# High-end SQ headunits



## Guest (Sep 6, 2013)

Hello all, I'm looking for suggestions on pure SQ headunits... I don't need any processing power just looking for a great sounding deck....

Thanks in advance !!!


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

double din? panny tube deck!


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Denon
Mcintosh MX406/MX4000/MX5000
Clarion DRZ9255
Alpine F#1 CDA-7990
Alpine F#1 Dvi-9990 (and D/A or Processor)


----------



## slowsedan01 (May 4, 2008)

What does this have to do with a build thread exactly? You should have posted this in the General forum.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2013)

Thank you Mods... for moving this to the appropriate thread...


----------



## mrstangerbanger (Jul 12, 2010)

I would go with an older eclipse hand down .. 
Eclipse 55040


----------



## ceri23 (Aug 10, 2012)

What makes any of these suggested decks "better" for SQ if he doesn't need any additional processing? I've been curious about this for awhile, and since most of the recommendations aren't current models, they're going to be hard for him to find. The panasonics have the tube preamps, so if that's your thing, sure. I see his signature with an Alpine 920HD with 4 volt outputs and wonder why he'd want to replace it.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

I loved my 9255 and have regretted selling it since the day I did. I'm gonna buy another one day just to stare at...the damned thing is art to me.


----------



## rdac33 (Feb 22, 2013)

Don't forget the sony cdx-c90


----------



## ZAKOH (Nov 26, 2010)

With processing being downstream, I don't see what difference the head unit will make.. I'd just buy the one with best features, probably Alpine or Pioneer.


----------



## patrick3178 (Aug 18, 2013)

try to find an older eclipse deck like a ecd-510 or even a5303r I even loved the pioneer premier dex-p99 with built in dsp


----------



## ribrown (May 2, 2012)

Kenwood Excelon DDX790. I had an Alpine CDA117 which I assumed was the SQ primo deck. Then decided to try a Kenwood DDX419 because of the price. The SQ improvement was unbelievable. Then a few months later decided to upgrage to the newer model 790 and likewise, the SQ is too good for me to ever try anything Alpine again.


----------



## vetteboy3 (Mar 31, 2012)

Alpines sound quality went away after the 9855 and the loss of the dc to dc converters. Huge difference in sound quality from the older motorized face v power with dc to dc to what you can buy now



ribrown said:


> Kenwood Excelon DDX790. I had an Alpine CDA117 which I assumed was the SQ primo deck. Then decided to try a Kenwood DDX419 because of the price. The SQ improvement was unbelievable. Then a few months later decided to upgrage to the newer model 790 and likewise, the SQ is too good for me to ever try anything Alpine again.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

SQ_MDX said:


> Hello all, I'm looking for suggestions on pure SQ headunits... I don't need any processing power just looking for a great sounding deck....
> 
> Thanks in advance !!!


The only head unit currently in production that I would consider running is the clarion HX-D3.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> Denon
> Mcintosh MX406/MX4000/MX5000
> Clarion DRZ9255
> Alpine F#1 CDA-7990
> Alpine F#1 Dvi-9990 (and D/A or Processor)


The dct-1 and dct-100 are the denon's to get
The mx4000 and mx5000 are the mac's to get
406 falls short of the others still very nice

Everything else is a win


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

ZAKOH said:


> With processing being downstream, I don't see what difference the head unit will make.. I'd just buy the one with best features, probably Alpine or Pioneer.


A head unit makes a world of difference with passive xovers or digital processing.

This is the SOURCE of the sound after all... for me it is the most important piece of a system and is just as important as the speakers.


----------



## RunUp (Nov 26, 2013)

So which model is the best sounding HU that came out this year, that I can buy now ?
Thanks


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Clarion HX-D3
Sold in Canada. They come up on ebay occasionally also you can talk to clarion dealers, they can get them.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

rdac33 said:


> Don't forget the sony cdx-c90


c90 by itself is ok (mids are very weak)
c90 + optical adaptor + xdp4000x is amazing


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

Tablet/Phone to DAC via USB? Your budget is the limit.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

fcarpio said:


> Tablet/Phone to DAC via USB? Your budget is the limit.


The cambridge DAC's are supposed to be pretty nice


----------



## vetteboy3 (Mar 31, 2012)

I'll have to check that deck out as well. I haven't seeen a good clarion in a little while. I miss the one I had.


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

ZAKOH said:


> With processing being downstream, I don't see what difference the head unit will make.. I'd just buy the one with best features, probably Alpine or Pioneer.


Yep, same


----------



## PottersField (Mar 18, 2011)

I don't know about anyone else but If I could get my hands on an old Nakamichi CD700, I'd be elated. As far as bells and whistles go, it doesn't get much more bare-bones than that. And really, even in many of today's cars, it'd still look pretty damn classy.


----------



## Jroo (May 24, 2006)

For a clean head that doesnt break the bank, my vote is the the Eclipse 5303. I have one and see them go for 100 bucks used all the time. No bells and whistles but a very clean head unit.


----------



## vetteboy3 (Mar 31, 2012)

ZAKOH said:


> With processing being downstream, I don't see what difference the head unit will make.. I'd just buy the one with best features, probably Alpine or Pioneer.


Sound can only be as good as the source. A 1985 tape deck from a ford escort will never sound as good as say an alpine 7990. No matter how good your dsp is.


----------



## bigfastmike (Jul 16, 2012)

vetteboy3 said:


> Sound can only be as good as the source. A 1985 tape deck from a ford escort will never sound as good as say an alpine 7990. No matter how good your dsp is.


