# The High-End Head Unit Shootout



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Some members expressed some interest in following along and reading the information and findings as we run through the high-end head unit shootout so I have started a thread here for it. 

A little background...

I wanted to check out some of the highly regarded head units to see how they stack up against each other, and in an effort to select the one that *I* like the best for my personal vehicle. This is a difficult process though if you don't have the necessary units to compare *side by side*, so myself and a couple of friends have pooled together and we are going to each bring some of the high end units to the table and do a day of comparisons, listening and measuring of the source units.

Thus far, we have the following on the list:

Pioneer P99RS
Pioneer DEX-P9
McIntosh MX5000
Panasonic CQ-TX5500 Bottlehead
Denon DCT-1
Sony CDX-C90
Clarion DRZ-9255
Sony RSX-GS9

These are widely considered some of the very top car audio source units ever created. Yes, there are a couple that aren't on the list (Alpine 7909, F1 Status come to mind) but these are the ones we have been able to procure. Testing probably won't happen for a couple weeks but we're getting closer.

My intent is to do the following:

-Listening tests
-Measuring of output response for comparison
-Pictures


There are many of us on this site who enjoy reading subjective reviews for the fun and entertainment value as well as to hopefully give some things to think about. There are also plenty of us on the site who want to see objective data and don't give much weight to the subjective content. I'm hoping we can provide a little of both. I will state from the get-go however that your results may vary and I would encourage everyone to experiment, listen for yourselves and come to your own conclusions.  


We will be using the analog output from each unit. We will use cd's as the source for listening testing and in the case of the Sony GS9 (which has no cd mechanism), I'll take the exact same music file source on the CD and put it on a usb stick to supply the Sony.

As for measurements, I'd like to feed signal into aux inputs and measure output with my software, but if that is not possible, then I will measure using a burned cd (and same file on the Sony GS9) to give a look at a comparative response. I'm a hobbyist and not professional- I'll do the best I can with the tools available.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

if only Elite Car Audio was still around. I did a similar evaluation when I was in Japan
Denon DCT1, DCT A1N, DRX9255, Alpine 7909, Sony C90, Sound Monitor 5000x....on sound board using Luxman amp, Focal Utopia Speakers, Focal sub (i think) 

Denon DCT1 won hands down


----------



## cmusic (Nov 16, 2006)

Dang it... Here's another reason I regret selling my F#1 7990 years ago.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Sounds like a good idea, curious if there will be a dsp downstream from the HU's, so that all units are tested on the same tune. I am really looking forward to your feedback on the subjective listening tests, while IMHO at the resolution we measure, I'd be very surprised if the measurements were significantly different across the units.


----------



## jackies (Jan 14, 2010)

This is the activity I'd like to see!
I'd say, forget the measurements, it's only listeners impressions that matter.
You need a good amount of expert listeners - no young people, no bass heads, etc.
Minimum of 20+ years of high-end audio listening is a requirement.
Most important would be to set the volume using SPL meter and pink noise recording.
If one of the decks is ever so slightly louder, it will win the test.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Sounds like a good idea, curious if there will be a dsp downstream from the HU's, so that all units are tested on the same tune. I am really looking forward to your feedback on the subjective listening tests, while IMHO at the resolution we measure, I'd be very surprised if the measurements were significantly different across the units.



Yes, since my demo board has a mix of speakers currently being tested I will use a Helix DSP Pro for crossover duties. I could go direct to a pair of home speakers, but currently the best thing I have available is a set of Alesis mkII studio monitors in somewhat rough shape and my Speakercraft in-wall Profile Aim Cinema speakers.

Demoing will be done through the following board setup: Scanspeak 10", Scanspeak 4" 12M revelator mid and Scanspeak 7100 revelator tweeter. (Unless I come up with another solution by then)


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Mic10is said:


> if only Elite Car Audio was still around. I did a similar evaluation when I was in Japan
> Denon DCT1, DCT A1N, DRX9255, Alpine 7909, Sony C90, Sound Monitor 5000x....on sound board using Luxman amp, Focal Utopia Speakers, Focal sub (i think)
> 
> Denon DCT1 won hands down



Sounds like it was a fun test


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

jackies said:


> This is the activity I'd like to see!
> I'd say, forget the measurements, it's only listeners impressions that matter.
> You need a good amount of expert listeners - no young people, no bass heads, etc.
> Minimum of 20+ years of high-end audio listening is a requirement.
> ...



All sources will be level matched for accuracy. As I said in the original post, we're aiming to have both objective and subjective info. Listening impressions are great, and fun- and entertaining to read...but we all hear things differently and have different preferences for our ideal sound. That's why I encourage others to listen for themselves and draw their own conclusions (and why I like to provide some semblance of objective data when possible).


----------



## foreman (Apr 18, 2007)

Thanks for this Steve! I'll keep my eyes on this


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

in for this


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> Yes, since my demo board has a mix of speakers currently being tested I will use a Helix DSP Pro for crossover duties. I could go direct to a pair of home speakers, but currently the best thing I have available is a set of Alesis mkII studio monitors in somewhat rough shape and my Speakercraft in-wall Profile Aim Cinema speakers.
> 
> Demoing will be done through the following board setup: Scanspeak 10", Scanspeak 4" 12M revelator mid and Scanspeak 7100 revelator tweeter. (Unless I come up with another solution by then)


Thanks for clearing that up. Well if someone you know is good at cabinet building, those drivers would make an awesome floor stander. 

I'm also really curious about your subjective opinion on the Panny bottle head. I assume like your amp test, those auditioning, don't get to see which unit is playing. GL sounds like a lot of fun.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. Well if someone you know is good at cabinet building, those drivers would make an awesome floor stander.
> 
> I'm also really curious about your subjective opinion on the Panny bottle head. I assume like your amp test, those auditioning, don't get to see which unit is playing. GL sounds like a lot of fun.



You're welcome to drop on over and participate 

Yeah, I was thinking of building a nice reference setup with some of the excellent drivers I have available here.I could definitely do it...just a matter of the time involved which is in high demand and low supply right now with my other projects and the donation build I'm working on.

I have a bunch of speakers on the test board from midbasses 8-10", to midranges, tweeters, planars, ribbons...all kinds of cool stuff. I've actually been really impressed with the Fountek Neo X2.0 ribbons which I didn't anticipate I'd like so much (I've had ribbons before and enjoyed them, but these are sweet). I also will have some others coming in the next couple weeks including the new Satori tweeter and some Mundorf AMT's as well as another pair of mids. Fun times!


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

I'm in for the read


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

when is this going on? im not TOO far. maybe i can participate


----------



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

This looks interesting. I would have like to have seen an Eclipse CD8053 in the mix, as well.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Hah, I would like to have seen a couple others as well. Sourcing these isn't easy or cheap though.

If someone wants to ship one my way I'll throw it in the mix.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

SkizeR said:


> when is this going on? im not TOO far. maybe i can participate


I'll reach out once we have a date Nick. My little demo room isn't very big (I have my acoustic drum kit in there too) but I'm sure we can squeeze you in there


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

captainobvious said:


> I'll reach out once we have a date Nick. My little demo room isn't very big (I have my acoustic drum kit in there too) but I'm sure we can squeeze you in there


Cool, I also have a panny tube deck with an upgraded tube if you want to try that as well

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Hmm would be interesting to compare it to the one I have with a stock tube.


----------



## Coppertone (Oct 4, 2011)

^^^ Fortunately Steve both you and Nick weigh about a minute lol, so I'm sure you'll both fit in that room. Glad to see if you two get together as I have crazy respect for both of your opinions.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

I think I have a couple ell bee's on Nick at 6'2 195 hahaha.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

either way, im down to come by so long as im around. 15-23rd im away, and weekend of the 4th im away


----------



## Coppertone (Oct 4, 2011)

Lol, it's the volleyball player in yaa coming out. Thumbs up.


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

I can offer an mx5000 to the mix.... lmk


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Here's what a test like should look like, in my opinion.

The tester should choose 3-4 target curves and use each head unit to see how closely they can replicate those curves. 

What's going to happen (again) is that the objective tests will show one head unit has a earlier roll off, more bottom end, etc. and people are going to think that they should by one or the other because they like a "bright" or "warm" sound, when in reality a couple clicks on the EQ could make them sound and measure identical. What difference does it make if each one is slightly different out of the box, but each can be easily tuned to any type of sound?

People have already shown how clean the signal is on some of these units, a slightly different FR on some of them isn't going to matter one bit, assuming it has the tuning abilities to match a target curve. In the case of some of the units without DSP, measure the signal and be done. It doesn't tell you much except whether or not if clips, and the FR without processing.

I think these tests are fun, and I give you props for doing it, but I still don't think it's going to provide anything particularly useful that hasn't already been provided.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

Mic10is said:


> if only Elite Car Audio was still around. I did a similar evaluation when I was in Japan
> Denon DCT1, DCT A1N, DRX9255, Alpine 7909, Sony C90, Sound Monitor 5000x....on sound board using Luxman amp, Focal Utopia Speakers, Focal sub (i think)
> 
> Denon DCT1 won hands down


Agreed Mic! 

Missed that about Elitecaraudio.com. All these subjective testings without getting flamed that all hu and all amps sounds the same, tests are flawed just because there was a difference... etc...

Thanks for doing this Steve!!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Can't please 'em all!


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

This is going to be a great read. Subbed. 

Love to hear about subjective opinions. 

Thanks so very much for taking time to do this and post your results. 

Appreciate keeping us involved. 

Thanks, again.


----------



## probillygun (Oct 10, 2013)

Steve, I'll be there to help and participate in the listening tests.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I know these HU test do typically measure close but subjective listening always has a significant variance. I love these test though. Head units are pretty much my favorite items. Works of art to me. Well the good ones anyway. And they bring me the ultimate source of endless happiness. Music.


----------



## Rocketjones (Oct 23, 2008)

Subbed.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

DRZ9255 sent to you!!!


----------



## frontman (May 1, 2013)

Sub'd...thank you for doing this! Looking forward to the results!


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Why not an 80prs as well?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

I know that subjective impressions are important, but most of these tests are far from double blind. Subjective tests are useless in most situations because:

'I'm going to switch sources now, tell me which you like better.' Use the same source and they will say, 'A was "brigher" than B' when if fact it's the exact same source. 

Do subject tests, but please, please do them double blind, scientifically, do the data actually means something. 

And again, just because one is subjectively better doesn't mean the others aren't capable of that, and better. Testing "out of the box" frequency response really isn't that helpful at all.


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

Oh boy.... This should be good!


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

that will be a great reading!


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

In the end, subjective is all that matters to an individual. And others opinions can influence subjectivity. So testing results and posting them for others to read whether scientifically obtained or not will still have the desired result of swaying the next person's opinion. Not matter what is " fact " what we believe mentally is the truth to an individual. Some allow science to be the personal opinion mold and some allow belief. I am one of science. So I am with gijoe of how the science end should go down.Either way these tests do a have a strong influence in one's personal opinion.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

I'm definitely in for this! :thumbsup:

The key differences that I have noticed when doing these types of comparisons is not so much the FR/Tonality and resolution of fine details (though those differences are there), but the difference in the SOUND STAGE...width, depth/layering/depth of stage, image placement, and "air" or space between instruments and/or vocals. These are the things that most measurements cannot provide any differentiation, though FR and Power Response of the _Speaker System_ has a lot to do with that, along with your listening environment or "room". But those last two things will be Constant or consistent in this test.

Steve, you may want to remove your Drum Kit from the room so that they do not resonate with the music playback, or at least mute/muffle the top and bottom heads and the cymbals with towels or something. I have found that even my drum hardware and stands resonate, buzz, or rattle, which will negatively affect your imaging cues the same as if you had buzzing trim panels in your vehicle.


Also, I know that this is already going to be a very *involved* test as it is, but I'd like to make another suggestion. No worries if you don't want to implement it, but I feel that it would be an excellent way for all of the members here to actually be able hear the _differences_ between the units, and for you to have a reference as well.

So far, I assume that you will have the following setup:

1. Your Speaker Setup, their Output Level, and the Speaker Placement will be Constant. CHECK
2. The Output of all Head Units will be Level-Matched and be Constant. CHECK
3. Your listening Position should be Constant and should be front & center. CHECK

Now add the following: 

4. Record the Output of all of the Head Units (via the speakers in the room) by using a simple Recording Device that remains in a Constant Position within your listening room and with a consistent Recording Level.

Item #4 will make it very easy to A/B the Head Units _indefinitely_ after the actual listening tests, which may be a great advantage due to listening fatigue and/or attention fatigue that may occur during the actual test. The files can also be posted to DropBox or a similar cloud storage service so that everyone on the forum could download and hear them. And in the future you would always be able to refer back to these files or post them when other related topics or questions come up.

I have a portable *Zoom H6 Handy Recorder*, that I would be willing to ship to you at my expense and I'd also pay for the return shipping for this test. You would just need a small Tripod to set it up on, or I will purchase one and send it to you, so that the Zoom H6 can remain at ear level in a constant position.

Inexpensive Tripod Link...

AmazonBasics 50-Inch Lightweight Tripod






































I would set up the H6 so that it is just above and behind your head while seated at your listening position and in a Horizontal orientation equidistant between the speakers, and possibly angled down just slightly towards the speakers. Or it may be better if it's placed just in front of you, centered and at your ear level, as long as that isn't a distraction or gets in your way. I would include a 256GB SDXC Memory Card which should be plenty to hold all of the files. I think that setting the H6 to record in Stereo 24-Bit/48kHz WAV format should be sufficient for this test, but you can record at 24/96 if you choose to. If you have your own microphones that you'd like to use, you can record them at the same time via the phantom-powered XLR/TRS inputs.

For uploading the files to a cloud service, I would convert them to FLAC format to minimize the file sizes, but also to provide all of the MetaData in ID3 Tags, such as the Head Unit, DSP Setup, Speaker Setup, Amplifier Setup, Zoom H6 Recording Setup/Distance/Height, etc. Or you could post these as Double-Blind, omitting the Head Unit information to eliminate bias.

As shown above, the Zoom H6 has a Stereo X/Y Microphone Module that can be easily set to 90° or 120° X/Y configuration by rotating the capsules. You could do some tests ahead of time to determine what gives the most accurate representation of the speakers in the room. Obviously the H6 and its X/Y microphones will not offer the absolute best audio quality that's available, but it is VERY, VERY GOOD, and most importantly, it will offer a Consistent Reference. This setup is excellent at capturing the entire Sound Stage, with Precise Imaging, Depth, and Tonality. And the H6 is very easy to setup and operate. Again, you could post these Audio Files as a Double-Blind Test by not including the Head Unit information, but instead just identifying each file as "Head Unit A", "Head Unit B", etc, and setup a "POLL" thread.

I'll include a portable USB Power Bank and cable to power it for extended periods as well. I also have a tripod shock mount for the H6, a small tabletop tripod, and a 4ft wired Remote Control so that you could easily Start and Stop the Recording for each setup from your listening position. The Remote has Recording & Clip Indicators. Link...

Auray RC-ZH6 Remote Control for Zoom H6 Handy Recorder











The only other thing that I think will be really important for your listening test will be to control the First (Early) Reflection Points that are on the walls on either side of the speakers between you and the speaker positions. I'm sure that you know about this stuff already and you probably already have some room treatment going on to deal with your drum kit. Just hanging up some large down comforters or mover's blankets on the side walls can make a huge difference.

Prerequisite video as an example....







Sorry for the _War And Peace_ novel of a post, but I think that this could be very beneficial. I'm traveling at the moment but I have this entire setup with me and could have one of my P.A.'s ship it out tomorrow if you'd like, even if it's just to play with it. Let me know via EMAIL... bbfoto AT hotmail DOT com


Side Note:

You could also use the H6 to create some great Drum Recordings of your kit while you have it.   Let me know if you want to do this and I'll give you some tips. Here are just a few YouTube videos to demonstrate and they obviously will have lossy compression when listening to them, and the last one is not HD and is just 128kbps...


----------



## j4gates (Jan 1, 2016)

Like the idea and thanks in advance for the effort.

While I understand the apples to apples comparisons to control some of the confounding variables, the contrarian in me thinks for some headunits this may be akin to testing a minivan's 0-60 time...that's not a significant test for the vehicle's design/intended purpose. Maybe add a test that provides a full throttle measure of use as the unit was designed to be used (ex. Hi-res files thru the Sony, optical where available, etc.). Might provide a different perspective as consumers choose between these various features.

I mean, while you got 'em side by side... ;-)


----------



## Huckleberry Sound (Jan 17, 2009)

Thump!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

seafish said:


> DRZ9255 sent to you!!!


You're the best Clark- thank you sir!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:



> I'm definitely in for this
> 
> .....


Thanks- I sent an email your way. It's an interesting idea but will definitely take some more time and effort on my end to execute it. Let's see what we come up with.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Thanks- I sent an email your way. It's an interesting idea but will definitely take some more time and effort on my end to execute it. Let's see what we come up with.


Steve, the Zoom H6 & Accessories have been shipped. You should receive them by Friday if there aren't any snafu's with weather/shipping delays.

I'll shoot you an email later when I'm free to give you the tracking #, etc.

Hope it works out. Thanks!

Billy B.


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

Ahhhh snap gonna be good... btw the c90 sounds way better via digital out... tested it 10 ways from Sunday... its a badass transport...


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

matdotcom2000 said:


> Ahhhh snap gonna be good... btw the c90 sounds way better via digital out... tested it 10 ways from Sunday... its a badass transport...


I agree with all of the above, and my iBasso DX90 DAP seemed to match or exceed it in my tests via both the Line Out and Digi Out. Now I'm looking into some of the newer DAPs that have a better UI...

iBasso DX200, Fiio X5 Mk III, the Bit Opus#2, etc.

But I'm definitely looking forward to the results of Steve's test!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Thanks- I sent an email your way. It's an interesting idea but will definitely take some more time and effort on my end to execute it. Let's see what we come up with.


Steve, below is a YouTube Video showing a great way to accurately record your speakers using your OMNI Measurement Microphones. Just substitute the Zoom H6 as the recording device and use your Measurement Mics connected via its XLR mic inputs.

Or if you already have a good quality USB/Thunderbolt/Firewire Audio Recording Interface that has XLR inputs with microphone preamps (and Phantom Power if needed), you can use it with your measurement mics and software to record your speakers. Audacity works great with most Audio Interfaces if you don't have any other computer DAW/recording software, but the H6 is fairly simple to operate once it is set up, and it will free up your computer to do other measurements.






And here is one of their Studio Monitor Comparisons that is recorded with the techniques in the first video...






And another that demonstrates Off-Axis FR...






I would also simultaneously record your speakers using the Zoom H6's "built-in" X/Y mic capsules set to 90°, with the Zoom H6 placed equidistant between your speakers and the same distance away from them as the Left-to-Right Distance between each speaker...the equilateral triangle method.

The H6 should be positioned parallel to the floor and at a height so the X/Y mics are aimed at the point midway between the midrange and tweeters (in the vertical plane). The bass frequencies are obviously more Omni-directional and mic placement isn't as critical. You might also try the 120° X/Y mic capsule setting and see if that is a more accurate representation of the speakers.

And Yes, I would remove your Drum Kit from the room if it's not too much trouble because of resonance and the possibility of that producing distracting or false imaging cues.

The most important room treatment will be to eliminate the 1st or Early Reflections or "Bounce" from the side walls opposite of the speakers in the area on the wall between you and the speakers. See the images below.

This is what I think ErinH concentrated on in his latest build by relocating the midrange and tweeter drivers. Those near side and opposite side reflections skew the stage and kill or mask the main cues that we need to perceive Depth especially, but also overall imaging, width, staging, and focus.


















The next area I would concentrate on is the back wall (behind your listening position). It might be a problem depending on how close it is to you and how reflective it is. Ideally you want at least a 3:1 ratio similar to what is shown in that first illustration above.

It would be good to have some absorption behind and/or in the corners behind where the speakers are placed, but I would worry about that last.

Use your Drum Kit Carpet/Mat on the floor between you and the speakers to minimize floor bounce. Not sure if you'd be able to do anything about the ceiling.

You don't want to completely kill all reflections, but you want to control the detrimental ones. Here's a fairly good article about it...

Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial

Hope that helps!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

The room has a pretty plush thick carpet on the floor so that should help a little. I'll try to get some thick blankets hung on the walls. Easy enough to move the kit into the next room (It's only a 5 piece with 4 cymbals). Thanks for sending out the H6!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> The room has a pretty plush thick carpet on the floor so that should help a little. I'll try to get some thick blankets hung on the walls. Easy enough to move the kit into the next room (It's only a 5 piece with 4 cymbals). Thanks for sending out the H6!


Awesome. Great to already have the carpet in there.

On the side walls, the problem area or early reflection zone is usually not much wider than 3ft-4ft, so you could double- or triple-fold your blankets to make them thicker. And the absorption actually works better if the blankets or panels are hung out and away from the wall 4"-10", rather than being flat against the wall. But it may be too difficult to secure them in that fashion, so having them against the wall is WAY better than nothing at all.

You also might try recording and listening to your setup BEFORE and AFTER you place your additional room treatment to hear and document the difference. 

Have fun with it and thanks again for doing this!


