Opinion on Alpine CDA-9857

[ScottReeve]

I've got a 2002 Pathfinder, and when I got it, I had my Denon DCT-970
HU installed.

The DCT-970 had two shortcomings from the start: 1) alternator whine
(noticable at speeds 20MPH or less, faster than that the engine sound
drowned it out) 2) No MP3 support.

Now the main display light no longer works, so I can't see the
station/track etc very easily.

Looks like it's time for a new HU. I've had Alpine before (7817) but
it's hard for me to compare the sound with the Denon because with the
7817, I had it going into an Alpine amp.

It would be nice if the HU had auxiliary inputs, but from the specs
this doesn't seem to have one.
I think I read somewhere that the CD changer connector can be converted
to an auxiliary input.
The device that I want to connect is the XM radio. (I plan on
connecting an IPOD also).

The reviews seem very positive, so I'm willing to have the XM go into
an FM freq. if all else is good.

FWIW, I tried a Pioneer MP4800, (bought it at Circuit City) and like
the Denon better. The Alpine was more analytical, but the Denon much
more musical. Took the Pioneer back.

Any opinions would be welcome.

[smoove]

Yes the 9857 is a great unit, but for what you asking for it to do you can
step down to the 9856. With the versalink adapter you can do RCA in to the
both units. The Ipod connector works great. You can also do XM on the on
both unit's.
9857 http://www.alpine-usa.com/en/products/product.php?model=CDA-9857
9857 http://www.alpine-usa.com/en/products/product.php?model=CDA-9856
Versalink
http://www.alpine-usa.com/en/products/product_acc.php?model=KCA-121B&tab=D


"ScottReeve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've got a 2002 Pathfinder, and when I got it, I had my Denon DCT-970
> HU installed.
>
> The DCT-970 had two shortcomings from the start: 1) alternator whine
> (noticable at speeds 20MPH or less, faster than that the engine sound
> drowned it out) 2) No MP3 support.
>
> Now the main display light no longer works, so I can't see the
> station/track etc very easily.
>
> Looks like it's time for a new HU. I've had Alpine before (7817) but
> it's hard for me to compare the sound with the Denon because with the
> 7817, I had it going into an Alpine amp.
>
> It would be nice if the HU had auxiliary inputs, but from the specs
> this doesn't seem to have one.
> I think I read somewhere that the CD changer connector can be converted
> to an auxiliary input.
> The device that I want to connect is the XM radio. (I plan on
> connecting an IPOD also).
>
> The reviews seem very positive, so I'm willing to have the XM go into
> an FM freq. if all else is good.
>
> FWIW, I tried a Pioneer MP4800, (bought it at Circuit City) and like
> the Denon better. The Alpine was more analytical, but the Denon much
> more musical. Took the Pioneer back.
>
> Any opinions would be welcome.
>

[MOSFET]

I'm sure the 9857 would be a great HU and it WILL accommodate both iPod and
sat radio.

But here goes my standard rant about all the new Alpine units (the regulars
have heard all this before)...

I have owned three Alpines over the last 12 years and think Alpine is GREAT.
My current Alpine is the 9853 and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!! It is everything
I could ever want in a HU. I have NEVER had a problem with any of the three
Alpines I have owned (in fact, the only reason I replaced my last one, the
7863, was so that I had MP3 capability). The one before that (a 7939) was
stolen so I HAD to replace it.

But, IMHO, Alpine has gone and SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT with all the current
models.

For some reason, Alpine has decided to do away with Bass Engine Plus and
Bass Engine Pro on ALL their current HU's (even the high-end ones). The
9855 and 9853 (mine) are the LAST models to offer BassEngine Pro. Now they
just offer "Bass Engine" which is nothing more than adjustable bass and
treble frequencies.

BIG MISTAKE!!!!

Bass Engine Pro and Plus had time alignment features that I find
INDISPENSABLE. Time alignment gives you the ability to subtly delay certain
speakers (in milliseconds) so that all the sound hits your ears at the same
time. I LOVE IT. With TA engaged, my center image is ROCK SOLID. My
soundstage is perfectly etched in space before me, and ALL the sound seems
to come from in front of me. With TA not engaged, my soundstage seems
diffused, my center image is all over the place, and the low bass (from my
subs) sound like they are OBVIOUSLY coming from the rear of the car.

Needless to say, I find TA a feature I cannot live without. Bass Engine
Plus/Pro also have incredibly flexible crossover features AND a 5 band
parametric EQ (on Bass Engine Pro, which is what I have) with is a TRUE
parametric EQ with 1/3 octave frequency selection and "Q" function.

Plain old "Bass Engine" has none of this.

Why did Alpine do away with these WONDERFUL features? Beats me. My guess
is that consumer feedback told them it was too confusing to use. True, it
did take extensive reading of the manual to master all the functions, but to
me, it is SO WORTH IT!!! And, like all things, once you become accustomed
to it, it's easy.

For the last 10 years when anyone would ask me "What's the best head unit?",
I would ALWAYS put Alpine at the top of the list. Not anymore. If you are
like me, and like lots of sound shaping features, the new Alpines ARE NOT
FOR YOU.

But if you like your head units simple, then I'm sure you will be pleased
with the new Alpines. I'm sure the quality that Alpine is famous for is
still there.

But the reason I tell you all this is because if I were in the market RIGHT
NOW, Alpine would be off my list.