Damn. 
I have to scrap plans for new build now. 
Fml 

Haha

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thebigjimsho (Jan 11, 2009)

UNBROKEN said:


> I loved my 9255 and have regretted selling it since the day I did. I'm gonna buy another one day just to stare at...the damned thing is art to me.


It's what I've done with mine for 10 years...


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

The Sony GT805dx is an incredible budget SQ head unit. 24 bit burr/brown, 5 channel time alignment, 13 band EQ per channel. They usually show up for less than 100 bucks in the used market - I paid like 60 bucks for mine.


----------



## ribrown (May 2, 2012)

vetteboy3 said:


> Sound can only be as good as the source. A 1985 tape deck from a ford escort will never sound as good as say an alpine 7990. No matter how good your dsp is.


100% Accurate statement. All the digital signal processing in the world will not help make a cheap head unit sound spectacular. Garbage In, Garbage Out.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

vetteboy3 said:


> Sound can only be as good as the source. A 1985 tape deck from a ford escort will never sound as good as say an alpine 7990. No matter how good your dsp is.



HERE HERE!
Friend request incomming; people like us need to stick together.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

Yall are silly... They all sound the same...  **** in = Bliss out!


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

SouthSyde said:


> Yall are silly... They all sound the same...  **** in = Bliss out!












How I feel about the "this gear sounds the same" argument.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

I feel the same way as you guys, but is there any point where you really see diminishing returns with this? For instance, a DVA-9861 (RCA or Optical) vs DRZ9255 (RCA or Optital). 2 different price points and I'm talking about just as a transport, without using any DSP on the DRZ. Will the DRZ sound better before DSP and/or after DSP? Will it will worth the difference in cost?


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> I feel the same way as you guys, but is there any point where you really see diminishing returns with this? For instance, a DVA-9861 (RCA or Optical) vs DRZ9255 (RCA or Optital). 2 different price points and I'm talking about just as a transport, without using any DSP on the DRZ. Will the DRZ sound better before DSP and/or after DSP? Will it will worth the difference in cost?


For optical transport the dva does fine, it's cheaper and has a standard toslink connector. Ge-off-me (user on here) did a test between the 9861 vs 7949 (i think that's the model #); anyway he reported an audible difference between the two sources although it was NOT a night and day difference. In that specific situation, you get the cheapest digital source you can... it's all ones and zeros and SHOULD be about the same as far as that goes. 

Question 2: The answer depends on what you plan on what DAC you use to take the digital signal to analog. 

The drz is one of the best sounding sources (looking at the American market source units without taking the dsp into the equation). It sounds soo 3 dimensional, natural, and warm. The top end and upper mid range can sound a bit thin, but certainly better than anything produced today. If you have a DRZ it would most likely be best to use RCA output... the raw dac/transport is awesome and is the highlight of that unit IMHO.

Now if you can get your hands on an MDA4000; MDA5000; cambridge DAC magic plus... you could potentially do better. I tried going optical into the ps8; very clear sound, no noise whatsoever; downside is a loss of realism that the DRZ with RCA output gives you. 

If you insist on a digital transport to a processor
Sony c90 or c910 optical into a xdp-4000x; one of the few choices for surpassing the DRZ in performance. Downside is it's hard to find, somewhat limited crossover points, and the parts for the decks are no longer available. But I will tell you that fuc*er is as good if not better than the McIntosh sources. Sony outdid themselves there...


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

You can always get a sony cd changer with optical out to the xdp to extend the life of the deck as well. I fooled with that unit a lot if anyone has specific questions.


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

The other thing to consider is who is evaluating these sources? What bias do they have before even listening? How many reviews have they read prior to listening? How are they quantifying what sounds better? A slight change in gain structure could be what someone perceives as better or worse sound. It's generally difficult to A/B products fairly...especially in the automotive environment.

I'm not saying there is no audible difference. I just think efforts are much better spent on proper install/tune.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

JVD240 said:


> The other thing to consider is who is evaluating these sources? What bias do they have before even listening? How many reviews have they read prior to listening? How are they quantifying what sounds better? A slight change in gain structure could be what someone perceives as better or worse sound. It's generally difficult to A/B products fairly...especially in the automotive environment.
> 
> I'm not saying there is no audible difference. I just think efforts are much better spent on proper install/tune.


I A/B all the products I comment on a home theater system.

I'll never knock tune/install or their importance in system install. That being said the source, speakers, and amps are a matter of subjective preference. I know what I like, that may not be the same as what someone else likes. For the same reason; there is no truly optimal RTA curve.

Cost vs performance: that is 100% subjective to the persons budget; addressing the matter of "is it worth it."

I live alone, sad I know; and it makes it difficult to do blind tests. For me the differences are clear. I do try to keep an open mind... doing so really yields surprising results. 

Another factor is the songs you listen to...
I will say listening to real music, not test tones, or noise is the only way to judge system components, taking notes, and basing things on a 1-100 scale helps as well.

But maybe I am just plain ol crazy.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Based on the OP needs on the first post. Sounds like it is a good idea to keep it simple.

Any 6 ch 4-5 volt RCA HU from Alpine, Kenwood, Pioneer, JVC and Clarion will be fine, they all have good DAC's, then pick and choose a unit with either BT or HD radio if needed, most units with 4-5 volt rcas will have at least one of those 2 features


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Also, how much of the realism of the DRZ, for instance, is lost or enhanced by an external processor, like the PS8? Meaning, if you take (in my example) optical from a DVA-9861 and compare it to RCA of the DRZ, I'm sure you would find the DRZ sounds MUCH better. But, if you take the DVA-9861 optical and tune the PS8 vs the DRZ RCA tune the PS8, how much of the original "essence" of the DRZ is left and/or how much difference would there be between the two, considering everything else in the chain is the same?