----------



## dgr932 (Mar 31, 2011)

Steve,

This sounds like a fun time. By the way your drum set is the best part of the room. I think your test board is perfect as all those drivers have a totally diferent sound. Are you going to bust out the Brax amplifier?


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Demoing will be done through the following board setup: Scanspeak 10", Scanspeak 4" 12M revelator mid and Scanspeak 7100 revelator tweeter. (Unless I come up with another solution by then)


Steve, which Scan 10" woofer are you using?


----------



## 1fishman (Dec 22, 2012)

I always think having one average (head unit in this case) in the mix makes for a more interesting comparison. Just to see if anyone likes the average unit, or if everyone agrees and dosen't like the average one. Maybe that's just me.


----------



## jones83 (Dec 31, 2016)

Can't wait to see the outcome of this.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

1fishman said:


> I always think having one average (head unit in this case) in the mix makes for a more interesting comparison. Just to see if anyone likes the average unit, or if everyone agrees and doesn't like the average one. Maybe that's just me.


Excellent idea, me thinks! But there are sooooooo many to choose from! Which one? :laugh:


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

bbfoto said:


> Excellent idea, me thinks! But there are sooooooo many to choose from! Which one? :laugh:


i also agree. maybe the oh so popular 80prs? or is that to good for average? i have a cda117 sitting around


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

captainobvious said:


> Some members expressed some interest in following along and reading the information and findings as we run through the high-end head unit shootout so I have started a thread here for it.
> 
> A little background...
> 
> ...




Since technology has moved on in great leaps lately - why not test each unit to the very best of its ability...

So with the Sony play DSD or 24/192 files on it? Why limit the potential because the others can't play it? 

Same with the P90 use the P90 processor (combo) 

Etc...

I mean we buy these HUs for that specific reason not to burn CDs on MP3's? 

Tidal has brought out the HIFI version MQA recordings - it won't be very long before everyone else jumps on that and will be as common a MP3 or lossless file in the future....

What do you think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vinman (Feb 5, 2013)

Definitely subscribed


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> Steve, which Scan 10" woofer are you using?



Scanspeak 25W-8565 

It's quite good.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

dgr932 said:


> Steve,
> 
> This sounds like a fun time. By the way your drum set is the best part of the room. I think your test board is perfect as all those drivers have a totally diferent sound. Are you going to bust out the Brax amplifier?



Either the Crown pro amp I have or the Brax, yup.


----------



## conehunter76 (Nov 7, 2008)

SkizeR said:


> i also agree. maybe the oh so popular 80prs? or is that to good for average?


I have an 80PRS stashed away that I could send. I'll pay shipping from my end if you cover return shipping.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Playing Devils advocate here - what makes you think you will be able to hear any difference in HU's considering most of you advocate no difference in amps? 

Isn't this the same argument? A CD player plays a CD it has a DAC etc a cheap Sony does the same job as a expensive HU... DSP aside...

Why is a HU different to a Amp? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Elektra said:


> Playing Devils advocate here - what makes you think you will be able to hear any difference in HU's considering most of you advocate no difference in amps?
> 
> Isn't this the same argument? A CD player plays a CD it has a DAC etc a cheap Sony does the same job as a expensive HU... DSP aside...
> 
> Why is a HU different to a Amp?


I _really_ don't think we should open that can of worms in _this_ thread. ...At least not until AFTER the results have been divulged. 

Let's just say for now that in this particular test we know that the Head Units will be compared using just the ANALOG PRE-OUTS. Therefore, each HU will be producing the signal via different DAC chips, and/OR at least unique (different) circuitry supporting the DAC. In addition, each of these HUs has _unique_ analog line level pre-amplifier Circuitry, and a wide variety of _different_, but High-Quality electronic components in that circuitry.

Let's see what the results are first. And then discuss.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

bbfoto said:


> I _really_ don't think we should open that can of worms in _this_ thread. ...At least not until AFTER the results have been divulged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't get me wrong - I absolutely believe different HU's sound different

But - we starting to talk about different circuitry and components etc and different DACs and supporting electronics around those DACs etc 

Sounds very similar to amps having different circuitry different components and have different OPAMPS and Class of input stages etc...

Yet it's firmly believed that they sound the same...

So yeah why can we accept a amp sounds the same as another amp yet we will entertain a CD player will sound different to each other?

A lot of arguments about you can't hear past a certain SNR or THD so in that case a $100 should sound the same as a $1500 HU? 

Hanatsu once said that he tested a $100 pioneer to sound the same as a P99....

So if that's the case a $100 HU with a DSP PRO.2 with USB will cost less and sound better than any HU on the market? 

Considering the HiRes and tuning capability of the DSP PRO.2...? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Elektra said:


> Don't get me wrong - I absolutely believe different HU's sound different
> 
> But - we starting to talk about different circuitry and components etc and different DACs and supporting electronics around those DACs etc
> 
> ...


DUDE, I know! * I KNOW !!! * 

(And _ErinH_ recently tested a brand new, highly-spec'd Kenwood DD HU that was complete noise-ridden ****!) So...

Let's just WAIT until the results are posted. Or make another thread to discuss this. (Yes I know the discussion is related to _THIS_ particular test, but I _REALLY_ don't want to have to sift through *20+ Pages of BS* to find the _ONE_ actual Post that has the RESULTS!) 

Thanks!

.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> I _really_ don't think we should open that can of worms in _this_ thread. ...At least not until AFTER the results have been divulged.


x2...


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Looks like we're doing listening testing on Sunday since that's when the guys can make it. Earlier then I expected, but we're moving forward. I probably won't have the Sony GS9 in the test since it is out on loan right now to a friend. When I do the recordings of each, I will include that in the mix. 

It doesn't make sense to do the recordings of our demo sessions because we will be making noise and blocking sound, etc in the room. Once I have everything level matched and ready to go, I'll keep everything set. Then when the Sony comes back, I can level match it and do the recordings of the units in the room when it's quiet and without a bunch of bodies. This should give you guys the best recorded listening comparison experience of each of the units to follow along. Of course, nothing will compare to listening to them live but this is for fun- so don't get too serious 


For our testing, I have switchers so we can swap back and forth between the sources quickly for a good listening comparison. After level matching each unit, I'll connect up the rca pairs randomly so I can't see what's at the other end of them so we won't know which unit is which until we are done with the "blind" evaluations.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

captainobvious said:


> Looks like we're doing listening testing on Sunday since that's when the guys can make it. Earlier then I expected, but we're moving forward. I probably won't have the Sony GS9 in the test since it is out on loan right now to a friend. When I do the recordings of each, I will include that in the mix.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to do the recordings of our demo sessions because we will be making noise and blocking sound, etc in the room. Once I have everything level matched and ready to go, I'll keep everything set. Then when the Sony comes back, I can level match it and do the recordings of the units in the room when it's quiet and without a bunch of bodies. This should give you guys the best recorded listening comparison experience of each of the units to follow along. Of course, nothing will compare to listening to them live but this is for fun- so don't get too serious
> 
> ...


That's a bummer that you won't be able to do a direct comparison with the Sony unit. 
That was the unit that I thought might sound best.

If you do that one at a different point in time there are so many variables that might come into play.

Looking forward to the results, regardless. 

I enjoy reading about these kind of subjective evaluations.

I'm glad you kept the number of units down as to be able to have time to write up the findings.......and not make this experiment into a daunting task.

Too many units may take the fun out of the project and make it into a chore. 

I know its going to be interesting. Thanks again for doing this experiment and for sharing the findings with us. 

Looking forward to the results.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Sure thing Gerald.

I'll still be able to evaluate the Sony, and I'll get it recorded exactly the same as the others in the exact same conditions...just won't have it here for the listening session with the other guys unfortunately. Unless someone wants to run one over to the house or can pass one off to one of the gents coming from PA/NY.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Steve, didya get the DRZ yet??


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

seafish said:


> Steve, didya get the DRZ yet??


Supposed to arrive today based on tracking. I may have to pick up from the post office tomorrow if I missed delivery. I'll let ya know.


Thx!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Steve, looks like the P.O./Mailman left a Delivery Slip at your place for the Zoom H6 today as well.

Yeah, bummer you won't have the GS9 Sunday, but I think you're right about doing the recordings at another time when it'll be quiet in the room. I would advise early morning or late evening for the recordings as well, just to minimize "city noise/hustle & bustle" (the random motorcycle, jet plane, or diesel truck, etc.). If you have forced air HVAC, or other noisey appliances, that will show up in the recordings as well.

Are you making up a Listening Evaluation Score Sheet?


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Arrgh! Double Post, sorry.


----------



## Kenneth M (Oct 14, 2014)

Crap. 

I would love to throw a bewith mm-1d in the mix. I'm in the process of buying another race motorcycle and can't go over 10% of credit usage vs available credit before I sign paperwork next Saturday (7 days from now).

If you're open to reviewing it at a later date, lemme know. It'll force me to make the purchase and add yet another piece in my ongoing build. And it'll be interesting to see how well it would do stacked against these awesome head units.


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> i also agree. maybe the oh so popular 80prs? or is that to good for average? i have a cda117 sitting around


Please include the 117! I still rock one in my car, but some day I will use it optically to my H800. I still want to know how it performs analog out as I have it hooked up now.

Thanks!


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

knever3 said:


> Please include the 117! I still rock one in my car, but some day I will use it optically to my H800. I still want to know how it performs analog out as I have it hooked up now.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!




That would be awesome..... if the 117 had a optical output that is... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

I meant AiNet to the H800, I plan on using an auxiliary source optically to the H800 in conjunction with the AiNet from the 117, good catch. I could also have a toslink output added to the 117 because I plan on using the Rux anyway. Lots of choices and possibilities.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

knever3 said:


> I meant AiNet to the H800, I plan on using an auxiliary source optically to the H800 in conjunction with the AiNet from the 117, good catch. I could also have a toslink output added to the 117 because I plan on using the Rux anyway. Lots of choices and possibilities.




Does the 117 have Ainet? Can't remember but I do know very few Alpines now have optical outs 

Best bet is to get a old school one like the 7949, 39, and 7998R or a 7990 (that may be a waste on a H800) 

Don't understand why alpine don't make there flagship models with at least optical and if they wanted to punt there H800 make it with Ainet as well... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Guys, if Steve wants another unit in, there will be. Don't get this off topic

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Clark- got the DRZ, thank you sir!

Billy- The Zoom unit arrived as well, much appreciated!

The fellas are coming over in the morning so we can do our listening tests. Should be fun times.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Clark- got the DRZ, thank you sir!
> 
> Billy- The Zoom unit arrived as well, much appreciated!
> 
> The fellas are coming over in the morning so we can do our listening tests. Should be fun times.


Cool. Good Times!  ....







Who all is gonna make it over for the listening test?

Bill, Nick, and ??


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

might not be able to make it. just woke up feeling like death plus were supposed to get hit with a wintery mix :/


----------



## Telly_Tilt (Dec 10, 2016)

Excuse me if this has been answered already, I'm at work on my phone and I only read the 1st page . 

Does any Kenwood HUs fit the "high end" category? 

Just asking.


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

i wonder why you guys want to record the output of the speakers.
why not connect the output of the headunits to a good soundcard and record it.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

backousis said:


> i wonder why you guys want to record the output of the speakers.
> why not connect the output of the headunits to a good soundcard and record it.


The idea is to record the music and the room, I.e. how it sounded during the test.


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

sqnut said:


> The idea is to record the music and the room, I.e. how it sounded during the test.


so it's just for fan no comparison between HU


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The room is a constant across all the test, so it is still a test of the variable, the hu. All listening tests are conducted in rooms and the only way you're going to take a room out of play, is by listening in an anechoic chamber and that sounds horrible.


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

sqnut said:


> The room is a constant across all the test, so it is still a test of the variable, the hu. All listening tests are conducted in rooms and the only way you're going to take a room out of play, is by listening in an anechoic chamber and that sounds horrible.


so what.s the reason to add a second room at the equation?
one at the recording side and another at the listeners side?
and then there is the microphone quality.
i repeat the best way to compare would be directly the outputs to a good soundcard and level matched.
the quality of the soundcard would mask the results off course but still better than all this chain.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Do you not get it or are you being obtuse? Does the original recording have a room? ARe you hearing that room when you playback in your room? Let's not clutter the thread please.


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

sqnut said:


> Do you not get it or are you being obtuse? Does the original recording have a room? ARe you hearing that room when you playback in your room? Let's not clutter the thread please.


a recording is distorted from the headunit amplifier crossovers' speakers room reflections microphone sound card.

or just headunit,soundcard.

if you don't see when it's easier to understand the headunit influence it's obvious who is obtuse of the two.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

backousis said:


> i wonder why you guys want to record the output of the speakers. why not connect the output of the headunits to a good soundcard and record it.


Steve (captainobvious) can choose to record the direct signal from the HU PreOuts using the Zoom H6 and switching the inputs to Line Level if he so chooses. He would need male XLR to male RCA adapters or female RCA to 1/4" TR adapters + RCA interconnects to do this. It is Steve's test and he can decide to do that or not. It could be another great data set and reference between the Head Units.

BUT, for _this_ test, I think Steve wanted to closely replicate an _entire system_ that _may_ end up in his SQ Comp car. The speakers that he has chosen are TOTL and could possibly end up in his SQ comp vehicle along with the chosen HU and the DSP. In that way, he will know what that _entire system_ is capable of, with each specific HU, and he can use that as a reference when or if it is set up in his vehicle.

AFAIK, there will be two sets of fairly high-quality microphones that are more than adequate to capture all of the aspects of the sound accurately. Even if they are not the absolute best or most accurate microphones in the world, they are very good and will be a _consistent reference_ between all of the different HUs.

One set of mics will be semi-"close mic'd" on the speakers to mostly eliminate the room, and the other mics will be an X/Y stereo pair at the main listening position "to hear what he hears" in the room. Both sets of mics will reveal the _differences_ between each Head Unit (if there are any), and how each HU projects the Sound Stage through _that_ set of speakers, i.e., the differences in depth, depth of stage, width, height, image placement, image size & focus, and the space or "air" between instruments, overall detail, tonality, etc. All aspects of the playback system and the room will be constant or consistent. Only the HUs will be changed in order to hear if there are any differences between them.

Noboby is saying or has said that this is a scientific test, or anywhere near a "perfect" test, and it was never meant to be. But it should still reveal some differences and qualities that Steve and his buddies are curious to know about. We're just lucky to be along for the ride.


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

bbfoto said:


> Steve (captainobvious) can choose to record the direct signal from the HU PreOuts using the Zoom H6 and switching the inputs to Line Level if he so chooses. He would need male XLR to male RCA adapters or female RCA to 1/4" TR adapters + RCA interconnects to do this. It is Steve's test and he can decide to do that or not. It could be another great data set and reference between the Head Units.
> 
> BUT, for _this_ test, I think Steve wanted to closely replicate an _entire system_ that _may_ end up in his SQ Comp car. The speakers that he has chosen are TOTL and could possibly end up in his SQ comp vehicle along with the chosen HU and the DSP. In that way, he will know what that _entire system_ is capable of, with each specific HU, and he can use that as a reference when or if it is set up in his vehicle.
> 
> ...


it depends on what anybody wants to accomplish.
if he want our opinion what combination sounded the best i agree.
if the purpose of the test is to discover the differences between the headunits
i suggested an easier and more accurate way.
of course it still is not a scientific test.

but no matter how it will be done it will still be an interesting thread.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

captainobvious said:


> Clark- got the DRZ, thank you sir!
> 
> Billy- The Zoom unit arrived as well, much appreciated!
> 
> The fellas are coming over in the morning so we can do our listening tests. Should be fun times.


Did any testing go on yesterday? Or did the evaluation get postponed? No pressure, just curious.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

All this business of recording, mics and room and whatnot.. Meh.
It is sufficient to me if the great captain says to me how he'd rank them and what he thinks of their "eesssque's".


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Sorry, been quite busy guys. Yes we did do some demoing of the head units.

We did 2 blind listening sessions and made some notes on units and any characteristics that stood out. After each blind evaluation, we looked to see which each unit was and then discussed. We then mixed up the output cables to the switcher again so that we could proceed with the next blind evaluation. Yes, we heard some differences. Some units sounded very much similar and some we noticed a bigger difference. I'll try to provide as much data as I can. 

Again, this exercise is mostly for fun and entertainment, and our (the demo group) own benefit for which units we would prefer to run in our own vehicles.

All units were level matched to within +/- 0.1db of the reference output level of 1.5v from each unit prior to the recordings. The recordings will be posted up at a later date as I have to pull them from the card and find a good way to present/host them for you guys. I'll consult with bbfoto on that to see what he recommends since he has some expertise in this area.


Some photo's:


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

About the recordings...

Again, all units were level matched as close to the 1.5v output level as possible (within +/- 0.1db at 1khz). The only exception to this was that one unit had a frequency response curve that dictated that I needed to manually adjust to get an average output level equivalent to this at the 1khz mark. I'll explain later, but don't want to give much away before you guys get to listen to the recordings. After all of that is posted and we all get a chance to discuss, I'll also post the frequency response measurements I captured.


For the recordings, I used the provided Zoom H6 unit (thanks again Billy!) to record in dual mode so they I captured both the standard x/y stereo microphone input as well as a pair of measurement microphones on stands and aimed mid tweeter level and approximately 1 foot from the speakers. Whether or not this second set of recording mics will provide any better response for listening remains to be seen, but it was recommended to give it a shot since I was recording anyway and so I did. Recordings were captured in 24bit/48khz. It's important to note that the recordings will never be as good as the live sound and your playback experience will be dictated by how good the quality of the recording is, as well as limited by your playback system. But hey, this is for fun- so hopefully you all get some enjoyment out of it and have fun following along regardless.


I played 4 different tracks on each unit and each track is appx 1.5-2 minutes in length. The same 4 tracks were used on each unit. Hopefully this will provide a decent comparison in the recordings. All of the recordings were done using the same cd in each player. In the case of the sony, those files were dropped to a usb drive for consistency as best as I could provide it.

All units were set to wide open frequency response with no filters, eq, time alignment or other processing applied (loudness, etc).

*Again, I would like to thank those individuals who were generous enough to send in equipment to add to the test and those who offered as well!*


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

That table looks so cool with all the head units on it. 

Especially all lit up with different colors. I'm glad that you got testing done. 

I've been waiting impatiently for the results. 

On the edge of my seat!!!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Excuse my poor quality pics too. Since Nick was a sleepy bastard and didn't come down you have to suffer with my ugly iphone pics


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

All that copper chassis Burr Brown, AKM and ESS Sabre DAC goodness. Chomping at the bit to read results. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Anxious for the results, but I'm sure they all sounded the same.....lol!


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Niebur3 said:


> Anxious for the results, but I'm sure they all sounded the same.....lol!


Nope!  Placing bets on the top 3.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Babs said:


> Nope!  Placing bets on the top 3.


I think Jerry was joking........lol

I would quess :

Sony

P-99 

sound different from the rest


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Babs said:


> Nope!  Placing bets on the top 3.



I'll be glad to take your money. Lol.


----------



## Jheitt142 (Dec 7, 2011)

All I know is I like the sound of a pioneer more then that of an alpine. 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

captainobvious said:


> Excuse my poor quality pics too. Since Nick was a sleepy bastard and didn't come down you have to suffer with my ugly iphone pics


Hey hey hey, a 3 hour drive in rain/snow wasn't exactly expected lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## foreman (Apr 18, 2007)

Excuses excuses....




SkizeR said:


> Hey hey hey, a 3 hour drive in rain/snow wasn't exactly expected lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

SkizeR said:


> Hey hey hey, a 3 hour drive in rain/snow wasn't exactly expected lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


3 hours???....now up hill both ways would be an excuse


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> 3 hours???....now up hill both ways would be an excuse


Give Nick a break. The kid works like a dog and has no free time. Besides, If he has free time it's snowboard season. Car audio/ Photography is not his thing this time of year. 


Well maybe snowboarding photography.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

SkizeR said:


> Hey hey hey, a 3 hour drive in rain/snow wasn't exactly expected lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



No worries, I figured it was going to be difficult for you to make it anyway.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Give Nick a break. The kid works like a dog and has no free time. Besides, If he has free time it's snowboard season. Car audio/ Photography is not his thing this time of year.
> 
> 
> Well maybe snowboarding photography.


Yup. I'm actually out west right now and editing some snowboarding photos as we speak 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

captainobvious said:


> No worries, I figured it was going to be difficult for you to make it anyway.


Everyone likes to bust Nick's chops. lol Not just you! Including me!


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

ErinH said:


> I'll be glad to take your money. Lol.



Hmm. RC cola and a moonpie says the Denon, the Mc and the Sony. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

^^^Do they still make RC cola?


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> ^^^Do they still make RC cola?


Why? Are you thirsty?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Why? Are you thirsty?


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/4492385-post112.html


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Niebur3 said:


> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/4492385-post112.html


I know why you posted the question. I was just trying to be funny/smart?

Nice trick with the computer link to the very post you made the comment on.


I wish I knew how to do fancy schmancy tricky computer stuff. lol


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

I think we also need to study the usage of these units as the Sony does not play CDs and is a HiRes player

Which none of the other units are and cannot play the formats the Sony can - so as good as a 16/48bitrate track is I suspect that if you played 24/192 or higher the Sony will stretch its legs over all the other units on test here...

