to take, since the distortion and frequency response characteristics of speakers tend to be several orders of magnitude worse than those of head units. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point...


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> That's a somewhat odd stance to take, since the distortion and frequency response characteristics of speakers tend to be several orders of magnitude worse than those of head units. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point...


I think you understand the point, but just because a speaker has measurably magnitudes of more distortion does not mean that the electronics are magnitudes less importance in terms of SQ. if this were so we woud budget 90% or more towards speakers and 10% to electronics. 

Measurements of electronics do not tell the story. In the 1970's there were many manufacturers racing to make lower distortion measuring amps...they just added more global feedback. These designs tended to sound lifeless.

I certainly thought exactly along your lines, it is completely logical, it took a long time before it was demonstrated to me over and over again that this train of thought did not relate to what we heard in reality.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Maybe I should rephrase my question slightly.

*Differences* in distortion and frequency response between different speakers are typically orders of magnitude greater than the differences in distortion and frequency response between source units. So, even if you're correct that certain distortion/FR signatures are better (ie. less lifeless) than 0 distortion/flat FR, it doesn't explain your observations. One would think that due to the vast_ differences_ between speakers, in comparison to the minute differences between source units, that trying different speakers would yield bigger differences in sound.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> That's a somewhat odd stance to take, since the distortion and frequency response characteristics of speakers tend to be several orders of magnitude worse than those of head units. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point...





MarkZ said:


> That's a somewhat odd stance to take, since the distortion and frequency response characteristics of speakers tend to be several orders of magnitude worse than those of head units. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point...


I think you understand the point, but just because a speaker has measurably magnitudes of more distortion does not mean that the electronics are magnitudes less importance in terms of SQ. if this were so we would budget 90% or more towards speakers and 10% to electronics. 

Measurements of electronics do not tell the entire story. In the 1970's there were many manufacturers racing to make lower distortion measuring amps...they just added more global feedback. These designs tended to sound lifeless.

I certainly thought exactly along your lines, it is completely logical, it took a long time before it was demonstrated to me over and over again that this train of thought did not relate to what we heard in reality.

I used the same high resolutions system and speakers to test two head units they were t the time one of the more accurate speakers available. Many record reviewers continue to use them as their reviewing reference.

It's just my opinion.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> Maybe I should rephrase my question slightly.
> 
> *Differences* in distortion and frequency response between different speakers are typically orders of magnitude greater than the differences in distortion and frequency response between source units. So, even if you're correct that certain distortion/FR signatures are better (ie. less lifeless) than 0 distortion/flat FR, it doesn't explain your observations. One would think that due to the vast_ differences_ between speakers, in comparison to the minute differences between source units, that trying different speakers would yield bigger differences in sound.


Trying different speakers likely ... will let you hear that different speakers sound differently from one another.

Ok, for instance if you measure distortion, not all distortion is equally disagreeable. For instance if there is 3% distortion at 40hz in a subwoofer, it likely will not be as objectionable as 2% distortion at centered around 1khz. Also the more tightly the distortion is around a frequency as compared to being spread over several octaves, the tight peak is less likely to be noticed. Also even order vs odd order distortion sounds different as well.

I would characterize the McIntosh units I heard as being "unremarkable". Ie not really much far off of average, with many units from Clarion (A sister company at the time of the design that apparently shares nearly everything in common with some models) and Units from Eclipse made at the same time, Kenwood, and Denon...all seemed pretty equivalent in terms of sonic value. The McIntosh was in no way a stand out in anything other than classic styling.

I personally like that McIntosh is a American company, I have been to the company in Binghamton, met Charlie Randall and Chuck Hinton, I have sold McIntosh gear professionally, and I have 2080 watts of their car amplification- I even have that fun single DIN meter module MPM -4000, one might call me a fan boy of the gear....but it is more that I like the look of the Brand with Mercedes. I used to live in a place with terrible AC noise and liked running my Magneplanar Tympani's off of a car battery and a MC4000M amp during the day time. 

So I like the Brand... but I am not against mentioning that it is hard to make everything great from one brand. I also think that there were limitations posed on the McIntosh team that they were not prepared for like trying to put low level signal into something smaller than a cigar box in a storm of electrical noise.

Sadly it was hinted to me at June 2012 T.H.E. Show Newport by the McIntosh staff that this may be the last year they market car audio gear. That IMHO is an incredible loss because the size of the components would allow for considerable modification...something that can be harder to do with smaller components.


----------



## rgiorgio (Nov 21, 2012)

I have owned many head units. In the late 80's early 90's my Kenwoods and Alpines just sounded so good. In the 2000's i went for the Nakamich CD700 with a Mac MCC444 amp and MB Quart Q series. I have had many systems since and none have sounded like that to this day. I still have the Nakamichi CD700, there is just no head unit built for SQ like it. No faeatures. CD player, AM/FM, Aux. The thing weighs a ton. It is full of brass and copper. There is no plastic in this thing. Would be willing to sell if the right person wants it.


----------



## Pitmaster (Feb 16, 2010)

Q-Authority said:


> I've got a really bitchin' Sparkomatic I would like to see tested. Sure the test group wouldn't be complete without it.
> 
> Fortunately, I have a back-up Kraco I can use while it's away.


I too would like to see how my vintage Sparkomatic(circa 1983), stacks up against the competition.

It's just sitting in my Pontiac doin' nothing waiting for the go ahead:laugh:.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

rgiorgio said:


> I have owned many head units. In the late 80's early 90's my Kenwoods and Alpines just sounded so good. In the 2000's i went for the Nakamich CD700 with a Mac MCC444 amp and MB Quart Q series. I have had many systems since and none have sounded like that to this day. I still have the Nakamichi CD700, there is just no head unit built for SQ like it. No faeatures. CD player, AM/FM, Aux. The thing weighs a ton. It is full of brass and copper. There is no plastic in this thing. Would be willing to sell if the right person wants it.



HA!

I was just looking to buy one of these actually a Nakamichi CD 700II for my GF's car. We are going to do a Laptop system with Pure Music for her car feeding either a Centrance Hi-fi8 or a Apogee Duet 2 . We will feed that input into the Aux in.

Its going into her Escalade, got some huge magnet tweeters, using either B & G Neo 10 or Strathern Ribbons, (both on dash) Scan 18W 8542 7" midbass in door, and 3 ten inch subs . Amp is a McIntosh Mc440M in 5 channel mode.

If you sell it to me- I will have you ship it to Erin first for the test.

PM your info.

thanks!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Golden Ears said:


> Thanks for the great review, I was nervous that the styling and name of McIntosh might have skewed the results upwards for them, but your review of the McIntosh head units, just further solidifed my trust in your reviews.
> 
> I might be able to pull my Nakamichi TP-1200II out for this.
> 
> ...


Suffice it to say that, in a car if 1X be the distortion put out by electronics, the speakers are at 10X and the environment is 1,000X (numbers for ref only). Look at Andys FR curves for speaker and ear level FR in a car.

Point is, would you really hear the muddiness across two octaves, contributed solely by the hu? That may be one of the reasons Erin did the hu tests outside the car.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Golden Ears said:


> Trying different speakers likely ... will let you hear that different speakers sound differently from one another.
> 
> Ok, for instance if you measure distortion, not all distortion is equally disagreeable. For instance if there is 3% distortion at 40hz in a subwoofer, it likely will not be as objectionable as 2% distortion at centered around 1khz. Also the more tightly the distortion is around a frequency as compared to being spread over several octaves, the tight peak is less likely to be noticed. Also even order vs odd order distortion sounds different as well.


All true. But the _differences_ between just about every form of distortion are much greater with different speakers than with different source units. So if you can vary one particular set of parameters by changing source units, you can vary that same set of parameters by a much larger amount by changing speakers.