----------



## stevenje98 (Feb 8, 2008)

The older eclipse models are nice. Good luck finding one.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> Also, how much of the realism of the DRZ, for instance, is lost or enhanced by an external processor, like the PS8? Meaning, if you take (in my example) optical from a DVA-9861 and compare it to RCA of the DRZ, I'm sure you would find the DRZ sounds MUCH better. But, if you take the DVA-9861 optical and tune the PS8 vs the DRZ RCA tune the PS8, how much of the original "essence" of the DRZ is left and/or how much difference would there be between the two, considering everything else in the chain is the same?


The ps8 is very transparent, what you put in is very close to what you get out. There are some simple cheap (15$) upgrades you can do to improve the transparency further (upgrading the op amps).

Rca input preserves the realism. I am sure Southsyde would agree and say it's an excellent choice in a processor.

Eq can do a lot and change a lot. There are good reasons to rely FAR more on install, driver positioning, gain levels for each channel on the processor, crossover points/slope, and try to optimize your tune as much as possible without using the parametric or graphic equalizer. EQ is phase 2, little spikes you can't eliminate, boosting 150hz for more punch on the drivers side, etc. 

If you have good drivers, good install, good gear in general... the extent you have to EQ to achieve a very dynamic, natural sound is minimal.

Here is the real rub about it. No EQ can restore detail that isn't there, it can't create something from nothing. Having run both of those source units in my car (in the same way you specified); the drz's essence will be preserved so long as your equalizer modifications aren't extreme. Also there is no way (that I am aware of) to make a digital source into the ps8 sound as good as an RCA input from something like a sound monitor, drz, mac, panasonic bottlehead, etc. 

I don't use very much eq in my car, if I make a cut or boost, it's as small as possible for the precise reason you brought up; if you have this awesome source signal modifying that signal by using an equalizer _excessively_ is madness IMHO. 

DRZ with low or even moderate eq wins over optical input with any amount of eq. To be 100% honest with you RCA output from the 9861 is almost better than optical into the ps8. The big failing from the 9861 is the bass (under 80 hz) is sloppy as hell. It's actually a good sounding source, but it's no drz...


----------



## SilkySlim (Oct 24, 2012)

Yes features, price performance ratio is very important to all of us. If you are looking for modern features then there are few options that will compete with the pure sound quality performance discussed by west co. 
Two of the most respected units out right now are the 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

SilkySlim said:


> Yes features, price performance ratio is very important to all of us. If you are looking for modern features then there are few options that will compete with the pure sound quality performance discussed by west co.
> Two of the most respected units out right now are the
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


Please finish last sentence.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Hx-d3
and pioneer ODR?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Okay, so lets talk another scenario.....

For X amount of dollars:
Say that I could purchase a 9861 & PS8 for the same price as a DRZ (hypothetical of course - when new the 9861 was $599 & the PS8 is $899 vs the DRZ at $1399 - pretty close), and lets assume the PS8 with the DRZ is not feasible. Lets also assume the DRZ has "enough" processing power with T/A, crossover points and EQ (assuming very minimal eq - and "enough" meaning you could do more if you had the power, but is more better?), and this may be impossible to answer, but which do you think would yield the higher quality of sound?

The 9861 is a very good HU with 24 bit D/A and CAN play DVD audio (not that there is much available) and the PS8 is an extremely robust processor which pretty much lets you do anything you need or want to do. The DRZ is going to be much more limited in terms of processing power, but there are also less equipment in the chain. 

I'm sure this is the sort of circumstance many do ponder (maybe not with these specific units of course).


----------



## SilkySlim (Oct 24, 2012)

Clarion CZ702 & pioneer 80. Both of these units give you better d/a's and all the modern features you could ask for. 

Here's the way I look at it without being too winded. The sound differences I find is mainly timing/jitter that affects the staging and fine detail and output stage which has more to do with dynamics, harmonics, linearity, and it's interaction with the amp. In a nut shell. The latter also plays a big role in the image and detail as well. 
Some people seem to think that because it's in a box it's all one component but it's not. There are many sections and or components that work together inside they may use ribbon cables inside instead of RCA's. I audition/test mine with three different sets of speakers in a sound proof room. That way it is a more neutral environment. 
As far as what gives you more bang for the buck a dsp processor or better deck. My advice would be ask your self these questions. What it's the biggest problem in my system? Speaker placement, balance, linearity. Clean voltage signal input for the amps. What flexibility do you need meaning are you running it active? What crossover points and slopes do you need? What is the weakest link? In my option if you need EQ, advanced time alignment, and more detailed balance control. Then the dsp will make a big difference if you wield the power well. Meaning if you know how to use it. If not you could just make it worse. Now if you send any processor amp or speaker a poor signal and it will be only as good as the signal begins. So identify the weakest link in your system then address it. 
I do think that the clarions new and old are some of the best. I prefer their sound over the pioneer's. The Pioneer has a dry sound to me. The Pioneer's are very good. I like the newer Clarion 702 although little quirky and not the best but convenient.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

Niebur3 said:


> Okay, so lets talk another scenario.....
> 
> For X amount of dollars:
> Say that I could purchase a 9861 & PS8 for the same price as a DRZ (hypothetical of course - when new the 9861 was $599 & the PS8 is $899 vs the DRZ at $1399 - pretty close), and lets assume the PS8 with the DRZ is not feasible. Lets also assume the DRZ has "enough" processing power with T/A, crossover points and EQ (assuming very minimal eq - and "enough" meaning you could do more if you had the power, but is more better?), and this may be impossible to answer, but which do you think would yield the higher quality of sound?
> ...


The 9861 can play dvd audio but the unit's dac (and optical transport) is only capable of sampling/transmitting 16bit at 48khz tops. Just so we don't get too excited about getting true 24 bit sound on any of there decks, as far as the 9861 goes.

To be honest with you, I never utilized the DRZ's crossover network nor did I use it's eq. I sent everything fullpass/flat into a ps8.
The drz has time alignment and a 5 band graphic eq (non independent); crossover slopes 6/12/18, and the ability to adjust the gains.
I am sure there is a limitation on the crossovers and where they can be placed. Some people claim they like the 96khz sampling rate, to me I heard no real difference setting the deck to standard 48khz; I didn't mess with it for very long nor was I listening critically (it was being fed into the ps8 as well, maybe that changed things?). Supposedly the deck can upsample from cd's which are recorded at 44.1khz rates. Basically the deck tries to fill in "holes" in the data by extrapolation. I'll let people debate that topic all day long if they want; I will steer clear of that argument.

All in all an outstanding one way unit. No reason you couldn't have an awesome sounding system with the DRZ by itself. The HX-D3 (sold in Canada) has a very similar transport and is newer. Apparently Canadians care more about SQ then Americans, it sells for about 1,300$. I had the opportunity to hear one at meca, looks and sounds good; wish I had the opportunity to listen to a few more tracks.

Ok optical into the ps8 (with the 9861 or whatever source spits out 1/0's)
It's good, detailed crisp and clear. The sound isn't as captivating (I keep going back to 3'd/lifelike sound the drz puts out but that's the big difference; this is especially noticed in the mid's and midbass). I prefer something that sounds a bit more analog and with some more warmth.

It also is dependent on your tastes, do you like techno, rap, etc? I like rock and love to hear a good guitar solo... 
You may prefer the the sound via optical into the ps8. You can certainly spend a few afternoon's tuning and get a very balanced output. To my ears it won't be as pleasing.

People may throw stones at me, but my general opinion is adding the ps8 into the chain helps things from the simple standpoint that you have a preamplifier in very close proximity to your main amps. It's very transparent so not much is lost is the digital conversion. Think of it as a bad ass line driver on top of everything else. 

The thing I really love about processors in general (aside from all the crossover point's, ta, eq) is that if you want to switch a source you can just drop it into the car. No messing with amp gains... most of the time I don't even have to adjust the ps8 output volume as long as the source unit puts out 4v. 

After all that my vote would be drz; although I would eventually to to add a ps8 in the chain later on. I ran the 9861 into the ps8 for a good two months, enjoyed it, but the bass/midbass was just not up to par for me. *You also have to consider the expensive ass controller that Arc is going to release in a few months; MSRP is going to be around 500$, it's the only way to get volume control if you use optical input.* Unless they release a volume knob.

I would choose either option over a p99rs all day long as well. (Personal preference)


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

SilkySlim said:


> Clarion CZ702 & pioneer 80. Both of these units give you better d/a's and all the modern features you could ask for.
> 
> Here's the way I look at it without being too winded. The sound differences I find is mainly timing/jitter that affects the staging and fine detail and output stage which has more to do with dynamics, harmonics, linearity, and it's interaction with the amp. In a nut shell. The latter also plays a big role in the image and detail as well.
> Some people seem to think that because it's in a box it's all one component but it's not. There are many sections and or components that work together inside they may use ribbon cables inside instead of RCA's. I audition/test mine with three different sets of speakers in a sound proof room. That way it is a more neutral environment.
> ...


PIONEER SOUNDS SO DRY TO ME AS WELL! so clinical.
I hate what they do to music, I really do...

I have yet to demo a cz702 in my home theater. I have heard it in a few cars and my overall impression is it's a very solid modern source unit. 93% as good as the drz. 

The weakest link part is where we may disagree slightly. Most of the cars I sit in at comps; I feel the source is the weakest link. But I went through four cd players at home until I found one that I could tolerate.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

Hello

I test many HU in my home and there are lots of difference between each brand!!!!

Pioneer ODR 1 (RS K1 and RS D2, I have got the 2 models)




Clarion/ AddZest, McIntosh


Sony XES (1991)


Sony ES:


Alpine:




And different Sony's processor


I've certainely forget other!


Like this very good Kenwood!


or today, Nakamichi:


tomorrow..
 




What about the dynamic, the soung, the music?
the sound image?
The space?

: Inquiet:


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

^^^^^^^^^
We have a winner, beautiful collection. I would love to come over to listen to your auditions and see some of the most beautiful technilogical wonders of the world we hear.


----------



## Zippy (Jul 21, 2013)

Niebur3 said:


> Okay, so lets talk another scenario.....
> 
> For X amount of dollars:
> Say that I could purchase a 9861 & PS8 for the same price as a DRZ (hypothetical of course - when new the 9861 was $599 & the PS8 is $899 vs the DRZ at $1399 - pretty close), and lets assume the PS8 with the DRZ is not feasible. Lets also assume the DRZ has "enough" processing power with T/A, crossover points and EQ (assuming very minimal eq - and "enough" meaning you could do more if you had the power, but is more better?), and this may be impossible to answer, but which do you think would yield the higher quality of sound?
> ...


