# 24-bit 4v 2014 Alpines or better Kenwoods unprocessed SQ vs 80PRS as my 1st p...



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

*80PRS simple L/R SQ vs 24-bit 4v 2014 better Alpines or Kenwoods*

Wow sorry for the run-on title 

QUESTION SUMMARY

I understand the advanced tuning capabilities, auto EQ, side independent EQ, 3-way crossovers etc are better on the 80PRS but with all DSP aside or defeated, how does just the simple music accuracy and quality of better Alpines or Kenwoods compare side by side with the DEH-80PRS? Any folks A/B compare apples to apples just L/R unmolested output? 

DETAILS

I'm considering pulling the stock non-nav and MS-8 and going with aftermarket head alone or with processor later. Current amps are band-pass capable NVX 4-ch & 1-ch waiting on me now replacing an old zx700.5. Drivers are Vifa or SEAS Neo I have on hand, TB W6-789E mids and probably a Dayton HF or similar better quality 10" in a glassed corner trunk box I picked up. 08 Civic Si sedan. Dash kit on hand now. Going to do it right this time and completely pull all interior for some wiring clean up. Doors are treated and MLV'd and may do more in floors and trunk. 

The NVX amps' band-pass capabilities give me some flexibility granted that would combine time alignment which would be a compromise understandably if one head L/R channel fed two outs on the amp. Lots of ideas on that but more concerned on head unit SQ and build quality for this topic. Probably going to be a very humble 2-way + sub.

Given most better head units will afford USB, Bluetooth and iDevice digital direct reading, features features features, my main pick is the 80PRS and the 99RS is simply out of the budget or I would get it done. 

I'm wondering among the better new Alpines such as the CDE-HD149BT or IVE-W555BT, or maybe the Kenwood 997 or 998, how does their general output SQ and build quality compare to the burr-browns and build of the 80PRS? 

The 555 is interesting as I would appreciate the screen advantages and 2-din appearance if the head unit can actually bring it in terms of SQ output. Couldn't care less about nav but digital inputs a must. I dunno on new Alpine SQ so asking you guys. 


Thanks for your input.


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

Pull up a chair and break out the popcorn, I'm interested.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Alpines have a very distinct sound. Some like it, some don't. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

:lurk::juggle::argue:


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

quality_sound said:


> Alpines have a very distinct sound. Some like it, some don't.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


Are you suggesting that all HU's DON'T sound the same???

Yes, I agree. 

I prefer Alpine over Pioneer, preferably sold school Alpine


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I can buy that. Had a $500 Cambridge Audio AV receiver with excellent dacs and simple signal path that would rival $800 denons and others. I imagine "24-bit" being the buzzword alone really should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm leaning verrrrry heavily toward the PRS but the 998 or 149BT have become my alternates. Full time alignment and good EQ are definite items I want. The PRS certainly goes above that in tuning though. 

Read one reviewer say she preferred the excelon over the PRS and alpine however I suspect she was either attempting to sell the excelons or who knows... I could never trust a demo wall with the silliness they do with the wiring, switching, speaker selectors etc. unfortunately I'm in a town with one brick and mortar, and they're too busy doing mediocre installs in Ferraris and Porsches and window tint. 

QS, what do you mean about a "distinct sound"? Is it as though by design the Alpines have a voicing of their own added?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

And ya know, given the reason previous receivers I've had died due to some CD player movement issue, dontcha wish they'd do SQ oriented mechless units? Even having come from working in the CD/DVD manufacturing industry, I can't remember how long since I've played one. A mechless unit with top tier SQ would be a great find. Defeat able internal amp, good dacs, TA, EQ, BT, iPod digital read in a no-disc unit would rock.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

What about the Clarion cz702 sound? At least it offers an HPF for the subs and more flexible active crossovers not needing an external amp.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

WestCo said:


> Are you suggesting that all HU's DON'T sound the same???
> 
> Yes, I agree.
> 
> I prefer Alpine over Pioneer, preferably sold school Alpine


I like old school Alpine. The new stuff, other than F#1 Status...meh. I like newer Pioneer a LOT more than newer Alpine. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Babs said:


> QS, what do you mean about a "distinct sound"? Is it as though by design the Alpines have a voicing of their own added?


Yep. I have never been able to get the bass right and the top end isn't as good. Like less extension and sparkle. It's hard to say exactly but it's just rougher overall, to me. Some people prefer them and have great results with it. 

I like Kenwood even less than Pioneer and Alpine. 


Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## WestCo (Aug 19, 2012)

quality_sound said:


> I like old school Alpine. The new stuff, other than F#1 Status...meh. I like newer Pioneer a LOT more than newer Alpine.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


The last Alpine deck I ran was the dva-9861... (the 2008-2014 models I haven't heard much in all honesty)

In comparison to the 7949, the 9861 wasn't as good and the bass and midbass was sloppy. Sorry to hear the downward trend in quality continued...

Maybe this years models will be better?


----------



## chithead (Mar 19, 2008)

Babs said:


> And ya know, given the reason previous receivers I've had died due to some CD player movement issue, dontcha wish they'd do SQ oriented mechless units? Even having come from working in the CD/DVD manufacturing industry, I can't remember how long since I've played one. A mechless unit with top tier SQ would be a great find. Defeat able internal amp, good dacs, TA, EQ, BT, iPod digital read in a no-disc unit would rock.


Alpine ICS-X7HD

I used this in our Forester for quite a while. At the last local SQ meet, anyone who heard it seemed quite impressed with the sound quality and staging, even with my passive setup.


----------



## HiloDB1 (Feb 25, 2011)

I honestly dont like the new Alpine sources they just sound different. Ive pretty much run Alpine exclusively since 1996.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

chithead said:


> Alpine ICS-X7HD
> 
> I used this in our Forester for quite a while. At the last local SQ meet, anyone who heard it seemed quite impressed with the sound quality and staging, even with my passive setup.



Yeah I love the mix on that unit except there's nearly nothing about its sound tuning capability. The screen and being mechless is nice. 

I think crutchfield may have a misprint. They list it as having burr-brown dacs which I doubt. 

Also does the x7hd unit have individual speaker time alignment? And can the internal amp be deactivated?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

WestCo said:


> The last Alpine deck I ran was the dva-9861... (the 2008-2014 models I haven't heard much in all honesty)
> 
> In comparison to the 7949, the 9861 wasn't as good and the bass and midbass was sloppy. Sorry to hear the downward trend in quality continued...
> 
> Maybe this years models will be better?






quality_sound said:


> Yep. I have never been able to get the bass right and the top end isn't as good. Like less extension and sparkle. It's hard to say exactly but it's just rougher overall, to me. Some people prefer them and have great results with it.
> 
> I like Kenwood even less than Pioneer and Alpine.
> 
> ...






HiloDB1 said:


> I honestly dont like the new Alpine sources they just sound different. Ive pretty much run Alpine exclusively since 1996.



My experience with alpine is limited to a lower end unit only which sounded mediocre and died quickly. My kenwood experience is with better excelon units which had weird tuning business but great straight stereo SQ. XXV-01D I think it was. Prior was an old deadhead with the dreaded ribbon cable failure. I guess that's why I'm not a fan of CD players as it's just too much crap to break. There's a YouTube showing a 997 that keeps ejecting the disc. Gives me pause. 

That said though I'd risk it on the 80PRS. I do think its time to kill the CD entirely in a higher end mechless unit. I wonder why they persist with it. The CD is going the way of the 8-track.


----------



## rdubbs (Sep 26, 2012)

Babs said:


> Yeah I love the mix on that unit except there's nearly nothing about its sound tuning capability. The screen and being mechless is nice.
> 
> I think crutchfield may have a misprint. They list it as having burr-brown dacs which I doubt.
> 
> Also does the x7hd unit have individual speaker time alignment? And can the internal amp be deactivated?


I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure Alpine's 24bit DAC was burr-brown. At least that's what I saw on several advertisements for the INE-S920HD when I was researching it last year. Who knows if it's true or not but I was pretty sure I saw it on more than just Crutchfield. 

But then again the other websites could have just copied Crutchfield's descriptions


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Another intriguing unit is the IVE-W555BT. They do seem to be innovating with the tuning from iPhone app which is very cool. I've been playing with the tuneit app and the interface is very slick. 

But it looks like the 555 possibly has the same preamp/dsp as the 149bt with 9band parametric and TA. maybe they're standardized a good bit. Not much info on it yet as it's new.


----------



## chithead (Mar 19, 2008)

Babs said:


> Yeah I love the mix on that unit except there's nearly nothing about its sound tuning capability. The screen and being mechless is nice.
> 
> I think crutchfield may have a misprint. They list it as having burr-brown dacs which I doubt.
> 
> Also does the x7hd unit have individual speaker time alignment? And can the internal amp be deactivated?


Internal amp can't be deactivated from what I could find. But you can do right and left T/A on front, rear, and subwoofer outputs. EQ is nice, that 9-band parametric comes in handy. Plus the crossover settings are separate for front, rear, and sub, and you can attenuate each one lower per your particular tastes. The menu for turning subwoofer on/off also has a volume level and phase swap. 

It's the first time I've used rear fill successfully. This head unit really helped push the front stage up, and out towards the hood.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Babs said:


> That said though I'd risk it on the 80PRS. I do think its time to kill the CD entirely in a higher end mechless unit. I wonder why they persist with it. The CD is going the way of the 8-track.


Until high definition digital audio is the norm, CDs will be necessary. Either as the media source or to use to make digital copies that don't suck.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Where are you guys seeing the 555?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I had a 7949 for about a week. I hated that thing, I don't understand why people go nuts over the ugly thing. I replaced it with an Eclipse 5605 (whatever the indash changer was), and it was junk...it got replaced by a 55060 and that was better. Then that got replaced with a ODR setup that I kept for a while until I got a P9 setup.




WestCo said:


> The last Alpine deck I ran was the dva-9861... (the 2008-2014 models I haven't heard much in all honesty)
> 
> In comparison to the 7949, the 9861 wasn't as good and the bass and midbass was sloppy. Sorry to hear the downward trend in quality continued...
> 
> Maybe this years models will be better?


----------



## Beckerson1 (Jul 3, 2012)

Wish when Pioneer said 24-bit Burr Brown DAC meant it could play 24 bit content. Doesn't, still only plays 16 bit. What pissed me off about it.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> I had a 7949 for about a week. I hated that thing, I don't understand why people go nuts over the ugly thing. I replaced it with an Eclipse 5605 (whatever the indash changer was), and it was junk...it got replaced by a 55060 and that was better. Then that got replaced with a ODR setup that I kept for a while until I got a P9 setup.


It sounded great but it's ugly as sin. In all fairness, it's MILES better looking than the 7939. 

I haven't liked ANY Eclipses since they went to the 4-digit model numbers. 

If the P9 did iPod, I'd run that. It's GORGEOUS and sounds fantastic.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeah the 7939 was ugly as sin too. These were supposed to be the "new" 7909s too. Fell far short of those goals. Well maybe the 7949 could have sounded as good...but I couldn't stand it in my car. The only other really nice looking Alpines were the 7996 and 7990. The 7990 is the only other deck that I like as much as my current Denon.

Agreed on the Eclipse too. I still have an ECD-510 and 414..my first deck was a ECD-410, so I was always partial to them.

Can't you get an adapter for the P9 to use an IPOD? I don't know since I don't have an IPOD. I just wished it was black rather than silver.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Where are you guys seeing the 555?



Saw it next to the x7hd on the wall on a CES 2014 YouTube. Here's crutchfield's page. No manual to download yet. I suspect it'll be rather brainy. I like the non-flip face and some hard button controls actually. 

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_500IVEW555/Alpine-IVE-W555BT.html?tp=5684

Is it me or does alpine's website simply blow? Kenwood is equally poor. Especially with keeping up with new model intros. The business as a whole has become very k-mart. If it weren't for crutch, YouTube and sonic there'd hardly be any info on new models.


----------



## HiloDB1 (Feb 25, 2011)

I run a W966 and a 7996 for reference. The W966 I've owned for over 10 years and still love it. Works flawless.


----------



## 1996blackmax (Aug 29, 2007)

WestCo said:


> The last Alpine deck I ran was the dva-9861... (the 2008-2014 models I haven't heard much in all honesty)
> 
> In comparison to the 7949, the 9861 wasn't as good and the bass and midbass was sloppy. Sorry to hear the downward trend in quality continued...
> 
> Maybe this years models will be better?



I had the 7949 for a long time, it was easy to use too. I had it paired with a PXA-H600, nice sounding combo.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

That is a beautiful deck- the 7996 is. I don't remember the W966 off of the top of my head.


----------



## knever3 (Mar 9, 2009)

I would gladly pay $500 for an Alpine with today's BT and iPod controlls, sat radio, HD radio and still have excellent sound quality and optical output. They went away from making high end single din decks. Now it's all about 8" screens and uber expensive direct fit jobs. I won't pay $1,700 for a radio for sure. Alpine uses to sell many expensive decks, maybe the technology has come way down in price and we just don't appreciate the change.


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

quality_sound said:


> Until high definition digital audio is the norm, CDs will be necessary. Either as the media source or to use to make digital copies that don't suck.


I never play cds in my 80prs, but I wish it would play FLAC...


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

WinWiz said:


> I never play cds in my 80prs, but I wish it would play FLAC...


Maybe not, but the source for your digital copy is still a CD. That's my point.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Maybe not, but the source for your digital copy is still a CD. That's my point.



And it's a valid one. As I ripped my collection apple lossless I'm probably screwed all around and have to re-rip in WMA or something the head unit, whichever it may be, will read.