That being said the Sony does a pretty good job on 16/48bitrate files as well...

But somehow I feel the only way you can get the other units on test to match 50% of the Sony's potential will be a DSP PRO MK2 via the USB - even then its 32/192 max... 

Then there's the cost aspect as well adding the Helix starts to make the other HUs way more expensive than the Sony...

Food for thought...

Sony would need to be tried at a lossless level (same format as cd) and to its fullest potential - DSD...

That would be nice to see... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Steve, Great Work, Amigo! I know that this was _A LOT_ to take on and I greatly appreciate all of your time and effort.

The setup looks great, and so do your iPhone photos.  Love all of the SQ goodness on that table. 

...Oh, what happened to the Sony CDX-C90 and Pioneer/Premier DEX-P9? I thought they were in your list of HUs that you had on-hand to test?

Regarding the posting/sharing of the Recorded Files: Drop Box, Google Drive, MS OneDrive, or something similar should work fine. Depending on your connection speed it might take a while to upload, but then again you are an IT/Network Professional so you probably have access to blazing fast Internet.  You could post the D/L Link here in the thread when you have them all uploaded.

I'm going to be out on a hectic sunrise-to-sunset location photo shoot until the 25th at least, so I may not have much time to get back to your posts here or emails in much detail.

But feel free to hold onto the Zoom H6 for a while to play with it a bit...field recordings, your drum kit, etc. Experiment and post if you capture something you think is cool. Know anybody with a motorcycle or sports/muscle car with nice exhaust note?...do some left-to-right drive-by recordings, or a "REAL" 7-beat Snare Drum Image Placement test.

Anyhooo...Thanks Again for putting this together and sharing!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Steve is a sadist, he enjoys watching us squirm and whine.......jk. I am really awaiting his subjective opinion, simply because he knows how to tune by ear. 

I am curious about how the Panny did in the subjective tests, imho tubes in the mix should stand out more than anything else, just my opinion. While I get wanting to hold off on results till the recordings are posted, but considering that most are going to hear the recordings on buds or cans and not proper speakers .....is it really worth holding the results?...............pretty please?


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Elektra said:


> I think we also need to study the usage of these units as the Sony does not play CDs and is a HiRes player
> 
> Which none of the other units are and cannot play the formats the Sony can - so as good as a 16/48bitrate track is I suspect that if you played 24/192 or higher the Sony will stretch its legs over all the other units on test here...
> 
> ...


Regardless of whether someone is using the another unit or the Sony (P99 and possibly DRZ excluded), they will need processing anyway. The Helix unit may be "limited" with its direct digital usb input, but there's nothing to stop someone from using a portable digital player with the analog out just like most use the sony.
I guess my point is...ifyou're using the Sony, you're almost certainly going to be needing dsp processing anyway so dollar for dollar you're still paying.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> Steve, Great Work, Amigo! I know that this was _A LOT_ to take on and I greatly appreciate all of your time and effort.
> 
> The setup looks great, and so do your iPhone photos.  Love all of the SQ goodness on that table.
> 
> ...



Thanks Billy. The C90 and P9 were going to come from one of the fellas but he was sick with the flu so it wasn't feasible. Sorry to those looking for those results to be included.:blush:

I remember doing some recordings quite a few years ago when I had a really nice DAW in my apartment (Yamaha AW4416) and was learning how to use it. Well, nice to me but I'm sure you've used much better! I would record acoustic guitar and vocals and some drum tracks using some nice AKG condenser mics and was shocked how good they sounded when compared to everyday recordings on cd. When I say good, I don't mean a complete produced product, but the more lifelike sound of the instruments and cymbals particularly. Makes me wonder why studio recordings can sound so bad when we have such great tools at our disposal. 

I was considering making a couple of test tracks for myself with the unit while its here...depends on how much time I have. 






sqnut said:


> Steve is a sadist, he enjoys watching us squirm and whine.......jk. I am really awaiting his subjective opinion, simply because he knows how to tune by ear.
> 
> I am curious about how the Panny did in the subjective tests, imho tubes in the mix should stand out more than anything else, just my opinion. While I get wanting to hold off on results till the recordings are posted, but considering that most are going to hear the recordings on buds or cans and not proper speakers .....is it really worth holding the results?...............pretty please?


:laugh:

Well, much in the way that we had to do some blind evaluation so that we could know for sure what we were and were not hearing, I wouldn't want to skew the results or change the experiment for anyone else by just posting results of anything before they've gotten the chance to listen to the tracks I recorded.

I do the bulk of my tuning with a measuring setup, and then follow that up by fine tuning by ear. I can tune decent by ear from the start, but I find a get a much more consistent result using my tools and then polishing it up by ear after that base is set.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

captainobvious said:


> Regardless of whether someone is using the another unit or the Sony (P99 and possibly DRZ excluded), they will need processing anyway. The Helix unit may be "limited" with its direct digital usb input, but there's nothing to stop someone from using a portable digital player with the analog out just like most use the sony.
> I guess my point is...ifyou're using the Sony, you're almost certainly going to be needing dsp processing anyway so dollar for dollar you're still paying.




The Sony is weird device - it has all these formats but no DSP can do the same..

So it seems Sony wanted this HU to be used analogue off a passive system - the HU has some ability in terms of tuning although a far cry from a Helix...

So I agree if you wanted to use a DSP and take the tuning further then yes a lot of the features that makes the Sony unique become muted...

But never the less the HU is different from the rest and I think a lot of guys will sacrifice ultimate tuning ability for a great analogue signal and the ability to play higher than 24/192 formats 

In this light the Sony needs to be looked at differently to the rest as you can't assume everyone will use a DSP with it and you have to also assume guys will want to play DSD etc with it...

So it would be cool to see how the flip side of the Sony's abilities play out to the aging CD players - let's face it CDs are a dying format - especially when HiRes becomes more accessible and record labels start moving on to the future of music which is HiRes - I read somewhere that music from places like Tidal hit the $1 Billion mark last year 

It's only a matter of time to be honest... 

But yes I also get your point... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

Babs said:


> Hmm. RC cola and a moonpie says the Denon, the Mc and the Sony.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Are you saying that those projected results are from subjective listening results? Or, from objective test numbers? Personally, I am interested in the subjective results. I am betting that all the objective numbers will be pretty close to even. I'd like to hear what they have to say about each unit.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

dsw1204 said:


> Are you saying that those projected results are from subjective listening results? Or, from objective test numbers? Personally, I am interested in the subjective results. I am betting that all the objective numbers will be pretty close to even. I'd like to hear what they have to say about each unit.


Yeah I trust their ears better than some mic.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Well, much in the way that we had to do some blind evaluation so that we could know for sure what we were and were not hearing, I wouldn't want to skew the results or change the experiment for anyone else by just posting results of anything before they've gotten the chance to listen to the tracks I recorded.
> 
> I do the bulk of my tuning with a measuring setup, and then follow that up by fine tuning by ear. I can tune decent by ear from the start, but I find a get a much more consistent result using my tools and then polishing it up by ear after that base is set.


Like I said, you know how to tune by ear. Even I start with measuring, distances with a tape and amplitude with my trusted SPL meter. From there on its all by ear, it easier, more intuitive for me (I always mess up with a mic) and just way quicker. 

I understand the process you want to follow and will await your results.


----------



## dsw1204 (Mar 23, 2015)

Babs said:


> Hmm. RC cola and a moonpie says the Denon, the Mc and the Sony.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm an old school nut! And, I an Eclipse fan, as well. I would have loved to see an Eclipse CD8053 in the mix, but the 55090 is a darn good unit. Thus, my prediction (subjective listening tests) is Sony CDX-C90 (gotta love those 4 Burr-Brown 20-bit DACs), Clarion DRZ-9255, and Eclipse 55090. I'm very curious, however, how that Panasonic will do, subjectively.


With the lab tests, I predict Sony RSX-GS9, Pioneer P99RS, and Clarion DRZ-9255.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

dsw1204 said:


> I'm an old school nut! And, I an Eclipse fan, as well. I would have loved to see an Eclipse CD8053 in the mix, but the 55090 is a darn good unit. Thus, my prediction (subjective listening tests) is Sony CDX-C90 (gotta love those 4 Burr-Brown 20-bit DACs), Clarion DRZ-9255, and Eclipse 55090. I'm very curious, however, how that Panasonic will do, subjectively.
> 
> 
> With the lab tests, I predict Sony RSX-GS9, Pioneer P99RS, and Clarion DRZ-9255.


If it were a prom queen contest, I vote DRZ.. I've always loved the look of that thing.. Wish they still made them like that. 

Another old unicorn that would have been cool would have been the old Nak CD700II, except you'd probably find one of those surrounded by a stable of Alpine 7909's and the Holy grail itself, in a secret cave dug by Templars, protected by an alien secret society, with sasquatch guards posted at the entrance. So given this test aught to be for units that are actually either current, or somewhat acquirable, that might rule out a rare yet lovely old Nak unit.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Babs said:


> If it were a prom queen contest, I vote DRZ.. I've always loved the look of that thing.. Wish they still made them like that.
> 
> .


TOTALLY agree on the simplistic yet functional elegance of the DRZ9255. That being said, it is no slouch in SQ either. i have been running z DRZ as a testbench HU also utilizing a Brax NOX4 amp and HRT streamer analog in. The system is dead quiet with nothing playing but also puts out all the way to max volume with noHU clipping. In short, me likey the DRZ ALOT and am very curious how it came out in this HU shootout. I have no doubt it made the top three and am willing to put a six pack of either cola or beer on it...


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I have been involved in a lot of these HU test. Denon's are always in the top of measured test. I suspect it will be there again.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Sorry for the delay gents. I've had an issue with the memory card I did the recordings on and it not being recognized by my pc. I think it may be the format of the recording files on the media itself. I'm going to try something else. May need to re-record them 

Good news is everything is still setup and hasn't been touched including the mics 

I'll try to get to this today or tomorrow at the latest so that I can start getting audio files up for your sampling.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

What is going on with DIYMA?

It says Steve made post on this thread 3 hours ago. 

When I click on the "last page" the only post that comes up is from a week ago from "Theslaking"

Any Mods know what is going on?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Nope. We are as perplexed by it as you all are. 

But let's keep this on topic. I already told steve his info may need to be reposted.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

ErinH said:


> Nope. We are as perplexed by it as you all are.
> 
> But let's keep this on topic. I already told steve his info may need to be reposted.


O.K. thank you........good to know!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Looks like the problem is fixed (maybe?). I got a ton of PMs and threads seem to be updated now.

Anyway...I had to redo all of the recordings but it was successful. I'll work on uploading them Thursday. I listened to a couple of the recordings and they came out pretty good overall I think. Billy had recommended to me that (if possible) I use both the XY mic on the unit and set up my measurement mics close-mic'd to the speakers and then see which presents a better representation of the sound. I'm glad I did this. The mics I set up captured some pretty good audio and they have a really good stereo separation so you'll get some good sound on your headphones, speakers or playback device of choice.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

captainobvious said:


> Looks like the problem is fixed (maybe?). I got a ton of PMs and threads seem to be updated now.
> 
> Anyway...I had to redo all of the recordings but it was successful. I'll work on uploading them Thursday. I listened to a couple of the recordings and they came out pretty good overall I think. Billy had recommended to me that (if possible) I use both the XY mic on the unit and set up my measurement mics close-mic'd to the speakers and then see which presents a better representation of the sound. I'm glad I did this. The mics I set up captured some pretty good audio and they have a really good stereo separation so you'll get some good sound on your headphones, speakers or playback device of choice.


Awesome! I'm also grateful for your own subjective assessment, since I know how good the ear-mic's are on the sides of yours and Bill's noggins.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Babs said:


> Awesome! I'm also grateful for your own subjective assessment, since I know how good the ear-mic's are on the sides of yours and Bill's noggins.


Can you see a post with a subjective assessment? That's mainly what I've been waiting on for years now, it seems. lol

I'm just wondering if something was posted and I missed it???


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Nope, you didn't miss anything Gerald.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> Looks like the problem is fixed (maybe?). I got a ton of PMs and threads seem to be updated now.
> 
> Anyway...I had to redo all of the recordings but it was successful. I'll work on uploading them Thursday. I listened to a couple of the recordings and they came out pretty good overall I think. Billy had recommended to me that (if possible) I use both the XY mic on the unit and set up my measurement mics close-mic'd to the speakers and then see which presents a better representation of the sound. I'm glad I did this. The mics I set up captured some pretty good audio and they have a really good stereo separation so you'll get some good sound on your headphones, speakers or playback device of choice.


Finally........ You posted something a couple of days back, but the site was playing truant......you can just imagine the frustration, folks following this thread must have experienced. 

So reasonably, how long after you post the recordings do we get to read the subjective review?......not trying to be pushy


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Ok- Finally! The recordings are now up. I have each head unit's recordings in a separate folder. Each folder represents one specific head unit and contains 4 recording files (tracks 1 through 4). All tracks were the same and all units were level matched. Tracks are appx 90 seconds long each. I wanted to ensure no clipping of the mics so recording level may be just slightly low depending on what your listening through. When using my reference headphones direct from the laptop headphone output, it's just a little lower than I'd like but my headphones need to be driven typically because of their impedance. My other headphones were just fine.

Let me know what you think of the recording quality too.

A huge thanks again to bbfoto, seafish and theslaking for contributing piece's to the testing here for our benefit and enjoyment.




RECORDINGS:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1l_LpZZC81XWVIxOGtZdUg4NkU


You may have to download these files. Just be sure that you keep them separate in their respective folders.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

I should also note which units are included in the recordings... And folders are not in the same order as seen below. 

Clarion DRZ-9255
Sony CDX-C90
Sony RSX-GS9
Denon DCT-1
Eclipse 55090
Pioneer P99RS
Panasonic CQ-TW5500W


The McIntosh mx5000 unfortunately could not be used for the second recording session because I was getting a scratchy sound on it which may be due to the need for cleaning of the volume control. I had it recorded for the first session but those recordings unfortunately I can't access so we have to move forward without them. I sent the McIntosh off for cleaning and service so it will come back fresh. I will say though that it was sounding sweet outside of that  Sorry gents.


Also, I think in the recordings that my right mic had just slightly more sensitivity on the gain so staging will be just slightly right of center. No biggie though.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> Ok- Finally! The recordings are now up. I have each head unit's recordings in a separate folder. Each folder represents one specific head unit and contains 4 recording files (tracks 1 through 4). All tracks were the same and all units were level matched. Tracks are appx 90 seconds long each. I wanted to ensure no clipping of the mics so recording level may be just slightly low depending on what your listening through. When using my reference headphones direct from the laptop headphone output, it's just a little lower than I'd like but my headphones need to be driven typically because of their impedance. My other headphones were just fine.
> 
> Let me know what you think of the recording quality too.
> 
> ...


You're right, need to download the files in order to play them, excellent recordings BTW......this is going to take some time.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> You're right, need to download the files in order to play them, excellent recordings BTW......this is going to take some time.


Sure will! 

I could have done one simple track but I wanted to give you guys a mix of a few things. Some of these do some nice stuff with staging/imaging which I think is an area where people may want to explore the differences between the units in addition to the typical tonal characteristics they are listening for.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> Sure will!
> 
> I could have done one simple track but I wanted to give you guys a mix of a few things. Some of these do some nice stuff with staging/imaging which I think is an area where people may want to explore the differences between the units in addition to the typical tonal characteristics they are listening for.


So here's what I'm planning to do, I'll start with the first track which has the shaker, cause there's a ton of mid range info there and differences should be easy to spot. I'm going to do that track from HU 1 & 2 to see if there is a difference and which one is better. Then 1 & 3 and so on. Anything that's too close to call or worse than HU 1 will just be ignored and I'll move on to the next one. 

Now if HU 2, 3 and 6 came out sounding better than 1, then I will do 2 vs 3 and so on till I get to the one I think sounds the best.....all this while following the golden rules of tuning, don't do it for more than 20 min at a stretch, make sure results are repeatable the next day...

Then song 2-4. I'm just beginning to realize how long this will take.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> ...
> 
> Then song 2-4. I'm just beginning to realize how long this will take.



see you in a week :laugh:


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

captainobvious said:


> see you in a week :laugh:


...or you can just save me some time and just post the results


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

sqnut said:


> So here's what I'm planning to do, I'll start with the first track which has the shaker, cause there's a ton of mid range info there and differences should be easy to spot. I'm going to do that track from HU 1 & 2 to see if there is a difference and which one is better. Then 1 & 3 and so on. Anything that's too close to call or worse than HU 1 will just be ignored and I'll move on to the next one.
> 
> Now if HU 2, 3 and 6 came out sounding better than 1, then I will do 2 vs 3 and so on till I get to the one I think sounds the best.....all this while following the golden rules of tuning, don't do it for more than 20 min at a stretch, make sure results are repeatable the next day...
> 
> Then song 2-4. I'm just beginning to realize how long this will take.


Heck I'm just amazed I finally have a head unit that's included in one on these uber-headunit tests. And actually I've got two! One coming out, other going in. I guess it's official I'm now a gear-snoob. :laugh: I figured time to say enough's enough playing around with 'budget' heads. There's not much middle ground in SQ/build quality it seems.. It's either everything else or nice touch-screens, or a small but competitive couple of high-end units among current offerings. Not an Alpine to be found in that catagory.. Kinda sad.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

I'd say the w957HD is up there  It's a very fine unit in a double din.

But to be fair...almost all of these units are NLA.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Hi Steve, for some reason the folder with HU 2 is empty today, so I have been unable to compare HU 2. I took the first track with the shaker and went 1 vs 3, 1 vs 4 etc.

Let me mention at the outset, that I was very surprised with the test on two counts. First, I was surprised at the real differences from hu to hu ( I was expecting nominal to nil  ), and how easy it was to pick these differences and the test including going back and forth, took only about 30 minutes. It's going to take me longer to write this post.

Let me also mention that while yes, there were audible differences between the units, I do not think I heard any difference that couldn't be removed or added with an eq with fine resolution. Ie get HU 3 closer to 1 with some eq etc. If we could eq for each unit, the units would come out much closer. With most units, while I was listening, a part of my mind was in tuning mode, raise 12.5 0.5 db, cut 1.6 etc etc. 

So that is bit of background, and in terms of what I listened for in the first track, I basically zoned into 3 parts, the first was the initial roll of the shaker right at the start. On the best unit (according to me) this was very detailed, the sound had a longer decay and you felt like you were hearing the individual beads in the shaker moving and coming to rest. On most other units, the decay was shorter and you heard kind of a combined mass moving in the shaker vs individual beads.

The next thing I listened to was a small bell that is heard ~40 second mark. On the best unit this little bell had excellent clarity and a slight ring right at the end, on most other units the ring was missing and the clarity was not as good. The last bit was just the music portion. 

Another thing to note is that with this track, it's mostly a test of the units ability in the mid range and above, maybe the units that were middle of the road with mids and highs may be better at the lower end, I would need to re do the test with a track that has more low end. To that end the test is incomplete. On to the actual test.

*HU 1 vs HU 3:* 

HU 1 - The first thing that struck me about HU 1 was the clarity and the very next feeling was that the top end is a bit more exaggerated than it should be and a touch brittle, nothing that a slight cut at 5, 8 & 16 couldn't cure. The decay on the shaker was longest among all units and I felt like I was hearing individual beads in the shaker. The highs were crystal clear but the top end needs a little work. The little bell was crystal clear and had a nice ring, right at the end. I loved the open sound on this unit and did not get that sense on most other units. Excellent unit overall, but leaning a bit to the brighter side, again this can be cured.

HU 3 - 5khz+ definitely sounds more muted/rolled off on this unit than 1. It is less detailed both on the shaker and the bell and the sound is not as open as 1. The overall sound is more closed on 3, mostly due to the rolled off highs. Of all the HU's I heard I felt that this unit would place in the bottom third. Not one of my favorites from this lot. *Winner HU 1.*

*HU 1 vs HU 4:*

HU 4 - Initial shaker detail better than with 3 but not as good as 1. Little bell is also clearer on 4 than 3, but the bell lacks the ring and decay that you get on 1. *Winner HU 1.*

*HU 1 vs HU 5:* 

HU 5 - This one falls somewhere between 3 & 4, not as bad as 3 but slightly lower than 4. Sound is a bit boxed in and lacks the clarity and details of 1.

*HU 1 vs HU 6:*

HU 6 - Now unit 1 has serious competition. Good details and decay time on the shaker, a sense of hearing the individual beads instead of a solid mass in the shaker. The little bell had good clarity and a little ring. Unit 6 is better than 1 in that it doesn't have the exaggerated highs and is not a touch brittle like 1. But HU 1 still has a more open sound. *TIE*.

*HU 1 vs HU 7:*

HU 7 - HU 7 is very close 6, but it lacks just that bit of clarity on the bell and +0.2-0.3 db raise at 10 and 12.5 would do wonders in opening up the sound and making it more airy. Overall good unit, but *unit 1 wins.*

*HU 1 vs HU 8:*

HU 8 - Again a close contest. HU 8 is better than 1 in that it doesn't have the slightly exaggerated and brittle top end, but it also lacks the openness and clarity of 1. The music portion sounded more balanced on 8 than 1, but the sense of individual beads in the shaker is less than with unit 1. *Winner by a whisker - Unit 1*.

