clarion ? WHY is the question

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by GSteg CDX-C90

 

quad 24bit DAC....

 

anyways..some may not agree with me, but i've been doing a lot of research now. many will say 24bit DAC will have better sound quality than a 1-bit processor. that was back in the days, but now its the 21st century. the world has so much more technologies now that would make 1-bit DAC surpass multi-bits. the more important thing is the preamp stage that is after the digital to analog conversion. yes there are differences, but its inaudible so basically the point of getting 24 bits DAC for better sound quality is useless. the only thing i see about multi-bit converters are bragging rights. people seem to think the more, the better.

 

i'd put up dual 1-bit DAC to multi-bit DAC any day of the week (excluding friday for personal reasons)//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Well what deck would you be able to fairly compare(/compete against) to the C-90?

- Steve

 

[rco8786 10+ year member]

Originally posted by SasquatchBump Yeah, way back WHEN?? you're 15!!! Just from where you buy it you should know the quality: Wal-Mart equipment=BAD equipment.

 

I had a Clarion Deck and it was pretty good except that it would have some messed up Cd errors. The SQ was good and it was a durable deck.

I run a Clarion and it's god some messed up cd errors too, but it's cuz a lot of my burned cd's are one $0.10 Fujifilm cds. Every other cd is perfect, and I have never heard it skip, and I have pretty much the bottom of the line deck...the one lower is exactly the same as mine w/o a removeble face, but the stats are identical.

 

[rco8786 10+ year member]

Originally posted by bass_mekanik clarion may LOOK crap and all but they are a good deck imo but the onlt fault i can pick with them other than looks is the fact that MY clarion head unit has bugger all signal output (less than sony's dottom of the line deck //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif ) but anyway they are a half decent headunit and i woul;d put them in the top 5 head units i can think of off my head //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Dude our taste in HUs is the same...i have a DB225 right now and I'll have a 7892 after christmas...wierd

 

[GSteg 10+ year member]

Originally posted by ss3079 Well what deck would you be able to fairly compare(/compete against) to the C-90?

 

- Steve

even a regular Pioneer headunit would do. you're just paying for better quality and features (haven't heard any C-90 break down yet). most system that compete for SQ uses external processors anyways.

 

[Mark_ab 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by GSteg CDX-C90

 

quad 24bit DAC....

 

It's Quad 20bit burr brown DAC's.

Originally posted by ss3079 Well what deck would you be able to fairly compare(/compete against) to the C-90?

 

- Steve

There are several out there that will hang with the C90. Eclipse 8050 series (8052, 8062etc) Pioneer P9, higher end Denon units, Alpine F1, etc.

Originally posted by GSteg even a regular Pioneer headunit would do. you're just paying for better quality and features (haven't heard any C-90 break down yet). most system that compete for SQ uses external processors anyways.

What a ludicrous statement. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

 

[Mark_ab 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by ss3079 Well what deck would you be able to fairly compare(/compete against) to the C-90?

 

- Steve

Oh yeah, how about a CDX-C910 //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

I believe it's the winningest HU in IASCA.

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by Mark_ab There are several out there that will hang with the C90. Eclipse 8050 series (8052, 8062etc) Pioneer P9, higher end Denon units, Alpine F1, etc.

Yeah - I'd much rather pay $900 for the C-90 than $2000 ++ for Alpines F1

- Steve

 

[Mark_ab 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by ss3079 Yeah - I'd much rather pay $900 for the C-90 than $2000 ++ for Alpines F1

 

- Steve

I'd much rather pay 300 for the C910 than 900 for the C90....and I DID. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[GSteg 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Mark_ab  

 

What a ludicrous statement. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

and why won't single bit DAC headunits compete with the C-90? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[Mark_ab 5,000+ posts]

Take a Pioneer DEH-P7400MP and compare it with a Pioneer P9, and you can tell me the difference between 1bit DA and 6 24bit DA's. Actually go out and listen, with the same set of speakers, in the same setup, and then come back and tell me there isn't a difference. You also have to realize that there are other things inside of a head unit that make it sound good. Not just the digital to analog converters.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ss3079

Well what deck would you be able to fairly compare(/compete against) to the C-90?

- Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several out there that will hang with the C90. Eclipse 8050 series (8052, 8062etc) Pioneer P9, higher end Denon units, Alpine F1, etc.

let's not forget mcintosh or nakamichi. maybe they won't always win, but i doubt that they will always lose.

to GSteg..i think the DAC is just as important to the end result as the preamp stage is. even with external signal processing, the conversion has to be as good if not better then what comes after it...just to provide the initial "clean" signal. i could be just shooting off at the mouth, but with more gadgets(or technologies after the DAC) doesn't the opportunity for a "clipped or dirty" signal(don't know proper terminology) increase?

well, that's my .02 centz..............

 

[GSteg 10+ year member]

yes features that are included in the headunit makes it sound different. but when all are bypassed, they will sound (99%) the same. whether it's a single bit , ladder, or successive aprroximation DAC, they will have the same converting results no even though they convert differently.

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by mrray13 mcintosh

Who could forget our friends at McIntosh

Ugly as hell - but they dam well get the job done

- Steve

 

[Mark_ab 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by GSteg yes features that are included in the headunit makes it sound different. but when all are bypassed, they will sound (99%) the same. whether it's a single bit , ladder, or successive aprroximation DAC, they will have the same converting results no even though they convert differently.

This is the same flawed logic as Richard Clark's amplifier test. Bypass this and that, and then they sound the same. Well no kidding. Then you aren't comparing HU's, your comparing a part of the whole picture, in a controled environment. I'll call your bluff, if you care to prove me wrong.

Keep in mind digital preouts as well, like the C90/C910, P9 etc.

 

[GSteg 10+ year member]

my point was that if you're comparing multi-bit DAC and single bits for sound quality, they will sound the same. the differences are inaudible so it wouldn't really matter as much which converter you pick. of course all headunit will sound the same because of the features like treble and bass adjustments, but the DAC alone will not change the "sound quality" between one headunit and another.

btw, richard clark's test was to prove that a watt from "x" brand is the same as a watt from "y" brand. too many people were saying, "well JBL watts are much dirtier than JL's watts". he' wasn't saying that all amps will sound the same.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif