SACD or DVD-A
06-28-2004, 05:10 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
^^^^ $4,000 for the F1 is marketing primarily. Could have made the face out of unobtanium to increase the resonant properties of the audio band when it reflects off the face.
$4,000 for the headunit is $1,500 for stupidly expensive parts and $2,500 to say that you have a really pretty headunit that is more expensive then what everyone else has.
Oh, and DACs aren't THAT expensive ... when you buy 1,000 of them directly from Asia where they're made like, say, Pioneer can. If you think a REALLY good DAC is unobtainable in a $500 headunit, that's only because putting another $50 into a DAC is not worth anything to anyone. This excludes, of course, those who believe the marketing hype that .01% less distortion (exaggerating this number, and including DAC conversion error distortion) is actually useful in a car. I would prefer an aluminum face to a more expensive DAC personally, and most people I know would rather have a fancier display rather than pulling the "check out my super-DACs" card.
$4,000 for the headunit is $1,500 for stupidly expensive parts and $2,500 to say that you have a really pretty headunit that is more expensive then what everyone else has.
Oh, and DACs aren't THAT expensive ... when you buy 1,000 of them directly from Asia where they're made like, say, Pioneer can. If you think a REALLY good DAC is unobtainable in a $500 headunit, that's only because putting another $50 into a DAC is not worth anything to anyone. This excludes, of course, those who believe the marketing hype that .01% less distortion (exaggerating this number, and including DAC conversion error distortion) is actually useful in a car. I would prefer an aluminum face to a more expensive DAC personally, and most people I know would rather have a fancier display rather than pulling the "check out my super-DACs" card.
06-28-2004, 06:16 PM
#12
^^^^^^ISN'T THIS POST ABOUT AUDIO?
You have every right to not care about the DAC, but why are you bothering to post on a SQ thread anyway? [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]
You are so right, many plebians out there would rather have a Dolphin, Britney Video, Game or Movie playing on their headunit -- but this isn't Toys-R-US -- it's a thread about AUDIO for people who like to listen to AUDIO.
I mean isn't it time for your nap or something?
You have every right to not care about the DAC, but why are you bothering to post on a SQ thread anyway? [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]
You are so right, many plebians out there would rather have a Dolphin, Britney Video, Game or Movie playing on their headunit -- but this isn't Toys-R-US -- it's a thread about AUDIO for people who like to listen to AUDIO.
I mean isn't it time for your nap or something?
06-28-2004, 07:11 PM
#13
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
I've got a couple of things to say.
First, there is information above our "human" hearing range that IS worth reproducing. In itself, a 25khz tone isn't audible. But when a 25khz tone, and a 18khz tone are combined and play simultaineously, a 7khz sub-harmonic is created. There isn't a lot of energy up there, but it does exist, so having the capability to reproduce this accurately does make the sound more "real"
Second, as a general rule, the wider the bandwidth of a peice of electronics, the more stable the unit is within our "hearing spectrum" Being able to reproduce signal up to 40khz for example, indicates that a component has the switching speed and phase response to reproduce minute changes in voltage accurately. While I think it's truely impressive that head units have big voltage outputs these days, it's the units ability to accurately reproduce small changes in voltage that makes it truely high end. (not discounting headroom, just stating that details are more important)
Third, when SACD was intially released (in 97 I believe) there was very little interest in making it a Mass Market Product. It was designed as a premium recording, mastering, and distribution medium. That is, not just the freaking CD boys. Through various industry contacts, I recieved directly from Philips R&D (where SACD was developed in partnership with Sony) a package detailing the entire system. I will repeat for those that don't get what I'm saying. SACD isn't just the CD, it's a coding format very much superior to MPEG or any other coding scheme. The aim of the project was to deliver the same resolution from start to finish, from recording to medium playback (the SACD in your player) Normally, there are steps down in resolution going from recording, to mastering, and finally to CD. DVD-A is a distrobution format, not a complete recording, mastering and distrubution format that SACD is. While is does have an impressive amount of technology invested in it, it still has compromises. For those that are curious, I recieved a hybrid 5 channel SACD disk from Philips in 1998. "Surround Sound" SACD does exist, it's just not a mass market thing.
Next....D/A converters subscribe to the GIGO philosophy. There are many steps in the digital signal chain that can add noise, distortion, and shift phase. Digital after all is just a transmission method, and it suffers from all the same evils that analogue does. The difference is that digital offers the ability to transfer exactly what was put into the signal pipeline to the output. Where as, analogue slightly changes the input signal throughout the signal pipeline. So how does digital suffer from noise, distortion, and phase shift? Well, all these artifacts are ADDED to the original signal. Note I said that the original signal was transfered exactly as it enters the pipeline. What is added is clock jitter, high frequency noise, and slight phase delay of the entire signal. Weather any of this is audible is deppendant on the design and construction methods of what comes before and after the dreaded "D/A Chip". So it's not just about the chip....
Lastly, I think the Alpine F#1 gear serves it's purpose perfectly.
1.) It is a high profile brand identifier. People talk about it, and that's free advertising.
2.) It packs a ton of features and technology into a fairly small package.
3.) Alpine recovers it's ivestment by charging large $$$$ for it. After all, it is extremely low volume.
Is it worth the huge price? Depends on weather you can afford it. For some the smile on their face is all it takes....
After all, at the end of the day it's all about how we feel!!
Adam
First, there is information above our "human" hearing range that IS worth reproducing. In itself, a 25khz tone isn't audible. But when a 25khz tone, and a 18khz tone are combined and play simultaineously, a 7khz sub-harmonic is created. There isn't a lot of energy up there, but it does exist, so having the capability to reproduce this accurately does make the sound more "real"
Second, as a general rule, the wider the bandwidth of a peice of electronics, the more stable the unit is within our "hearing spectrum" Being able to reproduce signal up to 40khz for example, indicates that a component has the switching speed and phase response to reproduce minute changes in voltage accurately. While I think it's truely impressive that head units have big voltage outputs these days, it's the units ability to accurately reproduce small changes in voltage that makes it truely high end. (not discounting headroom, just stating that details are more important)
Third, when SACD was intially released (in 97 I believe) there was very little interest in making it a Mass Market Product. It was designed as a premium recording, mastering, and distribution medium. That is, not just the freaking CD boys. Through various industry contacts, I recieved directly from Philips R&D (where SACD was developed in partnership with Sony) a package detailing the entire system. I will repeat for those that don't get what I'm saying. SACD isn't just the CD, it's a coding format very much superior to MPEG or any other coding scheme. The aim of the project was to deliver the same resolution from start to finish, from recording to medium playback (the SACD in your player) Normally, there are steps down in resolution going from recording, to mastering, and finally to CD. DVD-A is a distrobution format, not a complete recording, mastering and distrubution format that SACD is. While is does have an impressive amount of technology invested in it, it still has compromises. For those that are curious, I recieved a hybrid 5 channel SACD disk from Philips in 1998. "Surround Sound" SACD does exist, it's just not a mass market thing.
Next....D/A converters subscribe to the GIGO philosophy. There are many steps in the digital signal chain that can add noise, distortion, and shift phase. Digital after all is just a transmission method, and it suffers from all the same evils that analogue does. The difference is that digital offers the ability to transfer exactly what was put into the signal pipeline to the output. Where as, analogue slightly changes the input signal throughout the signal pipeline. So how does digital suffer from noise, distortion, and phase shift? Well, all these artifacts are ADDED to the original signal. Note I said that the original signal was transfered exactly as it enters the pipeline. What is added is clock jitter, high frequency noise, and slight phase delay of the entire signal. Weather any of this is audible is deppendant on the design and construction methods of what comes before and after the dreaded "D/A Chip". So it's not just about the chip....
Lastly, I think the Alpine F#1 gear serves it's purpose perfectly.
1.) It is a high profile brand identifier. People talk about it, and that's free advertising.
2.) It packs a ton of features and technology into a fairly small package.
3.) Alpine recovers it's ivestment by charging large $$$$ for it. After all, it is extremely low volume.
Is it worth the huge price? Depends on weather you can afford it. For some the smile on their face is all it takes....
After all, at the end of the day it's all about how we feel!!
Adam
06-28-2004, 07:28 PM
#14
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
One more thing, any CD's that are not recorded, mastered, and transfered to disk using the SACD format, don't take full advantage of it's capability. I'm not saying Dark Side of the Moon masters suck, I'm just saying that they would be better if the SACD medium was used intially to record.
The key difference, is that most all of the DVD-A releases were recorded with this medium in mind. Where as Sony has reached into the "Vaults" and re-released great music with a better medium.
Adam
The key difference, is that most all of the DVD-A releases were recorded with this medium in mind. Where as Sony has reached into the "Vaults" and re-released great music with a better medium.
