Eclipse, clarion, or other?

[JLCivic 10+ year member]

The ONLY clarion the local shop has even mentioned in the same sentence as Eclipse when it comes to sound quality is the old 9255. Over the range of models, I think Eclipse makes a better sounding deck than Clarion.

I have owned a clarion, and it was a good deck, but it didn't sound as good as the eclipse before it or the eclipse that followed it.

 

[smgreen20 10+ year member]

Sorry, I miss stated that. It'll reach it's optimium from 3-8 volts, but will work w/1v. I have a V1 vs a V2

 

[smgreen20 10+ year member]

The 9255, wether the DRX or the DRZ, are in a class of their own, where only few are. Cost was not an option when clarion developed the deck. Denon and MacI. are some of the few in that class, Nac has one also.

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

The ONLY clarion the local shop has even mentioned in the same sentence as Eclipse when it comes to sound quality is the old 9255. Over the range of models, I think Eclipse makes a better sounding deck than Clarion.
I have owned a clarion, and it was a good deck, but it didn't sound as good as the eclipse before it or the eclipse that followed it.

All that really proves though is that you and your local shop prefer the sound of Eclipse over Clarion where as someone else may be the opposite. Eclipse decks sound very good and are at the top of the game as far as SQ but I happen to like the sound of Pioneer better. I'm not saying its better, just better to me. As long as my deck doesn't break down I'm completely satisfied with it. My deck by the way is a 860.

 

[smgreen20 10+ year member]

All that really proves though is that you and your local shop prefer the sound of Eclipse over Clarion where as someone else may be the opposite. Eclipse decks sound very good and are at the top of the game as far as SQ but I happen to like the sound of Pioneer better. I'm not saying its better, just better to me. As long as my deck doesn't break down I'm completely satisfied with it. My deck by the way is a 860.

X2

People don't seem to understand, sound is subjective. It's all in the "ear of the beholder" in this case. I like a danm near flat responce from 20K Hz down to @250Hz and from that point on down a small steady increase. If you listen to music totally flat, an 8" sub is all one would ever need. For me SQ is the name of the game, that's why I can only hit a 132.3 dB w/my system, it's not installed/ment for SPL.

 

[JLCivic 10+ year member]

All that really proves though is that you and your local shop prefer the sound of Eclipse over Clarion where as someone else may be the opposite. Eclipse decks sound very good and are at the top of the game as far as SQ but I happen to like the sound of Pioneer better. I'm not saying its better, just better to me. As long as my deck doesn't break down I'm completely satisfied with it. My deck by the way is a 860.

Yes, that is true. However, that shop also sells Clarion(and the 2 owners were previous iasca judges in the 90s). Their opinion does only go so far. My ears told me what sounded better.

Ofcourse it is all subjective, but to me, the difference was clear.

 

[MegaHurtz 10+ year member]

Some things aren't so subjective when it comes to SQ. I've had Clarions and Eclipses and the Eclipses were better by far (even the CD5425). It's not all in the listener's ear, sometimes stuff just sounds better, period.

BTW I don't think my Eclipse (currently CD8445) handles shitty CDs very well. I mainly listen to MP3 CDs, and sometimes get NO SUPPORT messages on the display. Once a CD appeared to have even gotten stuck inside the HU (until I removed the power and it reset itself).

I still say Eclipse though, there is no comparison //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

Some things aren't so subjective when it comes to SQ. I've had Clarions and Eclipses and the Eclipses were better by far (even the CD5425). It's not all in the listener's ear, sometimes stuff just sounds better, period.
I still say Eclipse though, there is no comparison //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

What exactly isn't subjective?? I would really like you to explain this since the only thing about sound I've ever known NOT to be subjective is SPL. Now I will say that their is noticeably better sound when comparing a $100 cheapo to an upper end name brand such as Eclipse, Clarion, Pioneer, Alpine, Kenwood....etc. But when comparing 2 comparably priced upper end units its ALL subjective. You can argue that case all you want but that is what it is.

