# P99rs vs. Audison Bitone



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

Which would you rather buy? Not in the market at the moment but i'm just curious what you would choose. Personally I would run the p99rs stand alone as a processor eq crossover and t/a tool.


----------



## jstoner22 (Jun 30, 2009)

absolutely the P99! simplicity is underrated. its a quality unit with extensive processing. any time you can remove something from the audio chain is a great thing.

in addition it makes tuning much easier having it at your fingertips. same with install.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

p99 is all in one.
bitone requires laptop

p99 has less dsp (31 bands per side come to mind)
bitone has more dsp (31 bands per channel)

There are certainly more differences but those are the main selling points. KISS is a great approach. But, sometimes people want more... your call, dude.


----------



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

Wonder which has the better auto tune?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

the p99 because the bit1 doesn't have an auto tune at all...


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

I wouldn't get the P99 for its auto tune feature. If that is what you want, the MS-8 is the only way to go unless the H800 has something to offer. Maybe Erin can speak to that.

The BitOne also has a couple of optical inputs, which you may or may not care about. This would help if you were to use a lower quality audio device/media player than the BitOne and would like to bypass its internals for that purpose.


----------



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

Dang I could have swore the audison had an auto tune, I shouldn't "browse" so much ha ha but, It would take away the pride if you didn't tune it yourself. The p99 sure is a sexy looking machine tho.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

rain27 said:


> Maybe Erin can speak to that.


I'd be happy to... if I could get the right channel outputs to not make all sorts of noise. 

Back OT... really, to me this decision comes down to one thing:
Do you like the p99 as a deck, regardless of its processing?
Using an external processor frees you up to buy whatever headunit you want, pretty much. 

I see nothing wrong with either direction. It's your call.


----------



## ISTundra (Jan 3, 2009)

I have the P99 in one vehicle and the Bit One in another. I'd choose the P99 any day, for all the reasons already mentioned. The Bit One does have a few or better features than the P99, but the all-in-one/capability/convenience factor of the P99 is hard to beat. The P99 auto-tune is a big plus, although to me it'll only get you 75% of the way there, tuning-wise.

The Bit One is still a nice processor. It has the 31 eq bands per channel, dynamic eq, optical/digital I/O, the graphic eq is a nice tool to see what effect your eq and x-over adjustments make, etc. Overall it has a nice feature set/presentation and a refined quality to it that the MS-8 lacked. If Audison would add auto-tune to it - the Bit One would kick the **** out of all other processors.


----------



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

Is there any powerful processing available on par with these excluding ms8?


----------



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

ISTundra said:


> I have the P99 in one vehicle and the Bit One in another.


Jealous!


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Ranny said:


> Is there any powerful processing available on par with these excluding ms8?


The Zapco DSP6 and the new H800 perhaps.

The 3sixty.3 and new Mosconi unit is due out later this year as well.


----------



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

Heard some talk about other coming out with high end units soon, Curious what that will do to prices on other units, I don't for see the bitone making a drastic price shift anytime in the near future, but it is nice to see that they are offering other units like the bit ten. Like I had mentioned before I won't be a buyer for the better part of the year but would like to gauge my options.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

I was having same question bit choose the bitone.i can runit with my denon deck which look and play so cool.i cannot see to get any other hu in my car.coming from pioneer 800 prs i like the all in one but i get bored wit simple stuff too quickly


----------



## adhumston (Mar 1, 2009)

Ranny said:


> Is there any powerful processing available on par with these excluding ms8?


I don't think you can exclude the H701, especially with some love from Matt R!


----------



## Ranny (May 8, 2010)

Now what I think should be done is stuff the Bitone into a single din case and add an interface and cd player and viola! The ultimate HU, I would save my pennies for that. Also it would play FLAC. Patent pending? lol, If anyone from Audison is reading this and thinking about it the name Bit-Ryan In-dash DSP come to mind and has a certain ring to it.


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

P99!