----------



## AVIDEDTR (Sep 11, 2008)

WestCo said:


> The last Alpine deck I ran was the dva-9861... (the 2008-2014 models I haven't heard much in all honesty)
> 
> In comparison to the 7949, the 9861 wasn't as good and the bass and midbass was sloppy. Sorry to hear the downward trend in quality continued...
> 
> Maybe this years models will be better?


9861 sounds sloppy....hmm...I'll quote Arc Audio...must be your install.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

FWIW, Mark Elridge is using the 9861 in his Nascar and people seem to think it sounds ok.


----------



## AVIDEDTR (Sep 11, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> FWIW, Mark Elridge is using the 9861 in his Nascar and people seem to think it sounds ok.


I can name 10 others too


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Compared to those vintage copper chassis deadheads I imagine nothing that's newly in any line up would really compare save the 99RS maybe. Or the 80PRS for budget alternative. 

So my main curiosity was if anything newly for sale touches either of those two pioneers? I suspect just maybe the x998 kenwood or the 149bt alpine 'might just possibly' come close enough for giggles. 

Granted my 2-way front stage will be the weakest link, but if I can at least feed it good output and some adequate processing. In that regard the 80PRS Is looking more and more like the way to go if I want new in box with warranty.

I am perplexed why clarion pursues 3-way active in a sub $200 deck. When are they going to bring back an evolution of the 9255. That thing was something.

If I were the king of a manufacturer I'd do a burr-brown or wolfson DAC'd deadhead 3-way plus sub in a 2-din with DVD, BT, USB/digital idevice, auto TA/EQ, mirrorlink, non-nav. Alas, I ain't.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

I think it's time someone does a blind HU shootout to see if anyone can actually back up these claims of different brands sounding different.


----------



## AVIDEDTR (Sep 11, 2008)

didn't Jorge Doitor do this already?


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

AVIDEDTR said:


> didn't Jorge Doitor do this already?



Cool. Link?


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

Looks like he was working on it in 2009. There's a 9 page thread on it but no results were ever posted.

It was a pretty big test and looks like it took a lot of effort, but from what I can tell, it was not a back to back blind test, so unfortunately it means absolutely nothing, even if he had posted results.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

There's an interesting THD test on YouTube for the 80PRS that if anything shows it to be pretty darn clean. I tend to take those with a grain of salt. I think given all that it does I'm afraid if I go with anything else I'll be second guessing myself. Might as well git r done and see for myself.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Babs said:


> There's an interesting THD test on YouTube for the 80PRS that if anything shows it to be pretty darn clean. I tend to take those with a grain of salt. I think given all that it does I'm afraid if I go with anything else I'll be second guessing myself. Might as well git r done and see for myself.


Here's a more detailed measurement of the 80PRS if you're interested, alongside the P99RS. (Courtesy of Bikinpunk). And below that, my own iPhone 5's headphone output measurements.



bikinpunk said:


>





t3sn4f2 said:


>


----------



## jode1967 (Nov 7, 2012)

I just traded out an JVC kc-r80bt to the Pioneer 80prs. with just the stock settings, I think the JVC sounds better on the sub. and the pioneer sounds better on the fronts. The fronts for now are just 4" diamond coax's and the jvc would only xover at 150 12db or they would flutter. the pioneer has them xover at 125 with 24db.
the pioneer does have the jvc spanked for tuning abilities though. if I had external processing, I think the jvc would stay in the truck


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

T3 that's awesome stuff thanks! Erin's tests in my eyes lend significant credibility then. Damn I hope sonic gets em back in soon. May I confirm are they keeping or dropping the 80PRS from the line up this year? If they're dropping it, I'm snagging one, maybe two even. 

There is one more in the 2-dins that I'd hope is a great audio piece but very little out on it yet. The new AVH-4000NEX. Looks like a killer 2-din for those like me that couldn't care less if the head unit has nav built in. Don't think it's even on shelves yet.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Babs said:


> And it's a valid one. As I ripped my collection apple lossless I'm probably screwed all around and have to re-rip in WMA or something the head unit, whichever it may be, will read.


Not if you keep an iPod around to plug in via USB. The iPods have been proven to have audiophile-quality outputs on many occasions. You'll be fine.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

thehatedguy said:


> FWIW, Mark Elridge is using the 9861 in his Nascar and people seem to think it sounds ok.





AVIDEDTR said:


> I can name 10 others too


I don't think anyone is saying you can't make the newer units sound good. I, for one, don't like the _starting point_.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Not if you keep an iPod around to plug in via USB. The iPods have been proven to have audiophile-quality outputs on many occasions. You'll be fine.


Running a 160g classic which will be USB.. Since the head unit will be reading digital bypassing the ipod dacs that would probably mean not just anything from the ipod will be read if the unit isn't compatible. 

On iPods, I had read since apple ditched wolfson they've not been the same. 5th Gen, I think, was the last of the "better" wolfson ipods, according to sources but that's a completely different topic I'll bet goes way back in thread count.  It's served well though.

Just pulled the trigger on the 80PRS. Couldn't stand it any longer. Aughta spank the "premium" Si head unit into MS-8 for sure, even though the stock head unit sends flat 4ch differential balanced outs (which in itself is pretty cool). MS-8 will be pulled for duty in the new-to-me 2013 Tacoma, when I get around to that build. That's gonna be a fun one for a build thread.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Babs said:


> T3 that's awesome stuff thanks! Erin's tests in my eyes lend significant credibility then. Damn I hope sonic gets em back in soon. May I confirm are they keeping or dropping the 80PRS from the line up this year? If they're dropping it, I'm snagging one, maybe two even.
> 
> There is one more in the 2-dins that I'd hope is a great audio piece *but very little out on it yet.* The new AVH-4000NEX. Looks like a killer 2-din for those like me that couldn't care less if the head unit has nav built in. Don't think it's even on shelves yet.


Ummm...AVH-4000NEX - 2-DIN Flagship Multimedia DVD Receiver with 7” WVGA Touchscreen Display, Smartphone-Inspired User Interface, Bluetooth, HD Radio Tuner, SiriusXM Ready, AppRadio Mode for iPhone and Select Android Devices, and MirrorLink Ready. | P


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Babs said:


> Running a 160g classic which will be USB.. Since the head unit will be reading digital bypassing the ipod dacs that would probably mean not just anything from the ipod will be read if the unit isn't compatible.
> 
> On iPods, I had read since apple ditched wolfson they've not been the same. 5th Gen, I think, was the last of the "better" wolfson ipods, according to sources but that's a completely different topic I'll bet goes way back in thread count.  It's served well though.
> 
> Just pulled the trigger on the 80PRS. Couldn't stand it any longer. Aughta spank the "premium" Si head unit into MS-8 for sure, even though the stock head unit sends flat 4ch differential balanced outs (which in itself is pretty cool). MS-8 will be pulled for duty in the new-to-me 2013 Tacoma, when I get around to that build. That's gonna be a fun one for a build thread.