 

[MegaHurtz 10+ year member]

A clarion 955 is not an upper end unit

It's not subjective as the sonic difference between the two is distinct and not at all debatable. True, SQ is almost all subjective, but some things simply sound better.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

I am of the opinion that sound quality is absolute, NOT relative. Having personally owned Sony, Kenwood, Alpine, Clarion, and Eclipse (5435, 8454, 8445, and now 8053) I can say that Eclipse takes the cake. And I would also say that when I made the switch from the 8445 to the 8053 I gained a more powerful deck....dunno why, but it seems like a better deck:uhoh:

I would say that the preamp on the Eclipse decks are second to none...the new 2006's should be pretty impressive if they can one-up the '05's.

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

A clarion 955 is not an upper end unit

What do you mean its not an upper end unit?? Its just as upper end as the Eclipse units you're speaking of.

It's not subjective as the sonic difference between the two is distinct and not at all debatable. True, SQ is almost all subjective, but some things simply sound better.

What?? You're not making any case for your claim. You're basically saying that what sounds good to someone's ear is NOT subjective and that just isn't true. and to say that "some things simply sound better" is like saying "some things simply taste better." Like a steak from the Lone Star steak house tastes better than a steak from the Ponderosa. Whether its true or not its still up to the person's taste buds.........not popular opinion.

Anywho, we could split hairs all night but it wouldn't change anything. You like what you like and I like what I like which is why its good to have choices.

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

I am of the opinion that sound quality is absolute, NOT relative. Having personally owned Sony, Kenwood, Alpine, Clarion, and Eclipse (5435, 8454, 8445, and now 8053) I can say that Eclipse takes the cake. And I would also say that when I made the switch from the 8445 to the 8053 I gained a more powerful deck....dunno why, but it seems like a better deck:uhoh:
I would say that the preamp on the Eclipse decks are second to none...the new 2006's should be pretty impressive if they can one-up the '05's.

What exactly do you mean by sound quality being "absolute" and NOT "relative".??? Are you saying there is only 1 way to be of good sound quality?? I guess what I'm asking is how you came up with this opinion.

Oh and I think Pioneer's pre-outs are NO worse than Eclipse's pre outs. Pioneer has hi volt pre outs with only 100ohm resistance on them while Eclipse has hi volt with 55ohm. I don't see how that makes that big of a difference.

 

[smgreen20 10+ year member]

What sounds good to one person may OR may NOT sound good to the next person. IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE! PERIOD! The 955 is clarions highest unit they make...Not top end...MY as$. The 9255 is not even anywhere near this catagory (it's far superior) so it's void. Honestly, my clarion DRX9375 and DHP9300 combo was the best sounding set I've ever had, after 8 years of faithful service the clarion HU went South on me.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

What exactly do you mean by sound quality being "absolute" and NOT "relative".??? Are you saying there is only 1 way to be of good sound quality?? I guess what I'm asking is how you came up with this opinion.

True "sound quality" is how well the output of your stereo matches the original recording of the source material being played. No more, no less. Either it does, or it doesn't. And the further from the original recording it deviates, the worse the sound quality is.

Person A may enjoy having +10db of bass and -10db of treble. That's their personal preference. But no matter how much they enjoy it, that setup would have very, very poor sound quality.

There's little room for personal opinion in true sound quality, IMHO. Lot of room for it within the realm of personal preference, however.

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

True "sound quality" is how well the output of your stereo matches the original recording of the source material being played. No more, no less. Either it does, or it doesn't. And the further from the original recording it deviates, the worse the sound quality is.
Person A may enjoy having +10db of bass and -10db of treble. That's their personal preference. But no matter how much they enjoy it, that setup would have very, very poor sound quality.

There's little room for personal opinion in true sound quality, IMHO. Lot of room for it within the realm of personal preference, however.

Okay, well that kind of explains it a little better to me. I guess you could say that closest to the original would be best. Unfortunately for ABSOLUTE or TRUE SQ there are many variables. Not only does every link in the signal chain have to be top notch----the source recording has to be of top quality to start with. Crappy recording..........crappy reproduction.