The sound will only be as good as the weakest link. The PS8 is the best processor on the market. Leverage it to do what it does best. Run a full digital signal to it via toslink. You can set the volume level down from full tilt in the DSP for the presets used and use a pure i20 to send a full on digital signal from any idevice. The volume control on the idevice will adjust the volume on the system(speaking from experience). Android devices should be able to get you toslink out somehow for the droid user and work in a similar way. The $99 for the Pure i20 is way less than the Alpine and the user gets to leverage their phone/tablet as a head unit with better SQ than any other setup.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

Why not... but I live in France...

We coult test different amp' too


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

More pics, More pics!! (Jumping up and down)


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

[email protected]'go,

Wonderful collection you have!
Anything for sale?? lol

But I am curious between the xdp-210 and xdp-4000x (was there a big difference in the sound)?

Also; which are your favorites and why?

Which version Mcintosh is that mx406?

Sorry for all the questions.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

Chris...

Is that the FULLY modded addzest I spy? 

How ya like it?


----------



## Mless5 (Aug 21, 2006)

[email protected]'go - I am sure all of us here would love to hear your impressions on each unit even if they will be brief!

Thanks in advance!


----------



## namesmeanlittle (Nov 20, 2013)

ceri23 said:


> What makes any of these suggested decks "better" for SQ if he doesn't need any additional processing? I've been curious about this for awhile, and since most of the recommendations aren't current models, they're going to be hard for him to find. The panasonics have the tube preamps, so if that's your thing, sure. I see his signature with an Alpine 920HD with 4 volt outputs and wonder why he'd want to replace it.


You saying that processing makes things sound better?!!!!!!!!!!!?

With processing being downstream, I don't see what difference the head unit will make.. I'd just buy the one with best features, probably Alpine or Pioneer.

I'm gone i can't be here after that god help these people


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

namesmeanlittle said:


> You saying that processing makes things sound better?!!!!!!!!!!!?
> 
> With processing being downstream, I don't see what difference the head unit will make.. I'd just buy the one with best features, probably Alpine or Pioneer


Yep, totally agree. There's still some brand level mysticism about Head units, but really, most of them are very close these days. The touch screen ones are basically computers, with software that controls hardware functions. 

If you run a head unit naked, without Amps, processing, etc, then I can see people having preferences in sound. But in reality, most should sound similar, as the ASICs (chips) that run most of the functions are completely commodity parts and there's little differentiation in them. The amp sections are commodity too for the most part. The main differentiation these days is in the software that controls the hardware. In fact, if you're interested, do a search on SoC (System on Chip), just to see how many there are out there. These are completely integrated systems (CPU, Memory, DSP, D/A conversion, Display controllers, USB, etc) on a super cheap SINGLE chip. For many years, the SoC inside the iPod as well as the cheapest junkiest MP3 no name player at kmart were IDENTICAL, save the software, wrapper, support, etc.

The ENTIRE "smartphone" business, where most components are sourced from a limited amount of manufacturers (GPS, SoC, etc) and are packaged in a container with a logo, and controlled with software (Android/IOS/etc) lives off SoCs. 

Its pretty expensive to make chips (I'm an engineer in the business actually) and there's so much available in the merchant space (off the shelf chips) that you can make pretty much anything fairly simply. This is how smaller companies like Epsilon can make lower volume units like the Soundstream HU as an example, and price it competitively with the high volume producers....

If you really look at the Head Units out there now, they are almost ALL nearly identical in many many ways. 7 inch, 6.1 with hard buttons on the left, tilt screen, etc. Heck, the JVC and Kenwood units are identical save the software in most cases.

Things like DACs etc, are now commoditized completely. People often talk about "Burr Brown" etc, but they haven't existed as a company for more than a decade, and all D/A A/D conversion and DSP is super cheap and refined now, with the possible exception of the "nap of the earth" processors in cruise missiles . Don't get me wrong though... depending on how much effort you want to put into software development, you can make DSP control software from the sublime to the ridiculous. But even THIS market is becoming commoditized (see MiniDSP), where for a couple hundred bucks, the CORE of these functions can be had.

I'm not even sure there is such a thing as an SQ head unit anymore. If you look at the major differentiation in Head Units, it seems to be completely feature based, screen size, 2V/4V pre out, how many sources it can control, HD radio tuner, Navigation, SXM expand-ability, etc. The amp/eq sections are pretty much generic it seems to me.

If you doubt what I'm saying, heck, download a manual from any HU manufacturer and read it. They are written for 3-8 MODELS in ONE manual, and only specific features are called out on a unit by unit basis.

All in all, I've found little difference in the Head Units (I have a graveyard in my garage like most of us ) Before I started playing with DSPs, I tended to like Pioneer ONLY because they had a decent Eq and that silly Sound Retriever feature (again, software), which interpolates compressed MP3 files and tries to fill in the blanks. Also, I stuck with them because of the external Pioneer giblets I had (XM, Navi, etc). Although our friends at Pioneer STILL haven't figured out how to read MP3 tags without corrupting them.

Now that Mirrorlink is catching on, I'm chasing that stupid idea (Yes, I'm a massive dope), but again, ALL software, with some circuitry to bridge video over USB (in most cases), which is a reasonably well understood technology from the computer industry (KVM, DisplayLink, etc)

Incidentally, I've been using the JVC NSX600 for the past few months, and its decent, snappy screen response time, etc. The audio section is primitive, and with outboard processing it sounds like all the others. I had a Kenwood over the summer (DDX470 I think) and it was dreadful from an software standpoint.