Last I looked was a year or two ago but they were still awesome sounding then so I can't imagine they've gone down any. 

I picked up a used 80PRS a couple of weeks ago and it's very, very nice. I like it a lot and after more seat time, if I like it enough, I'll move up to a P99.


----------



## Velozity (Jul 6, 2007)

I'm going to be installing this soon as I find time to put it in. The crossovers aren't great but it seems to tick all the other boxes: parametric eq, T/A, 24-bit DAC, apple lossless, USB, CD/DVD, 4V out, etc. Paired to an amp with good active crossovers (i.e. Zuki) I expect it will do the trick. I'll let you know my thoughts.

Alpine - Bluetooth - ICS-X8


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Velozity said:


> I'm going to be installing this soon as I find time to put it in. The crossovers aren't great but it seems to tick all the other boxes: parametric eq, T/A, 24-bit DAC, apple lossless, USB, CD/DVD, 4V out, etc. Paired to an amp with good active crossovers (i.e. Zuki) I expect it will do the trick. I'll let you know my thoughts.
> 
> Alpine - Bluetooth - ICS-X8



Sounds good. Please report back as I guess that unit parallels the US version x7hd.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I'm already trying to wrap my brain around what I want to try with this one...

Passive









Or Active









Prolly active.  It's just that all four TB's are already mounted, so utilize the rears or not is the question.


----------



## sirbOOm (Jan 24, 2013)

Alpine. Alpine. Alpine.

...and a processor when you can afford it.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Got the AVH-4000NEX manual. Can't wait to read through it.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

I think you made the right choice with the DEH-80PRS. When you get right down to it, no other currently available head unit has the same sheer processing power at this price point. 

I have a DEH-80PRS in my car, and an Alpine CDE-147BT (same processing as the CDE-HD149BT) in my wife's car. Both are 1st gen Scion xBs. For UI and build quality, I prefer the Alpine. For processing capabilty, I'll take the Pioneer every time. That isn't to say the 147 is an SQ slouch. The ability to time align and the 9 band parametric are very nice when compared to the other single DIN units out on the market, save for the top two Pioneer options. 

If Alpine were to release a model with all of the features of the CDE-HD149BT + crossovers and EQ that were as good or better then the DEH-80PRS, I would probably pick one up tomorrow. Problem is, they don't. And I don't see them planning to do so any time soon. You want processing from Alpine? Pick up an H800.


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

Babs said:


> And it's a valid one. As I ripped my collection apple lossless I'm probably screwed all around and have to re-rip in WMA or something the head unit, whichever it may be, will read.


Why re-rip? A conversion of the lossless files should do...
And why go from a closed apple format to microsoft format? Chances are you will pretty soon have to convert or rerip again as digital formats tends to change fast.


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

quality_sound said:


> Maybe not, but the source for your digital copy is still a CD. That's my point.


CDs are old school. Like it or not but online stores like itunes rules today.


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

rton20s said:


> If Alpine were to release a model with all of the features of the CDE-HD149BT + crossovers and EQ that were as good or better then the DEH-80PRS, I would probably pick one up tomorrow. Problem is, they don't. And I don't see them planning to do so any time soon. You want processing from Alpine? Pick up an H800.


If Alpine ever released anything like that the MSRP would be like 999$


----------



## CrossFired (Jan 24, 2008)

Alpine sounds best, unless your running a Pioneer, then the Pioneer is best. If you already installed a Kenwood, then you've got the best!

Hope this helps!


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

WinWiz said:


> If Alpine ever released anything like that the MSRP would be like 999$


They could easily make it happen for under $500. But, they have no reason to do so.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

CrossFired said:


> Alpine sounds best, unless your running a Pioneer, then the Pioneer is best. If you already installed a Kenwood, then you've got the best!
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps!



Sums it up for sure! Thanks! ?



WinWiz said:


> Why re-rip? A conversion of the lossless files should do...
> And why go from a closed apple format to microsoft format? Chances are you will pretty soon have to convert or rerip again as digital formats tends to change fast.



Yeah I saw in the huuuge 80PRS thread the iPod does it's thing then sends digitally to the 80PRS ok apparently so I'll report back how that goes. I don't care really what format so long as it's lossless and the PRS reads it digitally. 



rton20s said:


> I think you made the right choice with the DEH-80PRS. When you get right down to it, no other currently available head unit has the same sheer processing power at this price point.
> 
> I have a DEH-80PRS in my car, and an Alpine CDE-147BT (same processing as the CDE-HD149BT) in my wife's car. Both are 1st gen Scion xBs. For UI and build quality, I prefer the Alpine. For processing capabilty, I'll take the Pioneer every time. That isn't to say the 147 is an SQ slouch. The ability to time align and the 9 band parametric are very nice when compared to the other single DIN units out on the market, save for the top two Pioneer options.
> 
> If Alpine were to release a model with all of the features of the CDE-HD149BT + crossovers and EQ that were as good or better then the DEH-80PRS, I would probably pick one up tomorrow. Problem is, they don't. And I don't see them planning to do so any time soon. You want processing from Alpine? Pick up an H800.



Yeah Alpine by design wants you in their H800 processor if you're going beyond simple front/rear "conventional" setup into SQ territory, which is cool... We suffered many years with quite little out there in terms of processors. Now a plethora to choose from. Too bad toslink doesn't send volume control data though, making that a little sloppy, unless I'm wrong on that, but that's a different topic.

But certainly the 149BT was on my initial list, and I suspect I'd have been somewhat happy with it. Funny I'm beginning to think my new truck might be a better fit for the active capable PRS as it's more inclined to run just a front 2-way. But I'll rock it in the civic and ms-8 in the Tacoma. Now THAT will be a fun build.  A first sub box for me between access cab seats replacing the console. Sorry. Hijacked my own thread. Buwhahaha!


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

WinWiz said:


> CDs are old school. Like it or not but online stores like itunes rules today.


Not really applicable here. To the masses, absolutely. For us, not so much.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Not really applicable here. To the masses, absolutely. For us, not so much.



I'm looking forward to having a source unit hopefully good enough to try to tell the difference. Been a long time since I've done that level of critical listening. 

And you know I'll be A/Bing CDs to all rips in ALAC, whatever iTunes download formats, etc. May be quite illuminating. Nothing beats good pure analog though but somehow strapping a $1000 thorens turntable may not work so well in the Si. LOL


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Babs said:


> I'm looking forward to having a source unit hopefully good enough to try to tell the difference. Been a long time since I've done that level of critical listening.
> 
> *And you know I'll be A/Bing CDs to all rips in ALAC, whatever iTunes download formats, etc.* May be quite illuminating. Nothing beats good pure analog though but somehow strapping a $1000 thorens turntable may not work so well in the Si. LOL


Technically that would be like comparing the picture quality of a BMP file you just copied to the original file. But in practice it would not be a bad idea because things do go wrong and you really have to no way of knowing that the rip went as it should. CD drive could be going bad, software corruption, improper rip software setup, etc. 

