I currently own a Pioneer DEH-P735. When I flip the face down, the
power goes out. The cd is now stuck in there, so I can only listen to 1 cd
forever! I was thinking of getting a new head unit anyway so I can play MP3,
WMA, etc...
I have a 2 Pioneer 4 channel power amps & a Pioneer DEQ-9200 EQ. What
is the most reasonably cost effective replacement? I've been looking at the
DEH-P7500.
Also...a friend tells me Alpine is MUCH better sonically. Do you agree?

Thanks

Al

I prefer the sound from Alpine decks to the sound from Pioneer decks. I find
Pioneer's decks to be a little on the "warm" side with slightly less audible
detail than what's avaliable from Alpine products. *But* I hate the interface
that Alpine decks use, I passed up the CDA-9815, almost entirely because I
can't stand it's confusing, hard to use EQ system. Check out Eclipse's CD3413
and CD3403. They don't decode WMA, but they will decode MP3, are easier to use,
and are sonically superior to the competitive Alpine and Pioneer units IMHO.
Either a CD8053 or CD8443 are going into my VW on Friday.

That unit can be econimically repaired. The problem is the faceplate ribbon
cable, P/N CNP3847, the part costs $15.41 and labor to fix it should be
around $45.00. If it were me, I'd fix what I've got, but hey, I'm an
electronics tech.
--
Jammy Harbin
J & J Electronics, Inc
227 S. 4Th St.
Selmer, TN 38375
731-645-3311
"Al Burr" wrote in message
...
I currently own a Pioneer DEH-P735. When I flip the face down, the
power goes out. The cd is now stuck in there, so I can only listen to 1 cd
forever! I was thinking of getting a new head unit anyway so I can play
MP3,
snip

Steve Grauman wrote:

I hate the interface
that Alpine decks use, I passed up the CDA-9815, almost entirely because I
can't stand it's confusing, hard to use EQ system.

Human Interfaces are a subjective thing. I find the Alpine one not that
much repulsive, but I work with pro audio gear that have much worse
kryptic interfaces...

The Alpine CDA-9815 seems geared toward the medium to higher-end of the
car audio people that will either have it adjusted professionnally or
will adjust them themself and forget them (my case). As opposed to
those who will tweak the bass and treble every other song and therefore
need more accessible controls.

My 0.02

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

Carsound's independent testing illustrates that there does not exist a
significant enough electrical difference between them to be perceived by the
human brain. I suggest you try to isolate variables a little better in your
next job of testing. Good luck.

I'm not sure what you mean by electrical difference. And I *do* trust you and
your claims Mark. But in 4 listening rooms, I could hear a difference between
the way Sony, Pioneer, and Alpine decks sounded on the same speakers, and with
the same amp. The "warmth" I picked up from the Pioneer deck may very well have
been the result of the speakers I was listening through, but that was still my
personal observation.

Human Interfaces are a subjective thing. I find the Alpine one not that
much repulsive, but I work with pro audio gear that have much worse
kryptic interfaces...

I didn't think it was that bad untill I used Pioneer and Eclipse decks, which
are far and away easier to navigate.

The Alpine CDA-9815 seems geared toward the medium to higher-end of the
car audio people that will either have it adjusted professionnally or
will adjust them themself and forget them (my case). As opposed to
those who will tweak the bass and treble every other song and therefore
need more accessible controls.

I consider myself a "high end" user. I'm highly sensitive to sound input
(testing with 2 doctors has shown this to be true), and am going to be building
a fairly high end system (albeit, I'm somewhat constrained by my income).
Setting the EQ once and letting it ride out through every CD is bad policy with
me. I may be able to set the EQ once and use that setting for Rock CDs, but
when I switch to R&B or Jazz, I need/want to be able to adjust for the
different kinds of music. I simply found that the Alpine made this far to
difficult. Beyond that, the Eclipse deck I'm getting has a remote, which makes
things that much easier.

Carsound's independent testing illustrates that there does not exist a
significant enough electrical difference between them to be perceived by
the
human brain. I suggest you try to isolate variables a little better in
your
next job of testing. Good luck.

I'm not sure what you mean by electrical difference.

Well, speakers produce sound when an electrical signal is applied. When
there's no difference between two electrical signals, any difference in
perceived sound is attributable either to the speakers, the acoustics, or
the brain of the observer. However, there's always a difference in
electrical signal - even if it's the same exact brand and model. The
question that arises though is whether or not this difference is substantial
enough to be detected. We know even the tiniest of differences can be
detected with the proper equipment...but what differences can the brain
detect? Or even more interestingly, what differences CAN'T the brain
detect?

Car Sound (carsound.com) has determined the typical electrical performance
of various head units under given conditions. Specifically, they've looked
at what the output signal is when given an input signal, and they've
attempted to quantify such measurements. Their results show that the
differences are relatively small. In fact, the differences that they
measured are so small that they are well below what's regarded as known
psychophysical thresholds for humans. I'd normally be wary of their claims,
but I've actually measured the same things myself.

That's some pretty significant stuff. So how can this be reconciled with
the fact that you thought there was a difference in your listening room
trials?

Well, either the carsound-type testing was wrong, inadequately conducted to
account for "real world" listening, or statistically invalid. This is
possible.

Or maybe the psychophysics is wrong or incomplete? It's unlikely that it's
wrong in this case.

Or maybe your test wasn't "scientific" enough to stake the type of claims
that you seem to be implying (you've never actually made claims that there
IS a difference - just that you thought you heard one; that's why I said
"implying"). That is, the paradigm was probably not unbiased, and you
didn't set up controls to negate the many many variables associated with
such listening tests. No one expected you to, of course. This is most
certainly the likely culprit of your observations.

I'm pretty certain that Alpine sounds much better, and I have Isolated the
reason as being because so many nwa songs mention alpine.
"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in message
...
I prefer the sound from Alpine decks to the sound from Pioneer decks.

Carsound's independent testing illustrates that there does not exist a
significant enough electrical difference between them to be perceived by
the
human brain. I suggest you try to isolate variables a little better in
your
next job of testing. Good luck.

Years of progress in science illustrate that an inability to measure
something (in the present) does not preclude its existence anymore than it
precludes discovering a way to measure it in the future. If you can
remember all the way back to high school basic science class, you'll realize
that Louis Pasteur's work is an excellent illustration of this concept.

Knowing nothing about Carsound's methodology, I can only assume that you are
reporting their findings accurately. Given that assumption, the only
logical absolute to be inferred is that Carsound is unable to identify a
difference, electrical or otherwise, between the two that would explain why
a listener preferred one over the other.

Isolation of variables is not the critical step; the identification of
relevant variables is what enables meaningful testing.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in message
...
I prefer the sound from Alpine decks to the sound from Pioneer decks.

Carsound's independent testing illustrates that there does not exist a
significant enough electrical difference between them to be perceived by
the
human brain. I suggest you try to isolate variables a little better in
your
next job of testing. Good luck.

How can a paradigm be biased (or unbiased)?

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in message
...
... That is, the paradigm was probably not unbiased, and you
didn't set up controls to negate the many many variables associated
with...

How can a paradigm be biased (or unbiased)?

It can't. It's called posting at 2:30 AM.

What I meant of course was that the subject and experimenter were one in the
same - and both biased.

A Pioneer DEH 5500 for $200
--
soundguy12811
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb2/sh...hreadid=154079