Before that some Alpine unit, which I didn't get off on, and before that a Pioneer unit that was ok but scrambled MP3 tags and I could never listen to any album in order :laugh:


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

You have just explained why I don't care for most modern source units. 

A processor is only as good as what you feed into it.

I recommend a/b tests if people have doubts about the role the deck plays in digital processing. Do a 80prs vs cz702; big difference there.


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

What did you notice sonically? What is your test procedure? Processor used?


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

WestCo said:


> [email protected]'go,
> 
> Wonderful collection you have!
> Anything for sale?? lol


NO, I don't like sell my HU



WestCo said:


> But I am curious between the xdp-210 and xdp-4000x (was there a big difference in the sound)?.


No difference
XDP 210 or 213 = 3 ways
XDP 4000 and XES X1 = 4 ways



WestCo said:


> Also; which are your favorites and why?.


I love all my HU for their qualities or ... their defects

but ... I've prefer to listen... any one of them



WestCo said:


> Which version Mcintosh is that mx406?


No, it's a McIndosh 4000 with the MDA4000



WestCo said:


> Sorry for all the questions.


No problem


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

JVD240 said:


> What is your test procedure?


I'm curious as well.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

Sorry for late reply



SouthSyde said:


> Chris...
> 
> Is that the FULLY modded addzest I spy?
> 
> How ya like it?


Yes

Clarion HX-D1 (with Matt Roberts's touch...)


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

Why put a High-end Head unit under a processor??

Are they really need a processor? I don't think that!!

I speak only of sound and music! No comfort Tuner / GPS or other


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

[email protected]'go said:


> Why put a High-end Head unit under a processor??
> 
> Are they really need a processor? I don't think that!!
> 
> I speak only of sound and music! No comfort Tuner / GPS or other


You need sound processing to deal with the terrible acoustic environment and speaker locations of the car.

The source unit just needs to be of *good enough *quality to not *audibly* interfere with the original signal. Be it a deadhead on an ext. DSP or a fully loaded DSP head unit. Its still the same signal chain only with hardware located in different physical locations.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

t3sn4f2 said:


> You need sound processing to deal with the terrible acoustic environment and speaker locations of the car.
> 
> The source unit just needs to be of *good enough *quality to not *audibly* interfere with the original signal. Be it a deadhead on an ext. DSP or a fully loaded DSP head unit. Its still the same signal chain only with hardware located in different physical locations.



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know that t3sn4f2!!

I'm french moderator of the more specialist caraudio website in France!!: Rire:


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

[email protected]'go said:


> Why put a High-end Head unit under a processor??
> 
> Are they really need a processor? I don't think that!!
> 
> I speak only of sound and music! No comfort Tuner / GPS or other


Time alignment alone makes a processor worth it for me, most head units do not come with time alignment.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

fcarpio said:


> Time alignment alone makes a processor worth it for me, most head units do not come with time alignment.


WHAT???


NO
wrong!

Sorry fcarpio!!


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

[email protected]'go said:


> WHAT???
> 
> 
> NO
> ...


My opinion is NEVER wrong. And this is again my opinion, so I am double right.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

[email protected]'go said:


> WHAT???
> 
> 
> NO
> ...


Forget that like he said it is his opinion. What about what he said is incorrect? T/A is invaluable and most head units don't come with it.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

Sorry
I'm french and I certainly misspoke

I'm not agree with you, fcarpio


there are some HU with time alignment!!!


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

[email protected]'go said:


> Sorry
> I'm french and I certainly misspoke
> 
> I'm not agree with you, fcarpio
> ...


Absolutely! What I said is that MOST don't have it, which is like saying that SOME have it. Maybe what I said got lost in translation, English is not my native language either.


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

WestCo said:


> I recommend a/b tests


I always discount any critical opinion without a blind a/b/a test, and even then the results on what "sounds better" is based on our individual perception. Nobody has beat Richard Clark's amp challenge yet, and that's not surprising since the difference between high end speaker wire and coat hangers have proven to be inaudible.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

hurrication said:


> I always discount any critical opinion without a blind a/b/a test, and even then the results on what "sounds better" is based on our individual perception. Nobody has beat Richard Clark's amp challenge yet, and that's not surprising since the difference between high end speaker wire and coat hangers have proven to be inaudible.


A long time ago I used to work at an audio store and we did some interconnects a/b tests between the then up and coming Monster Cable Reference series and some cheap cables. We did notice that the cheap cables ate the upper range crispiness of the sound. The difference was very noticeable. Since then we did other tests where we could not tell the different cables apart. It was only the cheap interconnects that were really bad. 

On a side note, we tested the MIT Shotguns against speaker cable that came from a spool, we could not tell them apart. The MITs were something like US$1000 for the set and the spool cable (good one) was something like $5 per foot.

Dang, the MITs are more expensive now:

Mit Shotgun S2 3 Speaker Interface Cables Pair 12ft Brand New in The Box | eBay

They seem to be thinner too, they did call them shotguns for a reason.


----------



## patrick3178 (Aug 18, 2013)

how do I start my own thread?


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

[email protected]'go said:


> NO, I don't like sell my HU
> 
> 
> No difference
> ...


Great information! Thanks.
Interesting take on things. 