Adam
06-28-2004, 08:47 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
i always find it interesting that people who think f#1 is way too expensive are those who werent chosen specifically to sell it, there are only 12 dealers in canada,i am very fortunate to be one, those who dont sell alpine, and those who cant afford, to hack a product because it isnt in your financial capabilities is moronic, it is quite simply the pinnacle by which all other car audio processors should and likely will be judged, as of right now all have failed and will likely continue to do so, that is a fact
06-29-2004, 05:50 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
An entire F#1 setup is installed in a very good friend's BMW 318 ('97-ish, converted to basically an M3); it's a show car and it's daddy's money that bought it. Want pics? His equipment is the most expensive stuff he could find at the time, simply to be excessive ... and the car doesn't even drive (although it "technically" could if he wanted to get it dirty). Sounds exceptional, but no better than the next best system I have ever heard that had a McIntosh unit (I believe, either that or a low-end Nak). With (oh my goodness) a 1-bit DAC and no processor. Definitely not to the level of my Denon/Paradigm setup I have at home that gets it's CD signal from my CD-ROM and output from an M-Audio Revolution soundcard. Denon has 1-bit DAC, I use digital interconnection.
And no, I was not chosen to install F#1, but is that a status symbol? By your logic, only 12 people are allowed to complain, does this mean I am not allowed to complain about my parent's Buick Century because I didn't build it? Factory Auto Sound in Windsor is an F#1 installer, their installs are SAD. Knowing how to connect perfectly labelled devices correctly isn't a skill or a thing to be amazed at; I am sorry. My house was wired correctly by a guy that didn't pass highschool, LOTS more wires. I have a feeling the process for getting this 'status' of installation prowess is pretty pathetic anyways given FAS has it, either that or it's a pay-in process.
I posted to simply let the CCA world know that audiophiles are primarily marketing victims who have collected enough useless facts to appear intelligent and promote stuff that is of little to no relevance. No need to feed the world with more useless drivel, especially when it has no basis on anything except theoreticals. Would be nice to blind-test a DAC (matched sets to make it fair, one per side). The fact that I always get hit with he "That's because you aren't all about perfection" crap is quite sad. Come up with something like, say, legitimate info. It would make me sad to know that someone who ISN'T questionably intelligent comes on here, reads this and upgrades their CD player to attain a better sound that simply isn't to be found in a DAC. Gluing quarters to the top of your sub-box/kickpanels has about the same effect (I have heard audiophiles do this, how sad is THAT).
I won't argue that SACD can create higher frequencies, because it ca, It's just that the recordings don't go that high even if you add a LOT of the THD released by a lot of instruments (ie: the 15th harmonic of some random guitar chord that exists FAR below -100dB). As well, if a 'harmonic' was intended to exist at, say, 7kHz then it would BE in the recording from the ADC making it into a CD (or SACD, whatever).
By the way, I already had my nap when I posted that, but thanks for the concern.
Whoops, forgot. I find most SACD recordings I have listened to are very harsh, they appear to be recorded to emphasize instruments. Simply, they're recorded with emphasis the individual instruments making them sound non-real (like you have a recording of ONLY the instruments, not the environment; something like the sound you get from a cheapo-boombox except not that crappy.
DVD-A I have not heard yet, I presume it to be better than SACD and it will probably do REALLY well now that audiophiles have something ELSE to profess about that is ACTUALLY better (not needing elaborate equipment).
[ June 29, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Ettore Casagrande Jr. ]
And no, I was not chosen to install F#1, but is that a status symbol? By your logic, only 12 people are allowed to complain, does this mean I am not allowed to complain about my parent's Buick Century because I didn't build it? Factory Auto Sound in Windsor is an F#1 installer, their installs are SAD. Knowing how to connect perfectly labelled devices correctly isn't a skill or a thing to be amazed at; I am sorry. My house was wired correctly by a guy that didn't pass highschool, LOTS more wires. I have a feeling the process for getting this 'status' of installation prowess is pretty pathetic anyways given FAS has it, either that or it's a pay-in process.
I posted to simply let the CCA world know that audiophiles are primarily marketing victims who have collected enough useless facts to appear intelligent and promote stuff that is of little to no relevance. No need to feed the world with more useless drivel, especially when it has no basis on anything except theoreticals. Would be nice to blind-test a DAC (matched sets to make it fair, one per side). The fact that I always get hit with he "That's because you aren't all about perfection" crap is quite sad. Come up with something like, say, legitimate info. It would make me sad to know that someone who ISN'T questionably intelligent comes on here, reads this and upgrades their CD player to attain a better sound that simply isn't to be found in a DAC. Gluing quarters to the top of your sub-box/kickpanels has about the same effect (I have heard audiophiles do this, how sad is THAT).