Top 3 units:

1st - Tie Unit 1 and Unit 6
3rd - Unit 8

Now can we have your opinion and the list of the HU's?

[Edit] If 1 & 6 tie, then one can't be a clear winner. Edited for a more logical result [edit].


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Now can we have your opinion and the list of the HU's?



Thanks for the detailed response and for taking the time to do the listening evaluation and provide your thoughts. I'll send a PM your way so as not to disclose anything to those people who have yet to do the listening.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

captainobvious said:


> Thanks for the detailed response and for taking the time to do the listening evaluation and provide your thoughts. I'll send a PM your way so as not to disclose anything to those people who have yet to do the listening.


May I please have a copy of your listening subjective evaluation in a PM format. Thanks so much.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

High Resolution Audio said:


> May I please have a copy of your listening subjective evaluation in a PM format. Thanks so much.



I'll be glad to Gerald. 

Please post up your thoughts on the units/recordings first and then I'll send it your way bud. It's nice to keep people participating in this discussion since I did the recordings so we can see how we all liked the different units prior to knowing what they were


----------



## Coppertone (Oct 4, 2011)

Just send me the head units Steve, and I'll share my thoughts with you lol.


----------



## Velozity (Jul 6, 2007)

Just downloaded the folders. No recordings are present for Headunit 2. I guess that was the Mac? I'll post up my impressions this evening. Thanks a bunch for doing this Steve. When that Mac comes back if it's still for sale let me know. :guitarist:


----------



## backousis (Feb 22, 2014)

i will not be as detailed as sqnut.
as he said to be fair every unit should be equed according to the system but it's
a lot of work to do so i listened as they are.
i tried the same technique comparing the better to the rest.
my vote goes:
1 no4
2 no8

i would like a pm with your results and the head units numbers too.
i will keep it a secret


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

I've been swamped with work lately, but I'll try to sit down in front of the studio monitors with a relaxed and rested mind tomorrow evening (Sunday) to offer my thoughts. Really looking forward to it. Thanks Steve!

EDIT: Oh, one more thing. Steve, I have all of these test tracks except one, but would you mind posting up all of the original 90 second snippet files of each, as a "source" reference?

They will most likely need to be level-matched to the microphone recordings, but anyone can do this easily with a free download of Audacity for Mac or PC. I think it would be interesting to see how each HU compares to the original source, even if it will not be apples-to-apples due to your particular speaker setup being in the playback chain. If you don't think it's a good idea, I'm cool with that. 

I _could_ also send you a Pioneer DEX-P9 to record & do the test meaurements on if you're keen on that? But I suppose that you've already made your choice as to what HU you'll be rockin' in your car.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

> .... in terms of what I listened for in the first track, I basically zoned into 3 parts, the first was the initial roll of the shaker right at the start. On the best unit (according to me) this was very detailed, the sound had a longer decay and you felt like you were hearing the individual beads in the shaker moving and coming to rest. On most other units, the decay was shorter and you heard kind of a combined mass moving in the shaker vs individual beads.
> 
> The next thing I listened to was a small bell that is heard ~40 second mark. On the best unit this little bell had excellent clarity and a slight ring right at the end, on most other units the ring was missing and the clarity was not as good. The last bit was just the music portion.
> 
> Another thing to note is that with this track, it's mostly a test of the units ability in the mid range and above.........


I'm actually surprised that more folks haven't stepped up and done their subjective review of the tracks Steve posted, I think he jumped through a lot of hoops to put this together. I for one couldn't wait to jump in and do the test and although ideally, I would have liked to do it over 2-3 days, it was clear I would not have the time to do it that way, so I just did it on the first track. 

That track doesn't have much in the low end and it doesn't have vocals. Based on the results Steve PM'd, I realized that my ratings of one of the units was horribly wrong, simply because I did not hear that unit with a track which covered 10 octaves AND had vocals. I went back and listened to track 3 from this unit and the anomalies stood out instantly. So yes, while you can use the sound of the bell and the initial shaker as a ref point, *please* make sure you listen to all units with a vocal track and bass line as well. Luckily the unit concerned didn't finish in my top 3 so it doesn't affect my final ratings.

I feel most folks feel a bit awkward about posting subjective views, but let me ask you, if you don't learn to hear differences and learn how to correct them, how will the sound improve beyond a point? I mean the RTA will only get you so far and beyond that its all ears. Spend 30-40 minutes listening to the tracks, it would be interesting to hear your opinion.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

listening to a couple tracks now. the differences are so small im not sure if its just my head messing with me. will listen to all later


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Velozity said:


> Just downloaded the folders. No recordings are present for Headunit 2. I guess that was the Mac? I'll post up my impressions this evening. Thanks a bunch for doing this Steve. When that Mac comes back if it's still for sale let me know. :guitarist:



Correct Mike. The folder 2 was for the McIntosh but since I had to send it off for cleaning/service, it's not included in the recordings. Sorry gents.

Shame, it sounded badass but was getting a scratchy sound probably from the volume control.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

SkizeR said:


> listening to a couple tracks now. the differences are so small im not sure if its just my head messing with me. will listen to all later


Listen with your eyes closed, the differences are real.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Correct Mike. The folder 2 was for the McIntosh but since I had to send it off for cleaning/service, it's not included in the recordings. Sorry gents.
> 
> Shame, it sounded badass but was getting a scratchy sound probably from the volume control.


Steve, no guarantees, but I can probably recover the "inaccessible" files from your initial recording session on the Zoom H6 with that 256gb SD Card if you want to mail just the SD Card back to me. 

I got hit with a really bad cold yesterday so my sinuses and ears are completely shot, and my concentration level is, too.  And unfortunately when I get sick my tinnitus is at its worst. 

But I went ahead and gave a quick listen anyway, and there are some easily noticeable differences between many of the Head Units. But I just wasn't coherent enough to make a proper judgement or evaluation, and I didn't take any notes, so I'm going to hold off on my subjective evaluation. Sorry gents.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> EDIT: Oh, one more thing. Steve, I have all of these test tracks except one, but would you mind posting up all of the original 90 second snippet files of each, as a "source" reference?


Sure thing Billy.

Here is a link to a folder with the direct tracks used.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1l_LpZZC81XV3RiWkNEYmJHcjQ



.


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

You just Ain't heard knockin' on heavens door till you hear dolly doing her thang on it.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Going to copy over to the Fiio X5ii so I can really listen. I attempted from the iMac phone output and I believe the poor sound from the Mac was a big fail. Plus background noise (kids). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Sure thing Billy.
> 
> Here is a link to a folder with the direct tracks used.
> 
> ...


Thanks dood!!! I think that these will be good to have so everyone can see exactly what is "missing" from the source file when played back through each HU. Just note that you must also factor in what the playback speaker system for the test was capable of (in addition to the microphones) as well. But the measurement microphones that were used are VERY capable...20Hz-20kHz with very flat FR, and the speakers are very capable as well.


Oh, BTW, there are some other EXCELLENT tracks on that Stockfish Records "AYA" Disc.  Every release by Stockfish that I've listened to has been superb.

*Are You Authentic (AYA) Authentic Audio Check SACD - Review by Jimmy's Junkyard*

From the Stockfish web site:

_*"The tracks, some of which are newly remixed and partly specially recorded for this SACD, contain music signals that reveal weaknesses of playback chains, make them audible and can be used for optimization. The harmony develops only with a fault-free system.

EXAMPLE track 6: Stage Illustration - Height

Three associated instruments: pots for the tweeter, piano for the mid-range driver and contrabass for ground drivers and subwoofers play together. They should be at a realistic height and pitch staggered as in a jazz cellar with a 4-7 meter stage distance in front of the listener. The piano plays on the same level as the listener and the pianist slightly offset above the piano. The root should sound at the same height of the instruments and not at the bottom of the car.










EXAMPLE track 15: Stage Illustration - Width & Depth

This recording was recorded especially for the assessment of the spatial breadth and depth on the open-air stage in Northeim. A musician with a drum moves in a semicircle, from the right outside to the left outside. The radius is 10 meters around the microphone. The complete stage width including the reflections, not just the stop of the bongo, is evaluated."*_










They also produced the _*EASCA Competition Evaluation Disc*_ ...Scroll down the page. It's a German web site, but you can switch it to English if you go to the "Storefront" to purchase these by clicking on the British Flag icon at the top right of the page.

Stockfish Records Home Page





Babs said:


> Going to copy over to the Fiio X5ii so I can really listen. I attempted from the iMac phone output and I believe the poor sound from the Mac was a big fail. Plus background noise (kids).


Scott, doesn't your iMac 3.5mm Headphone Output also have Toslink Mini Digital Optical Output? If so, plug it into your DSP and or portable DAC/Headphone Amp and off you go.  You might have to enable it or switch to it in "*System Preferences > Sound > Output*" but normally it should automatically detect a S/PDIF device or cable when it's plugged in.

If anybody else is able to listen from a Windows PC computer, try downloading the *Foobar 2000* Audio Player and install the _*A/B/X Comparator *_plug-in. This allows you to easily set up a group of tracks to Double Blind A/B/X. 

foobar2000: Components Repository - ABX Comparator

It's a very basic/plain looking UI, but they have A LOT of excellent Plug-In's, including DVD-Audio playback and SACD ".iso" file playback (which is essentially DSD).


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

It was difficult to listen to files as they wouldn't open on my computer. I had to download all of them and rename them as Head Unit X track x. There wasn't enough room on my disc to load all so I had to delete. I only listened to track 2 from all sources except Unit 2.

TIER 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buy a long shot head unit 5 was the smoothest. I could listen at top volume all day long with little fatigue. Very analog sounding unit. Lots of fluidity and flow. This would be the unit I would like to own out of the choices. 

7 and 8 were very smooth sounding units. 8 was slightly easier to listen to than 7 but the differences were slight. Not quite on par with unit 5 slight step down.

TIER 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3 was Mid tier. Middle of the line. Not too harsh not too smooth. My guess is most would be happy with this unit.

TIER 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit 1 and unit 6 were both harsh sounding units. Grating on the nerves to listen to. Annoyed me. Couldn't stand listening to it for long. Choppy.

Unit 4 was very harsh. Very digital. Almost unbearable. I wouldn't recommend that unit to anyone. Missing a lot of information. Very rough and discontinuous.


----------



## Velozity (Jul 6, 2007)

So after putting a bit of time listening to all 28 tracks, here's is my rank and a few comments:

1. Headunit 1- This unit was very resolving, and was the most articulate and airy. I would guess this is the DRZ9255 as it reminds me of a DRZ sound with the 96kHz upsampling turned on. It was pretty even across the frequency spectrum but may be a little too clinical for some.

2. Headunit 6- This was very close to HU1 but a little less emphasis on every note. I suppose it could be considered smoother, but I prefer the additional resolution that HU1 had. I would guess HU6 is the Denon. Unrelated: The floor creak on track 1 had me spooked! I thought it was coming from my own house. Nice microphone setup...

3. Headunit 4- This was the most distinct sounding out of the 7 units. The extra sparkle on the highs and "3D" or holographic sound and warmth to the midrange leads me to think this one is the Bottlehead. I feel like I could hear a bit of that tube distortion on the triangles at the beginning of track 2. I rank it here because it was definitely unique sounding to my ears, and it was enjoyable.

4. Headunit 3- Nothing stuck out and it was flat and resolving. But IMO there was less decay on the midrange and not as much space around the instruments. Nice unit but kind of middle of the road for me. My guess is this is the P99.

5. Headunit 5- Not really all that impressive compared to the top 4. It sounds muted and lifeless. If listening to track 1 on HU1 is like watching a movie in 4K, then listening to it on HU5 is like watching it on DVD. It did have decent low end though. My guess is this is the C90.

6. Headunit 8- It was almost a toss up between HU8 and HU5. This one slipped because it didn't have the low end of HU5. It seemed like it was missing some information in the lowest frequencies. There was not much emotion to the music and sounded kind of "okay". My guess is this is the Sony GS9.

7. Headunit 7- I didn't like this one. In fact I knew early that HU1 was my favorite and HU7 was my least favorite. It was not impressive and sounded tinny. The resolution just was not there with this unit. It couldn't keep up with the others and I'm going to guess this is the Eclipse.


So there's my take on it. I listened to these today with B&W P5 headphones powered by my iMac. If I were to listen on an amplified setup or on another day I may have a different opinion. I could be way off, but it was fun anyway! Thanks for doing this Steve!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

High Resolution Audio said:


> It was difficult to listen to files as they wouldn't open on my computer. I had to download all of them and rename them as Head Unit X track x. There wasn't enough room on my disc to load all so I had to delete. I only listened to track 2 from all sources except Unit 2.
> 
> TIER 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


Gerald, interesting. What was your source for playback, and what amp, speaker setup or headphones were you using?

Thanks for posting your impressions!


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

bbfoto said:


> Gerald, interesting. What was your source for playback, and what amp, speaker setup or headphones were you using?
> 
> Thanks for posting your impressions!


Sorry for not including that information. 

I was listening via Early 2015 Mac Book Pro with Audio-Technica Headphones model ATH-ANC7b

What if I may ask did you find interesting?


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Thanks Mike and Gerald. I'll send you a PM.


----------



## aj1735 (Feb 27, 2011)

I tried to go through them but was at the mercy of listening to the tracks through my note 5 and my kids 10 dollar jvc headphones. So I think that I am at the mercy of my equipment. I only have experience with the p99rs and have not heard any of the others in person. 

Here is what I heard. 

Head 6- I liked this one I think the beat with 8 close behind it. I thought that it sounded like it had the most width and layers to it. Vocals were very clean and almost airy at times. They also seemed to be the highest in the sound stage. I thought that the low end was very good. 

Head 8- I thought that this was similar to 6 with maybe a little more low end. I liked the vocals better on 6 but they were still very good and clean. 

Head 3- this sounded very nice. It seemed almost airy at times with a nice wide soundstage. I thought that the highs were more pleasant than 5 and 7. Also it had nice low end. 

Head 5- thought that it was nice and similar to 7. I thought that the vocals were a little cleaner than in 7. It sounded a little bit wider than 7 also. 

Head 7- thought it had stronger bass than 5 but more echo in the vocals. I thought that it was just nice but nothing stood out to me. 

Head 1- thought that it was a little tiny. Didn't hear as much bass as others and not as much depth of the soundstage. 

Head 4- I thought that the highs were harsh and almost piercing at times. The rest just seamed dull and muffled. It did sound like it did have good low end. 

That's my 2 cents. I hope that I liked the p99rs since I just bought another one. Lol. I am anxious to see the results.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

aj1735 said:


> I tried to go through them but was at the mercy of listening to the tracks through my note 5 and my kids 10 dollar jvc headphones. So I think that I am at the mercy of my equipment. I only have experience with the p99rs and have not heard any of the others in person.
> 
> Here is what I heard.
> 
> ...


I don't know about which HU was which, but as far as listening impressions go...SGN5 + Cheap JVC Headphones FTW!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Shhhhhhhh...FLAC files converted from the SACD .iso Disc Image...

*Stockfish Records - Are You Authentic? (AYA) Authentic Audio Check SACD*


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

when do the rest of us Knuckle-draggers get to see the results?


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

RRizz said:


> when do the rest of us Knuckle-draggers get to see the results?


When you quit dragging your knuckles, LOL.  

Just kidding, cause Lord knows I'm slacking as well. But I've been sick the last several days and there's no way I could judge the tracks properly with my ears and sinuses in the condition they're in.

But I urge you to listen to the tracks and try to take notes to rank them BEFORE you get the results. Challenge yourself. 

LISTEN FOR:

- Sound Stage (Focus, Width, Depth, Layering, Space between instruments)

- Clarity (How well can you distinguish/separate the Individual Instruments from each other and the Vocal? For Example, are the Chimes in the 1st Track smeared together or can you hear each individual chime in the "swirl"?)

- Tonality (Harsh, Fatiguing, Smooth, Balanced, Sibilant, etc.)

- Bass Extension and Resolution

- Treble Extension and Resolution

You might want to listen to the SOURCE Files that were provided First so that you have a REFERENCE. And I've found that good recordings translate well to all types of systems, so don't worry if you're just using your cell phone and earbuds, or a TOTL home audio system, etc.


Steve has provided a great service which took a great deal of time. You'd only be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't judge them YOURSELF. Why rely on someone else's impression? YOU have to decide which HU you would choose for your system.

Yeah, hopefully your impressions are similar to everyone else's, but even if they are not, you will know that YOU chose what sounded best to you, WITHOUT any BIAS.


I'm not 100%, but I'm going to try to Listen to these this evening and post my thoughts in the morning.

HAPPY LISTENING!


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

Great advice. Unfortunately, I'm currently limited by my equipment. The only source I have worthy of all Steve's hard work is in storage for another month, and even then, a recent swap of my midbass drivers requires a re-tuning. It will be a while before I can give it the attention the comparison rightfully deserves.
On a side note, I'm already using the p99, and that won't change.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

bbfoto said:


> LISTEN FOR:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm gonna create myself a little table for notes on those criteria and give it a go again. I've got a good playback source with the X5ii, but unfortunately mediocre buds for phones. That's the problem. No home system. 

Luckily I don't have to worry whether I bought the right one. LOL! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

HERE WE GO!

EDIT: I did a second Listening Session because I still had a fairly decent Cold that was affecting my sinuses/ears/tinnitus on my first listening session. I've added comments for this 2nd Listening Session and they will all appear in *BLUE* text. These new notes are all written "as compared to" the Source Tracks. Also, see my Post #181 below.

So I've had a bad cold the last several days and I'm still not back to 100%, plus my Tinnitus was fairly annoying, but I really didn't want to delay any longer, so I went ahead and gave the listening test a shot. 

These are very "off the cuff" impressions, and my random notes are “first impressions”, which IME usually hold true.

My playback chain was a newer, top spec'd Kaby Lake Windows 10 Laptop PC with as many background processes as possible halted or disabled, including the Wi-Fi & Bluetooth adapter card. I used the Foobar 2000 Media Player software (I like the VU, Level, & Spectrum Visualizations  ) and connected the Laptop via USB to an Oppo HA-1 Sabre DAC/Headphone Amp, which supplied a balanced line-level signal to a pair of active Neumann KH-120A Studio Monitors (built-in amps & XO) combined with a Presonus Temblor T10 Subwoofer for the low end.

I also listened using the Beyerdynamic T1 Headphones via balanced output on the Oppo HA-1 Headphone Amp/DAC. It offered a slighlty different presentation, but was more or less in-line or consistent with the Studio Monitors.

First off, I know most of these tracks really well, but I listened to the Source Files first to get a fresh reference. But as I started listening to the HU Tracks, the L/R imbalance on them were bugging me too much, so I stopped and adjusted the Level Control on the back of my studio monitors using a few of the the HU tracks to achieve a proper Center Image...and finally dove back in to my listening session.

As another reference, I just want to state up front that the Noise Floor or background hiss on the Source Files is really low, and listed below I'm indicating a general “Noise Floor Rating” for each of the Head Units, but take them with a grain of salt as there are many factors at play here.


TL;DR near bottom of post. 



*LISTENING IMPRESSIONS* (I will list my TOP Two HU choices in my Conclusion):



*HU #1*

NOISE FLOOR: HIGH (Noticeable amount of Hiss)

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIME TRACK:*

First thing I noticed was there was No Bass Extension, and very little definition in the bass that was present. The Low End was definitely missing! There wasn't much definition or transients in the Hang Drum, and no sense of its size, or the space around it. The High End, specifically the Chime “Swirls” were very Bright/Harsh/Spitty and Smeared together, with little detail or definition. There were some really noticeable artifacts in the High End when the Chimes were played. The larger Cymbal/Gong was really lacking realism., detail, and harmonics. The Tibetan Finger Bells and small Crotal Bells didn't have any realism (harmonics & decay) and no sense of “space” or air around them. There was very little detail in the sustain of the Triangle strikes. 

2nd Listening Session: I still found the High Frequencies a bit too Harsh. There actually _was_ decent Low End on the Big Drum, but still not great.  Good Imaging overall, but not as much Depth, Pinpoint Focus, and 3D Space as others. The detail in the Seed Pod Shaker was good, but I didn't hear the individual seed pods like in the Source track. The small Crotal Bells and Tibetan Finger Cymbals lack distinct Focus and "Air" or 3D Space...the weren't "floating" in space as they should be...Same for the Triangle. There wasn't as much Fine Detail in the Fast-Panned Chimes or Bells. The larger Cymbal & Gong were fairly realistic, but still not quite "there". I would definitely rank this HU higher now, probably 3rd or 4th...mainly because it was fairly Harsh and had some artifacts in the upper Treble, and lacked a sense of true 3D Space.

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Decent Imaging, but not much “Air”, Depth, or Space. Triangle lacks sustain detail and realism. Decent “cross stick” definition on the snare drum but it was lacking body/woodiness. No body or lower mids on the Congas, and a lack of impact and body in the Tom drum strikes. Basically lacking low-mid frequencies and low-end definition. 