MOSFET




"ScottReeve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've got a 2002 Pathfinder, and when I got it, I had my Denon DCT-970
> HU installed.
>
> The DCT-970 had two shortcomings from the start: 1) alternator whine
> (noticable at speeds 20MPH or less, faster than that the engine sound
> drowned it out) 2) No MP3 support.
>
> Now the main display light no longer works, so I can't see the
> station/track etc very easily.
>
> Looks like it's time for a new HU. I've had Alpine before (7817) but
> it's hard for me to compare the sound with the Denon because with the
> 7817, I had it going into an Alpine amp.
>
> It would be nice if the HU had auxiliary inputs, but from the specs
> this doesn't seem to have one.
> I think I read somewhere that the CD changer connector can be converted
> to an auxiliary input.
> The device that I want to connect is the XM radio. (I plan on
> connecting an IPOD also).
>
> The reviews seem very positive, so I'm willing to have the XM go into
> an FM freq. if all else is good.
>
> FWIW, I tried a Pioneer MP4800, (bought it at Circuit City) and like
> the Denon better. The Alpine was more analytical, but the Denon much
> more musical. Took the Pioneer back.
>
> Any opinions would be welcome.
>

[Captain Howdy]

Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to tune a
system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.



In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>I'm sure the 9857 would be a great HU and it WILL accommodate both iPod and
>sat radio.
>
>But here goes my standard rant about all the new Alpine units (the regulars
>have heard all this before)...
>
>I have owned three Alpines over the last 12 years and think Alpine is GREAT.
>My current Alpine is the 9853 and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!! It is everything
>I could ever want in a HU. I have NEVER had a problem with any of the three
>Alpines I have owned (in fact, the only reason I replaced my last one, the
>7863, was so that I had MP3 capability). The one before that (a 7939) was
>stolen so I HAD to replace it.
>
>But, IMHO, Alpine has gone and SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT with all the current
>models.
>
>For some reason, Alpine has decided to do away with Bass Engine Plus and
>Bass Engine Pro on ALL their current HU's (even the high-end ones). The
>9855 and 9853 (mine) are the LAST models to offer BassEngine Pro. Now they
>just offer "Bass Engine" which is nothing more than adjustable bass and
>treble frequencies.
>
>BIG MISTAKE!!!!
>
>Bass Engine Pro and Plus had time alignment features that I find
>INDISPENSABLE. Time alignment gives you the ability to subtly delay certain
>speakers (in milliseconds) so that all the sound hits your ears at the same
>time. I LOVE IT. With TA engaged, my center image is ROCK SOLID. My
>soundstage is perfectly etched in space before me, and ALL the sound seems
>to come from in front of me. With TA not engaged, my soundstage seems
>diffused, my center image is all over the place, and the low bass (from my
>subs) sound like they are OBVIOUSLY coming from the rear of the car.
>
>Needless to say, I find TA a feature I cannot live without. Bass Engine
>Plus/Pro also have incredibly flexible crossover features AND a 5 band
>parametric EQ (on Bass Engine Pro, which is what I have) with is a TRUE
>parametric EQ with 1/3 octave frequency selection and "Q" function.
>
>Plain old "Bass Engine" has none of this.
>
>Why did Alpine do away with these WONDERFUL features? Beats me. My guess
>is that consumer feedback told them it was too confusing to use. True, it
>did take extensive reading of the manual to master all the functions, but to
>me, it is SO WORTH IT!!! And, like all things, once you become accustomed
>to it, it's easy.
>
>For the last 10 years when anyone would ask me "What's the best head unit?",
>I would ALWAYS put Alpine at the top of the list. Not anymore. If you are
>like me, and like lots of sound shaping features, the new Alpines ARE NOT
>FOR YOU.
>
>But if you like your head units simple, then I'm sure you will be pleased
>with the new Alpines. I'm sure the quality that Alpine is famous for is
>still there.
>
>But the reason I tell you all this is because if I were in the market RIGHT
>NOW, Alpine would be off my list.
>
>MOSFET
>
>
>
>
>"ScottReeve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I've got a 2002 Pathfinder, and when I got it, I had my Denon DCT-970
>> HU installed.
>>
>> The DCT-970 had two shortcomings from the start: 1) alternator whine
>> (noticable at speeds 20MPH or less, faster than that the engine sound
>> drowned it out) 2) No MP3 support.
>>
>> Now the main display light no longer works, so I can't see the
>> station/track etc very easily.
>>
>> Looks like it's time for a new HU. I've had Alpine before (7817) but
>> it's hard for me to compare the sound with the Denon because with the
>> 7817, I had it going into an Alpine amp.
>>
>> It would be nice if the HU had auxiliary inputs, but from the specs
>> this doesn't seem to have one.
>> I think I read somewhere that the CD changer connector can be converted
>> to an auxiliary input.
>> The device that I want to connect is the XM radio. (I plan on
>> connecting an IPOD also).
>>
>> The reviews seem very positive, so I'm willing to have the XM go into
>> an FM freq. if all else is good.
>>
>> FWIW, I tried a Pioneer MP4800, (bought it at Circuit City) and like
>> the Denon better. The Alpine was more analytical, but the Denon much
>> more musical. Took the Pioneer back.
>>
>> Any opinions would be welcome.
>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

> Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
> get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to tune
a
> system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.
>

I'm so glad Howdy is part of RAC! His posts are always so bright and
cheerful. He just makes the world a better place!