I won't argue that SACD can create higher frequencies, because it ca, It's just that the recordings don't go that high even if you add a LOT of the THD released by a lot of instruments (ie: the 15th harmonic of some random guitar chord that exists FAR below -100dB). As well, if a 'harmonic' was intended to exist at, say, 7kHz then it would BE in the recording from the ADC making it into a CD (or SACD, whatever).
By the way, I already had my nap when I posted that, but thanks for the concern.
Whoops, forgot. I find most SACD recordings I have listened to are very harsh, they appear to be recorded to emphasize instruments. Simply, they're recorded with emphasis the individual instruments making them sound non-real (like you have a recording of ONLY the instruments, not the environment; something like the sound you get from a cheapo-boombox except not that crappy.
DVD-A I have not heard yet, I presume it to be better than SACD and it will probably do REALLY well now that audiophiles have something ELSE to profess about that is ACTUALLY better (not needing elaborate equipment).
[ June 29, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Ettore Casagrande Jr. ]
06-29-2004, 07:14 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
if you believe that, you you will undoubtedly be forever satisfied with medocrity, i now know that you cant tell the difference between a amazing piece of audio electronics, and something average, because according to you, equipment is almost irrelevant, you can take a pikle of crap dress it up and polish it and paint it any color you want, its still a piece of crap, but im not too sure you could tell the difference, i feel i now know why you werent selected to be f#1, because they didnt want you, and for good reason, judging by what you say, you wouldnt have the capability to sell it, btw, if the system you stated is your reference, im sure there are lots of cars that sound exceptional to you, because as we all know sound cards and cd roms are all the rage at all the high end home audio shops for reference systems, i think i see computers as the reference source in lots of stores, i might question your ability to critically evaluate a high end car audio system, but i cant say for sure because ive never heard a car youve built
06-29-2004, 10:50 PM
#20
No need to feed the world with more useless drivel, especially when it has no basis on anything except theoreticals. Would be nice to blind-test a DAC (matched sets to make it fair, one per side).
-- Have you ever compared DACs? I have, in fact up until 1996 ungrading your DAC was probably the biggest change you could make to your hifi set-up next to changing the speakers. One of my favorite clients used to build his own DACs -- they were amazing.
The fact that I always get hit with he "That's because you aren't all about perfection" crap is quite sad. Come up with something like, say, legitimate info. It would make me sad to know that someone who ISN'T questionably intelligent comes on here, reads this and upgrades their CD player to attain a better sound that simply isn't to be found in a DAC.
-- Adam provided some facts, and I sort of go more with his opinion on acoustics than yours because his personal reference for HI FI does not consist of a surround sound receiver, home theatre speakers and a $39 CD Rom drive.
I have heard it said here before, but I shall repeat it.... just because YOU do not appreciate the difference in an audio format, it does not mean that others can't.
I have had the prevlidge through the years of owning, selling, representing and listening to some of the finest audio gear around. If I could afford it, I would have a pair of Quad 989s powered by a Conrad Johnson MV60SE hooked up to a Quad 99CDP tomorrow. I am not going to curse the fortunate person who does own this gear and say my humble home theatre set-up is "just as good" or call it a system bought by "Daddy's money".
-- Have you ever compared DACs? I have, in fact up until 1996 ungrading your DAC was probably the biggest change you could make to your hifi set-up next to changing the speakers. One of my favorite clients used to build his own DACs -- they were amazing.
The fact that I always get hit with he "That's because you aren't all about perfection" crap is quite sad. Come up with something like, say, legitimate info. It would make me sad to know that someone who ISN'T questionably intelligent comes on here, reads this and upgrades their CD player to attain a better sound that simply isn't to be found in a DAC.
-- Adam provided some facts, and I sort of go more with his opinion on acoustics than yours because his personal reference for HI FI does not consist of a surround sound receiver, home theatre speakers and a $39 CD Rom drive.
I have heard it said here before, but I shall repeat it.... just because YOU do not appreciate the difference in an audio format, it does not mean that others can't.
I have had the prevlidge through the years of owning, selling, representing and listening to some of the finest audio gear around. If I could afford it, I would have a pair of Quad 989s powered by a Conrad Johnson MV60SE hooked up to a Quad 99CDP tomorrow. I am not going to curse the fortunate person who does own this gear and say my humble home theatre set-up is "just as good" or call it a system bought by "Daddy's money".