----------



## asota (Feb 7, 2011)

Golden Ears said:


> HA!
> 
> I was just looking to buy one of these actually a Nakamichi CD 700II for my GF's car. We are going to do a Laptop system with Pure Music for her car feeding either a Centrance Hi-fi8 or a Apogee Duet 2 . We will feed that input into the Aux in.
> 
> ...


The best source I have ever heard was from a laptop using high bit loss-less files, J-Play media player, feeding John Kenny DAC's (sorry don't remember model no.) Next best I ever heard (in a car) is a DRX-9255 Clarion although I never heard the Nac's. To me the side by side difference between the DRX and current $1000+ decks was night and day. Hmmmm DRX has aux input.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

I wonder if someone can hear these "sonic signatures" after applied tuning... ? When it comes down to it, what really matters is good processing abilities. Without EQ and T/A in a car it won't sound good no matter how high end unit we use < IMO.

It's the environment that destroy the sound. With a great install and tuning even entry level stuff have the potential to sound good. I'm no audiophile by any means though.


----------



## tnbubba (Mar 1, 2008)

same reason if u run the preamp outs to a dac to then "tune" it you tuning with a ****ty signal.. 
same reason if it sounds ****ty in my home ( amp or pre or whatever) it don't go in the car..
my old concords still sounded better SQ wise than the Naks .. surprised a lot of people.

anyway garbage in garbage out tune or no tune.. 
I wish i had the old concord to compare too today thru my studio system but since i just redid it this year and am still tweaking my home 4 way active .. I cant do a fair comparison against the older units..
secret..the SQ is ALL in the output stages!
now to get a digital out on my deh80



The best source I have ever heard was from a laptop using high bit loss-less files, J-Play media player, feeding John Kenny DAC's (sorry don't remember model no.) Next best I ever heard (in a car) is a DRX-9255 Clarion although I never heard the Nac's. To me the side by side difference between the DRX and current $1000+ decks was night and day. Hmmmm DRX has aux input. 

yep!! i'll take a car puter with digout anyday over a HU ..Jplayer.. wun 7 ultimate and good dac..
oh did somebody mentiion the AA DLC kick ass unit just was prone to RF noise..


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Just because a speaker has more distortion does not make the source insignificant.Just because a speaker has more distortion does not make the source insignificant.

Look, you can take a speaker that measures perfectly flat outside a car, then put in a speaker with a noticeable suckout at a particuar frequency that just happens to line up with a acoustic frequency peak in a car and the "infereior speaker" sounds better.

I would hope any one wanting to find out about the best source units realizes that fiddling with crossover slopes and gains probably isn't going to get you a great sounding response curve.

Arguing that speakers cause more distortion than source units in no way invalidates listening to source gear. For instance many top mixing engineers do mixes on speakers with limitations compared to top gear, but since htey know the gears shortcomings they have a good idea of how the mix will "translate" on other sound systems.

Frankly, worrying about magnitudes of speaker disortion is a nonsense proposition, you do as well as you can with the best available stuff and move forward. 

What is important is that some speakers suffer gravely from ommission- so if you try to listen to a piece with detail- sometimes entire instruments seem missing, or are completely obscured or hidden by others. You want to avoid those sort of speakers when evaluating source gear. in those cases..the magnitudes of distortion of a crappy speaker certainly will cause issues with source gear. You can't use crappy ear buds to evaluate LF quality either.

So put that issue to bed and lets go back to talking about good source components. Or PM me if you still disagree and I will talk you what you could out together to demonstrate to yourself what I am talking about.

Look, you can take a speaker that measures perfectly flat outside a car, then put in a speaker with a noticeable suckout at a particuar frequency that just happens to line up with an acoustic frequency peak in a car and the "inferior speaker" sounds better. Thats a true crap shoot. Its not to say it is impossible. If you had a perfect transducer measured the response from that transducer in a particular location in a particular car and did it for every crossover frequency , crossover slope crossover type - electronic and passive as well as varying crossover component quality and phase iteration. and repeated that for every speaker in every possible car. Mapped all that data- you might be able to write a program that could reccommend the drivers for each location for your car to suggest which ones would need minimum EQ. 

AND EVEN THEN....... 

There is no guaranty that that combination would sound better than another set that perhaps had a band or two of more EQ, but lets say the drivers transient response was so much better.


I would hope any one wanting to find out about the best source units realizes that fiddling with crossover slopes and gains alone probably isn't going to get you a great sounding response curve. unless you are really lucky - or a genius with interior acoustic treatment..and do not have any FR peaks caused by dimensional problems. Good luck.

Arguing that speakers cause more distortion than source units in no way invalidates listening to source gear. For instance many top mixing engineers do mixes on speakers with limitations compared to top gear, but since they know the gear's shortcomings they have a good idea of how the mix will "translate" on other sound systems.

Frankly, worrying about magnitudes of speaker disortion is a nonsense proposition, you do as well as you can with the best available stuff and move forward. 

What is important is that some speakers suffer gravely from omission- so if you try to listen to a piece with detail- sometimes entire instruments seem muted, or are completely obscured or hidden by others. You want to avoid those sort of speakers when evaluating source gear. In those cases..the magnitudes of distortion of a crappy speaker certainly will cause issues with evaluation of source gear. You can't use crappy ear buds to evaluate LF quality either. You can't EQ a garbage speaker with horrible impulse response to beat a high quality driver with good EQ.

So put that issue to bed and lets go back to talking about good source components. Or PM me if you still disagree and I will talk you what you could out together to demonstrate to yourself what I am talking about.


Because the transfer function of any automobile in conjunction with the location of the speakers will invariably need EQ in order to get a handle on source gear or speakers- all evaluation should be removed from these gross influences in order to reach any conclusion of any value to the general public.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Hanatsu said:


> I wonder if someone can hear these "sonic signatures" after applied tuning... ? When it comes down to it, what really matters is good processing abilities. Without EQ and T/A in a car it won't sound good no matter how high end unit we use < IMO.
> 
> It's the environment that destroy the sound. With a great install and tuning even entry level stuff have the potential to sound good. I'm no audiophile by any means though.


I disagree with that If that were so, people wouldn't be spending tons of money on speakers..they would be spending a larger percentage on EQ.

A slightly lesser speaker with a good install will always beat a poorly installed speaker that is slightly better. But you can't give a pack of NYC rats a bath and a haircut , a dye job and stitch them into a full length mink. You'll just have wasted a ton of cash on rats.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Golden Ears said:


> I disagree with that If that were so, people wouldn't be spending tons of money on speakers..they would be spending a larger percentage on EQ.


They absolutely must spend more on dsp. The reason they more on amps and speakers, is because they are ignorant and that ignorance is fed by audio myths. Said myths in turn are also perpetuated by companies that make the equipment. In a car equipment matters less because the # 1 enemy is the environment. 



Golden Ears said:


> A slightly lesser speaker with a good install will always beat a poorly installed speaker that is slightly better. But you can't give a pack of NYC rats a bath and a haircut , a dye job and stitch them into a full length mink. You'll just have wasted a ton of cash on rats.


A stock speaker with appropriate dsp has beaten expensive speakers with dsp in competition.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

I think processing has its own issues and phase related problems.

In home audio it really helps to start with a good room sonically.

Car audio has so many incredibly " bad rooms". But if you think you can DSP your way to good sound in a typical bathroom, I just don't think you can get there. 

It is possible to get good sound in a moving car. But spending more resources on sound deadening and speaker placement will help more. I also believe that some cars require so much effort that you would be better off selecting a different car to work on.

I have only heard a few cars with DSP and time alignment that really sounded natural. Most imaged better but sounded strange in other ways . 

I think for horrible speaker locations time alignment will do more good than harm. But good speaker locations GOOD GEAR and GREAT install to minimize the need for DSP is a better way to go sonically . I still think you should use high quality parametric EQ too.... There is just no way around that... Graphic EQ can tame some issues but parametric can cut with better precision. A car with huge cancellation issues, it's like a guy with a bad heart , third stage cancer, and suicidal thoughts, just not a good candidate for surgery.