2nd Listening Session: This also had some grating harshness in the upper Treble of the Vocal. Good Imaging/Placement but not Really Fine Detail. No Air or 3D space in the Triangle. Lacking Definition in the Low End/Bass Line. Snare Cross Stick is too Harsh/Exaggerated without the Woodiness or "Body" that it needs. Chimes are kind of muddled together, not distinct enough.


*FIVE BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK* (Upright Bass/Male Vocal):

Fairly weak Ambiance/Room/Reverb Tail on the Vocal. Lack of body/midbass. Overall lack of definition and detail. Weak Tom Drum strikes (no low mids or impact). Undefined Imaging and Focus. The Center Image, Vocal & Bass were a bit Lower in Height than others.

2nd Listening Session: Still no weight or body in the Vocal or Upright Bass. Decent Treble Detail though not as Fine or Resolved as others. Hi-Hat "chick" and Congas lack midbass body, but good upper end...Similar impression of the Tom drum strikes. Good Reverb Tail in Vocal but not super Clean/3D Space reverb as the Source. 

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK:*

No Impact, very weak Kick Drum and Bass Line. Okay Imaging. No excitement.

2nd Listening Session: Still a lack of Impact on Drums and Bass Line. Overall lacking Midbass/Low End and the detail in that area. The Baritone voice in the Men's Background Vocal group was not as Distinct or locatable. Lacking Midbass weight and body in Men's Vocals and also in the Tambourine. Somewhat Sibilant Lead Vocal (Dolly). Good Imaging overall, but not Tight Focus.





*HU #2*......Insert a tear here or :bigcry: for the Defective McINTOSH HU that wasn't able to be included. 






*HU #3*

NOISE FLOOR: MEDIUM

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIME TRACK:*

You could hear a bit of the noise from the Head Unit's CD Transport, possibly due to where it was positioned on the table in “line of sight” of the Right Channel Microphone? Better Imaging with better Placement and Separation than HU #1, and slightly better Low End compared to HU #1, but still not very good. Still a Harsh High End on the Chime Swirls and Bells. Cymbal/Gong sounds Okay but still not much realism/definition/harmonics.

2nd Listening Session: Still Harsh upper Treble in the Chimes. Lack of individual Seed Pods detail in the Shaker and lack of 3D Space. Lack of Detail & 3D Space in the Fast-Panning Chime Bells, Crotal Bells, and Tibetan Finger Cymbals. Smearing of Upper Treble Detail in the "Swirling" Chimes and in High End overall. Not enough realism in the larger Cymbal and Gong. Decent Imaging & Placement. Lack of Dynamics and Fine Detail in the Hang Drum and Low/Big Drums.

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Good Imaging & Focus. Better Bass Line/Low End compared to HU #1, but still no Body in Congas, Tom Drums, or Cross Stick of the Snare Drum. Harsh Vocals, Over-emphasized Hi-End on Cross Stick. Harsh High End overall. I don't really care for how this vocal was recorded. The vocal gets very gritty and unpleasant in a few places. It seems like the microphone and/or microphone preamp were over-driven, or whatever processing was used on the vocal track created some distortion and grit.

2nd Listening Session: Good Imaging & Placement but not Pinpoint Focus. Vocals & Snare Cross Stick still Harsh/Over-Emphasized in the Upper Treble. No Realism in Triangle/Lack of Detail in Chimes. Weak Transients in Bass Line and where's the Kick Drum?

*BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK:*

Good Image Height. Meh room ambiance and reverb tail in Vocal. Still no weight or body in the midbass. Hi-Hat “Chick” isn't very good or real. No realism in the Cymbal strike/wash. Lacks Detail and Definition overall.

2nd Listening Session: Good Imaging overall. No midbass weight or body in the Upright Bass or Vocal. Decent Vocal Reverb but could use better sense of 3D Space. Hi-Hat and Cymbals lack fullness & Detail/Realism.

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK:*

No midbass body. Weak Kick Drum & Bass Line. Good Imaging & Focus, but No Depth or Separation in the Men's Vocals. No Impact. The Tambourine was lost.

2nd Listening Session: Same as above. Okay Imaging & Placement. But Dolly's Vocal was a bit Sibilant. Baritone singer's voice in the Men's Background Vocal Group is not well distinguished, but otherwise there is good separation between them. The Rhythm Guitar almost sounds like an overly-compressed MP3 here.



*HU #4* 

NOISE FLOOR: HIGH (Including the noise from the CD Transport)

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIME TRACK:*

You could Really hear the Loud CD Transport of this HU more than HU #3 due to where the HU was positioned on the table in “line of sight” of the Right Channel Microphone.  Good Definition. Harsh Chimes that were “smeared” during the chime swirls, including High-End Artifacts. Meh Imaging and Focus. Just Okay Bass Extension and Detail. Cymbal/Gong strike was decent but not as much realism as it should have.

2nd Listening Session: Same as the above notes. And Good L/R Imaging but not much DEPTH. Noticed nice Dynamic Detail in "finger taps" on the Hang Drum...better than others so far. Good Shaker Detail with distinction of individual seed pods. Larger Cymbal & Gong lack a bit of Fullness/Body and Realism. Low End of Big Drums pretty good but not Fine Resolution of Low End Detail.

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Good Triangle Definition & Focus, with Good Imaging overall. Harsh Treble/Vocals with Sibilance. Exaggerated Highs in the snare drum Cross Stick. Congas somewhat lost in the mix. No Low Mids or Weight/Body throughout! 

2nd Listening Session: Same as above notes, Except I didn't think there was Realism in the Triangle and Chimes. Lacking Transients/Dynamics. Exaggerated Upper Treble in Cross Stick along with Harsh/Sibilant Vocal. Bongos/Congas somewhat lost in the mix. Saxophone not very distinct or real. Tom drums weak in body/fullness.

*BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK:*

Good Imaging & Focus overall. Okay Room Ambiance & Reverb Tail. But no Weight or Body in the Upright Bass, Tom drums, or in the “Chick” of the Hi-Hat. Cymbal/Gong just okay...needed more definition, harmonics, and realism.

2nd Listening Session: Same as above notes. And Slide Guitar and Harmonica lack Detail and Focus. Decent Reverb/Room Ambiance but not Clean, 3D sense of Space. Good Upper Treble Definition on Bass & Vocal, but lacking midbass Body & Weight.

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK:*

No Impact. Bass Line is there but fairly weak. Good Imaging & Focus. Spitty/Harsh Tambourine. Very “scooped out” Lower Midrange. Harsh High End overall.

2nd Listening Session: Good electric Piano & Organ definition, but again lacking Low End. Rhythm Guitar sounds "Crunched" or Compressed here. Sibilant Lead Vocal. Not very good Separation/Distinction of the voices in the Men's Background Vocals. Lacks Focus & Depth.





*HU #5*

NOISE FLOOR: MEDIUM (Including some noise from the CD Transport)

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIME TRACK:*

Okay Definition, Focus, and Imaging. Harsh Chime “swirls” once again that had some smearing. The small Crotal Bells and Tibetan Finger Bells don't ring or "hang in the air” with 3D space as they should. Okay Bass/Low End. No Transients or Dynamics on the Hang Drum. Meh Cymbal/Gong sound. Decent Shaker definition and realism.

2nd Listening Session: Decent Shaker Definition & Realism but lacking distinct seed pods. Decent attack/definition in Hang Drum finger taps. Lack of Distinction in the Fast-Panning Chimes...kind of smeared. Lack of Fine Detail and Impact in the Low End on the Big Drums.

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Harsh High End on Triangle. Congas okay. Still not enough midbass Body in the snare Cross Stick or Bass Line. Vocal not super defined or focused. Weak Tom drum strikes. Not much Room Ambience or “Air”.

2nd Listening Session: Lower Height Placement of Triangle strikes and lack of Dynamics there. Not much separation/distinction between the Electric Marimba/Piano. Lack of Detail in Chimes. Sibilant/Harsh Vocals but not Upper Treble harshness? Vocal not nearly as Focused as the Source track.

*BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK:*

Just No Focus or Definition. No Midbass Body in the Hi-Hat “Chick”. No realism in Cymbals. Just MEH.

2nd Listening Session: Okay weight & body in Upright Bass but Not much Detail in String Plucks/String Buzz. Hi-Hat "chick" and Congas have some body, but not as crisp/detailed as the Source track. Lack of Attack/Transients in Tom drum hits. Okay Reverb, but not nearly as much 3D Space as the Source.

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK: *

Weak Bass Line! No Impact! Again, weak Focus & Definition in her Vocal and weak Imaging in general. Lacking Room Ambience & Air/Reverb. No weight or body in the Tambourine.

2nd Listening Session: A bit different 2nd impression here. Decent Imaging/Placement. A bit better Bass Line and a bit better definition on the Baritone in the Men's Vocal Group. Decent Focus in Dolly's Vocals. Better Dynamics in Drums/Bass but still lacking. Still not "there" for me.





*HU #6*

NOISE FLOOR: MEDIUM-HIGH (with some CD Transport Noise as well)

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIME TRACK:*

Harsh High End in the Chimes. Good Imaging, Depth, and Space. Good Height & Width. Better Low End, but still not great. The Cymbal/Gong has more realism. Slightly better Detail in the Chime “swirls”. Good Air & Space around the Seed Pod Shaker. Transients/Dynamics of the Hang Drum are decent but still slightly weak.

2nd Listening Session: Chime "swirls" still a bit Harsh and Smeared but better Detail than previous HUs. The Tibetan Finger Bells, Crotals, Shaker, & Large Cymbals & Gong also have a good sense of 3D Space. Better Low-End Definition than I initially thought. Realistic Large Hand Bell near end of track. A bit better Definition in the Fast-Panning Chimes. The Low End in the Big Drum is nice.

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Triangle doesn't sound real at all. Just “okay” detail. Good Image Height. Vocals are still a bit Harsh in the upper Treble. Congas are a bit better/fuller on this HU. Not a great amount of Detail in the Guitars. Good Detail, Weight, & Body in the snare drum Cross Stick and Hi-Hat. Soprano Sax had more definition and prominence with this HU.

2nd Listening Session: Vocal is a bit Smoother (but still Sibilant) and has Good Height & Focus. Triangle strikes are Distinct. Good Saxophone. Not quite enough midbass weight & body in the Tom drum hits. Still need a bit more of the same in the Snare drum Cross Stick. Chimes could use more detail/definition. Congas are nice. Bass Line is a bit weak, not distinct. 

*BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK:*

More realistic “weight & body” in the vocal. Better Definition and Low End in the Upright Bass with a better “string pluck” and Bass definition overall. Good Reverb & Space in the Vocal. Good Hi-Hat “chick”. Congas & Tom drums have a bit more impact and body. 

2nd Listening Session: As above. And Good "Scratchiness" in the Vocal. Could use a bit more Realism and 3D Space in the Vocal Reverb. Slide Guitar and Harmonica could use more Definition and Distinction/Focus. Hi-Hat is almost there as far as realism.

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK:*

Good Definition & Detail overall. The Organ is more easily placed and defined. The Vocal Focus and Separation in the Men's Background Vocals is more noticeable. Good Rim Shot definition and impact on the Snare Drum. Still not a great Bass Line, but better than most of the other Head Units up to this point. Near the beginning of the track there are Two successive snare drum Rim Shots. HU 6 was able to give each rim shot a Distinct Tone and Placement on the drum, as if one was played with the Left Hand and the other with the Right Hand. Previous head units offered much less or no distinction here.

2nd Listening Session: As Above, plus better Impact in the Drums and Bass Line than I thought before. Nice distinction of the Baritone voice in the Men's Vocal Group. Nice Space & Distinction in the Vocals and Imaging overall. I like the Distinction and Clarity of the Two Rim Shots as mentioned above. Nice Imaging/Separation/Focus in the Electric Piano & Organ.






*HU #7*

NOISE FLOOR: MEDIUM-HIGH

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIMES TRACK:*

Really Good Seed Pod Shaker Definition as well as Detail & Separation in the Chimes, though the Chimes are still slightly Harsh in the High End. Nice Imaging. Much better Detail in the Hang Drum & Low End overall! More Realistic Cymbals, Gong, and Crotal Bells. You can hear a sense of the SIZE of the Hang Drum in the imaging with Space and “Air” around it. Basically good separation of each instrument. A sense of the Size and Space that Each Instrument occupies. Really good Room Ambience & Reverb Tails. And BASS! There is finally a sense of Space, Air, & Definition in the Low End of the Big Drum!

2nd Listening Session: Mostly the Same as above. The Hang Drum could have _a bit _better Dynamics or Transient Detail in the Finger Taps. Noticed the nice Detail and Definition in the Fast-Panning Chimes. Space or Depth between the small "floating" Crotal Bells and the Big Drum. I'm liking this HU more now.

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Excellent Space and Air around and between the Vocal and all of the Instruments. Pinpoint Imaging & Focus. Vocals were more Balanced and not as Harsh in the high end here. Excellent, full-bodied, “woody” Cross Stick on the Snare Drum. Nice definition in the Congas. The Soprano Sax came through and had it's own space with this HU. Nice Low End and Bass Line with Tight Focus. Nice Detail & Dynamics in the Electric Guitar. Transients & Dynamics in general were great with this HU.

2nd Listening Session: Adding that the Triangle had Realism and was very Distinct & Focused. Sharp Focus & Image Placement overall. Could use _a bit _more midbass Weight & Body in the Drums and Toms specifically. Otherwise one of my favorite presentations of the Source track!

*BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK:*

Really nice Detail in the string plucks of the Upright Bass, and Detail in the Midbass & Low End. Excellent Vocal Detail and Focus with Excellent Room Ambience and Reverb Tail. Good Realism in the Hi-Hat “chick”, Congas, Tom drums, etc! Lots of DEPTH!

2nd Listening Session: Same as Above. Tight Focus. Nice distinction of the Slide Guitar and Harmonica compared to most of the other Head Units. Good sense of Space and Depth of the Upright Bass. Needs _a bit_ more Attack, Definition, and Body in the Tom Drums. Again, I like the Realism, Depth, and 3D Space overall and the Room Reverb.

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK:*

Precise Placement & Separation between Each Instrument and Voice with lots of Detail and Dynamics. Great Bass Definition. Excellent Space, Air, and Room Ambiance. Excellent Separation in the Men's Background Vocals, including DEPTH. Great Impact & Dynamics. Nice Placement and Definition between the Electric Piano and Organ. I was able to hear the Two successive snare drum Rim Shot's distinct tone and placement on the drum with this HU as well. Overall really liking the SQ of this HU!

2nd Listening Session: Same as Above! And Dolly's Vocals are presented beautifully here! The Rhythm Guitar is Nice here, not as "crunched" or compressed as others. Again I have to emphasize the sense of Space & Depth here! Great Distinction in the Baritone voice in the Men's Vocal Group. Great Distinction in the Snare Rim Shots! I really like the Impact/Dynamics of the Drums (Kick Drum!) and Bass Line...Killer Bass Line. "Good chit, Maynard!"






*HU #8*

NOISE FLOOR: MEDIUM-LOW

*AYA PERCUSSION/HANG DRUM/CHIME TRACK:*

Great Detail in the Shaker and Definition in Each Individual Chime! Excellent, Realistic Cymbals/Gong, small Crotal Bells, and Tibetan Finger Bells with lots of Air or Space around them! Excellent Definition and Dynamics in the Hang Drum. Low End Definition in the Big Drum! Just all-around Excellent Imaging, Depth, Focus, Air, and Space here! The Instrument Separation, Focus, and Detail were best overall on this track with this HU.

2nd Listening Session: Same as Above! Excellent 3D Space, Definition/Focus, and Imaging/Placement of All Instruments. I felt that I could "Reach Into" the Depth and Space of this track, especially regarding the Low End and its Definition. Presented the Widest and most Evenly-Spaced Panning of the Chimes. 

*KEM, HEAVEN TRACK:*

Best Space, Separation, & Focus! Excellent Ambiance or Air around the Vocal, which also wasn't as Harsh/Sibilant as others. Balanced, SMOOTH, and Detailed presentation overall. Excellent, full-bodied Congas and a lot of “Air” around the Woodiness/Realism of the Snare Drum Cross Sticking! A sense of the SIZE of Each Instrument. Full-bodied, realistic Tom drum strikes. Depth/Space/Imaging/Detail...it has it all. The Space or “Air” around the Vocal and Cross Stick are the Best with this HU. Though the Soprano Sax is not quite as “real” in presentation as with HU #7.

2nd Listening Session: Same as Above! Adding that there was Excellent Detail/Focus/Definition of the Triangle...which is very hard to resolve and achieve realism. Cross Stick on the Snare Drum was at the proper Height, Below & Behind the Vocal. Superb Definition and Realism in the Open/Closed Hi-Hat.

*BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA TRACK:*

Balanced Bass presentation. Good Congas and Tom drum realism. Nice Depth & Separation in the Vocal. The Crash/Wash Cymbal and Hi-Hats don't have quite as much “Body” or realism as with HU #7. Overall, I prefer this track played by HU #7.

2nd Listening Session: Great midbass Body & Weight in the Upright Bass and Vocal, too. Realistic Hi-Hat "chick" and Cymbal Crash/Wash. Excellent Congas & Tom drum hits. Nice Detail and Distinction of the Harmonica and Slide Guitar. Best presentation of Vocal "Space" and Reverb. Excellent DEPTH. 

*DOLLY PARTON TRACK:*

Just slightly less Impact compared to HU #7. It's a bit softer around the edges/or dynamics compared to HU #7...a “smoother” presentation. Also not quite as Rich/Detailed in the Low End and Bass Line. However, DEPTH between the different Vocals is stellar! And Dolly's lead vocal really shines here...you can “picture her” in the room. There isn't quite as much Detail & Separation in the Men's widespread Background Vocals as compared to HU #7. Nice definition and space in the Organ. Again, I was able to hear the distinction in placement & tone between the Two successive snare drum Rim Shot's with this HU, but not as well defined as with HU #6 & #7. Overall VERY Nice!

2nd Listening Session: Same as Above, plus Excellent Detail in the Snare Wire Buzz, Cymbal strikes, and Rim Shots in the intro. Excellent Focus and Depth of the Electric Piano and Organ. Realistic Crash Cymbal. Great Impact in the Drums and Bass Line. Again, Dolly's VOCALS! OMG.





*TL;DR....and CONCLUSION*


*As it stands, HU #7 & #8 would be my Top Picks!* Overall I think that HU #8 was the best, BUT it would be VERY Hard for me to choose between them! Each did some things better than the other. I'd love to be able to combine the best of both of these into a single unit. If I had to wager a bet, I think that one of these was the Denon DCT-1 and the other was the Sony RSX-GS9, or vice versa. 

I did notice that HU #8 seemed to have the Lowest Noise Floor...so RSX-GS9? And sometimes I felt like the slightly "smoother" but still detailed one was the DRZ. I've used the Sony C90 for years and it's been a top pick, but always with the Digital Output. To use the AM/FM tuner you have to connect it via Analog RCA, and I did notice with one of my units that it had become "harsher" at a certain point in time...maybe due to a breakdown of certain aging electronic parts, IDK? So it may certainly be one of the more "brittle" sounding units here. Not sure. It's basically a crap shoot due to the age of some of the Head Units in this test.

In addition, I'm still a bit sick and not completely coherent, so concentration was difficult and I did this in one sitting, so there's that! Excuses, excuses!  But realistically, if I listened again next week, I would quite possibly have different impressions. :blush:

Interestingly, on my initial, very informal listening session, I thought that HU #6 was the most “musical” and it was my overall favorite. It seemed to have a Smoothness and Musicality that the others lacked, while still being detailed, and it drew me into the music. I had it as a Tie with HU #8 instead of HU #7. Different Day, Different Impression. 

In the beginning, I also thought I would create a “score sheet” for all of the different aspects of the sound, but unfortunately I didn't have the energy or concentration to do so. So I apologize for the Long, Wordy, and somewhat random notes! 


I'd really like to thank Steve again for this amazing shootout, and for taking A LOT of extra time out of his personal life to provide this wonderful data for all of us to consume and evaluate! THANKS STEVE!!! And thank you to all of the others that contributed their time, expertise, and/or equipment for this shootout! 

HUGE :thumbsup:



Now to have a listen to the Awesome Recordings that *Jazzi* has made!

Link:

Anyone want to critique some recordings I made?


.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

It seems like the Denon unit is quite the boner for some of the folks who posted in this thread.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

sqnut said:


> It seems like the Denon unit is quite the boner for some of the folks who posted in this thread.


 I've tested the Denon before, and up against a lot of the same head units here, and it was always a standout in my top 3. I think that it always seemed to be the most "Holographic" or 3D sound stage compared to anything else.

However, this was quite a few years ago, but it was a blind test as well. I think that some others in this thread or maybe somewhere else posted that they had a similar experience with the Denon. Just something about it. Who knows how it performed here, though...this is an old unit at this point in time and we all know that certain electronic components degrade substantially over time. I've had A LOT of problems with the C90's in this regard and have gone through at least 5 different units that developed various problems. They are really a crap shoot at this point.

At the time of my test many years ago, the Sony CDX-C90 was still a fairly new product, and it wasn't quite as good as the Denon in SQ via the RCA preouts, but it was still in my top 3 at the time. However, I ultimately chose the Sony due to it's connectivity via Toslink Optical and integration with the Sony XDP-4000X DSP, which for the time was excellent, and I still think that it sounds quite good. I also really liked the wired Rotary Commander remote of the Sony C90...that remote is still one of my favorites that you can operate completely without having to look at it or take your eyes off of the road. Anyway...