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

The P99 is, in my opinion, the best one-stop source solution currently available, and is also the best looking unit currently available. It gives you a lot of tuning flexibility, and provides tuning assistance via auto-tune if you aren't confident about your tuning skills. It feels solid and has a clean, modern look I much prefer to the video game arcades currently marketed as head units. But, based on my experiences, I would prefer to use a much less expensive head unit that has a digital output as a transport in conjunction with the Bit One.1. Others have outlined the major differences between the P99 and the Bit One.1. Here is another: with the Bit One.1 you can store an infinite number of xover/slope/gain/EQ set-ups, and save up to 4 as pre-sets so you can compare each on the fly. This is very helpful in determining whether a change you made is actually better or worse than something you tried before. The P99 does not allow you to do this. You get one setting and that's it. Now, if Pioneer made a stripped down version of the P99 with a digital output, I would be all over that.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Good points on both

The bit1 plus the purchase of a laptop is more than the street price of a p99
The bit1 does not have 31 bands per channel. Once you pick crossover points the adjacent frequencies are not very affected
The p99 can do separate eq adjustments per channel and also do stereo eq which will adjust both sides at the same time. This is great if you do frequency balancing per side. The bit1 is a pain in the ass to do with the sliders.
If you use a laptop rta to tune, you are now going to have 2 laptops to deal with. Another pain in the ass and can get very frustrating.
The bit1 cannot do separate slopes on bandpass channels. 
While the bit1 has unlimited memory settings, the p99 has 4 eq memory settings which is plenty for my personal evaluation of what sounds better

Just my .02.


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

BigRed said:


> The bit1 plus the purchase of a laptop is more than the street price of a p99


You really don't need a fancy PC. You can find something used with Windows XP and a decent sized screen on eBay for less than $100, resulting in a total price that's less than the street price of a P99. 



BigRed said:


> The bit1 does not have 31 bands per channel. Once you pick crossover points the adjacent frequencies are not very affected


Jim, I disagree because the Bit One allows you to EQ each speaker, per channel, separately. True, once you select crossover frequencies for a particular speaker certain frequencies around those points are not able to be Eq'd. But that limitation is just for that speaker. Presumably, the other speakers will be operating in different frequency ranges and they can be EQ'd separately. When you total the frequencies available to be EQ'd for EACH speaker within a particular channel, you have 31 bands. And, depending on the slope and xover points you have chosen, you can actually EQ the same band on multiple speakers if they overlap. You can see this on the frequency response graph. 



BigRed said:


> The p99 can do separate eq adjustments per channel and also do stereo eq which will adjust both sides at the same time. This is great if you do frequency balancing per side. The bit1 is a pain in the ass to do with the sliders.


With the Bit One all you have to do is click on the "EQ Link L/R" dot adjacent to the sliders and both sides for that particular set of speakers will be EQ'd at the same time.



BigRed said:


> If you use a laptop rta to tune, you are now going to have 2 laptops to deal with. Another pain in the ass and can get very frustrating.


I can see that. But, I don't use a laptop RTA to tune.



BigRed said:


> The bit1 cannot do separate slopes on bandpass channels.


Correct. But, reportedly that will be fixed. It's been talked about for a while, and nothing yet (hopefully before I collect Social Security, LOL). I understand that the new Bit Ten has that feature and it will trickle up to the Bit One in the form of a firmware update.



BigRed said:


> While the bit1 has unlimited memory settings, the p99 has 4 eq memory settings which is plenty for my personal evaluation of what sounds better


But, to be clear, with the P99 you can save the EQ settings only. The Bit One allows you to store, crossover frequencies, slopes, gain levels, time alignment, EQ settings, filter choices, etc. With the Bit One you can store up to four settings allowing you to compare on a real time basis each change you have made in any of these areas. With the Pioneer you have to rely on aural memory.

Also, another cool feature of the Bit One is that you can combine filters (Linkwitz or Butterworth) and you can compare filters to see how a particular choice affects your frequency response. 

Notwithstanding all of this, ultimately, it comes down to what the user is comfortable with, and capable of doing. All of these features (whether in the Bit One or the P99) mean nothing in the hands of someone not competent to use them optimally. That's why a component like the P99 which offers a great all in one solution and the ability to do a good job of tuning, has great appeal to many and might actually be the best choice for some because they don't have the skills or experience (or access to someone who has) to properly utilize a component like the Bit One and they will quickly become dissatisfied.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

I used a P99 for the first time a few weeks ago and found it to be a bit cumbersome. Why not a used 701 combo?


----------



## jstoner22 (Jun 30, 2009)

chefhow said:


> I used a P99 for the first time a few weeks ago and found it to be a bit cumbersome. Why not a used 701 combo?


just curious, what did you find cumbersome about the P99?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

If you like to roll and tweak the P-99!


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I would love to phrase the Bit One, but I had a number of problems with it and as much as they have improved it's still easy to turn it into a brick.