For some cars and budgets the MS-8 is some well spent money. I just think you should go focus on a car that won't need drastic DSP just to be listenable.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Golden Ears said:


> I think processing has its own issues and phase related problems.
> 
> In home audio it really helps to start with a good room sonically.
> 
> ...


Funny, I've never heard a car without processing that sound natural. I cannot even imagine any system without the need for DSP. Great installs are always important but it DOES NOT diminish the need for processing. The transfer function of the car will remain even if you're the best installer in the world using the best components available. What the car's interior does to the sound is the very definition of un-naturalism. DSPs are required to compensate for this.

And yes, good speaker placement is really important. Can't process away reflections for instance.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## asota (Feb 7, 2011)

Golden Ears said:


> I think processing has its own issues and phase related problems.
> 
> In home audio it really helps to start with a good room sonically.
> 
> ...


Agree 100% although you may have stirred up a can of worms from the clueless ones on this forum.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Golden Ears said:


> Just because a speaker has more distortion does not make the source insignificant.Just because a speaker has more distortion does not make the source insignificant.
> 
> Look, you can take a speaker that measures perfectly flat outside a car, then put in a speaker with a noticeable suckout at a particuar frequency that just happens to line up with a acoustic frequency peak in a car and the "infereior speaker" sounds better.
> 
> ...



You misunderstand my objection. I wasn't saying that we should completely ignore source units because speakers have a bigger impact on the distortion profile. I was questioning your assertion that source units are the "_weakest link in the chain_" and that speakers are "_not a limiting factor_." It's hard to comprehend that idea, for the reasons I stated. 

I've been on this forum for quite a while, and traditionally people have been interested in speaker performance -- to the point where it's now become fairly routine to provide objective speaker data to help guide system design. In a sense, it's a speaker-driven forum. So you have to understand that your assertion goes a bit against the grain around these parts, so you shouldn't be surprised that you're receiving attention for it.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Hanatsu said:


> Funny, I've never heard a car without processing that sound natural. I cannot even imagine any system without the need for DSP. Great installs are always important but it DOES NOT diminish the need for processing. The transfer function of the car will remain even if you're the best installer in the world using the best components available. What the car's interior does to the sound is the very definition of un-naturalism. DSPs are required to compensate for this.


This is a great point. I'd also like to point out that most people in this forum use "processing" whether they know it or not. If you have a crossover in your audio system, you're "processing" the signal. This may seem like a semantic argument, but IMO 90% of your tuning can come from crossover adjustment. It's _always_ more helpful to have greater crossover flexibility, and this is where DSP is truly advantageous. Continuously variable f3, Q, and selectable slopes are invaluable tools and sometimes eliminate the need for EQ altogether.

Also, delay -- which is best accomplished in the digital domain -- can be a crucial component of some installations. People usually don't choose their cars based on how fit they are for audio, so realistically you _do_ have to deal with placement issues.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> This is a great point. I'd also like to point out that most people in this forum use "processing" whether they know it or not. If you have a crossover in your audio system, you're "processing" the signal. This may seem like a semantic argument, but IMO 90% of your tuning can come from crossover adjustment. It's _always_ more helpful to have greater crossover flexibility, and this is where DSP is truly advantageous. Continuously variable f3, Q, and selectable slopes are invaluable tools and sometimes eliminate the need for EQ altogether.
> 
> Also, delay -- which is best accomplished in the digital domain -- can be a crucial component of some installations. People usually don't choose their cars based on how fit they are for audio, so realistically you _do_ have to deal with placement issues.


Agree for the most part. Where you place and angle the speakers, the xovers, slopes etc are all tuning tools yes. However no matter where you set your crossovers and slopes, you will still need to use your eq fairly extensively.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sqnut said:


> Agree for the most part. Where you place and angle the speakers, the xovers, slopes etc are all tuning tools yes. However no matter where you set your crossovers and slopes, you will still need to use your eq fairly extensively.


That's not necessarily true. If your passbands are narrow, or the response in the passband is well-behaved, EQ becomes unnecessary. I use very little EQ in my current install, because I had some flexibility with crossover point placement. So my crossovers are centered on problem areas, and I use different Qs and overlap/underlap for different pairings. For example, my left front midrange Q is around 1.0 while my right midrange Q is around 0.7, IIRC. This was done to counteract the environment/positioning and to achieve the same left and right response. It's no different from using a parametric EQ to do the same thing. It's actually redundant to EQ over a crossover. It just means your crossover isn't set correctly.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> That's not necessarily true. If your passbands are narrow, or the response in the passband is well-behaved, EQ becomes unnecessary. I use very little EQ in my current install, because I had some flexibility with crossover point placement. So my crossovers are centered on problem areas, and I use different Qs and overlap/underlap for different pairings. For example, my left front midrange Q is around 1.0 while my right midrange Q is around 0.7, IIRC. This was done to counteract the environment/positioning and to achieve the same left and right response. It's no different from using a parametric EQ to do the same thing. It's actually redundant to EQ over a crossover. It just means your crossover isn't set correctly.


And again.. We are in agreement about starting with a good car to begin with...without huge cancellation and so forth. That being said...my car is probably not ideal Old E class... Maybe a Lincoln town car is better?? But I know my car is not nearly as bad as many others out there. ...despite subs being a nightmare for placement.

Mark -

For the most part speakers in any audio system are a large part of the picture. 

I meant in HIGH END CAR AUDIO what is holding car audio back from achieving great sound as compared to HIGH END HOME AUDIO is IMHO the lower quality signal coming out of most source units as compared to home units.

Car audio has great speaker driver technology available. For the most part we can get a lot of high end home drivers in our cars. And our enclosures are often irregularly shaped.. Also good.

Car audio has great amplifier technology available , tons of current, and in key off mode..(or possiblly in a superior electrical install)the possibility for a less polluted electrical source. Very nice.

Car audio has great signal sculpting ability, crossover points that can be moved, driver swaps, parametric EQ, graphic EQ, DSP (not to be confused with analog EQ), TA. We aren't afraid of EQ.

Hgh end car enthiasts measure and deaden perhaps with greater accuracy than many people in home audio. Bravo.

But compared to home audio...our source(s) seems to me to be weaker in quality than in high end home sytems. Just my opinion. And not all high end stuff is good despite the price tags...which IMHO are now absurd.

So I am not argueing that speakers don't make a difference in the road to high end sound. I am trying to say that the quality of most of the head units out there is limiting our ability for great sound and resolution and instrument timbre.

I don't care if a head unit Has 32 bit processors, and DSP, and TA if the output from the preamp sounds. Blah.

I don't care if a head unit measures with .00000000000000000009 % distortion if global feedback makes it sound clean but blah and lifeless, with out bloom or the natural decay of notes.

If a head unit can't reproduce that high end sound outside of a car.
..how the heck is it going to do it inside of a car in a more hostile environment?

I listened, for instance to my scan speak 12m outside of the car, and loved them..thought they were pretty amazing for a 4.5" driver. I put them in my 1994 Mercedes w/124 chassis E500 and fully expected them to sound like garbage...but they actually sounded pretty good and with analog parametic EQ I think they are pretty amazing and closer to sounding like they are outside of the car than inside the car without ANALOG parametric EQ. (I am against digitizing signal twice ).

So for my car, speakers are not a huge issue. On the other hand, running a sign from..for example an iPad out the headphone jack into my head unit Nakamichi TP-1200 II yielded decent but not impassive sound.

Running that same song out of an iMod 5th gen iPod ( see red wine audio about that) out of the dock through a ALO CRYRO DOCK cable, yielded better sound, still not awesome but better.

Running that same song out of macbook pro laptop was about the same as an iPod.

Running that same song out of a MacBook Pro running the Pure Music program on top of iTunes into FireWire 800/400 cable to an Apogee mini DAC. Yielded what I consider "high end home sound" in a car. 