The thing is that using your ears for something like this is going to be pointless since any possible error won't affect every millisecond of the rip. And that would lead you to possible miss an error. You need to compare the whole track in microscopic detail. But how do you do this if you really don't have a pure reference? The original CD can't be used with any binary comparator software needed for the fine analysis. So what you do, knowing that errors will be random and unique to each software's ripping process, is rip a few CD from a few different high quality softwares. Using WAV for all of them.

Then once you have your duplicate version you use a binary file comparator, like one available from Foobar2000 as a plugin, and see if they come back identical. Then you'll know that a rip is a rip is a rip.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

^nice  Hadn't thought about the entire topic for quite some time. Can ya tell I've been out of audio darn near entirely.


----------



## Mr.Pickering (Mar 6, 2014)

*in trying to refresh thread*
What do you think about CDE-154BT? Can't find any manual/datasheet to compare with 149BT. Is it top secret model with alias "cat in the bag"?


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Technically that would be like comparing the picture quality of a BMP file you just copied to the original file. But in practice it would not be a bad idea because things do go wrong and you really have to no way of knowing that the rip went as it should. CD drive could be going bad, software corruption, improper rip software setup, etc.
> 
> The thing is that using your ears for something like this is going to be pointless since any possible error won't affect every millisecond of the rip. And that would lead you to possible miss an error. You need to compare the whole track in microscopic detail. But how do you do this if you really don't have a pure reference? The original CD can't be used with any binary comparator software needed for the fine analysis. So what you do, knowing that errors will be random and unique to each software's ripping process, is rip a few CD from a few different high quality softwares. Using WAV for all of them.
> 
> Then once you have your duplicate version you use a binary file comparator, like one available from Foobar2000 as a plugin, and see if they come back identical. Then you'll know that a rip is a rip is a rip.


Only problem with wav is no metadata and big size. But today storage is so cheap, except apple but apple customers can afford it, so size isn't really a problem. Combability and quality is top.
With a decent drive and the free software Exact Audio Copy, making perfect rips is very easy.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Mr.Pickering said:


> *in trying to refresh thread*
> What do you think about CDE-154BT? Can't find any manual/datasheet to compare with 149BT. Is it top secret model with alias "cat in the bag"?


Looks like the CDE-154BT has a different face, variable color display, front aux in and no HD radio when compared to the CDE-HD149BT. It does appear to have the same processing features (EQ, TA, etc). Not a bad deal for the price. Though, I personally prefer the face designs on the 147/148/149 models over the 152/153/154 models.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

WinWiz said:


> Only problem with wav is no metadata and big size. But today storage is so cheap, except apple but apple customers can afford it, so size isn't really a problem. Combability and quality is top.
> With a decent drive and the free software Exact Audio Copy, making perfect rips is very easy.


The WAV suggestion was just for compatibility with the bit comparator software I mentioned, as well as the different ripping softwares the test files would be trans-coded in. Naturally once you verify that the ripping software in question is sound you then rip to whatever lossless format you choose.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Mr.Pickering said:


> *in trying to refresh thread*
> What do you think about CDE-154BT? Can't find any manual/datasheet to compare with 149BT. Is it top secret model with alias "cat in the bag"?


Though Cfield's Details page mentions tuning with the TuneIt app, it doesn't specifically say the unit has Time Alignment.. I'd double check it. I think I glanced at the 154's manual and didn't see it so that'd be one to verify.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_500CDE154B/Alpine-CDE-154BT.html?showAll=N&search=CDE-154BT&skipvs=T#AudioSection


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

WinWiz said:


> Only problem with wav is no metadata and big size. But today storage is so cheap, except apple but apple customers can afford it, so size isn't really a problem. Combability and quality is top.
> With a decent drive and the free software Exact Audio Copy, making perfect rips is very easy.


Nice tip.. Since I'm rockin' an iMac, I'll have to hunt for good ripping software. Yeah space is cheap.. Go big and get all the 1's and 0's. Amazing that it seems to be such a difficult thing for drives and ripping apps to do.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Babs said:


> Though Cfield's Details page mentions tuning with the TuneIt app, it doesn't specifically say the unit has Time Alignment.. I'd double check it. I think I glanced at the 154's manual and didn't see it so that'd be one to verify.
> 
> Alpine CDE-154BT CD receiver at Crutchfield.com


You're absolutely correct. I don't know why I thought otherwise. The 154/153 models appear to carry over the 9 band parametric EQ, which is nice, but forego the time alignment. Unfortunate, as even on the stock speakers in my wife's car the TA made a noticeable difference. 

I'd personally stick with the 147/148/149 to have the time alignment adjustment.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Yeah no TA is a dealbreaker for SQ unfortunately unless you run ext DSP.

I found it as I wondered why the 154 was so much less $ than the 149.


----------



## Mr.Pickering (Mar 6, 2014)

thanks for information. I'll stick with 149bt


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

80PRS showed up. Remember reading criticism about the face. I think it's gorgeous.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

It really isn't that bad looking. Much better than the lower end Pioneers. And it isn't like anyone else (Kenwood, Alpine, etc) is making good looking head units these days. I think people are just nostalgic for the DEH-P800PRS and HEH-P880PRS. I do think the build quality could be a bit better.


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

I don't think the 80prs is ugly but the button quality feels bad especially the lever. I guess pio. Had to save somewhere, but it sure would prefer a mechless drive with quality buttons for the same reasonable price...


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

WinWiz said:


> I don't think the 80prs is ugly but the button quality feels bad especially the lever. I guess pio. Had to save somewhere, but it sure would prefer a mechless drive with quality buttons for the same reasonable price...



I agree I'm all for someone doing a mechless SQ unit using that space the cd drive would take up for 8-channel full processor and no more flippy face. But I don't want much do I?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

I'll say this, that stupid twisty lever behind the knob sucks and the way it works in the crossover menus is just bad. The P99 has a distinct advantage ergonomically. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

strakele said:


> I think it's time someone does a blind HU shootout to see if anyone can actually back up these claims of different brands sounding different.


Funny, I've been thinking about doing something like this actually. I've had so many head units in the past few years, I now just hate them all.