My top HU choices here could very well end up being the P99 and Bottlehead. But again, it's just a guess and it could be any of them.

I don't want to get any more off thread, though. I am feeling a bit better now and have recovered from my cold for the most part, so I might give these another listen just to verify my own "off the cuff" impressions. I wouldn't be surprised if I have to say "W...T....F...., Billy?" to myself about my first listening impressions. :laugh: I'm hoping they are similar to my first impressions, and I'm fairly confident in my playback system, but....it _will_ be interesting.


----------



## truckguy (Sep 2, 2013)

I downloaded the songs yesterday and had a chance to listen to them today. I used a dell laptop and sennheiser momentum 2 headphones. 

1. 4
2. 8
3. 6

On a side note I let my 5yr old listen to the ones I thought were the most different. I asked him which one he liked best and picked hu 1 which isn't in my top 3. Hu 4 was the other. The song was knocking on heavens door. I thought 4 had the best detail, clarity, and low end.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

bbfoto said:


> ...I am feeling a bit better now and have recovered from my cold for the most part, so I might give these another listen just to verify my own "off the cuff" impressions. I wouldn't be surprised if I have to say "W...T....F...., Billy?" to myself about my first listening impressions. :laugh: I'm hoping they are similar to my first impressions, and I'm fairly confident in my playback system, but....it _will_ be interesting.


So I _did_ give ALL of these tracks another listen, starting with the Reference "Source" tracks first. I listened again via my Beyerdynamic T1 Headphones (which I forgot to mention have a custom Calibration file by Sonarworks Studio Sound Calibration Software applied to them in my playback software). This makes quite a difference for the better.

I also listened via studio monitors again, but this time I used the very affordable *JBL LSR305* pair. I would highly recommend these to anyone who wants a simple and very affordable home "reference" setup. These are small enough to be portable, and/or use in a small bedroom. And because they are "active" monitors with their own built-in amps & crossovers, setup is simple. You could basically just plug them into wall power, and then plug your SmartPhone, iPod, DAP, or Laptop directly into them and have a very simple but excellent reference playback system that travels easily. If you watch for sales you can pick up a pair of these for $220 shipped. They are normally $149 Each. Anyway...



*Ultimately, I'm going to stick with my previous Top Picks, which were HU #7 & HU #8.* I did hear some things a bit differently this time, but not enough different or conclusive enough to change my mind.


I really did like the *Low End* on *HU #6*, and also the Space/Detail/Focus. It seemed to be lacking for me in the DEPTH department, but I think with some EQ here and there this one could be _really_ nice and maybe match HU #7 and #8 for me. But then if I "fine tune" HU #7 and #8, how much better can they get?


So those are my Final Impressions....






until I find out which Head Unit was which and I completely change my mind, haha! 


Thanks again, Steve! This was a very revealing and fun experiment, in the true spirit of DIYMA. :thumbsup:

.


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

I'm trying to not read what anyone is writing, so maybe this has been mentioned already.

I've only listened to the files from head unit number one so far but the left/right channels are backwards compared to the reference tracks included in the zip file. Also, the 3rd track is centered in the reference but certainly not in the microphone recording.

Is this intentional, or is this a known error in the process?


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

I used my Asus laptop, and a borrowed set of Shure (not sure of model) headphones.
I did 2 listening sessions about an hour apart. The first I narrowed down to top 3, the second I put those 3 in order. I also went back to the others, and compared them to my #3, just to be sure I didn't miss anything the first go-around. I used track #1, and #4. #4 (dolly) got the most play-time because its a track I'm pretty familiar with, and one that I use as a demo in my car on occasion.
I think they were all strong in the heart of the midrange frequencies, so it came down to the bottom and the top freq. differences for me, and it wasn't as easy as I thought it might be. (for most of the units)
#8 and #4 were very tough to pick between, I thought the resolution was great on both, but I kept finding myself going back to #4, so i'm giving it the nod by a whisker. I'm going to say that the bottom end helped me make that decision. So here are my 3.
1. #4
2. #8
3. #1
At the end of the month, when my car comes out of storage, I will surely give these another go-around in the environment these units are made to live and breathe in, and see if it changes any of my thoughts. Just for giggles.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Jazzi said:


> I'm trying to not read what anyone is writing, so maybe this has been mentioned already.
> 
> I've only listened to the files from head unit number one so far but the left/right channels are backwards compared to the reference tracks included in the zip file. Also, the 3rd track is centered in the reference but certainly not in the microphone recording.
> 
> Is this intentional, or is this a known error in the process?


Probably not intentional, but yeah, the L/R channels are swapped in the Recordings of the Head Units. And Steve mentioned that there was a slight bias in the recording levels towards the Right Channel. The Source or "Reference" Files that Steve posted are "correct" in both regards.

I Balanced the L/R in the recordings using the Level controls on my studio monitors or in Audacity. I didn't bother to swap the Channels but you may want to do so for an "apples-to-apples" comparison.

Again, both are easily done in the Free *Audacity* program for both Mac & Windows PCs. When you open each stereo file in Audacity, in the Top Left corner of the "Waveform Window" is the Track Header or "Label". Click on the small "Down Arrow" and a Drop-down menu will appear. About 3/4ths of the way down in the menu there is an option to "*Swap Stereo Channels*". In that same Window, to the Left of the stereo waveform, there is a L/R "*Balance*" slider. Save the files once you've made the adjustments and carry on.


You also could simply swap your L/R speaker wires, but then the "Reference" tracks will be backwards. No biggie for me but some may find it distracting.

Looking forward to your impressions, Justin!


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

Ok great, it's not just me.

If anyone else wants a recipe, I did some super-sleuthing in my favorite sound editor Goldwave and found the existing right channel needs to be lowered by exactly -3.0dB, and then the left and right channels need to be switched. This works great for head unit #1, and I assume the others have the same bias so I'll batch process them and hope for the best. Now for some listening! I'm a little excited about this.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

I have been putting this off......Can't really claim lack of time as my excuse......I think it boils down to fear.......'what if I can't tell a difference? Everyone is going to laugh at me.......what will I think of myself as an self-professed audiophile?' Please take all of this with a grain of salt - I tip my hat at the previous posters - great ears - I found the comparisons between the recordings to be fairly subtle. 

Well, I finally decided 'Nuts to that! It is what it is - I'll either hear the differences or I won't.' I started with 2 channel - AURALiC Aries - AURALiC Vega - EC ZDS used as a pre-amp - Naim NAP 100 amplifier - Audible Physics NZ3AlBe speakers on stands. I had a nice advantage (I think) where the Aries Lightning DS app on my phone allows me to go back and forth very quickly between the various headphones / tracks - easily swiping to put me at 1:00 for example. 

I could hear some differences with staging, depth / width differences - could hear some differences regarding the voice - especially with the Dolly song - I perceived #3 to be a little warmer, maybe a bit nasal......#4 seemed not as smooth as many of the rest of them (a bit closed in, slightly sibilant?).....where as #7 and #8 may have been a little fuller, richer. 

I felt that I wasn't getting much out of the 3's - probably what was pointed out previously - the differences were mainly found in the highs / lows versus the mid range. So I switched to the cans on the ZDS. 

I was certainly picking up noises - but I'm not sure if they were from the transports (I didn't want to go back and read other's posts until after I typed this one) or if they were incidental noises. #1 had some high pitched squeaks at points, and #6 had a noise on T3 and T2. 

Evaluating bass using the cans......#4 probably had the fullest bass - at least the tones on T3 seemed richer.....#1, #6, #7, #8 were similar - with #7 and #8 having slightly more 'articulate' bass tones. I felt that #3 was a bit soft on the bass - just seemingly not as deep, tight, etc. 

For naming 'favorites'........and I may have been pre-biased - but as I said, I haven't read other's posts for a couple days. I believe I liked #7, #1, and #8 the best......probably in that order. Again, I would have enjoyed this activity a bit more if the differences were 'Night & Day' to me.......but as I state when folks provide a demo in their cars.....I typically get in and enjoy music......I have a decent sense of what 'good' sounds like, but not a hyper-sensitive ear for picking out the 'bad'. So whatever that is worth


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

^Thanks Jason! Yeah, there are some extraneous noises that were picked by the microphones in a few of the [email protected], Steve!!!   I actually thought they were cool additions!...the creaking chair or whatever it was, what I think was the noise from the CD Transports in each HU on the table (some of them were more "in-line" or on-axis to the microphone pointing to the right speaker and HU table than others). Or maybe it was the fan on the 12VDC Power Supply? And there are a few smallish dog barks, and maybe a vehicle or motorcycle with loud exhaust going by way in the distance, etc.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

After a little bit of listening on my computer with AT headphones I think I would rank them like this. 
#1 HU 8
#2 HU 1, 7 tie
#3 HU 3, 4 tie
#4 HU 5


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

bbfoto said:


> ^Thanks Jason! Yeah, there are some extraneous noises that were picked by the microphones in a few of the [email protected], Steve!!!   I actually thought they were cool additions!...the creaking chair or whatever it was, what I think was the noise from the CD Transports in each HU on the table (some of them were more "in-line" or on-axis to the microphone pointing to the right towards the table than others) and there are a few smallish dog barks, a vehicle or motorcycle with loud exhaust going by, etc.




I thought they were cool additions as well - didn't pick them up on the speakers, but I kept on having to pause the music when I had the cans on.....I thought the wife was coming in the room to mess with me  - crazy to hear noises over my right shoulder


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

bertholomey said:


> I thought they were cool additions as well - didn't pick them up on the speakers, but I kept on having to pause the music when I had the cans on.....I thought the wife was coming in the room to mess with me  - crazy to hear noises over my right shoulder


Haha, yeah, the close-mic'd speaker technique that Steve used to record the L/R speaker output (minimizing crosstalk) lends itself to more of a "binaural" recording, so headphones might be a very good option to consider for others that will be checking these out.  Otherwise, eliminating the side wall "early" reflections between you and the listening position when listening to speakers in a smaller room will help in achieving those side and rear imaging cues. Who says that 2-channel can't provide "surround" effects?! If your listening room is set up properly it's very cool.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

We'll I finally got time to download and take a listen.

Tools are: Lenevo gaming laptop and an old but wonderful set of Nakamichi headphones.

I heard some differences. I'll give my opinion tomorrow. To much time at a computer already between reading back through, downloading, and then listening. Just getting the ball rolling with this post.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

gregerst22 said:


> After a little bit of listening on my computer with AT headphones I think I would rank them like this.
> #1 HU 8
> #2 HU 1, 7 tie
> #3 HU 3, 4 tie
> #4 HU 5


Thanks, Greg! My ranking was very similar.

Do you remember how you would rank HU #6?


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

bbfoto said:


> Thanks, Greg! My ranking was very similar.
> 
> Do you remember how you would rank HU #6?


Apparently i subconsciously ranked HU 6 as 'forgettable'. haha. actually I checked my notes from Friday when I did the listening and I marked it as good on all tracks but also noted that treble seemed excessive in some areas. So I guess I would put it second to last on my list.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

If anyone is interested and has *A LOT* of extra time on their hands :laugh:  I updated my "marathon" Listening Impressions/Ranking post above (#177) with my Impressions from my *2nd Listening Session*. These are all listed in *BLUE* text to differentiate them from my initial impressions, where I was still battling a bad cold.

TL;DR they aren't _too_ different from my initial impressions...mostly just some other things that I noticed or that stood out, that might inform your listening.

Really stoked that so many have participated now! Thank you everyone.

We'll have to start a Group Buy on the winning Head Unit after all is revealed, haha!  DIYMA Sheep!


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Jazzi said:


> I'm trying to not read what anyone is writing, so maybe this has been mentioned already.
> 
> I've only listened to the files from head unit number one so far but the left/right channels are backwards compared to the reference tracks included in the zip file. Also, the 3rd track is centered in the reference but certainly not in the microphone recording.
> 
> Is this intentional, or is this a known error in the process?


Jazzi-

Thanks for the feedback. Yep, Billy is correct- just errors in the process. I knew they were a little off center after checking again post-recording. I didn't want to go back and re-record and I didn't have time to change them in post-recording in software so I just ran with them.

Shouldn't be too big of a deal though since we're comparing the recordings to each other and not the source. Since I'm recording the sound through the playback device in the room, it will never be as good as the source anyway. 


Thanks,


Steve


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> ^Thanks Jason! Yeah, there are some extraneous noises that were picked by the microphones in a few of the [email protected], Steve!!!   I actually thought they were cool additions!...the creaking chair or whatever it was, what I think was the noise from the CD Transports in each HU on the table (some of them were more "in-line" or on-axis to the microphone pointing to the right speaker and HU table than others). Or maybe it was the fan on the 12VDC Power Supply? And there are a few smallish dog barks, and maybe a vehicle or motorcycle with loud exhaust going by way in the distance, etc.



Damn squeaky chair will get you every time :laugh:

Yeah, there will be a few small noises you may hear in the recordings, but it was tough to avoid.

I will say this, the only noises I noticed from any of the units were the following:

The Sony C90 display makes a little noise that you hear, but is silent when the display is turned off.
The Panny also exhibits a very small amount of hum.
The Eclipse 55090 had a very noisy transport mechanism, but it's been in use for like 14 years for several hours a day, so it gets a pass from me 
Other than that, the other units exhibited no noise issues of note in my listening.

Well...except for my poor McIntosh mx5000 which had a scratchy sound that developed and precluded it from these recordings. It was sent off for cleaning and service so should be returning soon. It was actually my favorite of the cd players so I'm bummed it wasn't able to be included. Sorry fellas.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

UPDATE:

I will post my crude measurements as well as the thoughts and subjective stuff for this at the end of the week. For anyone else who hasn't completed listening to the tracks to evaluate them yet, try to get that squeezed in before Friday.


Also, I think it is important to note that no one should feel intimidated by taking part in listening and providing their impressions. After all, this is not a game of guessing which head unit is which and who was more correct...it is an exercise in demoing the recordings and figuring out which each individual _preferred_. We all hear things a little differently and have different preferences for our ideal sound.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

This has been an interesting exercise. I'm hoping to find some time to give these a listen, but I'm not sure it will happen any time soon. For those keeping track, there definitely does seem to be a DIYMA favorite, even if very few have selected it as their number one.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

rton20s said:


> ...... For those keeping track, there definitely does seem to be a DIYMA favorite, even if very few have selected it as their number one.


That sounds contradictory and something that the Golden Boy with the red tie, would say. BTW, which HU are you talking about?


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> Well...except for my poor McIntosh mx5000 which had a scratchy sound that developed and precluded it from these recordings. It was sent off for cleaning and service so should be returning soon. It was actually my favorite of the cd players so I'm bummed it wasn't able to be included. Sorry fellas.


Hey Steve, I'm not sure if you saw an earlier post of mine, but I could _possibly_ recover the audio files from the 256GB SD card from your 1st recording session with the McIntosh HU if you want to mail it back to me?

Though I realize It's a bit late in the game at this point. You are welcome to hold onto the Zoom H6 at least until you get the MX5000 back and are able to record it. We'd all obviously like to hear and compare that HU to the others, especially since it is held in such high regard! I think that it would be great to have it among the data set for future reference as well.

Thanks Amigo!


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

sqnut said:


> That sounds contradictory and something that the Golden Boy with the red tie, would say. BTW, which HU are you talking about?


Check your PM. Anyone else that has already reviewed and is confused/curious about my statement, let me know and I'll PM you.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

OP.....do you have a dog?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

For all those who are doing / planing to do the listening session, just one suggestion. This is a test of how the 7 hu's sound vs one another, playing the same track. It is not about how the recorded file sounds against the original and it is also not about the various ambient sounds that are also on the recording. It's also not a studio recording so there is going to be a lot more of the 'ambient room sounds'. 

So while it's cool to hear the creak and the car driving by etc but in terms of the test these noises are irrelevant. The test is only and only, about hearing the music that the hu's are playing, THAT is where the really cool differences lie, so please just focus on the music and ignore the 'cool' ambient noises.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> For all those who are doing / planing to do the listening session, just one suggestion. This is a test of how the 7 hu's sound vs one another, playing the same track. It is not about how the recorded file sounds against the original and it is also not about the various ambient sounds that are also on the recording. It's also not a studio recording so there is going to be a lot more of the 'ambient room sounds'.
> 
> So while it's cool to hear the creak and the car driving by etc but in terms of the test these noises are irrelevant. The test is only and only, about hearing the music that the hu's are playing, THAT is where the really cool differences lie, so please just focus on the music and ignore the 'cool' ambient noises.



Made me think of this...


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> OP.....do you have a dog?



Yes



.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> Made me think of this...


How about actually hearing the units and posting your views? At least that would be a positive contribution to the thread.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

sqnut said:


> For all those who are doing / planing to do the listening session, just one suggestion. This is a test of how the 7 hu's sound vs one another, playing the same track. It is not about how the recorded file sounds against the original and it is also not about the various ambient sounds that are also on the recording. It's also not a studio recording so there is going to be a lot more of the 'ambient room sounds'.
> 
> So while it's cool to hear the creak and the car driving by etc but in terms of the test these noises are irrelevant. The test is only and only, about hearing the music that the hu's are playing, THAT is where the really cool differences lie, so please just focus on the music and ignore the 'cool' ambient noises.


Well.........Ok.......I guess my remarks took this thread OT.........my posts were showing interest in the activity......I did take the time to do the activity........wasn't expected to be moderated/censored.........if you feel strongly enough about it, I guess I could ask a moderator to remove all of my posts to this thread.......not sure that would be in the spirit of the thread though......but I would imagine you are primarily guiding future posters and not necessarily condemning previous posters. Apologies for 'taking away' versus 'adding' to this thread. Ok...done...off my chest


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> How about actually hearing the units and posting your views? At least that would be a positive contribution to the thread.


It was a lighthearted joke. Try not to take this stuff so seriously.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

sqnut said:


> For all those who are doing / planing to do the listening session, just one suggestion. This is a test of how the 7 hu's sound vs one another, playing the same track. It is not about how the recorded file sounds against the original and it is also not about the various ambient sounds that are also on the recording. It's also not a studio recording so there is going to be a lot more of the 'ambient room sounds'.
> 
> So while it's cool to hear the creak and the car driving by etc but in terms of the test these noises are irrelevant. The test is only and only, about hearing the music that the hu's are playing, THAT is where the really cool differences lie, so please just focus on the music and ignore the 'cool' ambient noises.


Lighten up, Arun. You come across as the SQ Nazi.  "NO FUN (Soup) FOR YOU!" 

Steve wanted this informal test to be both informative AND enjoyable. We discussed in previous posts that these "ambient sounds" would be difficult to eliminate with this type of recording process and I honestly do find them to be valuable (see below).

And be patient, man. Everyone here has a job, work, family, and a life to live...there's not always time to do the things we'd like to do, when we'd like to do them. And this listening "test" takes quite a bit of time, dedication, and uninterrupted concentration, as you well know. There are 28 flippin' tracks to evaluate, not including the Source Files!

And I actually disagree with you and do in fact believe that there is real value in comparing the Source Files. Without the Source File, how do you know what presentation is the "right" one??? The Source Files let you know "what is possible" and what each HU is missing or deficient in, or what aspects or properties of the sound are being skewed. IMHO, a few of the HUs come INCREDIBLY Close to reproducing the original Source File, even though they are being reproduced through a particular "chain" of other gear. This attests to just how good the equipment in the rest of the Playback chain is here.

Also, those "ambient sounds" let you know that the recorder and microphones that were used are VERY capable of fine resolution, detail, and imaging on real-world sounds, so we can expect or be confident that that same gear is also doing a good job of reproducing what each HU has to offer. 

Just my .02 FWIW...

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

I understand completely on why there are ambient noises, I found myself focusing on the noises and if one head unit was playing something in the song or the recording that another wasn't able to. I sear I heard a whine that sounded like a dog whining in a couple of the tracks, which completely make sense now.

FWIW, all the head units that I listened to are really good and I would assume all the differences heard really don't matter in the long run as the speakers, tuning, and the environment would all make a MUCH bigger difference in the sound.

But overall, this is all really cool! Thanks much to the OP!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> It was a lighthearted joke. Try not to take this stuff so seriously.


So, someone who makes a lighthearted joke doesn't recognize one coming back? Even one with a winking smiley? and I'm taking this stuff too seriously?:.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

bbfoto said:


> Lighten up, Arun. You come across as the SQ Nazi.  "NO FUN (Soup) FOR YOU!"


I'm pressed for time so I'll keep this post on point. Lighten up Billy, maybe you need to understand the _primary_ objective of the exercise and maybe, show boat a bit less. 



bbfoto said:


> Steve wanted this informal test to be both informative AND enjoyable. We discussed in previous posts that these "ambient sounds" would be difficult to eliminate with this type of recording process and I honestly do find them to be valuable (see below).


Agreed, it should be informative and fun, but the fun should not come at the expense of accuracy, that is the sum total of my post. If that offends your sensibilities:shrug:. It is an experiment conducted to listen to the same track from 7 HU's and then evaluate the units based on that, period. Steve has mentioned that in several posts, so let's keep it there. 