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

I'm so glad Mosfet is part of RAC! His posts are always so full of opinions
and so little fact. He just makes the world a better place!

In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>> Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
>> get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to tune
>a
>> system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.
>>
>
>I'm so glad Howdy is part of RAC! His posts are always so bright and
>cheerful. He just makes the world a better place!
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

Yah, whatever. Still using duct-tape to fix those POS American cars of
yours?

MOSFET

(this REALLY ****es him off everybody, watch, he'll say something disgusting
about my wife now or try to sell my car again, but I promise you, it will be
REALLY nasty....)

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
> I'm so glad Mosfet is part of RAC! His posts are always so full of
opinions
> and so little fact. He just makes the world a better place!
>
> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
> >> Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
> >> get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to
tune
> >a
> >> system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.
> >>
> >
> >I'm so glad Howdy is part of RAC! His posts are always so bright and
> >cheerful. He just makes the world a better place!
> >
> >MOSFET
> >
> >

[Captain Howdy]

There is no duct-tape in or on my cars, any of them. POS American cars? What
do you know about cars other then nothing? How many classic Japanese cars have
you seen rolling down the streets near you and what is the ratio to American
cars? Have you read any classic Japanese automotive magazines lately? Did you
know that the Japanese just started putting out cars and trucks with v8
engines? Have you seen the military or police or even taxi companies depend on
Japanese vehicles? For once stop talking **** about things that you know
nothing about. Do you know anything about your car other then what the dealer
charges to repair it? I repair my own, other then automatic transmissions,
they are too far out there for me. But needless to say I've forgotten more
about cars then you'll ever know and I sure don't need you to tell me what's
POS or not.


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>Yah, whatever. Still using duct-tape to fix those POS American cars of
>yours?
>
>MOSFET
>
>(this REALLY ****es him off everybody, watch, he'll say something disgusting
>about my wife now or try to sell my car again, but I promise you, it will be
>REALLY nasty....)
>
>"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm so glad Mosfet is part of RAC! His posts are always so full of
>opinions
>> and so little fact. He just makes the world a better place!
>>
>> In article >, "MOSFET"
>> > wrote:
>> >> Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
>> >> get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to
>tune
>> >a
>> >> system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'm so glad Howdy is part of RAC! His posts are always so bright and
>> >cheerful. He just makes the world a better place!
>> >
>> >MOSFET
>> >
>> >
>
>

[MOSFET]

You're right, I don't know **** about cars. But I'm not the one who
duct-taped his rear-view mirror back on (be careful before you deny that, I
MAY have saved a picture). ;)

Anyway, I'm in a goofy mood right now so I'm ****ing with you just to amuse
myself (because frankly you're just TOO easy to annoy), but I know this
little game of mine ****es the others off so I'm going to stop now.

See ya, Howdy

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

The pictire that you posted had no duct tape you silly moron.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~mrled/mirror.jpg

Yeah I do have a low tolerance for stupid people, always did.
Did you want me to start annoying you, we all know that you don't like it, you
bully.

In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>You're right, I don't know **** about cars. But I'm not the one who
>duct-taped his rear-view mirror back on (be careful before you deny that, I
>MAY have saved a picture). ;)
>
>Anyway, I'm in a goofy mood right now so I'm ****ing with you just to amuse
>myself (because frankly you're just TOO easy to annoy), but I know this
>little game of mine ****es the others off so I'm going to stop now.
>
>See ya, Howdy
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Eric Desrochers]

Hello. About the bass engine on Alpines...

I own a 9815 from 2003 and you could pry it off my cold, hard, dead
hands! Actually, my first unit was destroyed in a car fire and I
repurchased another unit off eBay in 2005 for the new car! I like it
exactly because of the bass engine. Most (all?) amps now have
crossovers built-in but if your gonna use some or all of the HU amp
channels, it won't do you any good.

I have this question : you seem to no longer like the new Alpines HU,
but which other brand/model have functions similar to Bass engine? In
other word, is Alpine the bad guy or they only follow the trend?

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

Sorry to step in...

Taxi *needs* to be bulky, which Japaneese car usually are not.

Japaneese car don't use V8 because V8 are not required nor desirable
(for the environment) in any reasonably sized car.

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Captain Howdy]

Taxi companies use the newer midsize Chevy impala, just fine, How do you
explain that?

V8's are not required for what? Japan pollutes more then any other country in
the world.



In article >,
(Eric Desrochers) wrote:
>Sorry to step in...
>
>Taxi *needs* to be bulky, which Japaneese car usually are not.
>
>Japaneese car don't use V8 because V8 are not required nor desirable
>(for the environment) in any reasonably sized car.
>

[MOSFET]

In
> other word, is Alpine the bad guy or they only follow the trend?
>
> --
You raise an interesting point. Yes, virtually every amp these days contain
built in X-overs so I can see that feature not being all that important in a
HU any more. The exception being, of course, if you were only using ONE amp
to drive a sub and wanted the speakers driven by the HU crossed over at a
certain frequency (high-pass), then a built in HU X-over might come in
REALLY handy.

But actually I have found that the other big HU manufactures (Sony, Eclipse,
Kenwood, Pioneer)have been ADDING sound shaping features over the years.
MANY now have some sort of time alignment and sophisticated EQ's.

So no, Alpine APPEARS to be alone in this "dumbing down" approach of the
head unit.