Running a well recorded 24 bit / 192 kHz signal was even more amazing...

I do not think changing any speakers woud have gotten me any closer to high end sound, but feeding a superior quality source signal did the trick.

Trying to push a lower quality source signal by prodding it with excessive EQ just makes it sound odd and distorts the timbre of some instruments while fixing others. If you had a boom box headphone out as a source, you just can't EQ the crap out of it to make it sound like a high end source unit. You probably have a better chance at EQ ing speakers for sound than a source.

So that is what I mean when I say the quality of head units is the limiting factor now for high end sound in a car, I do not fault the speakers, or the signal processing ability, or the amplifiers, or the power supply as compared to home gear...and even though the environment is hostile, in some cars it can be tamed.

To me... It's the source.

And of course it sucks to sit off center.

What drives me nuts is that the Tesla Model S ...if you ever see it with the body off.... Has no transmission tunnel and thus no reason for an off center driver position. It is nearly silent, has an incredibly low drag coefficient, and has a ton of electrical storage....*.it could be the perfect car audio car.* If only the seating arrangement was like the original McLaren F1 with centered drivers position and a slightly aft pair of passengers. I also think a centered driving position is safer for the driver as it puts the driver in a place of less rotational inertia to reduce concussions....just a theory.


But back to the source issue. Years ago...

I had a set of inexpensive powered speakers with aluminum casings called AR powered partners. By Acoustic Research ...Advent made some plastic ones later that were not as good... 

So I plugged two portable CD players.a Sony D-777 with EQ nice metal case and build quality. And a Denon DCP-100 .

Since the speakers had their own variable gain and amps..they should play identically loud. Indeed the speakers clipped before the gains were anywhere near maxed. The same thing with the outputs of CD players.

But the denon played noticeably louder, cleaner and with better deeper bass.

How can that be?

Voltage is voltage as they say in pro audio.... The same amps will clip at the same voltage.

But everyone heard it. Still baffles me to this day. And the Denon was the best no matter how you tried to EQ the Sony. And.. Using a better unit..a Denon DCP-150 the sound was still cleaner, louder, more detail..etc.etc..

Just a better source.

Than later I connected those same speakers to a Tandberg 3014 cassette deck. ...whaddyaknow... Louder clearer, amazing bass... Just better. The weird thing was this was from a low bias cassette. But it is hell of a cassette deck.

Connected the speakers to a Wadia 860 and again better Bass...not much louder ...but wow! And it is absurd to think you would ever power $350 speakers with a $6000 CD player... But the example is just to say..the quality of a source matters often more than you would think.... Particularly at the high end.

Having an average source and great downstream components just let's you hear the shortcomings of upstream source more more clearly.

Off soap box...


----------



## asota (Feb 7, 2011)

Again I agree......My take on great car audio is to:
1) Maximize source quality
2) Maximize path lengths
3) Minimize reflections 
4) Minimize resonance's (sound deadener)
5) Minimize processing (analog)

IMO DSP's are still several years away from being audiophile grade if you can do these 5 things adding a DSP will just tend to muck things up.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

asota said:


> Again I agree......My take on great car audio is to:
> 1) Maximize source quality
> 2) Maximize path lengths
> 3) Minimize reflections
> ...


Some people like the tact digital DSP. I have not heard it. It is a home piece.

In regards to 3. I am totally with you there..I just haven't had the experience yet..so this was my solution.

I found that reflected and direct sound are in conflict in the short reflection times in a car. And because of these fast multiple reflections which are high in intensity 
relative to home reflections that are lower in level and with much long delay... (that mastering. engineers may try to get correct for the home environment to add ambiance?..perhaps engineers for pop engineer for cars more since 2000) well too much intense early reflection tends overwhelm the direct sound (like placing a chair 3 feet in front of your loud speakers at home) , and when the reflected sound and direct are closer in level the brain has a harder time discarding the conflicting signal. Sorta like when two twins are talking to you at once at the same level but one is delayed a few m/s it is really hard to communicate.

So since it is hard to eliminate reflections, I sorta think if you can reduce the level of direct sound it will make it more intelligible. Trying to tame reflections still has to be done.... You just can't have a barrage of echoes... But when you have reduced reflection as much as possible..I then try to reduce the sound of one of the twins...the direct sound, because it is the easier of the two twins to make quiet. Then the brain has an easier time sorting the sound. 

If you can tame reflections to near the home environment levels or studio levels ...then your approach is clearly the best possible,I just haven't had the experience to get to that level yet in car audio...so this was my oddball solution.

It seems to work extremely well.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

asota said:


> Again I agree......My take on great car audio is to:
> 1) Maximize source quality
> 2) Maximize path lengths
> 3) Minimize reflections
> ...


And, how much of a path length difference do you propose would allow good imaging without some sort of time alignment? From experience, 9.5" PLD's still benefits from time alignment. 9.5" is much better than most people can get. In order to get that, I picked a car with a deep dash. I put the speakers as close to the firewall as was physically possible. The seats were moved back 3", and inwards towards the center of the car 1.25". I'm easily 5' away from the passenger speaker. Yet, it still needs time alignment to sound as it should. True, reversing the polarity on one of the mids made it better, for both seats, but wasn't anywhere close to the improvement time alignment made.

The best source unit in the world wont fix the fact that the car destroys the sound, no matter how good of an install you have. Short of building a center seat car, you'll need time alignment to get the best possible sound from the drivers seat.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

asota said:


> Again I agree......My take on great car audio is to:
> 1) Maximize source quality
> 2) Maximize path lengths
> 3) Minimize reflections
> ...


1) just about any deck will suffice. $300 home receivers do it with 7 channels of 100 watts. If the deck is screwed up that's another issue. As apparently was the case with the JVC mentioned before. 
2) what's the max? Is every speaker at that max? People tend to forget they have more than two speakers and maximize a midrange, then slap a tweeter somewhere... Anywhere. And put a midbass in the doors. You have to factor not only driver pairs but driver combinations and that kills most all of the maxed PLD systems I've seen. 
3) not going to happen. And if you do, you've probably done too much. This is an ART mixed with serious objective data in home audio. A very delicate blend of placement and material. A 1" thick sheet of roxul won't fix everything. And it may do more harm than good. So how do those of us in car audio determine what is too dead and too live? The folks who use it legitimately have a firm grasp on determining how much and where with measurement gear. Few people in car audio realize there is a difference between an RTA and swept sine measurement. 
4) sound deadener can easily cause as many issues as it resolves. Consider an application where one shifts Fo from outside a passband where it's excited very little versus adding so much deadener you shift Fo smack in the middle of a drivers passband and increase the potential for excitement. 
Also realize there is more than one type of resonance. You have mechanical. You also have acoustic (room modes). 
5) you'll never have as good an audio system without (properly implemented) DSP as you would with it. Ever.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> 1) just about any deck will suffice. $300 home receivers do it with 7 channels of 100 watts. If the deck is screwed up that's another issue. As apparently was the case with the JVC mentioned before.
> 2) what's the max? Is every speaker at that max? People tend to forget they have more than two speakers and maximize a midrange, then slap a tweeter somewhere... Anywhere. And put a midbass in the doors. You have to factor not only driver pairs but driver combinations and that kills most all of the maxed PLD systems I've seen.
> 3) not going to happen. And if you do, you've probably done too much. This is an ART mixed with serious objective data in home audio. A very delicate blend of placement and material. A 1" thick sheet of roxul won't fix everything. And it may do more harm than good. So how do those of us in car audio determine what is too dead and too live? The folks who use it legitimately have a firm grasp on determining how much and where with measurement gear. Few people in car audio realize there is a difference between an RTA and swept sine measurement.
> 4) sound deadener can easily cause as many issues as it resolves. Consider an application where one shifts Fo from outside a passband where it's excited very little versus adding so much deadener you shift Fo smack in the middle of a drivers passband and increase the potential for excitement.
> ...