Focusing on the ambient noises dilutes the result and now everyone who's going to listen will focus on listening for these, at the cost of focusing on the music where the real differences lie. Chances are, the subjective review is now based on what we think we're hearing. Read Jerry's post a couple down from yours. Still don't believe me? Go back to your original review look at all the units where you heard the transport (bad ambient noise), how did they do on the test? OTOH did Hearing a chair creak (good ambient noise) etc tells the mind 'ah revealing unit'? See how it's a slipper slope? 

As far as the transport noise goes, you got it right 2/4, I'll spend sometime listening tonight and see if I can guess what the other two were....... So much for this whole post. I'm not gringe and I get the fun part, but let's try and minimize biases, that's all. 


Now back to our regularly scheduled program...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqnut said:


> So, someone who makes a lighthearted joke doesn't recognize one coming back? Even one with a winking smiley? and I'm taking this stuff too seriously?:.



Your referenced reply simply tacked on a winking smiley at the end. Nowhere did it seem that you were joking. Just came off like another "holier than thou" comment. Especially given the context (your initial comment that everyone get in line). Therefore, it's not inconceivable that your reply came off not as you intended. 


The irony here... you were trying to get everyone to straighten up and obey your no fun rules. Now we are veering OT just to make sure we are all on the same page. Go figure.  (Hey, I used a smiley so it's all good)


Ima move on now that this has spiraled. Just wanted to explain how your jokes may need to be conveyed a bit better in the future as to avoid this kind of thing. I think we've done enough of being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

ErinH said:


> The irony here... you were trying to get everyone to straighten up and obey your no fun rules. Now we are veering OT just to make sure we are all on the same page. Go figure.  (Hey, I used a smiley so it's all good)


It is all good. I think we both brought a bit of baggage from the other thread.



ErinH said:


> Ima move on now that this has spiraled. Just wanted to explain how your jokes may need to be conveyed a bit better in the future as to avoid this kind of thing. I think we've done enough of being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.


It's not the first time my attempt at humour is either mistimed or misunderstood. That said, my post that got folks riled was truly meant as a suggestion with an explanation why.

At the cost of being misunderstood again, imagine if one of us was a woman (either is ok) and we were married to each other.......


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> I understand completely on why there are ambient noises, I found myself focusing on the noises and if one head unit was playing something in the song or the recording that another wasn't able to. I sear I heard a whine that sounded like a dog whining in a couple of the tracks, which completely make sense now.
> 
> FWIW, all the head units that I listened to are really good and I would assume all the differences heard really don't matter in the long run as the speakers, tuning, and the environment would all make a MUCH bigger difference in the sound.
> 
> But overall, this is all really cool! Thanks much to the OP!



Thanks Jerry. Glad you enjoyed it!


----------



## Velozity (Jul 6, 2007)

I've already ranked them and posted and know the results yet I still find myself drawn to this. It's a fun exercise. Steve if you do this again or any other shootout, I want in man! I'm just across the river...


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Velozity said:


> I've already ranked them and posted and know the results yet I still find myself drawn to this. It's a fun exercise. Steve if you do this again or any other shootout, I want in man! I'm just across the river...


My sentiments exactly, except I'm several ponds over. Kudos to Steve for putting this together, we should have more threads like this. 

For me, the two biggest takeaways are, that indeed hu's can and do sound different, and the reasons are in what Steve will post. The second is, that a recording of a room and everything in it, heard and recorded in a second room and then played back in the third, can still give a high degree of correlation in the results.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Velozity said:


> I've already ranked them and posted and know the results yet I still find myself drawn to this. It's a fun exercise. Steve if you do this again or any other shootout, I want in man! I'm just across the river...


Absolutely Mike. You're always welcome.


I'm testing some mids and tweeters currently. Let me know if you want to stop by to check them out. 

Shoot me a PM with your number so I can text you.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

We'll I finally got time to download and take a listen.

Tools are: Lenevo gaming laptop and an old but wonderful set of Nakamichi headphones.

My vote is for HU 2. I heard absolutely nothing wrong with it. Oh wait....

Simple evaluation
HU 1 - Best highs, sharp and detailed 
HU 3 - Good vocals
HU 4 - Hollow and bright
HU 5 - Kinda dull, secondary sounds were low
HU 6 - Poor vocals
HU 7 - Nice sounding, Smooth
HU 8 - Just sounded good all the way around.

It was kinda a difficult to critique these. They all sounded good. One was a little to clear and one was a little muddy. Bar a few other HU's on the planet these all would still sound better than most. I almost felt like I was making up stuff a couple times to find "wrong". They did sound different.

1 seemed the most accurate I guess and 8 was my favorite.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Theslaking said:


> We'll I finally got time to download and take a listen.
> 
> Tools are: Lenevo gaming laptop and an old but wonderful set of Nakamichi headphones.
> 
> ...


For my own curiosity... 

If you rank 8 and 1 and favorite and second favorite, either 7 or possibly 3 would round out your top three?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

First let me say I never listen to music through heatdphones. I only have a decent set for flights to Cali and such. That made it difficult for critical listening. It all sounded kind of new. My C-DSP refuses to work right in my car and my truck is in the shop (2nd cracked flywheel in 3 months!). 

After that disclaimer I will say 8 was may favorite and 7 would be second. 1 is to bright and clean. I actually don't like it but it has quality. One of the HU's sounds like an Eclipse strong, smooth sub and mid bass with highs that are to bright. That's probably not even the Eclipse


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

sqnut said:


> I'm pressed for time so I'll keep this post on point. Lighten up Billy, maybe you need to understand the _primary_ objective of the exercise and maybe, show boat a bit less.
> 
> Agreed, it should be informative and fun, but the fun should not come at the expense of accuracy, that is the sum total of my post. If that offends your sensibilities:shrug:. It is an experiment conducted to listen to the same track from 7 HU's and then evaluate the units based on that, period. Steve has mentioned that in several posts, so let's keep it there.
> 
> ...



Cool. I'll try to keep it short (which I am admittedly horrible at),

The comparison to the Source Files are still important as a Reference (at least to me, _in this particular test setup_) because they inform me as to exactly what "ambient noises" are purely a result of the microphone recording process.

In addition, and maybe not everyone agrees, but in tests like this I personally always prefer to have an Original, unmolested Music Track as a True Baseline Reference. There needs to be _some_ type of benchmark IMHO. Others are obviously free to think otherwise. It's fine if someone chooses a particular HU because they think that it sounds "best". I just want to know if that "best" is accurate to the source or not? And sure, ultimately I still might choose that "best" sounding unit even if it's not true to the source because it makes me tap my feet.

And in reference to the Bold text in your reply above, yeah, of course, a subjective review is _always_ just that, based on what we _think_ we are hearing, extra noises or not. Luckily, in this case we have the source files to eliminate some questions as to what we think we are hearing.

And obviously my evil ploy worked! Even you are going to go back and listen for the ambient noises!  

And sure, for better or worse I'm a showboatin' fool. epper: It takes all types to make the world go 'round, including a SQ Nazi or two. I think I'm becoming okay with that.

Sorry Steve, I'll leave it there. You _had_ to know ahead of time that it could possibly go this way. :blush: 





Theslaking said:


> First let me say I never listen to music through heatdphones. I only have a decent set for flights to Cali and such. That made it difficult for critical listening. It all sounded kind of new. ...
> 
> After that disclaimer I will say 8 was may favorite and 7 would be second. 1 is too bright and clean. I actually don't like it but it has quality. One of the HU's sounds like an Eclipse strong, smooth sub and mid bass with highs that are too bright. That's probably not even the Eclipse


This is pretty much in-line to my observations as well. Whether we are both anywhere close to being right or wrong is still to be determined.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

OK...the results.


First off, I want to say thanks to those of you who took the time to listen to the recording tracks, participate and respond. This was a fun exercise and hopefully people got something out of it- whether they heard differences or they didn't, whether they had preferences of some units over others and what those were...At least we got to hear some cool tracks, compare some top level source units and geek out.

The recording folders shook out in this order...

HU1 was the Sony RSX-GS9
HU2 was an empty folder that was supposed to be the mx5000. Sadly it went in for cleaning and service as I was getting a scratchy sound from it intermittently. It is already on its way back to me.
HU3 was the Denon DCT-1
HU4 was the Panasonic CQ-TW5500W
HU5 was the Clarion DRZ-9255
HU6 was the Eclipse 55090
HU7 was the Pioneer P99RS 
HU8 was the Sony CDX-C90


Just as we see with people's preferences in the responses to the recordings, the listening group we had live for these units also differed in what they liked best.

In our group were 4 SQ competitors (including myself) which included 2 former world champions. We did our demos blind with a switcher box. Each of us got the chance to listen through 2 tracks which remained consistent through our listening evaluations. Each of us got a chance to control the switcher box so we could swap back and forth between unit numbers to hear what we wanted to.

All units were level matched to within +/-0.1db of each other at 1khz. This proved to make things interesting as the measurement graphs will show below.

We did 2 separate sessions and took a break in between. 

There was no real consistency to the preference ranking between each session, except that the Eclipse was in the top 2 units both times.
The Panny was liked in the first session on some passages, and not well liked in the second session in other passages. (You'll see why).



Measurement graphs. These were taken with the signal fed from the rca output into my usb mic interface sound card and then into my software. Focus on the differences in response as that is what is important.

Also, please NOTE THE SCALE. These are zoomed in for better resolution. Sorry, the screenshot captures aren't as crisp as I would have liked.






As you can see, the Panasonic CQ-TX5500W tube receiver exhibits a distinct shaping of its frequency response curve. I verified that there was no "loudness" or other setting engaged on the unit. I also concurred with a friend (Natan B.) who has owned and run one of these for several years and he concurred my finding in the measurement. I thought that was odd that they decided to shape the response so much, but I guess it was a marketing tactic to make it "stand out" on the demo wall.
This also explains why some testers liked this unit in some passages and not others. I felt the midrange was very thin sounding on it and it had an unnatural brightness at times. Of course I saw why when I measured the response.
You can easily correct for this using your eq though to shape the response how you would like. This is still a very nice unit.

My personal preference after the many hours of demoing both with the testing group and on my own is for the McIntosh MX5000 and the Sony GS9. I felt both had an excellent level of detail and realism, and a good sense of space.
If I wanted a cd player unit, the Mac would be the top on my list to pursue. If I wanted to forego cd's and use mostly digital media, the GS9 would be my target unit. Both are outstanding, as is this entire lineup of source units.


----------



## #1BigMike (Aug 17, 2014)

I had a feeling you would like the Sony... :coolgleamA:

Thanks for putting this shootout together bro!


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I finally got to hear mine (GS9).. Uh yeah, it's scary good. If I can master the very different interface, I'm done.. finito.. No more head unit questioning.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Also when you consider that only 10% of the Sony's potential was used due to the others not being able to play those formats - shows that even at its lowest it's still the best...

Play DSD or 192/24 etc the gap would be even bigger to the next best...

I tested my Sony against the Alpine 7990 and I was surprised at how much better the Sony was...

That being said these differences are audible when you doing a AB in a controlled environment - in a car the difference would be harder to evaluate ... because there are so many variables to consider


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

Elektra said:


> Also when you consider that only 10% of the Sony's potential was used due to the others not being able to play those formats - shows that even at its lowest it's still the best...
> 
> Play DSD or 192/24 etc the gap would be even bigger to the next best...
> 
> ...








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

THANK YOU, Steve! Really interesting and fun to compare my impressions to the information above. Again, I REALLY appreciate that you took the time and trouble to do these recordings (however flawed some think they may be), and to share this experiment with all of us. This type of stuff is the Only thing that keeps me coming back to DIYMA. 

Did you happen to take measurements of the Sony CDX-C90?

It was basically a draw or tie for me between it and the P99 (HU#7 & #8).

I guess now I know why I have stuck with the C90 for so long. However, I use the C90's Digital Optical Output exclusively for CD playback, so???

I can also see why so many people have liked and use the P99. In a few aspects I preferred it over the C90. I guess the P99 is _just a few years_ newer than the C90, so you'd expect it to be a step above, ha.

And HU#4 (Panny Bottlehead) was the most polarizing for me. I noticed right off that there was *something* about it that I liked and also disliked, and now going back to look at my notes, and your RF/TF graphs above I can see why and it makes sense. So again, THANK YOU for also doing those measurements!

I'm really happy to hear that you were able to get the McIntosh sorted out and will have it back in your hands soon, especially since it was your favorite CD deck out of the group. They're such a Classic looking deck.  Can you describe what it was that you liked about it over the other HUs? Is it going to make it into your Car? Or will it be the Sony GS9?

And of course, it _would_ be really great to hear that MX5000 if you can swing it.  No pressure, tho'!  

And I am surprised at my ranking of the Denon. It was very clearly a leader in my comparisons years ago. But that may just be it. This is an older unit now and perhaps it is fine, but it _is possible _that some of the electronic parts in the circuitry have degraded and are no longer doing the job that they should. But it did measure Okay, at least in FR, so there's that. ???

On that note, I'm a bit surprised that the C90 ranked as well as it did in my impressions, as I have personally had multiple issues with several of these due to the electronics crapping out and not performing as well as when they were new or "younger".

I'm also quite glad that the Sony RSX-GS9 didn't rank at the top for me!  I _am_ perplexed at how low I ranked it, while the majority of listeners rated it very highly. But that's just how these go sometimes. While I probably would have ranked it 4th, or possibly 3rd, for some reason in my playback chain it just didn't impress me.

And while I like the look of the Sony, the whole SongPal/Separate UI aspect really frustrated me. What has always been a peeve of mine with most of Sony's gear is that they always make Proprietary connections or Software that you are locked into. With the GS9, that SongPal app was just not "doing it" for me compared to a lot of other UI's that I'm able to choose from with my Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 8" Phablet setup, which goes straight to the Helix DSP PRO via digital Coax (with digital extracted from the Phablet's OTG USB bus using the tiny and affordable SMSL X-USB XMOS USB digital extractor).

In my listening tests, the 8" Phablet setup, in addition to my iBasso DX90 portable DAP (which has since been replaced by several new models) at least equaled and usually smoked my C90's SQ (which I obviously think is still quite good)! So the GS9 would've needed to be the CLEAR Winner in my listening impressions for me to even _consider_ going with it. But it's good to know that a lot of other people really did rank it "up there" where you'd expect it to be before knowing which HU it was in the test. 

As it was, my 2nd Place choice from my listening test after the Tie between #7 & #8 was HU#6, which was the Eclipse. It was great to know that some of the guys in your live listening test seemed to like that Eclipse as well. It's not the same unit obviously, but I've used the Eclipse CD8053 in a few of my installs in the past and was very happy with it.

Overall, as it has been stated by many here from the get-go, with some good EQ and DSP magic, almost any one of these HUs could be "the one". However, I'm still of the belief that not _all_ of that 3D/Holographic Space & Depth in the Sound Stage, along with the Ultra Fine Resolution of Details that a particular HU exhibits "out of the box" can always be coaxed out of _any_ HU with the application of careful DSP.

But the next logical experiment would be just that...to "Tune" each of these HUs to a particular Target Curve as suggested previously and apply whatever other DSP is needed to get each to sound its best, then compare those results. Though I feel that it would be a much more daunting task, as this current experiment was already so very difficult to come to any meaningful conclusion. 

Anyhow, besides the DCT-1 lackluster ranking, I was also quite surprised by the overall low ranking of the DRZ. But that's why these types of shootouts are so cool. I can't thank you enough for putting this together. :thumbsup:

I would be very interested to know more about your current Hi-End Driver Tests as well, if and when you have some time to share that information. I honestly don't see how you came up with the time to conduct this HU shootout, so I think you should take a very well-deserved break for a bit!

Cheers!


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Elektra said:


> Also when you consider that only 10% of the Sony's potential was used due to the others not being able to play those formats - shows that even at its lowest it's still the best...
> 
> Play DSD or 192/24 etc the gap would be even bigger to the next best...
> 
> ...


I somewhat agree. I'm not sure about the 10% statement, though.  Yes, in a controlled environment (TOTL playback and speaker system, well-treated room, clean Power, yada, yada, yada) the Sony GS9 _does_ have more potential due to its Hi-Res capabilities. There is a difference.

I can also discern it when using my iBasso DX90 portable DAP via its Analog Line Out or Coaxial Digital connection (this unit also plays up to 24/192 and DSD, but it's DoP), in addition to my current 8" Android Phablet setup with the Hi-Res and Bit-Perfect capable _USB Audio Player Pro App_. The digital signal is extracted from the Phablet via a its USB OTG bus using a _SMSL X-USB XMOS _digital extractor, and sent on to the Helix DSP PRO.

Now, regarding DSD, there is quite a bit of controversy and debate among engineers as to whether it is _truly_ an advantage over Hi-Res PCM. While it does offer excellent SQ, quite a few engineers see it as just another _Proprietary_ "Innovation" that Sony developed so that they could market a "New/Unique/Different/Amazing" technology.

VERY FEW DSD releases that are available are *True DSD Bitstreams* from recording capture, through the editing & mixing process, and to the final release. This is because there are Only TWO Editing Systems available that are able to Process and Edit the Bitstream in Pure DSD. And both of these systems are #1. VERY Expensive, #2. Very Limited in the type of processing/editing that they can do, and #3. Very Tedious to work with compared to modern DAWs. So that is a Triple-Whammy for 95% of recording engineers to NOT invest in the Technology. It really complicates and slows down their process, and if you know how studio engineers make their money, _Time IS Money_.

Also, if you do some research, even web sites such as Blue Coast Records and NativeDSD (who sell and Produce DSD releases almost exclusively) will admit that "more than 50%" (whatever number that refers to?) of the DSD releases are actually converted to PCM in order to be Mixed, Edited, or Remastered for DSD! And then they are converted back to DSD for "Release" and your Download. And at least Blue Coast Records have also admitted (on camera in a YouTube video) that quite a few of their "DSD" releases are a transfers from original 24/96 PCM studio masters, and that some of their new recordings are actually Tracked & Mixed in 24/96 PCM and then converted to DSD.  

You need to be really cautious when purchasing any type of "Hi-Res" files. Especially anything that was recorded ~12 or more years ago, because Very Few recordings at that time were done at even 24/96. A lot studio were only using 24/48 to because file storage space and Hard Drives were still very expensive at that point. So if you see any PCM recordings (WAV, AIFF, FLAC, ALAC, etc.) that are offered at resolutions of 24/192, chances are that they are just "Upsampled" from lower sample rates of the masters, and Upsampling is not always a good thing to do. It really depends on the accuracy of the Clocking, DAC, and associated equipment. *ErinH* also has a very informative thread on purchasing different versions of the same recording, such as "Remasters". Check it out here:

*Remasters and Audiophoolery*


And AFAIK, Very Few of the companies that offer these DSD releases actually reveal or describe which process was used when you download their files. So in many instances you don't really know if you are truly hearing the "advantages" of a Pure DSD Bitstream, while you are For Sure paying the extra premium!

I'm not saying that DSD is "bad". I'm just saying that it is widely accepted by engineers that there are really no sonic advantages to DSD compared to even 24/96 PCM. And that in quite a few cases it is just a marketing ploy (Licensing Royalties, W00t!), so caveat emptor. Of course, there are also engineers who are adamant that DSD is Far Superior. Some of these engineers have a vested interest and some do not. 

One other "tidbit" to consider is that most DACs that are "DSD Capable" (which includes the ESS SABRE32 DAC chip used in the Sony RSX-GS9 and many other portable and home "Audiophile" units) actually use an internal process which very much mimics a PCM bit-stream in order to do its fancy work. So there are only a select few DACs available on the market that can convert or process DSD in its Native, Pure 1-Bit/High Sample Rate algorithm. PS Audio's "DirectStream DAC" is one of the earlier units to have this capability, and it's discussed in the YouTube videos below.

Below are a few videos by DAC engineer Ted Smith of PS Audio discussing DSD DAC technology and "how they work". Ted is an engineer, so he's a bit esoteric at times, but generally you can follow what he is saying. He even admits at one point that (regarding the Redbook CD format & 16/44.1), "There's A Lot more there than we initially thought". There's some other very good information here, but I'd encourage you to do your own research as well. Hopefully these videos are not blocked in S.A.!

















As a final note, from the handful of studio recording engineers that I've discussed "Hi-Res" with, they all basically say that any sonic differences or advantages above 24/96 PCM are pretty much moot, or are extremely suspect. "If you think you are hearing something *more* or *better* at higher resolutions such as 24/192 PCM or via 1-Bit DSD, it's just a crap shoot unless you've got bat or elephant ears". The vast majority of Popular recordings are still done in 24/96 PCM. Only in the recent past have some engineers and studios "bumped up" to a 24/192 workflow. There are, of course, exceptions, such as some of the major labels that own studios, motion picture companies, and independent "big budget" studios. But otherwise, there is A LOT of Very Expensive studio gear that needs to be replaced and upgraded to allow for this workflow, and the recording business and especially studio budgets have spiraled downward in recent years, so there's not much incentive or ability to absorb those costs.

It's obviously a different discussion for a different thread, but I'd be interested to hear Gary Summers' thoughts on this.