I have enough going on in my life and even though I live close to Audison I don't want to go there because a firmware upgrade didn't work (brick) or the unit blew up and there's no stock available.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BigRed said:


> The bit1 does not have 31 bands per channel. Once you pick crossover points the adjacent frequencies are not very affected


You can still do 31 band per channel. This is a feature some like (and does have a use if you know how to use it).



BigRed said:


> If you use a laptop rta to tune, you are now going to have 2 laptops to deal with. Another pain in the ass and can get very frustrating.


I've not had this problem at all. I use a netbook with 2gb ram that I run trueRTA and bitone.1 software one and haven't had a problem once...

My big issue with the b1 software is that it doesn't fit on 1024x600 resolution screens natively.


----------



## CKYMike (Dec 10, 2009)

I could've gone Double din and bit one in my audi but I wanted tuning on the fly. Not to mention the simplistic look of the p99 really set it off. Probably one of the only double dins to look not totally out of place in a newer a4.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

It's interesting to me, I think only Erin has mentioned the use of the P99 as a CD Transport primarily and then using the Bit One as the DSP.

That's what I have going on in my car (P-01 & Bit One). I still have to put it to initial use however, I'm re-working my trunk right now.


----------



## gu9cci (Mar 28, 2011)

I don't see the point have P99 as cd transport and bitone as processor.The P99 is 4 way active capable with all dsp and TA so basically all in one unit.it is little waste to use as cd transport only.
before i purchased my bitone i was considering p99 as all in one unit which would save alot of wires and space for external processor but did go with bitone and denon dct-100 as cd transport with optical out.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

What I meant was: do you like the p99 in regards to features (ipod, cd transport, bluetooth) regardless of the DSP or do you still want more features that a double din would give you?

If it's the former, then get the p99.
If it's the latter, then get the bit1 and whatever headunit you want.

Honestly, at the end of the day either unit will suffice for 95% of enthusiasts. The differences in them are likely not to be really used enough to base the choice solely on.
The big hitters here are: do you want the p99 as your headunit or do you want something else.

Go from there.


----------



## chefhow (Apr 29, 2007)

jstoner22 said:


> just curious, what did you find cumbersome about the P99?


Getting to menus, working the eq and TA. On a 701 u press the eq button and you are there.


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

adhumston said:


> I don't think you can exclude the H701, especially with some love from Matt R!


LOL but anything done from MattR will be worth having, so when that happens to be a high end unit.... you really have something special.


----------



## stereojnky (Mar 17, 2008)

chefhow said:


> Getting to menus, working the eq and TA. On a 701 u press the eq button and you are there.


Once you get used to the sequence, it's actually not that bad. Initially it is kind of clumsy. I would definitely pull over to make changes though.


----------



## megabutler (Oct 2, 2009)

I think the autotune is a good function to get you mostly there. Ultimately, use your own ears to tune it to perfection.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

*All of this has pretty much been stated (with a very brief 'skim' of the 1.5 pages), but I sent this recently to a fella in a PM.*

It depends on what is more important to you - both are great solutions, but there will be 1 or 2 things that will probably sway your decision.

Aesthetics: The pioneer is the best looking HU on the market IMO. That was a huge factor for me versus running just about any other head + Bit One. That might not mean much to you - may have a HU that you like which could connect well to the Bit One.

Price: Probably about the same - I bought the Bit One discounted + price of 9887, versus full price for Pioneer.

Connection: If having a digital signal to the trunk is very important, then get a Bit One. If you don't mind having 4 rcas to the rear, then the Pioneer. I had a single rca to the Bit One from my 9887. I bought an alpine DVD player that had optical out - I hated the HU and didn't think it greatly improved the signal. I personally like having all of the processing done right at the HU, but some will hate the idea of 4 rcas running through the car - I have no noise issues - even in a bmw.

Ease of Use: Well, preference - Bit One has very easy to use software - it is big and graphical - makes tuning more understandable because you can easily see everything - but....you have to use a laptop - challenging to do while driving (I have done it). Why would you want to tune while driving? I did it last night - toned down the electric guitar just a touch. The Pioneer takes some getting used to with the menus and how they operate, but once you do - it makes total sense. You save your settings in the laptop with the Bit One - with the Pioneer, I write down what I did in case of emergency - not a huge deal, I have a small notebook with various time points / tunes.