I agree with all of this. Not sure that some people knows how to implement a DSP correctly and therefore complains about it as it's a bad thing or something.

Especially nr5. You will never attain natural/realistic sound in the car without processing, period.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> 1) just about any deck will suffice. $300 home receivers do it with 7 channels of 100 watts. If the deck is screwed up that's another issue. As apparently was the case with the JVC mentioned before.
> 2) what's the max? Is every speaker at that max? People tend to forget they have more than two speakers and maximize a midrange, then slap a tweeter somewhere... Anywhere. And put a midbass in the doors. You have to factor not only driver pairs but driver combinations and that kills most all of the maxed PLD systems I've seen.
> 3) not going to happen. And if you do, you've probably done too much. This is an ART mixed with serious objective data in home audio. A very delicate blend of placement and material. A 1" thick sheet of roxul won't fix everything. And it may do more harm than good. So how do those of us in car audio determine what is too dead and too live? The folks who use it legitimately have a firm grasp on determining how much and where with measurement gear. Few people in car audio realize there is a difference between an RTA and swept sine measurement.
> 4) sound deadener can easily cause as many issues as it resolves. Consider an application where one shifts Fo from outside a passband where it's excited very little versus adding so much deadener you shift Fo smack in the middle of a drivers passband and increase the potential for excitement.
> ...


I set my seating position so my path lengths are as equal as possible. It's pretty low tech... I take a bunch of thick nylon string, different color pairs to correspond to tweeters , mid, midbass.

I at first try to get all the path lengths far away yet as equal as possible. If I end up moving too far back in my seat so either I can't drive...or that the path lengths start to get worse I move forward.

It looks funny- a bunch of colored strings coming out of each ear to various drivers...with knots in the string so I can see how far off I am.

If one driver is out of whack...which there is always at least. 1... I try to make that a midbass driver that has a funny path difference. I just try to lessen the mistake.

But I try to keep the Mids and tweeters distance from my ear..as close to even as possible by messing with my chair position, and trying different combos of left on axis and right off axis and vice versa until it sounds more natural. I also keep the subs positions in mind so that the distance to the subs is never less than the distance to the tweeters and Mids...preferably just a bit further than the tweeters and Mids.

Now if I did not have a great source... I probably would not care if a sorta lifeless signal had some phase messed up in it...I might even like it... And I would DSP AND TA the living crap out of the signal...after all it was not all that great to begin with. 

Anyhow, I hope I get proven wrong, because it means I learned something new to me and got better at this. I hope I will hear an improvement in MY car...most importantly.

I probably have not heard a great DSP TA set yet... Other than Gary Summers car...which I thought was the best 5.1 I have ever heard in a car. I do have a feeling Gary can make a lot of things sound good. His car sounded very deep and clean, very 3d in terms of effects.

When it comes to deadening... What is tell people in their home..is sorta like what I want to do in a car. Lets say someone has a resonance at home caused by Sheetrock. Doubling up on sheet rock will help some, but mostly you just shifted th frequency upwards from a loose drum to a tighter drum.

So I think it is better to spread out the mess....

Put blocks of uneven deadening material on the walls (preferably on the back where you will not see them..and also to allow for stuff on t front of needed.

Better to take one huge 9 db peak and spread it out into small .5 db peaks away from your ears maximum sensitivity FR and also not so where they cause additive resonances either. 

Thats why I probably wouldn't blanket a car with tons of layers of dynamat. I would more likely measure the vibration of a panel with something like a guitar pick up to quantify the noise produced... Then blob on some dampener clay just to see if it is a good spot..then if it measures well..put on a chunk of deadener in an uneven thickness. The goal being to dampen using less stuff and better quality dampening material....so I have some cash left over for decoupling lead septum.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> 1) just about any deck will suffice. $300 home receivers do it with 7 channels of 100 watts. If the deck is screwed up that's another issue. As apparently was the case with the JVC mentioned before.
> 2) what's the max? Is every speaker at that max? People tend to forget they have more than two speakers and maximize a midrange, then slap a tweeter somewhere... Anywhere. And put a midbass in the doors. You have to factor not only driver pairs but driver combinations and that kills most all of the maxed PLD systems I've seen.
> 3) not going to happen. And if you do, you've probably done too much. This is an ART mixed with serious objective data in home audio. A very delicate blend of placement and material. A 1" thick sheet of roxul won't fix everything. And it may do more harm than good. So how do those of us in car audio determine what is too dead and too live? The folks who use it legitimately have a firm grasp on determining how much and where with measurement gear. Few people in car audio realize there is a difference between an RTA and swept sine measurement.
> 4) sound deadener can easily cause as many issues as it resolves. Consider an application where one shifts Fo from outside a passband where it's excited very little versus adding so much deadener you shift Fo smack in the middle of a drivers passband and increase the potential for excitement.
> ...


game, set.....


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> That's not necessarily true. If your passbands are narrow, or the response in the passband is well-behaved, EQ becomes unnecessary. I use very little EQ in my current install, because I had some flexibility with crossover point placement. So my crossovers are centered on problem areas, and I use different Qs and overlap/underlap for different pairings. For example, my left front midrange Q is around 1.0 while my right midrange Q is around 0.7, IIRC. This was done to counteract the environment/positioning and to achieve the same left and right response. It's no different from using a parametric EQ to do the same thing. It's actually redundant to EQ over a crossover. It just means your crossover isn't set correctly.


A painter will use different sized brushes while making a painting. From a 3/0 which is fine, to 12 which is thick. Some areas like background are good for 12 but the veins on a leaf would require the fine brush. You use the eq to cut peaks at specific frequencies caused by your cars interior, your driver placement etc. You're not eq'ing only around the pass band, you'll get these peaks ~ 800 hz and above. You also need the eq for L/R response. 

Using xover points and slopes to cut these peaks is like using a 12 brush to paint the leaf. You will also use the eq to set the tonal balance while level matching for the curve that works in your car. I don't think you can get a car to sound right without using the eq. You use all functions of the dsp collectively to get a whole.





Hanatsu said:


> I agree with all of this. Not sure that some people knows how to implement a DSP correctly and therefore complains about it as it's a bad thing or something.
> 
> Especially nr5. You will never attain natural/realistic sound in the car without processing, period.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Agreed. You are not eq for the recording but for the effects of the environment. I agree with Erin's 5 points and would add one more.

6) Home and car audio are two different worlds and hence mostly different rules. Thanks to the starkly different environments.


----------



## 99xjproject (Jan 11, 2011)

I have a deh-p01 I would be willing to send if you are looking to test one...What is turn around time like? No hurry...Just curious.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Golden Ears said:


> I set my seating position so my path lengths are as equal as possible. It's pretty low tech... I take a bunch of thick nylon string, different color pairs to correspond to tweeters , mid, midbass.
> 
> I at first try to get all the path lengths far away yet as equal as possible. If I end up moving too far back in my seat so either I can't drive...or that the path lengths start to get worse I move forward.
> 
> ...


What drivers are you running, how far is each driver from you in total, how far is each distance broken down in x and y components, and what are your crossover points? What angle is each driver positioned towards you in the x and y direction (azimuth and elevation)?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Golden Ears said:


> But I try to keep the Mids and tweeters distance from my ear..as close to even as possible by messing with my chair position, and trying different combos of left on axis and right off axis and vice versa until it sounds more natural. I also keep the subs positions in mind so that the distance to the subs is never less than the distance to the tweeters and Mids...preferably just a bit further than the tweeters and Mids.