In info on the sonys is valuable to me.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

patrick3178 said:


> how do I start my own thread?


From the home page click on the appropriate sub forum. Click on that.
When the next page loads there is a little orange button to the left that says "new thread" click that.


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

[email protected]'go said:


> Why put a High-end Head unit under a processor??
> 
> Are they really need a processor? I don't think that!!
> 
> I speak only of sound and music! No comfort Tuner / GPS or other


Without the emotion, I think the point many of us are making, is that these days, there may be NO SUCH THING as a High End Head unit anymore FROM AN AUDIO STANDPOINT. The Amp/DAC sections are commoditized silicon chips, and are basically generic (even though there are a few different manufacturers, how much different can they be after 20 years of refinement)

High end in car audio head units has taken on a newer meaning, and its become WAY more feature based, than how it _*actually sounds*_. 

The older units you're showing, are from a different era, where engineers and designers focused on discreet electronic components to try and get as much audio performance out of what they were building, and what they had to squeeze into a small space (Single DIN anyone?) I have some in my garage as well, and they do sound different, although not necessarily better, especially as no one that loves audio and music reproduction can ever agree on what better really is!!

The most expensive Head Units, which many audiophiles mystically believe are "high end" are WAY more focused on Navigation/Traffic alerts, HD tuners, silly iPhone integration, and other things that sell more units. They are completely NOT focused on audio quality, like in the old days, when there were indeed differences between tuner/preamp/amp and even DAC designs (where Burr Brown made their name in the home/car audio biz). If you don't believe it, take a look at the MOST expensive head units you can find, and try and find one that actually has any kind of specific audio section. They're all the same 22W/50W etc type of amp, and if you're lucky, you may find the odd overpriced unit that claims it has "5V" preamp outs (ooohhh boy!)

The only company that is actually trying to make something interesting these days is in fact Parrott (from France actually!!).


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Let's bring things back to reality. 

NwAvGuy: What We Hear

This "I've A/B'd things", when most never even bothered to make it a competent ABX blind test, is misleading at best. 

If the above statement doesn't apply to you then don't respond or please feel free to qualify your post. If it does then its fine as well but should be labeled more like your personal biased subjective experience.


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

nanohead said:


> The only company that is actually trying to make something interesting these days is in fact Parrott (from France actually!!).


Agree, but don't forget the folks that are going with tablet's digital out via USB into a D/A converter, then into their DSP's. That will definitely be my next build, had I known about it earlier...


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

I come back to the subject of high-end HU

If you want, I realized 2/3 articles on a website that I moderate

Sony XES Mobile (1991): Sony XES Mobile, série 1 (1991), le pionnier

McIntosh MX4000 (1996): McIntosh MX4000, l'Excellence....

Pioneer ODR (1993): Pioneer ODR, la légende... mais pourquoi?


good reading


----------



## claytonzmvox (May 4, 2011)

I really wanted an opinion from you about the processor 6 t8 mosconi. I want to add a HU as the signal source and do not know what to put. I wanted something cheaper than a DRZ, or MC. HU which would indicate to me?


At the moment I use the original HU of a 2014 Ford Fiesta! Horrible sound!!


I am very inclined to put a DENON R10. 

What do you think of this HU?


----------



## g7kobayashi (Dec 31, 2013)

We're talking about the SQ headunits in the market
but I think there's something more important, how you like it.
It's hard for me to describe the sound characteristics
with my limited English but I have to say honestly that
all the headunits I've ever listened to have different sounds.
Like WestCo, I tested them with my home audio system.
Some truth is that it's harder to tell the difference in the car.

My very first headunit is the Nakamichi TA-25 with MF-51, then MB75, 
McIntosh MX-406, MX-406S, GRUNDIG 1910, Alpine 7909, 7969, 
they all served for just short periods. 
Then I sticked with the 7909 anniversary edition for about 8 or 9 years 
until I got the 7620J in order to release the full potential of the 3900DAC.
In my Alpine JUBA experience, here's the rank:
7909 < 7909+5957S+3900 < 7620+5957S+3900 < 7620+3900+5957S.
7909+5959 is very close to 7909+5957S+3900.
And the optical out of the 5959S is much better than the 5957S's.

One more reason I like the Alpine's is that they match the dash perfectly.
I enjoy not only their sound but also their appearance.


----------



## [email protected]'go (Aug 22, 2013)

I haven't got a Denon but I've got a Denon motor in my Rockford Fosgate RFX 8250ti
very good HU!!


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

g7kobayashi said:


> We're talking about the SQ headunits in the market
> but I think there's something more important, how you like it.
> It's hard for me to describe the sound characteristics
> with my limited English but I have to say honestly that
> ...


I have always been under the impression that optical out is the same (or close to the same) on most decks, but the more impressions I hear of different decks I am finding that I was mistaken.

Can you elaborate on the differences? Mostly clarity/warmth?
Any insight on optical cables (in fairness I have always gravitated to the cheaper optical cables because it's one's and zeros) but again the more I talk to people I am finding that I maybe wrong.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

And sorry to thread jack.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

There was a thread on head-fi many many years a go showing the differences between real glass toslink cables and cheap plastic cables. There was a difference in the light transmission. The real glass cables at the time were very very expensive and some cheap ones popped up on eBay that performed really well- that's what I got, though mine came from Parts Express.

The real glass cables don't have as tight of a bend radius as the plastic cables. And just because the cables are plastic doesn't make them bad- there were/are quite a few really good plastic ones on the market. You can get a tighter bend radius with real glass using more and finer strand conductors...though still won't bend like plastic.