Again, I believe they saw their own units becoming VERY complicated to use
and very frustrating for SOME of their customers. They probably also
noticed that Alpine was not alone in this common consumer complaint. So I
see this as a marketing strategy. They are trying to appeal to the person
who wants compatibility with their iPod, Bluetooth, sat radio, HD radio,
etc., but wants it all to be very simple to operate.

Sort of like "it's so smart, anyone can operate it" kind of approach. And I
can see this strategy working for many consumers, especially those who feel
a bit overwhelmed by all the new technology and choices out there.

BUT I DON'T LIKE IT!!! To me, Bass Engine Pro was ingenious. It was like
someone who REALLY understood IASCA rules and what it takes for a great
sounding system developed it (I always wonder if Steve Brown had a hand in
it's development as he worked very closely with Alpine). It had EVERYTHING
you could want to shape the sound of your music.

Maybe Alpine will bring some of those features back. I hope so. But if
not, I'm afraid my next deck will not be an Alpine.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

Also, you have to wonder if the INCREDIBLE popularity of the MP3 format has
made sound quality no longer a major concern. I am not the only one who has
made this observation. Someone did just recently here but I forgot who it
was.

The rational may be that if people are willing to accept second rate audio
sources (MP3), why bother with high-end sound shaping features? That may
also be part of Alpine's calculation.

But if it is, I disagree as I think the MP3 format sounds GREAT (as long as
the bit-rate is high enough). I guess Alpine's use of BBE again in some of
their models is an attempt to try and compensate for what they perceive as
inadequacies in the MP3 format.

MOSFET


"Eric Desrochers" > wrote in message
...
> Hello. About the bass engine on Alpines...
>
> I own a 9815 from 2003 and you could pry it off my cold, hard, dead
> hands! Actually, my first unit was destroyed in a car fire and I
> repurchased another unit off eBay in 2005 for the new car! I like it
> exactly because of the bass engine. Most (all?) amps now have
> crossovers built-in but if your gonna use some or all of the HU amp
> channels, it won't do you any good.
>
> I have this question : you seem to no longer like the new Alpines HU,
> but which other brand/model have functions similar to Bass engine? In
> other word, is Alpine the bad guy or they only follow the trend?
>
> --
> Eric (Dero) Desrochers
> http://homepage.mac.com/dero72
>
> Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[RG]

My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time alignment
and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
parametric. My personal experience is this:

1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs and
lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
alignment IMO.

2/ Parametric EQ's, and multi band EQ's are far over rated IMO. They are
overused and in most cases set improperly. And with BBE the need for any EQ
is drastically reduced. My current parametric is only used to bump the base
levels at 80hz by a couple of db and to reduce it by 1db at 4000hz. In other
words, if it were not there I would really be no worse off. If the speakers
are properly selected, matched and installed correctly there really should
be little need for a parametric or multi band EQ. Alpine's current EQ setup
should do just fine to tweak the common problem areas.

3/ As far as crossovers go, most amps have more than adequate xovers built
in. They are really redundant on an HU. If one wants to biamp a set of
components then it is a simple matter to use an external crossover (which
are more flexible and probably better anyway).

In short, Alpine's new offerings offer very high sound quality without
burdening the units with features that are largely unnecessary and redundant
in nature. Unless one just has to have a wide assortment of gizmos and
tweaks to play with you are probably no worse off without them.

- RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
> I'm sure the 9857 would be a great HU and it WILL accommodate both iPod
> and
> sat radio.
>
> But here goes my standard rant about all the new Alpine units (the
> regulars
> have heard all this before)...
>
> I have owned three Alpines over the last 12 years and think Alpine is
> GREAT.
> My current Alpine is the 9853 and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!! It is
> everything
> I could ever want in a HU. I have NEVER had a problem with any of the
> three
> Alpines I have owned (in fact, the only reason I replaced my last one, the
> 7863, was so that I had MP3 capability). The one before that (a 7939) was
> stolen so I HAD to replace it.
>
> But, IMHO, Alpine has gone and SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT with all the
> current
> models.
>
> For some reason, Alpine has decided to do away with Bass Engine Plus and
> Bass Engine Pro on ALL their current HU's (even the high-end ones). The
> 9855 and 9853 (mine) are the LAST models to offer BassEngine Pro. Now
> they
> just offer "Bass Engine" which is nothing more than adjustable bass and
> treble frequencies.
>
> BIG MISTAKE!!!!
>
> Bass Engine Pro and Plus had time alignment features that I find
> INDISPENSABLE. Time alignment gives you the ability to subtly delay
> certain
> speakers (in milliseconds) so that all the sound hits your ears at the
> same
> time. I LOVE IT. With TA engaged, my center image is ROCK SOLID. My
> soundstage is perfectly etched in space before me, and ALL the sound seems
> to come from in front of me. With TA not engaged, my soundstage seems
> diffused, my center image is all over the place, and the low bass (from my
> subs) sound like they are OBVIOUSLY coming from the rear of the car.
>
> Needless to say, I find TA a feature I cannot live without. Bass Engine
> Plus/Pro also have incredibly flexible crossover features AND a 5 band
> parametric EQ (on Bass Engine Pro, which is what I have) with is a TRUE
> parametric EQ with 1/3 octave frequency selection and "Q" function.
>
> Plain old "Bass Engine" has none of this.
>
> Why did Alpine do away with these WONDERFUL features? Beats me. My guess
> is that consumer feedback told them it was too confusing to use. True, it
> did take extensive reading of the manual to master all the functions, but
> to
> me, it is SO WORTH IT!!! And, like all things, once you become
> accustomed
> to it, it's easy.
>
> For the last 10 years when anyone would ask me "What's the best head
> unit?",
> I would ALWAYS put Alpine at the top of the list. Not anymore. If you
> are
> like me, and like lots of sound shaping features, the new Alpines ARE NOT
> FOR YOU.
>
> But if you like your head units simple, then I'm sure you will be pleased
> with the new Alpines. I'm sure the quality that Alpine is famous for is
> still there.
>
> But the reason I tell you all this is because if I were in the market
> RIGHT
> NOW, Alpine would be off my list.
>
> MOSFET
>
>
>
>
> "ScottReeve" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I've got a 2002 Pathfinder, and when I got it, I had my Denon DCT-970
>> HU installed.
>>
>> The DCT-970 had two shortcomings from the start: 1) alternator whine
>> (noticable at speeds 20MPH or less, faster than that the engine sound
>> drowned it out) 2) No MP3 support.
>>
>> Now the main display light no longer works, so I can't see the
>> station/track etc very easily.
>>
>> Looks like it's time for a new HU. I've had Alpine before (7817) but
>> it's hard for me to compare the sound with the Denon because with the
>> 7817, I had it going into an Alpine amp.
>>
>> It would be nice if the HU had auxiliary inputs, but from the specs
>> this doesn't seem to have one.
>> I think I read somewhere that the CD changer connector can be converted
>> to an auxiliary input.
>> The device that I want to connect is the XM radio. (I plan on
>> connecting an IPOD also).
>>
>> The reviews seem very positive, so I'm willing to have the XM go into
>> an FM freq. if all else is good.
>>
>> FWIW, I tried a Pioneer MP4800, (bought it at Circuit City) and like
>> the Denon better. The Alpine was more analytical, but the Denon much
>> more musical. Took the Pioneer back.
>>
>> Any opinions would be welcome.
>>
>
>