Sorry for going a bit Off Topic, but I think it's relevant information when the Sony RSX-GS9 enters the discussion. Either way, the Sony has proven to be a TOTL HU and there is no denying that. 

.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I guessed HU 1 was the Sony or Denon. That's the only one I got close to right. I was sure 8 was the Eclipse. It doesn't surprise me it was 6 as a also wrote in my notes very musical and lively.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Well I can tell you the sibilance I heard on head unit one I have not heard in my car. The GS9 is easily finest head unit I've ever owned. I hope and pray Sony is working on Songpal. It's a tragedy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Thanks Steve and everyone who helped put together the shootout. It was fun to have the opportunity to participate. I will admit that because of time constraints I didn't dedicate a whole lot of time evaluating the HU's. I only spent maybe 30 - 45 minutes total, basically a quick and dirty eval.
I knew going into it that I wanted my opinion to be impartial so I refrained from reading other reviewers comments until after my evaluation. 
My method was pretty simple, I listened to each track from each HU and if something stood out that I didn't like or seemed a bit off I noted it. I didn't necessary compare each HU to each other with back and forth listening. I listened to each track on it's on merit. Based on that these were my top 3. Sony CDX-C90, this HU seemed to everything right for me, smooth yet detailed and revealing. The Sony RSX-GS9 & the Pioneer P99RS were tied for a close second. But really the top 5 HU's were extremely close to each other imo. 
As a side note I would like to have seen the 80prs in the shootout if just for shiggles. additionally for my own curiosity I would like to have seen how the HU's would have performed with compressed music such as 320KB MP3's from an iPod. Maybe some of them wouldn't be capable.
Out of the top 5 HU's I think the deciding factor for me would be feature set, price and availability.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

bbfoto said:


> I somewhat agree. I'm not sure about the 10% statement, though.  Yes, in a controlled environment (TOTL playback and speaker system, well-treated room, clean Power, yada, yada, yada) the Sony GS9 _does_ have more potential due to its Hi-Res capabilities. There is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well said..

I tried a 24/192 track which came off my LG V20 - obviously specially recorded by LG - comparing that track to my best CD I had in my collection (copied to my IPhone - AIFF) 

It wasn't even close - the LG track was miles better... 

Sony's potential has not been realized yet - it may never depending on how the music industry embraces HiRes audio...

But AIFF to CD the Sony for me was better than Legends like the 7990 shows to me that at this level of recordings the Sony at $1500 MSRP out plays $4000 F1 HUs which is a great testament to new technology

This is great news for people like me who don't like carrying 50 CDs with me all the time and listen to music off a IPhone 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Elektra said:


> Well said..
> 
> I tried a 24/192 track which came off my LG V20 - obviously specially recorded by LG - comparing that track to my best CD I had in my collection (copied to my IPhone - AIFF)
> 
> ...


Thank you.

However, I honestly don't know how you could possibly evaluate the SQ between a native 24/192 "LG" track and a completely different music track or song from a different Artist that was sourced from a CD? ...Especially if it is not conducted in a Double-Blind manner.  I'm not sure that I'm understanding your process?

In regards to having and using a "Hi-Res" source unit, I would think that as far as value for money and versatility, your LG V20 would be the best choice as both a portable and in-car source unit. I don't know if I would see the need for the expense and use of the GS9 if I had the V20.

But if you'd like to continue to discuss, let's do this through a new thread or PMs.  I've already taken this way too far OT. Thanks again.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

bbfoto said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No - prob..

Just a last note on this..

I bought the V20 because of the specs and the ability to play HiRes - as a phone it was ok as a music player through the 3.5mm jack the IPhone was better

The V20 in conjunction with the GS9 is a good choice on its own I still preferred the iPhone 

The LG HiRes track was obviously a demo track which played through the GS9 sounded unbelievable - this was one of 400 tracks on the LG and one of only 3 HiRes tracks I had the rest were the same tracks I have on the iPhone...

So comparing that particular track to the other 400 tracks I had I could reference the clarity to the others which were all AIFF tracks...

The GS9 is totally worth it as most portable devices have there own limitations - especially in the preamp section. 

The only limitation I see with the GS9 is the lack of a appropriate DSP...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RRizz (Sep 4, 2012)

Great job and thanks for doing this, Steve. I look at that graph, and see the curve on that bottlehead, and realize that with the high frequency hearing loss I suffer from, it makes sense to me now why it was my top choice.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> THANK YOU, Steve!
> ...
> 
> Did you happen to take measurements of the Sony CDX-C90?


I'll have to check...I think it came in well after I did all the measurements.




bbfoto said:


> ...
> 
> I'm really happy to hear that you were able to get the McIntosh sorted out and will have it back in your hands soon, especially since it was your favorite CD deck out of the group. They're such a Classic looking deck.  Can you describe what it was that you liked about it over the other HUs? Is it going to make it into your Car? Or will it be the Sony GS9?
> 
> And of course, it _would_ be really great to hear that MX5000 if you can swing it.  No pressure, tho'!


I'm debating that right now...whether to use BOTH so I have a killer cd source and a great high res source, or to use just one. I also have the DSP Pro mk2 dsp so with the usb hec for direct digital in, that could also be the digital source. So, I have some options to consider.

The McIntosh mx5000 is terrific. It just had a large, dynamic and very real presentation for me that gave it a slight edge in my opinion. Excellent detail and well controlled bass.

I could probably get recordings of the mx5000, but it wouldn't be the same setup so they wouldn't be equivalent comparison to the others. But I could still certainly do that just for the fun of it.



bbfoto said:


> I would be very interested to know more about your current Hi-End Driver Tests as well, if and when you have some time to share that information. I honestly don't see how you came up with the time to conduct this HU shootout, so I think you should take a very well-deserved break for a bit!
> 
> Cheers!


I've been testing all sorts of drivers- midbass, midrange and tweeters.

The current midrange crop is Scan 12M Revelators, Satori MR13P, BG Neo8S and BG Neo10.

The current tweeter crop includes Scanspeak Rev and Illuminator, Mundorf AMT, Airborne AMT, Fountek ribbons, BG planars, Satori TW29RN....and RAAL ribbons 

Midbass includes Dynaudio MW182, Illusion Carbon C10, Scan 25W, Brax Matrix 10.1

I've had some fun


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I received something in the mail today.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Theslaking said:


> I received something in the mail today.


LOL, A new HU, or your Tax Return Check?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

bbfoto said:


> LOL, A new HU, or your Tax Return Check?


Tax RETURN? What's that? 

Maybe a respectfully used HU? 

Only those in the know, know........


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

captainobvious said:


> I'll have to check...I think it came in well after I did all the measurements.


If you can come up with the measurement graph, great. If not, no biggie. I think it would probably be "within spec" judging by most listener's high ranking of the C90. I could measure one of mine, but then it wouldn't be _the one_ that was actually used in the test, so I'm not sure if it'd be of much relevance.




captainobvious said:


> I'm debating that right now...whether to use BOTH so I have a killer cd source and a great high res source, or to use just one. I also have the DSP Pro mk2 dsp so with the usb hec for direct digital in, that could also be the digital source. So, I have some options to consider.
> 
> The McIntosh mx5000 is terrific. It just had a large, dynamic and very real presentation for me that gave it a slight edge in my opinion. Excellent detail and well controlled bass.


Thanks for your impressions on the MX5000.  Ha, that would be quite the install to have Both the GS9 and MX5000!  But yeah, using the direct USB HEC module for your digital and Hi-Res stuff would probably be the simplest, combined with the MX5000 so you could evade the SongPal app.  Though I admittedly haven't looked into how the Playback UI would work with the Helix USB HEC. Hmmm?

I'd be VERY interested in your impressions by using another option as your CD transport. It's what I use on the rare occasion that I want or need to play a CD in my setup that uses the Samsung 8" Tablet as my main source. Basically it is a simple, compact, and portable Sony Discman CD player with Mini-Toslink output which I connect to the Helix DSP PRO's optical input.

You can find these on eBay, usually for less than $25 shipped if you do a search. Save the search, then grab it when one pops up. Any of the Model #'s that start with "*DJ-E*xxx" are equipped with the Toslink Mini Optical Output, which is integrated into the 3.5mm "Line Out" jack, similar to the MacBook Pro's Headphone jack (see photo below). You also want to go with a Discman or "CD Walkman" that uses 2 standard 'AA' batteries, and not the "gum stick" rechargeables. 

Photo showing the Toslink Mini Output on Sony CD Walkman models. The Combo "Line Out/OPTICAL" jack is always indicated by the WHITE surround of the jack. Units that Do Not have the Optical Output and only have a analog "LINE OUT" use a jack with a Green or Black surround. You can buy a simple Toslink-to-Toslink Mini adapter for a couple $ if you have an existing standard Toslink cable.









I have a few of each of the Sony CD Walkman's with Model Numbers, #DJ-E711, #DJ-E715, and the #D-FJ75TR with AM/FM Tuner (the Tuner is built into the #RM-CDF7L remote control and only plays through the Analog outputs).

I just keep one of these CD Walkman's tucked away in my center console so it's out of the way until I need it. I have the Cig. Lighter power adapter for them as well which is standard across all of the Sonys.

I also made a custom "wallplate" type jack panel that's installed behind a small cubby door in my center console. The jack panel includes a USB input jack for the Helix DSP, a USB jack for a Thumb Drive/HDD/SSD (connects to a USB Hub attached to the 8" Tablet), a Female Toslink Jack, a yellow Female RCA jack for Coaxial Digital, and finally, a 3.5mm female Stereo MiniPlug "AUX In" jack. So I can just about plug in ANY type of external source unit with easy access from the driver's seat. 

The Coax RCA jack and Toslink jack route into an "Audio Advisor" 4-input digital Toslink/Coaxial Auto-Switch Box who's single output connects to the Toslink Input on the Helix DSP PRO. I can also plug in my portable iBasso DX90 DAP to the jack panel using a short Coaxial cable. Sounds confusing but it's fairly simple!

Anyway I'd be interested in your thoughts with one of the above Sony CD Walkman units plugged directly into your Helix DSP PRO Mk II via Toslink Optical, compared to the MX5000. 




captainobvious said:


> I could probably get recordings of the mx5000, but it wouldn't be the same setup so they wouldn't be equivalent comparison to the others. But I could still certainly do that just for the fun of it.


If you feel like doing it that'd be fine, but you're right about it not being an equivalent comparison if you can't replicate the same setup, so no worries. 





captainobvious said:


> I've been testing all sorts of drivers- midbass, midrange and tweeters.
> 
> The current midrange crop is Scan 12M Revelators, Satori MR13P, BG Neo8S and BG Neo10.
> 
> ...


[email protected], Son! You HAVE been having a bit of fun lately.  THIS I would be REALLY interested in reading more about! Seems like you're on the never-ending quest for SQ Enlightenment! 

Keep On Keeping On!


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not trying to take away from anything Steve has done here. *I appreciate all of the hard work* that went into preparing this comparison, recording his efforts and providing the files for others to evaluate. I also understand, that there was no intention to claim a "winner" here. 

Having said that, I wonder how a "standard" head unit might have fared in this anecdotal comparison. Even something as mid-range as the DEH-80PRS or Alpine CDE-HD149BT. I know that Erin has measured and compared the DEH-80PRS to the DEX-P99RS and the difference in measurements was "negligible." I'm not sure if he ever measured the Alpine when he had it. A typical DD unit in the mix could have been interesting as well. Something like a Pioneer NEX which seem to be pretty popular these days. 

My other question is regarding the Sony RSX-GS9. It did well, but no matter how I look at the feedback, I wouldn't rank it as the aggregate top choice of those who chose to evaluate and post responses. I wonder how much of a difference it would make if the RSX-GS9 was allowed to use Hi-Res Audio while the others were left playing standard CD quality. (This is probably more of an issue for live listeners if the recordings were captured at 24bit/48khz.) 

And if those Hi-Res files would be enough to push the RSX-GS9 (by consensus) to the top of the heap, how would a "non-audiophile" head unit capable of Hi-Res playback (Clarion NX706, JVC KW-V_, Kenwood DNX/DDX, etc.) fare compared to both the Sony and the other tested units? In otherwords, is a future Hi-Res capable mid-range head unit going to be capable or even expected to topple the "greats" from yesteryear? (Yes, I am ignoring direct play and hi-res streaming DSP options for the purpose of this post.)


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Guess we'll never know! Unless someone else decides to take the reigns and do a series of tests and recordings themselves as well. If I had more time to burn, I could easily setup an experiment like that to take it further, but I've already put a lot of time and effort (and $$) into making this one happen, plus I have a lot of build stuff to focus on so realistically, I probably wouldn't be interested in attempting that any time soon.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

captainobvious said:


> Guess we'll never know! Unless someone else decides to take the reigns and do a series of tests and recordings themselves as well. If I had more time to burn, I could easily setup an experiment like that to take it further, but I've already put a lot of time and effort (and $$) into making this one happen, plus I have a lot of build stuff to focus on so realistically, I probably wouldn't be interested in attempting that any time soon.


I don't blame you. What you have done already was A LOT to take on. More than anyone else has been willing to do. Just curiosity on my part.


----------



## rockytophigh (Apr 16, 2008)

I've been away and I'm oh so sorry. I would love to see how my Abyss A7 did with the SACD information....along with my Nak TP1200 in the mix. Nice job Steve on putting this together!!!!


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

rton20s said:


> Let me preface this post by saying that I am not trying to take away from anything Steve has done here. *I appreciate all of the hard work* that went into preparing this comparison, recording his efforts and providing the files for others to evaluate. I also understand, that there was no intention to claim a "winner" here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For me the greats of yesteryear are just that - yesteryear...

Stuff has become cheaper and better - music is evolving and changing.

I wonder how long it will take for CD stores to close There doors as downloads start becoming more popular (Video stores don't exist here anymore due to our version of your cable came about) - if it hasn't already. Over here CD stores have become smaller and there business model has changed - before you buy music now you buy mugs, posters and toys...

I personally have not bought a CD is ages.. - few years ago I was buying 5 or 6 per month - in fact I only get CDs for Christmas...

Sony has committed to HiRes as they have a lot of HiRes products now... and a huge record label - every home system has HiRes playback capability - ONKYO amps all have it.

The car industry is the smallest of audio industries - so producing CDs just for us is not an option. 

Soon you will be able to to buy a track and have MP3 through to 24/192 options - you just pay accordingly. 

If a well recorded CD surfaces - it will be ripped to USB and you will have a well ripped version on USB and with DAC development moving forward it will sound better than the CD version purely because the DAC is more revealing and developments in preamps coupled with DAC advancement. I mean the last meaningful CD player was the P99 - how old is that now?

For car audio we will see huge advances in DSP design - it won't be long till we see DSP's that do DSD....

I seriously doubt we will see another Hi End CD player for the car... 

I tested a Alpine F1 Status CDA-7990R recently from a friend. I was amazed at how the Sony playing a IPhone sounded better than the mighty F1 HU - regarded by most the best CD player for the car... even comparable to high end home CD players...

Besides who wants to carry 50 CDs with you all the time and wait for a stop light to cd the disc...

That's so 90's.... lol

Now I use my 128gb iPhone with 500 songs and use my Apple Watch to change music on the fly without moving my eyes from the road... or create a playlist for a 10 hour journey...

And if some steals the iPhone or it gets lost - just sync your new one and 15mins later you have it all again... and it never gets scratched or fingerprints 

Makes much more sense...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

CD stores are all but extinct here in the USA, Elektra. You still have a good number of them in South Africa?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

rton20s said:


> ....Having said that, I wonder how a "standard" head unit might have fared in this anecdotal comparison. Even something as mid-range as the DEH-80PRS or Alpine CDE-HD149BT. I know that Erin has measured and compared the DEH-80PRS to the DEX-P99RS and the difference in measurements was "negligible." I'm not sure if he ever measured the Alpine when he had it. A typical DD unit in the mix could have been interesting as well. Something like a Pioneer NEX which seem to be pretty popular these days.


I get what you're saying, but lets just look at things from a slightly different perspective. The parameters that Erin measured define the boundaries of the ball park and all units tested would give similar results. So the size of the ballpark is the same but the 'game' is in the FR and phase coherence of the unit. IIRC Erin also posted FR graphs as part of his test and those looked very similar to what Steve posted. Basically all the units (except the Panny) measured pretty much the same, so why are people hearing a difference?

Resolution. Steves FR is at 1db and I'm not sure what the resolution on Erins post was. At 1-3db resolution the units measure more or less identical, but what if we could zoom in and see the measurements at a 0.2db resolution? Now, what if then the units showed a variation of +/- 0.25-0.75 db across the 10 octaves? Would that difference be audible? Heck yes!!! Keep your regular tune as A and then change the 31 bands on your eq at random by +/- 0.3 db (avg) and save this setting as B. Now toggle between A&B, hear a difference? Which is why I mentioned in my review that the units could be eq'd to sound similar.

In the big picture, even these differences don't mean much, because each HU will need to be tuned for your environment, so its native FR is really a moot question. What really tilted the scales for me towards the two Sony's and the Eclipse, was the open and BIG sound that they threw, some of this can be dialed in with EQ but a large part of this imho, is down to better phase coherence from the units, i.e. circuitry and electronics, specially in the higher harmonics. For me, that was the real difference between the units.


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

captainobvious said:


> CD stores are all but extinct here in the USA, Elektra. You still have a good number of them in South Africa?




There used to be a mega store in each shopping center now they have closed down or have reduced in size...

We used to have a chain called Mr Video which guys rented videos - since our cable version offered downloads for slightly less than a rental at Mr Video that chain died very quickly

I suspect the CD stores will die as well - unless they change there business model and start offering high quality downloads and HiRes tracks for online purchasing or coming in the store with your flashdisk and pay for a few tracks

CDs have become expensive now - I suspect it's due to supply and demand - the demand has reduced and the price has increased to compensate for the slower sales...

I seriously doubt in the next 5-10 years that any CD store will be in existence unless they just sell vinyl...

That is still one part of the music industry that requires you to go into a store - unless you buy online - but most of those guys like to see what they buying and feel the weight etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra (Feb 4, 2013)

sqnut said:


> I get what you're saying, but lets just look at things from a slightly different perspective. The parameters that Erin measured define the boundaries of the ball park and all units tested would give similar results. So the size of the ballpark is the same but the 'game' is in the FR and phase coherence of the unit. IIRC Erin also posted FR graphs as part of his test and those looked very similar to what Steve posted. Basically all the units (except the Panny) measured pretty much the same, so why are people hearing a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well look at this...

I totally agree! 

Well put...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Arun, I completely understand what you are saying. All I was getting at is that it would be interesting to have thrown a mid-grade head unit (single DIN, double DIN, whatever) into the mix to see how it fared. 

My mind tends to work pretty analytically, and I couldn't help but review the data. Granted these were anecdotal evaluations and a very small sample set. Still, the Panasonic was preferred by three people, the two Sony's and the Pioneer were each preferred by two, only one person preferred either the Clarion or Eclipse, and no one would take the Denon as their first choice. Again, with such a small sampling, it isn't a surprise to see a somewhat close spread. Would anyone have preferred the lower end unit, or would it have been left to linger at the bottom with the Denon? We'll never know, and that is ok. I just think it could have provided interesting data points.

Looking at the data another way was a bit more revealing to me. When we look at a "top three" from the reviewers rather than just the top pick, things get shaken up a bit more. Applying a scored ranking system (1st: 3 pts, 2nd: 2 pts, 3rd: 1 pt) the consensus, if you can call it that, can be seen below. I'm seeing a bit of a bell curve. 

Sony CDX-C90: 20 pts
Sony RSX-GS9: 12 pts
Pioneer DEX-P99RS: 11 pts
Panasonic CQ-TW55500W: 10 pts
Eclipse 55090: 9 pts
Clarion DRZ-9255: 3 pts
Denon DCT-1: 1 pt


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

rton20s said:


> Arun, I completely understand what you are saying. All I was getting at is that it would be interesting to have thrown a mid-grade head unit (single DIN, double DIN, whatever) into the mix to see how it fared.
> 
> My mind tends to work pretty analytically, and I couldn't help but review the data. Granted these were anecdotal evaluations and a very small sample set. Still, the Panasonic was preferred by three people, the two Sony's and the Pioneer were each preferred by two, only one person preferred either the Clarion or Eclipse, and no one would take the Denon as their first choice. Again, with such a small sampling, it isn't a surprise to see a somewhat close spread. Would anyone have preferred the lower end unit, or would it have been left to linger at the bottom with the Denon? We'll never know, and that is ok. I just think it could have provided interesting data points.
> 
> ...


Based on your points, 5 hu's are separated by 3 points, I think the p80 or a DD would probably be in there. The test was what it was and maybe we are splitting hairs.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

sqnut said:


> Based on your points, 5 hu's are separated by 3 points, I think the p80 or a DD would probably be in there. The test was what it was and maybe we are splitting hairs.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

rton20s said:


>


I just knew that was coming. Where do you find all these memes?


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

sqnut said:


> I just knew that was coming. Where do you find all these memes?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

rton20s said:


>


:bowdown::bowdown:


----------



## matdotcom2000 (Aug 16, 2005)

Imagine this that's with c90 without the xdp4000x which honestly is the best sounding combo I have ever heard... the c90 optical output is something magical...


----------