You were probably right, optical out on most decks is or should be the same...it's the input side of the other piece and the cables that used to be at fault.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> There was a thread on head-fi many many years a go showing the differences between real glass toslink cables and cheap plastic cables. There was a difference in the light transmission. The real glass cables at the time were very very expensive and some cheap ones popped up on eBay that performed really well- that's what I got, though mine came from Parts Express.
> 
> The real glass cables don't have as tight of a bend radius as the plastic cables. And just because the cables are plastic doesn't make them bad- there were/are quite a few really good plastic ones on the market. You can get a tighter bend radius with real glass using more and finer strand conductors...though still won't bend like plastic.
> 
> You were probably right, optical out on most decks is or should be the same...it's the input side of the other piece and the cables that used to be at fault.


Really good information. I'll get some glass ones from parts express.
Last question, I was told that optical cables shouldn't be more than 2 meters long (or there will be loss). Any truth behind that?


----------



## g7kobayashi (Dec 31, 2013)

WestCo said:


> I have always been under the impression that optical out is the same (or close to the same) on most decks, but the more impressions I hear of different decks I am finding that I was mistaken.
> 
> Can you elaborate on the differences? Mostly clarity/warmth?
> Any insight on optical cables (in fairness I have always gravitated to the cheaper optical cables because it's one's and zeros) but again the more I talk to people I am finding that I maybe wrong.


I'd like to talk about the optical cables first.
My first home theater system was built back in 1999.
The shop gave me a cheap optical cable for free and I did 
enjoy the Dolby Digital and DTS surround sound effects a lot.
I've had my employment of an audio and video shop since 2001
and learnt some theoretical knowledge of audio equipment.
The sound of different optical cables is always an issue to be argued,
just like the difference between optical and coaxial digital outputs.

I asked the shop manager to borrow an Audiotechnica optical cable
to test in my system and the next day I paid for it.
You're right, the clarity! The sound was much more detailed.
Then I tried the coaxial output and input in a same system.
Guess what happened? The sound was much warmer than optical.
Theory is theory, practice is practice, that's what I've learnt.

Yes they all carry 0 & 1, but what if 00111010111 becomes 
00110010111 after delivering? And also the jitter issue.
Even the CAT-5 and USB cables bring different sounds in a streaming system.
They're files, but also influenced by EMI & RF. 

Alpine introduced the 4915 optical cable for their pruducts.
The input socket of the 3900DAC is deeper than usual ones 
and most after market cables won't fit well. 
I put some seal-gel to fasten the Monster MX1000 and then it beated the 4915.
That taught me about the connectivity.










I replaced the optical output socket of the 5957S and the sound is slightly better,
same TOSHIBA pruduct but different model number.










Try in your home theater and you'll see the difference. 
But personally I like the sound of coaxial more.
I think it's warmer and "thicker" than the optical's.


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

g7kobayashi said:


> I'd like to talk about the optical cables first.
> My first home theater system was built back in 1999.
> The shop gave me a cheap optical cable for free and I did
> enjoy the Dolby Digital and DTS surround sound effects a lot.
> ...


WOW!
Awesome  thank you for the detailed reply. This is a real game-changer for me! Looks like I won't be buying the cheap set next time I hook up the c90 to the xdp. Thank you very much to you and thehatedguy. 

My car's system outperforms my current home theater. But I will try it on my current HT setup.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Not much science, but here is something on coax vs toslink tht I read a long long time a go.

6moons.com - audio reviews: A Toslink vs. RCA digital cable comparison


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/car-audio-truth-myths-industry-dogma/108838-digital-coax-sounds-better-then-toslink.html


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> Not much science, but here is something on coax vs toslink tht I read a long long time a go.
> 
> 6moons.com - audio reviews: A Toslink vs. RCA digital cable comparison


Interesting and thank you! Seems like the difference is there in certain situations, but as I originally suspected if there were differences they would be relatively minor. Good/great digital cables should yield the same sound or darn close to it.

But even a 1% improvement is something to strive for, so springing for a $45 toslink or $45 coax cable would be worth it for me. 

I have four DAC's to poke around with here. 
MDA5000 (takes digital coax input)
Xdp4000 / 210eq (toslink)
DAC magic plus by Cambridge (both optical and coax)
The Dac in my Onkyo receiver (which I seldom use these days)

I did my own tests to see if I could tell a difference between optical (elcheapo) and coax ($50 custom cable which I got from a member on here). There was an ever so slight difference, but to even confirm that I would need to upgrade my towers. 

Truth be told I find the XDP to be my favorite of the three, even with a cheap toslink cable, so trying a quality cable will be interesting to see what happens there.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

There are things about a coax cable that are important.

The cable needs to be 75 ohm.

RCA terminations are not the proper way to terminate such a cable because RCA connectors by design are 20-30 ohms, not 75 like the proper connector- the BNC.

The source and whatever is receiving the signal need to have 75 ohm terminations as well.

You ideally do not want a very short SPDIF/coax cable...they are suspect to internal reflections.

The impedance mismatches could and can cause jitter...so can the reflections in the cable.

I went as far as building a zobel impedance network for the AES/3 output on my ECD510 when I changed it over from optical (or whatever you want to call that 4 pin connector) to make sure impedance was flat.

How audible is the jitter? That I don't have an answer to because it depends...but you can measure it.


----------



## zeeman (Feb 4, 2014)

My top vote would go to the MX5000....


----------