Any reason while you would want best PLD's for drivers where 70% of frequencies are more sensitive to amplitude differences rather than arrival times? Where as your typical mid bass in a 3 way will be playing an entire pass band that is phase sensitive, hence better PLD here would be a bigger benefit.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sqnut said:


> A painter will use different sized brushes while making a painting. From a 3/0 which is fine, to 12 which is thick. Some areas like background are good for 12 but the veins on a leaf would require the fine brush. You use the eq to cut peaks at specific frequencies caused by your cars interior, your driver placement etc. You're not eq'ing only around the pass band, you'll get these peaks ~ 800 hz and above. You also need the eq for L/R response.
> 
> Using xover points and slopes to cut these peaks is like using a 12 brush to paint the leaf. You will also use the eq to set the tonal balance while level matching for the curve that works in your car. I don't think you can get a car to sound right without using the eq. You use all functions of the dsp collectively to get a whole.


EQ and crossover are actually doing the same thing. Your crossover tuning should be tailored to the output of the system, rather than conform to some particular formula or symmetry. So, if you have a peak at 100Hz, for example, and it's not objectionable to place your crossover point in that vicinity, you can exploit crossover to knock that peak down. You don't have to set the same crossover settings for both left and right. The highpass of your left woofer can be 80Hz while the right woofer is 120Hz, _as long as their acoustical responses end up being the same_. You don't have to set them both to 100Hz and then bring in the EQ to level them out afterwards. And I think that's a big mistake that people make, because it makes the tuning that much more complex and can sometimes introduce more problems that need to be solved.

But you're right that if the problem occurs deep into the passband, then the crossover isn't going to provide you this adjustability. That's when you need EQ. However, one trend I've noticed in car audio is that people are frequently using multi-way systems (4-way is very common here), which results in narrow bandwidths and gives you more crossover flexibility. With narrow bandwidths, the crossover ends up affecting the majority of the band, which increases the likelihood that you can solve your peaks and valleys and phase coherence issues by altering the crossover parameters.

Like I said, in my current install, I was able to float the crossover points to take care of issues that I'd have to use an EQ for if I didn't have that kind of crossover flexibility. The EQ is reserved for trouble spots that the crossover can't reach, which turned out to be very few. In a system I had about 5 years ago, I was actually running a 5-way at one point , and didn't need EQ because the bandwidths were so narrow. Which was fortunate, because I didn't _have_ an EQ.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Golden Ears said:


> I set my seating position so my path lengths are as equal as possible. It's pretty low tech... I take a bunch of thick nylon string, different color pairs to correspond to tweeters , mid, midbass.
> 
> I at first try to get all the path lengths far away yet as equal as possible. If I end up moving too far back in my seat so either I can't drive...or that the path lengths start to get worse I move forward.
> 
> ...


I think your experience with Gary's car demonstrates that your issue isn't with DSP, your issue is with the people _using_ the DSP. It's like saying you hate hammers because every time you've ever seen someone use a hammer they hit their thumb with it. That ain't the hammer's fault. 

As for pathlength differences... If you were in a non-reflective space, T/A can completely and undeniably achieve the same exact thing that moving a speaker towards you or away from you can achieve. There's no special processing and no digital artifacts to worry about. You could just as easily install two head units and hit the play button X milliseconds later than the other, and it performs the same function. So, being superstitious about digital processing doesn't actually apply to T/A, because it's only nominally "digital". 

However, moving the speakers can achieve something different from T/A because you change the reflective patterns when moving the speaker. But, given the asymmetries in the car, it's hard for me to understand how maximizing path lengths solve this problem. If you want the reflective patterns to be identical for two drivers, it kinda makes sense to stick them in a similar position as one another. But I don't get how sticking them in a similar position FAR away is better than sticking them in a similar position that's closer to you. Maybe someone can explain this to me.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> You don't have to set the same crossover settings for both left and right. The highpass of your left woofer can be 80Hz while the right woofer is 120Hz, _as long as their acoustical responses end up being the same_. You don't have to set them both to 100Hz and then bring in the EQ to level them out afterwards. And I think that's a big mistake that people make, because it makes the tuning that much more complex and can sometimes introduce more problems that need to be solved.


I have to admit I'm not a big fan of staggered L/R xover points. It makes it much tougher to keep things balanced (more eq work w/o 100% satisfaction). Done higher up it causes problems in imaging that are nearly impossible to rectify.  This is a crazy hobby.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

sqnut said:


> I have to admit I'm not a big fan of staggered L/R xover points. It makes it much tougher to keep things balanced (more eq work w/o 100% satisfaction). Done higher up it causes problems in imaging that are nearly impossible to rectify.  This is a crazy hobby.


No, read what I italicized in my last post. I'm saying the opposite of what you're saying... if you DON'T independently tune your crossover, it's going to make it tougher to keep things balanced without the aid of EQ. 

The goal should be to achieve the same response from the left speaker as from the right speaker, right? To achieve tonal balance, prevent a wandering stage, etc. You can measure this directly (microphone or ears) by playing the two speakers independently and then adjust the left speaker to have a matching response curve as the right speaker, or vice versa. You can do this with independent L/R EQ, _*or*_ you can do this by independently manipulating the crossover/amplitude settings. The second method is more elegant because you don't have to use an EQ to undo what the crossover did, which can sometimes be more difficult than just doing it all in the crossover in the first place.

For example, suppose that with no crossovers, EQs, etc, your left tweeter has a higher amplitude around 3-3.5kHz than your right tweeter. Your approach is to apply a crossover to both sides at 3kHz and then EQ the peak down on the left. That's fine. But another approach, however, is to eliminate that peak by using a crossover on the left side of 3.5kHz while sticking with the 3kHz crossover on the right side. [I'm bullshitting numbers for the sake of clarity...] After you do that, you may find that the left and right sides have identical response profiles -- and therefore will be tonally balanced -- and you didn't even have to use EQ to achieve it.

But if your problem is at 8kHz, your crossover isn't going to fix that problem. That's when you need EQ. The point I made in my last post is that the likelihood of this happening is related to the width of the passband. For example, lots of people run their subwoofers with low LPFs so that they're only having to deal with less than 2 octaves. I believe people prefer this because then they don't have to use EQ to achieve the response they're after... their bandwidth is so narrow that the sub gain control is like a equalizer! And the Q of that "equalizer" is governed by the crossover parameters of the LPF. For some reason, people have gotten it into their heads that bass boost is bad (bass boost = EQ, usually with a low Q), so they find this method preferable. If instead they used a much higher LPF, and therefore a wider bandwidth, they'd almost certainly have to EQ their sub. People either don't want to do this, or don't know how to do this, so they choose narrow bandwidths.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> What drivers are you running, how far is each driver from you in total, how far is each distance broken down in x and y components, and what are your crossover points? What angle is each driver positioned towards you in the x and y direction (azimuth and elevation)?


I'll pm you. Many thanks!


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

MarkZ said:


> I think your experience with Gary's car demonstrates that your issue isn't with DSP, your issue is with the people _using_ the DSP. It's like saying you hate hammers because every time you've ever seen someone use a hammer they hit their thumb with it. That ain't the hammer's fault.
> 
> SO TRUE! I just think some people can sculpt with an axe...
> 
> ...


Engineers try to mix for an equilateral triangle. That's how speakers should be positioned.. Probably for most installs we fail and listen too far in the near field. I think most car is Extreme nearfield listening.

Moving the speakers further away from you probably gets closer to an equilateral triangle...

Also HAAS effect (not an avocado) is reduced as the ratio of the path length differences is lessened. Think of it this way. You have two equilateral triangles.... the speakers in each corner and a listener at the last corner.

One equlateral triangle is 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet.

The other is 40 feet by 40 feet by 40 feet.

Now let's offset the listener in each triangle by 1 foot. 

you probably wont even notice it in the one with long path lengths as the ratio of the uneven sides is 39.5/40.5

but in the shorter triangle the ratio is 3/5

Yeah I know the math is not accurate .. but it doesn't have to be to undertand the idea. As your path lengths increase the your off centered position starts to matter less.