[RG]

BBE has got nothing to do with compensating for MP3 inadequacies. That is
not why it was developed in the first place or incorporated into some HU's.

My guess is that Alpine's dropping of those tweaking features dear to your
heart is because there is no longer any money in it. These guys are in
business to make money first and foremost. If it made them money or captured
market share they would most certainly retain them. But that is not where
the market is headed. In fact, the writing on the wall says that high end
aftermarket systems will soon go the way of the dodo bird. People just
aren't buying them. New cars have pretty decent systems these days. And more
to the point, it is getting harder to install systems as the factory stuff
is so integrated with other functions and aesthetics of the car.

- RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Also, you have to wonder if the INCREDIBLE popularity of the MP3 format
> has
> made sound quality no longer a major concern. I am not the only one who
> has
> made this observation. Someone did just recently here but I forgot who it
> was.
>
> The rational may be that if people are willing to accept second rate audio
> sources (MP3), why bother with high-end sound shaping features? That may
> also be part of Alpine's calculation.
>
> But if it is, I disagree as I think the MP3 format sounds GREAT (as long
> as
> the bit-rate is high enough). I guess Alpine's use of BBE again in some
> of
> their models is an attempt to try and compensate for what they perceive as
> inadequacies in the MP3 format.
>
> MOSFET
>
>
> "Eric Desrochers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hello. About the bass engine on Alpines...
>>
>> I own a 9815 from 2003 and you could pry it off my cold, hard, dead
>> hands! Actually, my first unit was destroyed in a car fire and I
>> repurchased another unit off eBay in 2005 for the new car! I like it
>> exactly because of the bass engine. Most (all?) amps now have
>> crossovers built-in but if your gonna use some or all of the HU amp
>> channels, it won't do you any good.
>>
>> I have this question : you seem to no longer like the new Alpines HU,
>> but which other brand/model have functions similar to Bass engine? In
>> other word, is Alpine the bad guy or they only follow the trend?
>>
>> --
>> Eric (Dero) Desrochers
>> http://homepage.mac.com/dero72
>>
>> Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95
>
>

[RG]

My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time alignment
and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
parametric. My personal experience is this:

1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs and
lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
alignment IMO.

2/ Parametric EQ's, and multi band EQ's are far over rated IMO. They are
overused and in most cases set improperly. And with BBE the need for any EQ
is drastically reduced. My current parametric is only used to bump the base
levels at 80hz by a couple of db and to reduce it by 1db at 4000hz. In other
words, if it were not there I would really be no worse off. If the speakers
are properly selected, matched and installed correctly there really should
be little need for a parametric or multi band EQ. Alpine's current EQ setup
should do just fine to tweak the common problem areas.

3/ As far as crossovers go, most amps have more than adequate xovers built
in. They are really redundant on an HU. If one wants to biamp a set of
components then it is a simple matter to use an external crossover (which
are more flexible and probably better anyway).

In short, Alpine's new offerings offer very high sound quality without
burdening the units with features that are largely unnecessary and redundant
in nature. Unless one just has to have a wide assortment of gizmos and
tweaks to play with you are probably no worse off without them.

- RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
>> Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
>> get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to
>> tune
> a
>> system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.
>>
>
> I'm so glad Howdy is part of RAC! His posts are always so bright and
> cheerful. He just makes the world a better place!
>
> MOSFET
>
>

[GregS]

In article >, "RG" > wrote:
>My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time alignment
>and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
>parametric. My personal experience is this:
>
>1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
>experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
>Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
>alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
>BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs and
>lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
>alignment IMO.

BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
is a real winner. SO lame.

What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment crap
was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical
home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble control.

greg

[Chad Wahls]

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
> Alpine dropped that crap because it is not need. Hope this one does not
> get stolen or outdated or Mosfet is now going to have to learn how to tune
> a
> system the old school way. Good luck you're gonna need it.
>
>


Hey man, just because it's beyond your level of comprehension does not mean
you should diss it.

I use DSP for a living (Live audio reinforcement) I love it in my car! But
i know how to use it.

Chad

[GregS]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article >, "RG" >
> wrote:
>>My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time alignment
>>and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
>>parametric. My personal experience is this:
>>
>>1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
>>experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
>>Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
>>alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
>>BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs and
>>lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
>>alignment IMO.
>
>BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
>is a real winner. SO lame.
>
>What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
>but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment crap
>was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
>crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical
>home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
>can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble control.

Reminds me of my Blaupunkt headunit from 1978. It had Dolby FM and Dolby cassette.
When I would press Dolby when listening to the FM the highs would suddenly
insrease. This is contrary to what happens normally on tapes. I don't know if the unit
was bad or misadjusted, but the feature should have only been used listening to Dolby
FM stations, which there were none. Maybe they had something in there that I didn't
know about. Anyway, it sounded just like the BBE effect.

greg

[smoove]

I have a 7878 which does have the Bass engine and TA. with that system I
have I don't use either feature. But the system I have with my 9861 I do
think I could use those features. The best thing about the Alpines is that
have full Ipod support and the fastest MP3 proc. The average person is
person is not going to use the TA. But for people that will they should have
models that still support it. I do agree that its nice having the built in
crossover for basic systems also.

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
m...
> I'm sure the 9857 would be a great HU and it WILL accommodate both iPod
> and
> sat radio.
>
> But here goes my standard rant about all the new Alpine units (the
> regulars
> have heard all this before)...
>
> I have owned three Alpines over the last 12 years and think Alpine is
> GREAT.
> My current Alpine is the 9853 and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!! It is
> everything
> I could ever want in a HU. I have NEVER had a problem with any of the
> three
> Alpines I have owned (in fact, the only reason I replaced my last one, the
> 7863, was so that I had MP3 capability). The one before that (a 7939) was
> stolen so I HAD to replace it.
>
> But, IMHO, Alpine has gone and SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT with all the
> current
> models.
>
> For some reason, Alpine has decided to do away with Bass Engine Plus and
> Bass Engine Pro on ALL their current HU's (even the high-end ones). The
> 9855 and 9853 (mine) are the LAST models to offer BassEngine Pro. Now
> they
> just offer "Bass Engine" which is nothing more than adjustable bass and
> treble frequencies.
>
> BIG MISTAKE!!!!
>
> Bass Engine Pro and Plus had time alignment features that I find
> INDISPENSABLE. Time alignment gives you the ability to subtly delay
> certain
> speakers (in milliseconds) so that all the sound hits your ears at the
> same
> time. I LOVE IT. With TA engaged, my center image is ROCK SOLID. My
> soundstage is perfectly etched in space before me, and ALL the sound seems
> to come from in front of me. With TA not engaged, my soundstage seems
> diffused, my center image is all over the place, and the low bass (from my
> subs) sound like they are OBVIOUSLY coming from the rear of the car.
>
> Needless to say, I find TA a feature I cannot live without. Bass Engine
> Plus/Pro also have incredibly flexible crossover features AND a 5 band
> parametric EQ (on Bass Engine Pro, which is what I have) with is a TRUE
> parametric EQ with 1/3 octave frequency selection and "Q" function.
>
> Plain old "Bass Engine" has none of this.
>
> Why did Alpine do away with these WONDERFUL features? Beats me. My guess
> is that consumer feedback told them it was too confusing to use. True, it
> did take extensive reading of the manual to master all the functions, but
> to
> me, it is SO WORTH IT!!! And, like all things, once you become
> accustomed
> to it, it's easy.
>
> For the last 10 years when anyone would ask me "What's the best head
> unit?",
> I would ALWAYS put Alpine at the top of the list. Not anymore. If you
> are
> like me, and like lots of sound shaping features, the new Alpines ARE NOT
> FOR YOU.
>
> But if you like your head units simple, then I'm sure you will be pleased
> with the new Alpines. I'm sure the quality that Alpine is famous for is
> still there.
>
> But the reason I tell you all this is because if I were in the market
> RIGHT
> NOW, Alpine would be off my list.
>
> MOSFET
>
>
>
>
> "ScottReeve" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I've got a 2002 Pathfinder, and when I got it, I had my Denon DCT-970
>> HU installed.
>>
>> The DCT-970 had two shortcomings from the start: 1) alternator whine
>> (noticable at speeds 20MPH or less, faster than that the engine sound
>> drowned it out) 2) No MP3 support.
>>
>> Now the main display light no longer works, so I can't see the
>> station/track etc very easily.
>>
>> Looks like it's time for a new HU. I've had Alpine before (7817) but
>> it's hard for me to compare the sound with the Denon because with the
>> 7817, I had it going into an Alpine amp.
>>
>> It would be nice if the HU had auxiliary inputs, but from the specs
>> this doesn't seem to have one.
>> I think I read somewhere that the CD changer connector can be converted
>> to an auxiliary input.
>> The device that I want to connect is the XM radio. (I plan on
>> connecting an IPOD also).
>>
>> The reviews seem very positive, so I'm willing to have the XM go into
>> an FM freq. if all else is good.
>>
>> FWIW, I tried a Pioneer MP4800, (bought it at Circuit City) and like
>> the Denon better. The Alpine was more analytical, but the Denon much
>> more musical. Took the Pioneer back.
>>
>> Any opinions would be welcome.
>>
>
>

[MOSFET]

> BBE has got nothing to do with compensating for MP3 inadequacies. That is
> not why it was developed in the first place or incorporated into some
HU's.