I've reviewed a few here recently. There are some absolute truths though

1) All of head units are made with the same basic components. Amps, tuners, DACs, displays. All are commodity components from companies like Renesas, ST Microelectronics, Cirrus Logic, NXP, etc

2) Alpine, Pioneer, Clarion, et al, all use chips from these guys cuz their CHEAP (a 20W amp chip may cost $1 in 1000 unit lots, not kidding). Its waaaayyy to expensive to make their own chips these days, especially for a shrinking market like aftermarket car audio (a decent sized chip cost $10-20M plus 2 years just to get it into production)

3) The industry has moved/is moving to the SoC model. System on Chip, which is how ALL iPods, Cell phones, tablets, etc even exist in the first place. What used to take 10 chips @ 250-180 nanometer construction, now can be integrated onto 1 chip at 65-45nm. Car Audio SoCs are a dime a dozen

4) Everything can be on the SoC now. Tuner, DSP, DAC, ADC, Video Decode, etc. All basically a commodity.. Amps tend to be separate chips because of power requirements, but in a couple of years, maybe no longer.

5) Despite the romance of all the brand names we all use, they're all mostly packaging and software exercises these days, even though the display layout, hard buttons, silkscreened logos, and cardboard boxes suggest otherwise.

6) While they may sound different to some people, I suspect that we could get most of them to sound very similar with a small amount of work, as the building blocks are nearly identical

7) Sorry about this one  Burr Brown hasn't existed as a company in more than a decade (TI bought them in 2000). While we all remember them as the early day DAC people, those designs aren't even in existence any more, other than as an older silicon part that people remember fondly.

8) Even more interesting, is that many have ALL features as part of their construction, but many are NOT exposed to the user. I say this comment to the question about 24bit processing as an example. Many SoCs have a boatload of features, and some might just not be wired up on the circuit board or made available in software. This way, the manufacturers can buy tons of one SoC part, and build entire lines of products with different features.

If you ever wondered why all the head unit guys seem to sell almost the same devices, with almost the same features, now you have some ideas at least. I've taken some apart, and have the jones to buy a bunch a take them all apart.

In Alpine's moderate defense, they're part of Alps, which makes tons of components (not too many chips afaik). JVC/Kenwood have access to the JVC parts bin as well.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

HU shootouts were being done as far back as the mid-80s and there absolutely is a difference in them. Even in VERY high end units. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Probably has as much to do with a particular unit's signal path design as it does the component quality, comparing new units. I'd bet the jvc's kenwoods, alpine's, pioneers and probably even sonys with similar feature set for dsp and price-point are going to sound pretty much the same. I even took a liking to a jvc unit which I felt a bit dirty about. Lol


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

Babs said:


> Probably has as much to do with a particular unit's signal path design as it does the component quality, comparing new units. I'd bet the jvc's kenwoods, alpine's, pioneers and probably even sonys with similar feature set for dsp and price-point are going to sound pretty much the same. I even took a liking to a jvc unit which I felt a bit dirty about. Lol


Funny! I actually really liked the JVC NSX600 that I ran for about 6 months last year! 

Your comment about signal path is dead on, not only that, but its also the combo of all those commodity chips that get used to some extent. Some of the DAC/ADC circuits may have different resolution (its minutiae at this point in history though), or someone programs a filter incorrectly in the DSP software for the tone control, or something dumb like that

Some of the head unit guys, to their credit, have done some things that do help for real. Pioneer's "Sound Retriever" comes to mind, as does Clarion's "Vocal Centering" balance/fader setting. Creative use of the DSP circuitry that's available in the 25 cent part they're buying


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

nanohead said:


> Funny! I actually really liked the JVC NSX600 that I ran for about 6 months last year!
> 
> Your comment about signal path is dead on, not only that, but its also the combo of all those commodity chips that get used to some extent. Some of the DAC/ADC circuits may have different resolution (its minutiae at this point in history though), or someone programs a filter incorrectly in the DSP software for the tone control, or something dumb like that
> 
> Some of the head unit guys, to their credit, have done some things that do help for real. Pioneer's "Sound Retriever" comes to mind, as does Clarion's "Vocal Centering" balance/fader setting. Creative use of the DSP circuitry that's available in the 25 cent part they're buying


Honestly you think Sound Retriever is helpful? 
I'm finding its only useful on low setting with really bad quality mp3 like 128 kbps or lower. And I sure didn't get a SQ headunit to play ****ty mp3 files!!
The total lack of usability is only topped by the loudness feature. Anyone use that? In my car the loudness boost the lows and the highs way to much, I cant even stand it at low volume for more than 20 secs!


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

WinWiz said:


> Honestly you think Sound Retriever is helpful?
> I'm finding its only useful on low setting with really bad quality mp3 like 128 kbps or lower. And I sure didn't get a SQ headunit to play ****ty mp3 files!!


Yeah, it can be helpful on some tracks. Its an interpolation algorithm that tries to fill in the blanks from compressed MP3 tracks. Not ideal for everything, but for some music, it makes it sound fuller/different... 

All I was really commenting on was that some of these head unit companies occasionally try and do something that may be useful to someone


----------



## WinWiz (Sep 25, 2013)

I wonder if we will ever see a SOC developed for real HiFi ? With so many features cramped into a tiny chip it must be a challenge to keep high signal quality.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Speaking of the taboo idea of a JVC, this one looks like a good piece possibly. I kinda like the looks as well. Call me crazy. Might be a decent unit. 

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_105KDA95BT/JVC-Arsenal-KD-A95BT.html?offerId=100250


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

From what I understand the top tier JVC and JVC Arsenal are pretty equivalent to the top tier Kenwood and Kenwood eXcalon models. I actually considered that pair of JVC options for my wife's car before ultimately settling on the Alpine CDE-147BT.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> HU shootouts were being done as far back as the mid-80s and there absolutely is a difference in them. Even in VERY high end units.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


And if they weren't completely blind tests they mean absolutely nothing whatsoever. Do you have a link to any back to back blind HU shoot outs?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

They weren't blind so you'll call them invalid but look for old issues of CA&E, CSR, and AS&S. all three did them. A lot. They also included measurements so you can't say what they were hearing wasn't there. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

rton20s said:


> From what I understand the top tier JVC and JVC Arsenal are pretty equivalent to the top tier Kenwood and Kenwood eXcalon models. I actually considered that pair of JVC options for my wife's car before ultimately settling on the Alpine CDE-147BT.



Yeah I haven't searched much but have seen some clues that JVC and Kenwood are in cahoots somehow. First clue I see is their names being used together for unique steering control interfacing. Who knows. Might be a common builder for them. Wouldn't surprise me. Seem to be quite similar.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Babs said:


> Yeah I haven't searched much but have seen some clues that JVC and Kenwood are in cahoots somehow. First clue I see is their names being used together for unique steering control interfacing. Who knows. Might be a common builder for them. Wouldn't surprise me. Seem to be quite similar.


JVC is the parent company of Kenwood now. Not that units are identical from one brand to the other, but I'm sure they share quite a bit of tech.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

quality_sound said:


> They weren't blind so you'll call them invalid but look for old issues of CA&E, CSR, and AS&S. all three did them. A lot. They also included measurements so you can't say what they were hearing wasn't there.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


If they measure noticeably different then ok. But any HU measurements I've seen have been within like .2dB from 20-20k, with the only variances being at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Not saying they're all like that - just the ones I've seen posted on this site. 