To keep this on topic. I think the better the source quality- the easier it is to hear into the mix... like what the recording artists intended.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Golden Ears said:


> Engineers try to mix for an equilateral triangle. That's how speakers should be positioned.. Probably for most installs we fail and listen too far in the near field. I think most car is Extreme nearfield listening.
> 
> Moving the speakers further away from you probably gets closer to an equilateral triangle...


In a car, this usually isn't the case. Especially on the driver's side. The furthest point is either the kick panels or between the dash and windshield. But those positions are less lateral than the doors, even though they're closer to you there. I think the best way to achieve an equilateral triangle is to position your left speaker in the door (upper or lower) and delay it. Where you position the right speaker is somewhat less important because, as you note, the further distance means that the azimuthal changes become less pronounced. But some semblance of symmetry here is probably worthwhile, especially for tweeters and high midrange where you have to start worrying about height cues.



> Also HAAS effect (not an avocado) is reduced as the ratio of the path length differences is lessened. Think of it this way. You have two equilateral triangles.... the speakers in each corner and a listener at the last corner.


Haas shouldn't be an issue nearfield.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Golden Ears said:


> I'll pm you. Many thanks!


Why PM those infos? Just post it on this thread... 

Kelvin


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> Why PM those infos? Just post it on this thread...
> 
> Kelvin


I am pretty psyched you all want to help. I just wanted to try to keep this thread focused on source quality and why it is important. So here goes the temp...thread-jack and I'll move this to another this discussion to another thread.

I could make another thread about PLD. sqnut- thanks for reminding me about midbasses being phase dependent. I considered moving both midbass drivers forward in the door. right now they are kinda rearward.. 

here are my door panels.

Produkte Doorboards Soundsystems | Mercedes | E Klasse | Mercedes W124 Limousine T Modell 75170 Doorboards Mit 3 Wege Soundsystem | Jehnert Sound Design Automotive

And I tried to replace the stock tweeter with a Scan Speak D2004 in A-pillars (sounded dreadful) it did not sound as good as with this weird Jehnert tweeter i the dash location. Then again I used the Jehnert passive crosover that came with it... I did swap out the midrange to a Scan Speak 12M (Stock dash location) which made a huge difference. The midbass drivers that it comes with have a .7 Q so I am not sure I can swap these out with say Scan speak 18w 8545's IB even though I would stay away from F3 crossing at 80hz. Q is too low unless I seal them up..

Subs are SB acoustics flat 10" 8ohm model 

SB Acoustics :: 10" SW26DAC76-8

which get .707 in a .35 cubic box. Those are on top of the rear parcel shelf. I dont want to go IB with different subs as *I will not cut this car*. In fact the entire install will fit in without having to drill a single hole in my car.

So the only way I adjust PLD is by moving my ears/seat.

here is my system..

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-collecting-long-time-mcintosh-nakamichi.html

I added 2 Mc443 amps to run my midbasses.

If you guys feel like offering suggstions... that would be great.

Erin,

I would be happy to send you a Apogee mini DAC for you to try in your system shootout if I could get it back to me fairly quickly. It will run off of 12 volts. You can feed it Pure music (there is a free 15 day trial of it on the web at channld.com) and you just use a ALAC or uncompressed 16bit/44.1 redbook file... or you can download a free Hi-rez file at HD tracks.. 

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=digital&m=164507

Here is an album that has a jazz artist ...but the real star here is the recording engineer. Some music sounds best in a home steeo, some best on headphones (like far away miced live recordings becuse the angle to the perfpormer is small ie.. closer to sorta binaural mic'ing) , and a few...like this one "modern cool" ..I think sound best in cars. ..even the redbook version is very good.

I run through some XLR to RCA adapters to use the balanced outputs ...unbalanced ) (instead of going Mini-RCA 1 volt) out of the Apogee mini dac the balanced outputs have more voltage output, and allows me to turn it down just a tad and still have lots of headroom.

I am not sure what is around you in Northern Alabama for high end shops, but lacking high end shops..in PRO AUDIO ONLINE SHOPS like Guitar Center Sweetwater.com you could also try the new Apogee Duet 2 if you have a Mac..or even a Apogee Quartet (which can do 6 channels... which with the right processor would give you 5.1) . Personally I am content with stereo. I think it is hard enough to get timing/phase right with two channels and a lot more work with 5.

I don't think i can do more to convince anyone about this unless they hear it for themselves.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

cajunner said:


> I am not a huge fan of asymmetrical crossover settings either.





> I should add that I am a fan of symmetry, but acoustic symmetry may well be hard to find in the off-center listening position of the vehicle.


Symmetric crossover settings + an asymmetric space = an asymmetric acoustic response. That's why you're finding it hard to achieve in an off-center listening position.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

cajunner said:


> 2-way plus sub means that the pass band can vary from wide band mid to wide band tweeter, and moving crossover regions in either of these extreme examples is going to put beaming or location differences/break-up peaks/distortion, ahead of any quasi-equalization benefit offered by shifting crossover slopes characteristics or points.


At the risk of turning this into yet another "2-way vs. 3-way" thread, I'd like to point out that from my informal survey of those threads over the years, about 50% of the people on here disagree with you.


----------



## masswork (Feb 23, 2009)

MarkZ said:


> Symmetric crossover settings + an asymmetric space = an asymmetric acoustic response. That's why you're finding it hard to achieve in an off-center listening position.


Just curious...

What if:
1. Create the model/target curve of intended acoustic crossover
2. Use symetric electronic crossover
3. Compare the target curve vs actual measured output, and use EQ per driver so both matched the target design? May need shelving EQ though...


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

cajunner said:


> I can achieve the position, just fine...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Suppose you had an EQ that was really adjustable. By that, I mean you could adjust the Q of each band, you could adjust the level well beyond the typical confines of +/-12dB, and you could use as many bands as you wanted.

Suppose you took this EQ and adjusted 1kHz to -3dB, 2kHz to -15dB, 4kHz to -27dB, etc, and all the bands in between to the appropriate setting to achieve a "smooth" response.

Explain how this EQ _isn't_ a crossover.



My point is that if you're shaping the signal a certain way with an EQ after you shaped the signal a certain way with an EQ... ahem... err... crossover, then you're being redundant. Redundancy is fine. Some people even apply EQ individually to the drivers and _then_ have the whole system pass through a system-wide EQ. We all have redundant volume knobs in our signal paths for ease of use. Redundancy makes like easy sometimes. But that doesn't necessarily mean redundancy is somehow sonically superior.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

I agree that crossovers should be set individually each side before EQ. Crossovers is basically a EQ used to shape the signal as you said. Much of the major wide peaks in FR could be fixed by separating xover frequencies for instance. However I still find L-R EQ to be very important. Especially in midrange, I run my 3" drivers from 250-3800Hz and my midbass drivers from 67-175Hz atm. There was a wide peak in that area and the crossover settings fixed that. My DSP allows for custom crossovers, so that worked out good. EQ is still needed in the passband, crossovers won't do any good there. I prefer a parametric EQ on each channel, both center frequency and Q should be adjustable because often a peak occurs right in the middle of two static GEQ bands and well within the passband of the crossovers.

Not an EE so I don't understand everything there is about this, but I always found symmetrical crossovers to work out better (sound better). 18dB slopes never seems to integrate as good as 12/24dB for some reason. If the assymetrical crosssover of 18dB/oct has an accoustical rolloff of 24dB/oct will there be a 270 or 360deg phase shift at the crossover point then in theory?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Hanatsu said:


> Not an EE so I don't understand everything there is about this, but I always found symmetrical crossovers to work out better (sound better). 18dB slopes never seems to integrate as good as 12/24dB for some reason. If the assymetrical crosssover of 18dB/oct has an accoustical rolloff of 24dB/oct will there be a 270 or 360deg phase shift at the crossover point then in theory?
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


I don't think they're talking about symmetry as being 12/24 slopes or asymmetry as being 6/18 slopes. 
When they say asymmetrical they're just talking about the left driver having a different crossover point/slope than the right driver. Ie: left midbass has a LPF of 250 hz at 24dB while right midbass has a 200hz at 18dB crossover. 