Sound: Again, preference. Only reason I say this....it is probably more psycho-acoustic - the DACs on the Pioneer are touted as the best in the business - I 'think' it sounds a lot better. It is impossible to say - you would have to have the same two cars, same exact drivers / amps, same exact tune, and do A/B - there are many Great cars that use a Bit One - it is a fantastic processor.

Tuning: Both pieces are for the tweaker - incredible flexibility although the Pioneer has one advantage that might be / might not be important - the Pioneer can have differing crossover slopes on the top / bottom of a bandpass filter. For mid bass - can have 63 Hz @ 24 db at the bottom, and 250 Hz @ 12 db at the top.

Complaint: The ONLY complaint I have with the Pioneer - I will absolutely break down in tears if they update this on a new P99RS - is that you don't have 4 separate preset 'tunes' like you do on the Bit One. Let me explain - Bit One: 4 distinct tunes (EQ, xover, slope, TA, etc); Pioneer: 5 EQ memory options. The xover/slope, TA are global, and then you can have 5 EQ settings. Once you get a 'Final' tune that you are happy with - what is the big deal? Well, you change out an amp or speakers and now you are back to tuning - does this sound better than that, etc. I don't know why they did it this way in the Pioneer - big advantage with the Bit One if you may change things quite a bit. For example - running wide banders and no tweeters - would be nice to have a pre-set for with tweeters and without tweeters so you can accurately evaluate the difference in sound. with the Pioneer, I can mute / unmute the tweeters, and I can have a EQ memory with the highs boosted on the mids when I mute the tweeters, but then I have to manually increase the xover point on the mid or just take the slope to 'pass' - not a big deal, but it would have been nice.

So......in conclusion: Both are excellent choices. It comes down to 1 or 2 or 3 things that mean the most to you. It is not like an amp or speakers where you can buy both and drop them in to see which do you prefer, but from the above, you may hit on the thing that tips your decision.


----------



## instalher (May 13, 2009)

i have the p99 in my civic and the ms-8 in my bmw. the p-99rs kills the ms-8 in sq. but the ms-8 is way easier to dial in a very strong centre image due to logic 7. its basically 5min. and done and it will sound very good. but the pioneer will set up in 5 min but take some time to dial it in to perfection. I would next time run the arc audio dsp unit which is the same as the zapco dsp-8 soon to be released. whoops that slipped!!


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

instalher said:


> i have the p99 in my civic and the ms-8 in my bmw. the p-99rs kills the ms-8 in sq. but the ms-8 is way easier to dial in a very strong centre image due to logic 7. its basically 5min. and done and it will sound very good. but the pioneer will set up in 5 min but take some time to dial it in to perfection. I would next time run the *arc audio dsp* unit which is the same as the zapco dsp-8 soon to be released. whoops that slipped!!


Soon to be released for over three years now.


----------



## instalher (May 13, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> Soon to be released for over three years now.


ya how about that.. they have taken the page from jbl and ran with it.. SOON TO BE RELEASED.. COMMING TO A CAR NEAR YOU.. blah blah blah..


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

What is the significance of having a 31 band eq for each channel as opposed to 31 bands for each side (L/R)?

For example, if I want to eq 5khz for the right tweeter, I would just choose the right side on the P99 and adjusting this range would affect the tweeter only. Doesn't this accomplish the same thing as choosing the channel for the right tweeter?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

rain27 said:


> What is the significance of having a 31 band eq for each channel as opposed to 31 bands for each side (L/R)?
> 
> For example, if I want to eq 5khz for the right tweeter, I would just choose the right side on the P99 and adjusting this range would affect the tweeter only. Doesn't this accomplish the same thing as choosing the channel for the right tweeter?


One of the advantages is that you're able to change the Slope. This allows you to cut off any frequency that might be causing you trouble beyond the Crossover Point.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

instalher said:


> i have the p99 in my civic and the ms-8 in my bmw. the p-99rs kills the ms-8 in sq. but the ms-8 is way easier to dial in a very strong centre image due to logic 7. its basically 5min. and done and it will sound very good. but the pioneer will set up in 5 min but take some time to dial it in to perfection. I would next time run the arc audio dsp unit which is the same as the zapco dsp-8 soon to be released. whoops that slipped!!


*It kills the MS-8 _in your setup only_


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

t3sn4f2 said:


> *It kills the MS-8 _in your setup only_


I think it kills the MS-8 in SQ!