I also know all 4v (or 2v, 5v etc..) outputs are not created the equally (like the older 4v Alpines have stronger outputs than some of the newer 4v units). But taking several modern head units and matching their output voltages exactly, I think you'd be hard pressed to identify which is which in a blind test.

Open to being proved wrong though.


----------



## SoundQ SVT (Aug 14, 2013)

Hey hey.... Why all the JVC negativity in here? Be proud you finally realized where true quality sound can come from. 

In all seriousness, I have always used JVC as my source unit of choice ever since I started competing way back in 1994. This includes my 5 Championships in three different organizations from 2001 to 2005 before I retired from competition. Someone posted a picture of the KD-A95BT above, and I am picking mine up this week.

It is ok to like and use JVC.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

SoundQ SVT said:


> Someone posted a picture of the KD-A95BT above, and I am picking mine up this week.
> 
> It is ok to like and use JVC.


Good to know.. Love competition.. I'm all for 10 companies making great products rather than just a few. When you get the new JVC rollin' please report your thoughts on it. Granted I've already shot my wad and have an 80PRS sitting on the shelf waiting on my install, I started the thread to get perspectives on other, any and all of the newer/current head units with good, great and exceptional SQ out of the box, and I guess pre and post it's processing abilities. I hope your new KD-A95BT rocks. :2thumbsup:

Speaking of JVC, they've got a rather cool mechless unit as well with the KD-X80BT also. Interesting the Kenwood KIV-BT901 is a good bit more expensive.. Time alignment on the Kenwood.. I'm guessing there's significant DSP/SQ differences between them.. Purposely setting themselves in certain pricepoints to offer something from some brand. So the folks that setup the brand/model matrix between JVC and Kenwood had those two aligned to fill in the price-points respectively, and may swap around later easily enough.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Whoah.. I mighta done good to pull the trigger.. Appears even Crutchfield is out of the 80PRS. It may be the end of their life cycle. I guess pioneer is taking them out of the line-up? If you gotta have one, better grab one.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Babs said:


> Whoah.. I mighta done good to pull the trigger.. Appears even Crutchfield is out of the 80PRS. It may be the end of their life cycle. I guess pioneer is taking them out of the line-up? If you gotta have one, better grab one.


I wouldn't count on it, just yet. There have probably been at least 1/2 a dozen times that people have claimed here on DIYMA that the DEH-80PRS has been discontinued. I have no idea why, but that particular unit seems to generate a true love it or hate it response from this community. 

Anyway, Pioneer still has the unit listed on their site as a current unit, but has no "buy now" option. Crutchfield also only lists the unit as "Out of Stock," not discontinued. Beyond that, there are probably two dozen other sources for the head unit online. And that doesn't take into consideration local B&M shops.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Good news I hope.. Seems like the manufacturers pass the torch back and forth on who's going to do a blown SQ unit. If only Clarion would update a new version of the 9255.. Wouldn't that be something. Alpine said "screw it.. Just plug into this outboard processor".. Which in itself isn't a terrible alternative for sure.


----------



## sirbOOm (Jan 24, 2013)

Let's just hope Clarion get's their **** together... THE most buggy 2-DIN UI I've ever experienced... OMG.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Clarion is one of those brands that has so much potential, but just doesn't seem to live up to it anymore. Everything seems like a half step. And just when you think they might do something really awesome (CZ702, NX702, XC amps) they fall short somewhere with the product.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Clarion's main focus I believe is getting further away from aftermarket and sticking with low to mid-fi OEM's to carmakers.

My non-nav "premium" head unit in my 08 Civic Si Sedan I believe is a Clarion for example, and some of those were actually made by Alpine as well I believe. While decent, it could be easily spanked by probably 75% of the aftermarket head units in terms of actual output quality, though it's slick though for one reason as it sends 4ch flat differential outs to the oem amp (itty bitty pioneer believe it or not), making the oem head unit fun for integrating a system with.


----------



## ricani (Mar 11, 2014)

I like the 7996 or 9965.


----------



## percy072 (Feb 13, 2014)

sirbOOm said:


> Let's just hope Clarion get's their **** together... THE most buggy 2-DIN UI I've ever experienced... OMG.





rton20s said:


> Clarion is one of those brands that has so much potential, but just doesn't seem to live up to it anymore. Everything seems like a half step. And just when you think they might do something really awesome (CZ702, NX702, XC amps) they fall short somewhere with the product.


Interesting to see somewhat consistent opinions about the Clarion line...I currently have the NX-501 and it's been very reliable but has FA for tuning. I was considering up-grading to the 702 which now has built in T/A, bandpass, etc...but maybe I might consider other options?? Too expensive to just experiment with different brands...


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

I can't say by experience as it's not in yet, but I'd say just on specs and tech details alone, I'd consider the 80PRS hard over the 702. I'd also throw that slick JVC in the short list also.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 24, 2007)

Babs said:


> Interesting the Kenwood KIV-BT901 is a good bit more expensive.. Time alignment on the Kenwood.. I'm guessing there's significant DSP/SQ differences between them.. Purposely setting themselves in certain pricepoints to offer something from some brand. So the folks that setup the brand/model matrix between JVC and Kenwood had those two aligned to fill in the price-points respectively, and may swap around later easily enough.


Been running my BT-900 (virtually the same deck as the 901) for nearly 4 years now, love it. Full t/a, great crossover section, decent EQ section also. Only 5 band on the EQ and no BP crossovers, but works great for me. I have a KDC-X997 sitting on a shelf for when the 900 dies, or gets stolen....:laugh:


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Yeah looks like a great unit.. One good sign is you can turn the BT901's internal amp off.

24 Bit D/A Converter.. up to 110 dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio and 93 Dynamic Range
6ch/4V Preamp Outputs
Digital Time Alignment and up to 24db main speaker slopes
DSP Defeatable (for an external processor)

What's not to like. 
It didn't say it specifically, but one might assume it reads iPod digitally bypassing iPod DAC's. Safe bet USB uses it's DAC's if that were a huge concern. 

If only Apple would go back to the Wolfson's or at least something other than the crap DAC/Opamp setup they're using now that even Red Wine Audio can't fix.


----------



## sirbOOm (Jan 24, 2013)

Some new Alpine HUs will apparently have optical out, but not play FLAC. That'd be just a software update so hopefully Alpine fixes that mistake.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

WinWiz said:


> I wonder if we will ever see a SOC developed for real HiFi ? With so many features cramped into a tiny chip it must be a challenge to keep high signal quality.


Disclaimer: I work for Intel. The views expressed here are my own.

Not really. There are already are SOCs and platforms developed for this. See any Intel platform. All DSP is already on silicon, with I2S output. It's up to the platform owner to decide how to do this. EDIT: Just to add, Windows from Vista (through 8.1 and forward) handles all audio and audio processing on the CPU side at 24b/192KHz. YMMV if you pick another OS. 