You're right. I don't know why I siad that (I was tired). BBE has been
around MUCH longer than MP3. Also, BTW, I had BBE in my previous Alpine
deck, the 7863 and I liked it. I used it all the time (unlike the "Media
Expander" feature on my 9853 which I ALWAYS leave off). Although it's true
that BBE boosts the treble and bass, it also seemed to widen my soundstage.

>
> My guess is that Alpine's dropping of those tweaking features dear to your
> heart is because there is no longer any money in it.

Did you read my posts? That is EXACTLY what I said. Consumer feedback told
them consumers did not like it and that they are getting rid of it for
marketing reasons.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

Because more then half of the time you don't know what you're talking about,
maybe?
>
>You're right. I don't know why I siad that (I was tired). BBE has been
>around MUCH longer than MP3. Also, BTW, I had BBE in my previous Alpine
>deck, the 7863 and I liked it. I used it all the time (unlike the "Media
>Expander" feature on my 9853 which I ALWAYS leave off). Although it's true
>that BBE boosts the treble and bass, it also seemed to widen my soundstage.
>
>>

>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

> Because more then half of the time you don't know what you're talking
about,
> maybe?

You're right. But I'll take being right half the time over being right none
of the time, like you.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> Because more then half of the time you don't know what you're talking
about,
> maybe?
> >
And one more thing. You're mother wears combat boots!

So there! Nyah!

MOSFET

[Eric Desrochers]

MOSFET > wrote:

> Also, you have to wonder if the INCREDIBLE popularity of the MP3 format has
> made sound quality no longer a major concern.

That may be their reasoning but I disagree. Even if you were playing 8
tracks, you would still benefit from the P-EQ, TA and x-overs.

MP3 well reproduced will always beat MP3 (or even CD) badly
reproduced...

And they are not so bad to begin with. I like MP3 in the car to no end.
I would never go back to tapes!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

Another conspiration theory. Maybe the sound shaping functions in their
HU were canibalizing the sale of their high end outboard processors?

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

> The time alignment crap
> was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
> crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical
> home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it.

How would you know...

TA is indeed used for live sound on about ALL high end pro sound
systems. TA has nothing to do with the quantity of high frequency in
the system, so you obviously are confusing TA with some other gimmick...

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Captain Howdy]

Oh and one more thing on top of that, your wife blows tweeters
So there! Nyah!



In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>> Because more then half of the time you don't know what you're talking
>about,
>> maybe?
>> >
>And one more thing. You're mother wears combat boots!
>
>So there! Nyah!
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

> Oh and one more thing on top of that, your wife blows tweeters
> So there! Nyah!
>
LOL

I like that one, Howdy.

Regarding your other rant, let me put it this way, you and Matt are two
COMPELTELY different people.

I understand you. You make me laugh. Except for the fact that you can
sometimes scare noobs (and I really don't think that's a big issue), I think
you make this place fun and I get a kick out of bull ****ting with you.

But you will notice that I will NEVER engage in any serious debate with you.
Take a look at ALL our past posts. I NEVER respond to anything you say
seriously. I made that mistake ONCE, and it made me VERY mad (our first
fight) because I THOUGHT you were normal and I could use logic and reasoning
with you. But now I know better.

I don't take ANYTHING you say seriously, and therefore you never annoy me,
honestly (or I would have blocked you, like I did Matt). I enjoy our
banterings, but I WILL NOT engage in ANY sort of serious debate with you.
EVER.

Matt is a different story which you can't even BEGIN to understand.

I just don't like Matt. OK? Is that simple enough for you, Howdy.

But believe it or not, I DO like you. You have moxy. You have balls. I
like that.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> Another conspiration theory. Maybe the sound shaping functions in their
> HU were canibalizing the sale of their high end outboard processors?
>
Yes, but how many outboard processors do they sell anymore? My guess is not
that many. That's my point. Nobody seems to care anymore about complex
sound-shaping in the automotive environment.

We have already discussed the many reasons why this is so. For instance, I
know for years the competitive arena drove many high-end manufacturers.
IASCA rules created a demand for extensive EQ's and time alignment features
as well as other complex sound shaping tools. But IASCA (along with all the
other SQ focused organizations) is dead. The ONLY competitive car audio
arena left is the SPL world where SQ means NOTHING.

But that's just one of MANY reasons why the emphasis on SQ has lessoned in
the last few years.

MOSFET

[Eric Desrochers]

> Yes, but how many outboard processors do they sell anymore? My guess is not
> that many. That's my point. Nobody seems to care anymore about complex
> sound-shaping in the automotive environment.
>
> We have already discussed the many reasons why this is so. For instance, I
> know for years the competitive arena drove many high-end manufacturers.
> IASCA rules created a demand for extensive EQ's and time alignment features
> as well as other complex sound shaping tools. But IASCA (along with all the
> other SQ focused organizations) is dead. The ONLY competitive car audio
> arena left is the SPL world where SQ means NOTHING.
>
> But that's just one of MANY reasons why the emphasis on SQ has lessoned in
> the last few years.
>
> MOSFET

Isn't it depressing? Just when great and affordable DSP become
available, they are no longer sought after by the customers...