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> *I think* it kills the MS-8 in SQ!


I respect your opinion.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm not really sure how you can even compare the MS-8 with any else on the market right now. The MS-8 has a great auto tune, and everything else is manual, unless the H800 auto tune is adequate. I haven't heard anything about it either way.

The MS-8 doesn't make every install sound great, as things like speaker placement, using a center and rears, etc., still matter in my experience. 

If a person is a great tuner, I don't imagine they would have needed an MS-8 to begin with unless they wanted to use a center and rears effectively. There were plenty of manual options that should have fit the bill already.


----------



## pyropoptrt (Jun 11, 2006)

instalher said:


> i have the p99 in my civic and the ms-8 in my bmw. the p-99rs kills the ms-8 in sq. but the ms-8 is way easier to dial in a very strong centre image due to logic 7. its basically 5min. and done and it will sound very good. but the pioneer will set up in 5 min but take some time to dial it in to perfection. I would next time run the arc audio dsp unit which is the same as the zapco dsp-8 soon to be released. whoops that slipped!!


I think the only similarities you'll find between the Arc Audio PS8 and the Zapco DSP-8 is that they'll both have 8 outputs.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

pyropoptrt said:


> I think the only similarities you'll find between the Arc Audio PS8 and the Zapco DSP-8 is that they'll both have 8 outputs.


Does anyone actually have any information on these two units or is everything just speculation at this point?

It seems the DSP8 has been talked about for as long as the MS-8 was prior to release.


----------



## gus1111 (Apr 17, 2009)

Personally, I would take the P99 for one chassis solution and killer SQ to boot!!
But, arc PS8, Zapco DSP8, alpine 880, Mosconi and so on on the horizon, the DSP market is getting interesting, intense, and very competitive!
Numerous choices and not easy to choose the best processor for one's needs...
Objectives and tuning skills will come into play...
Different flavors for different tastes...


----------



## myhikingboots (Oct 28, 2010)

gus1111 said:


> Personally, I would take the P99 for one chassis solution and killer SQ to boot!!
> But, arc PS8, Zapco DSP8, alpine 880, Mosconi and so on on the horizon, the DSP market is getting interesting, intense, and very competitive!
> Numerous choices and not easy to choose the best processor for one's needs...
> Objectives and tuning skills will come into play...
> Different flavors for different tastes...


Dang everytime I get close to pulling the trigger on something (MS-8), then I read something like this. It's good that I'm making the processor the last piece of the puzzle!


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

gus1111 said:


> Personally, I would take the P99 for one chassis solution and killer SQ to boot!!
> But, arc PS8, Zapco DSP8, alpine 880, Mosconi and so on on the horizon, the DSP market is getting interesting, intense, and very competitive!
> Numerous choices and not easy to choose the best processor for one's needs...
> Objectives and tuning skills will come into play...
> Different flavors for different tastes...


The above mentioned Processors aren't released yet! Arc Audio has been saying very soon for three years now. What's available today is what's available today! There will always be something better on the horizon!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

FWIW, you can find my measurements of the p99, 800prs, and p9 here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...rs-pioneer-deh-p9-pioneer-800prs-testing.html

and measurements of the alpine h800/h701/bitone.1 here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...vs-audison-bitone-1-technical-comparison.html


Summary:
I'm picking up the p99 myself (and I own/owned all the above since I was the one who tested them). 


Still, though, the root of this thread goes back to exactly what you want out of your system and if you want to be tied to the p99 deck itself or if you want decks with other features and an after-the-fact DSP.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> FWIW, you can find my measurements of the p99, 800prs, and p9 here:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...rs-pioneer-deh-p9-pioneer-800prs-testing.html
> 
> and measurements of the alpine h800/h701/bitone.1 here:
> ...


Good choice.
I want it all, but my pocketbook says no way!


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

DEX-P99RS









DEX-P99R









Sure was hard to find a name for their new stage 4 HU  lol

Kelvin


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> The above mentioned Processors aren't released yet! Arc Audio has been saying very soon for three years now. What's available today is what's available today! There will always be something better on the horizon!


Waiting 3 years for the arc processor? Wrong. Been less than a year. The zapco piece on the other hand....um....yeah its been a while


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BigRed said:


> *Waiting 3 years for the arc processor?* Wrong. Been less than a year. The zapco piece on the other hand....um....yeah its been a while


The first year we competed Fred was saying soon.


----------