For instance see this: 
http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/introduction.php?S_ID=647
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138380
This OEM decided to put high end analog components on board. Most do not. For an OEM, it would be easy to use a modern Intel SOC to run the OS, user interface, and DSP functionality, combined with whatever back end audio (24 bit burr brown if you like). 

Fact is, While I would love a highly functional HU like this, there isn't as much market demand for such features. It's much faster to not implement these things, and ship a unit like the high end Pioneer and Alpine HU's. Those units ship with ASPs over $1000, with very little value add for these extra features we're demanding.

I mean, if you really want high end SQ, and you don't mind a ton of DIY, you can get an Intel NUC, a DC-DC converter for power and power control, decent external DAC, you will beat any modern HU on sound quality, while being able to play any format that the OS of your choice supports. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856102053)


----------



## mmiller (Mar 7, 2008)

If I wasn't using the H-701 or H-800 I wouldn't use Alpine HU's. I had a DVA-9861 on simple 2 way system, it was unbearable to listen too. I blamed the speakers...

I changed the HU out for a lower end Pioneer unit and sound was far less clinical. It was a night and day difference. I also use a JVC DVD unit and it sounded great as well. 

More than anything, they're just more clinical sounding, and they do have a distinct sound. The F1 7990 and H-900 I had was by far the best I've ever had, or heard.... But that was a $5k HU, and processor when new VS a $500 HU. So it's not exactly a fair comparison.


----------



## sstrong42 (Jan 28, 2010)

I got my Pioneer AVH-4000NEX installed today. The sound quality is quite good in comparison to the Kenwood KDC-X997 it replaced. The UI is incredibly fast, and the touchscreen is very responsive as well. It plays CDs. Bluetooth connectivity works. I've gotten my Galaxy S2 to mirror with an MHL adapter from Monoprice. It plays 24bit/96KHz FLAC as well.

What it doesn't do, is read SDHC cards, and most USB flash memory. I've tried two PNY Class 10 SDHC cards (a 16GB and 32GB), and a Lexar Class 6 card (4GB), all three did not work. The Patriot 2GB SD card worked. It did not recognize either of my Sansa MP3 players, a 64GB PNY USB Flash stick, a 1GB Memorex Flash stick, and assorted generic USB flash memory. I did manage to get it to recognize a generic 2GB stick, but it was incredibly slow in reading it.

I've sent an email to Pioneer, which won't be addressed until Monday. I'll also be calling them Monday morning to follow-up on the ticket. If anyone else has picked one up, please let me know if you've been having a similar issue.


----------



## SoundQ SVT (Aug 14, 2013)

Babs said:


> When you get the new JVC rollin' please report your thoughts on it.


The JVC KD-A95BT has been in for a week now. When it was first installed I could hear a noticeable noise floor that had me a little worried. But at that point I had not reset the gains on my amps. Once I reduced the gains to match the amplifier output voltage I had with the prior deck, the noise floor was gone. 

Before doing much listening, I took some measurements to use for setting up the time alignment. The first set were to optimize the driver's seat, and the second set was to optimize for both front seats. Note that my system is designed for two seat judging.

The time alignment on the JVC derives the delay based on the distance entered for each speaker, however its measurements are for 5 cm increments so I had to round up or down just a little for each one. The results: the setting for one seat was awful. Images were very wide and smeared. When I played the tracks to check relative polarity, neither the in phase or out of phase sounded good. So my question for that is can that be fixed with only the time alignment capabilities of the deck or do I also need some form of phase control too?

On the other hand, the setting for two seats was wonderful. This setting had no left/right adjustment, only delaying the door subs to the point source drivers in the kicks. Position to stage and stage depth both improved over what I had with my last deck and is a little better than when alignment is off. Image focus also improved especially at the far left and right edges of the stage.

I have not touched my 30 band PPI EQ yet, and the subs actually have no EQ at all now with the rewiring I did to be able to use the capabilities of this deck. (I will have the ability to apply equalization to the subs, just haven't done it yet.)

The JVC app that lets me stream Bluetooth audio from my HTC One works well, but I have not been able to play anything yet via the USB input with either a SDHC card or a USB flash drive. I have only tried to play some songs downloaded from HD Tracks so they may be too high resolution. I don't have much music to choose from to test this with but I'll keep trying.

The last thing is that the menu structure to get to various settings is goofy (obviously from the Kenwood side of the company) and takes some getting used to. But, once you get used to it things are tolerable.


----------



## sstrong42 (Jan 28, 2010)

SoundQ SVT said:


> The JVC app that lets me stream Bluetooth audio from my HTC One works well, but I have not been able to play anything yet via the USB input with either a SDHC card or a USB flash drive. I have only tried to play some songs downloaded from HD Tracks so they may be too high resolution. I don't have much music to choose from to test this with but I'll keep trying.
> 
> The last thing is that the menu structure to get to various settings is goofy (obviously from the Kenwood side of the company) and takes some getting used to. But, once you get used to it things are tolerable.


This sounds similar to what I'm seeing with my Pioneer 4000NEX. I bet it'll read and play the files if you use an SD card. But that has a 2GB limitation. It's tripping on SDHC. The USB problem is a mystery. I suspect there is something up with the firmware.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Pretty much ALL head units can not play files higher than 320kb using a flash drive, and with JVC's forget it, no ACC files are supported for playback on flash drives


----------



## SoundQ SVT (Aug 14, 2013)

I was using .wav files. I will try again later with tracks ripped from CD to .wav files.


----------



## SoundQ SVT (Aug 14, 2013)

Ok, so I got the USB input to play a wav file at 1,411 kbps with the rip I did. The manual says for mp3 and wma files, the highest rate is indeed 320 kbps at 48 kHz, but wav files will work at 705 or 1,411 kbps at 44.1 kHz.

When I have a little more time I will compare the same music from the two sources (USB and CD) to see if I can tell the difference.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

I also have a JVC older, 6 ch 5volt RCA's. I created some MP3's from a lossless file using itunes at 320Kb.

I created other AAC files played through the IPod, the AAC files played through the Ipod sounded crispier and cleaner to me. 

If you hear any differences, it may be due to the MP3 files, if you have an Ipod I would also create those same files in a AAC format at 256Kb AAC itunes plus and 320Kb AAC and compare them with the Flash Drive wav at 1100Kb you created just to see if you hear a significant difference.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

I also have a JVC older, 6 ch 5volt RCA's. I created some MP3's from a lossless file using itunes at 320Kb.

I created other AAC files played through the IPod, the AAC files played through the Ipod sounded crispier and cleaner to me. 

If you hear any differences, it may be due to the MP3 files, if you have an Ipod I would also create those same files in a AAC format at 256Kb AAC itunes plus and 320Kb AAC and compare them with the Flash Drive wav at 1100Kb you created just to see if you hear a significant difference.


----------