I use asymmetrical HPF on my tweeters for better polar response alignment at the drivers seat since the left tweeter has a harsh reflection off the near side glass and needs to roll off faster to avoid this. If I had independent EQ I might be able to fix this issue by using symmetrical crossover points and cutting outside the passband of the left tweeter to lower the level of the nuisance.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

bikinpunk said:


> Many years back, there was a high end shootout of headunits written up on ECA. Nothing long... just some brief subjective views on decks such as Denon Z1, Mcintosh, etc.
> 
> What I'd like to do is do a more _objective _'shootout' by gathering various high end headunits and testing the performance and providing the data to go with it. I don't have a vested interest in supplying my own subjective thoughts (ie: X sound warmer, Z had a better soundstage) because that's too hard to reliably setup in a one-man situation and I don't have the time to dedicate to making it bulletproof.
> 
> ...


The sony cdx-c90 or 910* with the xdp4000x* is a real show stopper and should be included in a future test. Also must have the optical connection.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

bikinpunk said:


> Just an update for those who may be interested. It's a bit of a mix between subjective and objective. No data to post but if someone wants to see what I measured rather than just take my word for it, LMK and I'll post it up.
> 
> I've bought about 4 cd players in the last 2 weeks. And I've been provided an MX5000+MDA5000 to test as well. I've been trying to pick a headunit I like that has features I want but doesn't sacrifice sound quality. That’s where this thread idea started. So, outside of these old school decks that I’d be interested to objectively test, I bought a few new model decks to play around with for my own personal use, looking to find the one that has great performance and features. I thought it would be easy and it turns out, it's not.
> 
> ...


Alpine has made some wonderful decks in the past. Those of 6 years ago could easily be big contenders in SQ competitions. 

I am more familiar with the sound of the mx4000 and mda4000 on my home system theater system. I had the top of the line sound monitor dta500x with the icd changer (unfortunately the icd died) and the dta found a new home in Indonesia paired with a cdt-450x. Looking back, the McIntosh source was more pleasant to my ears, perhaps not as detailed as the sound monitor but had a slightly better sound stage.

At a certain level this all boils down to personal preference, this is something that is very important for everyone to remember. 

I will say that there are a dwindling few hobbyists (including myself) who have gone through very great lengths to procure some of these old school treasures. Because we have been unable to find more modern alternatives which are as pleasing to our ears. The p99rs, has wonderful crossovers and eq settings, however the raw sound feel flat to my ears. 

McIntosh is now out of the car audio game. The last source they produced the mx406 (although a wonderful unit) did not match the performance of the 4000 or the 5000. 

There was also a claim that the mx5000 and clarion hxd1 were sonically identical, this is not the truth. They do share many of the same internals, however the mids response from the 5000 is more natural. 

I guess I would be very careful in making the claim that source unit A is or is not almost equal to source unit B. The same is true for amplifiers and the misconception that "all amps sound the same." It's a flat out falsehood and it perpetuates the degradation of this hobby.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Erin 

It's a pity I did not notice you were using a QSC amplifier for testing. 

The analogy is this. If you are using a yard stick to measure differences of 1/1000th of an inch... you might not be able to measure those differences. 

Certainly if I were a loudspeaker designer (and as car audio guys...we ALL are LOUDSPEAKER DESIGNERS) , and I wanted to make the newest improved model of a speaker- and I used the amplififder of a boom box to try and improve my speaker...I would have a hard time discernming subtle differences to point me in the correct direction. 

The QSC is not a particularly resolving amplifier IME. A Spectral, or Audio Research, other suitble high end amp would be better for the purposes of this test.

I think it is also significant that the head units are tested outside of the car. This means the ones with better electrical shielding would lose their significant design advantage to show that even in the midst of electrical noise they can resolve lower level detail, a lesser resolving piece that doesn't lose its fine resolution in the noise floor might sound better in an install- than a piece that measures better away from noise. You could make something to simulate this...a "noise box" but for the purposes of this test..it's not going to happen...in fact it is amazing and a trobute to yoru enthusiasm that this will happen as it is. Many thanks.

Also in regards to Mark Z arguement about using a crossover as an EQ. It's like using a pairing knife instead of a scalpel to perform eye surgery. You might get away with it some of the time - but in cases with detailed fixes- it will not have the resolution like a real Parametric EQ. sometimes you need a scalpel. If the speakers don't resolve well.... using a fine scalpel will not give you as fine a end result. Its like trying to sculpt lumpy gravel mixed with mud as opposed to bronze. 

Now in support of Mark Z. I am doing an install in my Gf's car. I have two amps- one with a built in EQ and another with a parametric EQ- and of course the amps have a Sub EQ. Being short a crossover- I am going to try using the parametric EQ as a crossover for the midbass. Its like using a scalpel to eat a steak. I think I'd have better fine control. 

Lastly in the reason to argue the importance of source resolution and timbral purity, some people use top end home speakers in their car- I bought Scan 12m's from Erin for mine- , we know the amps are on par with some home amps, we know the speaker wire can be the same- we have a superior power delivery system (many top home systems use batteries - See Red Wine Audio or Nagra) The source quality for car audio compared to home quality falls flat on its face. I am not talking about some 5.1 Sony amp from best buy. I am talking about an Audio Research LS5 MKII, A MSB Analog DAC, A LAMM preamplifier, Even a lowly PeachTree decco would romp all over our gear. I think Eq is a must...no way around it- and DSP might be the lesser of two evils...provided that you do all DSP with the inital digital signal to avoid double digital encoding.

So Erin, when you review these head units. I would suggest going to a high end audio shop....If you give me an address I'll find the closest one to you.. not a "Best Buy" not a "Magnolia" ..They have McIntosh and their source units aren't really high end- nor are their amps. But some decent place that has Audio Research, Rougue Audio, Constellation Audio, Pass Labs (Nelson Pass designed for Soundstream) , Spectral, conrad johnson (why they never capitalize their names I will never know), Primaluna, Sim Moon, ... something decent and high end for amplification. Use good speaker wire (it can't hurt).

Then you run the sources though quality resolving home loudspeakers a bare minimum would be a Magneplanar 1.7R, Quad ESL 57, or 63 or current electrostatic model, better might be Revel Salons (subterranean bass..), Chapman MKii series, Saunders Audio, set up properly with decent room treatment. 

The key here is resolution. 

When testing a components resolution- make sure EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CHAIN has higher resolution. Or you will never hear what the unit is capable of doing.. it will just get "smeared over" .

If you go through the trouble to get ALL these decks...why not go to an audio dealer- make friends and ask to hang out after hours with him so you can test and have a few beers (Watch your Ear/brain resolution....) . 

AFAIK no one has ever tested headunits properly like this.
Can't find a dealer to do it? I'll put $150 towards your plane fare and fly you here and you can use my system.
In Stereophile magazine (not that I am saying everything they do is always correct...but) they do make sure the testing gear has higher resolution that what is being tested. 

Sometimes you do a test and weird things happen..like they tried to test the crush point of a Tesla Model S and at 4G of force the testing machine broke instead of the car's roof getting crushed. in that case your testing gear did not have enough RANGE to test...even though its resolution might have been good enough. 

Certainly your QSC has enough range...just in my humble opinion, not the resolution.

Sadly- its possible a Red Wine MODDED Audio Astell and Kern AK100 portable music player would beat every head unti in the test so long as DSP was defeated to make it a fair fight. That would be a shame.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

:inout:


----------



## HiloDB1 (Feb 25, 2011)

:lol:


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Erin's last post in this thread was last December...


----------



## Krisfromtampa (Aug 6, 2012)

Is this thread still going on cause I have a nakamichi tp1200 and abyss a7 sound monitor dta500 Sony c90 Kenwood k-wd01


----------