I never entered a SQ competition, not even attended one, but I
understand their importance for pushing the enveloppe as to what is
wanted from the manufacturer. Maybe one day SPL will go out of fad (or
will be rendered illegal, who knows!) and SQ will take back its place...

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[RG]

Most professionals do like it, and it is not just a "dynamic" boost of the
highs, nor is it a treble control. I would never buy another HU without it.
But to each their own I guess ...

- RG


"GregS" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "RG"
> > wrote:
>>My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time
>>alignment
>>and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
>>parametric. My personal experience is this:
>>
>>1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
>>experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
>>Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
>>alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
>>BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs
>>and
>>lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
>>alignment IMO.
>
> BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
> is a real winner. SO lame.
>
> What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
> but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment crap
> was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
> crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
> typical
> home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
> can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble
> control.
>
> greg

[RG]

ROTFLMAO !!

> You're right. But I'll take being right half the time over being right
> none
> of the time, like you.
>
> MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

Maybe one day SPL will go out of fad (or
> will be rendered illegal, who knows!) and SQ will take back its place...
>
It would be a nice dream. But it will never happen. As was already
mentioned, the biggest killer to our "way of life" (so to speak) is the fact
that modern cars have extremely integrated audio systems already built in.
By integrated, I don't just mean from an electronic perspective (although
that is certainly more and more the case). But from an aesthetic
perspective as well. More and more, the modern dash-board has become a
seamless melding of form and function.

Or, in more simple terms, the guy with the brand new Lexus does NOT want his
dash ****ed with (no matter how fancy the latest Alpine looks).

The days of simple DIN to DIN HU swaps are OVER! I believe this, more than
any other factor, will be the death knell for aftermarket HU manufacturers.

What WILL keep this industry around for decades I expect is the love many
people have for bass. No matter how good the latest "premium" factory sound
system gets, there will ALWAYS be those who demand MORE BASS. Amps and subs
that can integrate with factory systems will likely be the biggest sellers
20 years from now (keep in mind, this is just one guy's prediction).

So yes, it's too bad. It would have been nice if car audio could have gone
the way of home audio. But there are forces working against us that will
eventually prevail, I'm afraid to say.

The best analogy to this whole thing is the progression of the automobile
engine. At first, anyone with a set of tools and a little know-how could
work on their own car. They could perform modifications and fix most
problems. Then cars went and became computerized. All of a sudden, you
needed a WHOLE LOT of know-how to work on a car. This is what I see
happening to car audio. As factory HU's become more and more integrated
into other car functions, it will become increasingly difficult for the
DIYer to change or modify anything. And again, I'm not JUST talking about
the electronic end of this, but styling considerations will become more and
more important. Again, people are going to be nervous messing with the
dashes of their new Infinities. This wasn't the case 20 years ago when even
high-end cars (Mercedes for instance) used the standard DIN sized HU.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> ROTFLMAO !!
>
It was SUPPOSED to be a childish retort (like his).

[Captain Howdy]

>
>I like that one, Howdy.
>
>Regarding your other rant, let me put it this way, you and Matt are two
>COMPELTELY different people.

That's not what you just said in your other post, did you change your mind or
just trying a different angle? Two peas in a pot ring any bells?

>
>I understand you. You make me laugh. Except for the fact that you can
>sometimes scare noobs (and I really don't think that's a big issue), I think
>you make this place fun and I get a kick out of bull ****ting with you.

You thought that it was a big issue just the other day and I sure did not
sense and hahaha there.

>
>But you will notice that I will NEVER engage in any serious debate with you.
>Take a look at ALL our past posts. I NEVER respond to anything you say
>seriously. I made that mistake ONCE, and it made me VERY mad (our first
>fight) because I THOUGHT you were normal and I could use logic and reasoning
>with you. But now I know better.

I sure as hell hope not, serious debate is not your strong point. As seen in
your posts with Matt.
>
>I don't take ANYTHING you say seriously, and therefore you never annoy me,
>honestly (or I would have blocked you, like I did Matt). I enjoy our
>banterings, but I WILL NOT engage in ANY sort of serious debate with you.
>EVER.
>

What was that term that you have used the other day, "you make me sick" Yet I
never never annoy you.


>Matt is a different story which you can't even BEGIN to understand.
>
>I just don't like Matt. OK? Is that simple enough for you, Howdy.

It's never that simple, but I totally understand as does Matt from what I have
read in here.

>
>But believe it or not, I DO like you. You have moxy. You have balls. I
>like that.
>
Is that just today, or just on your off days? Maxie and having balls is in a
sense the same.

Anyway, whatever works for you. Maxie today, bully tomorrow. Keep me posted.



>MOSFET





>
>

[MOSFET]

> Is that just today, or just on your off days? Maxie and having balls is in
a

It's moxy you bonehead. It's like trying to explain something to a 9 year
old. Why did I bother? I'm sure nothing I said registered if you don't
even understand the words I use.

Oh well, we'll just go back to flipping each other **** (and YES, I do enjoy
it). Furthermore, has it ever occured to your little pea brain I may not
mean everything I say to you. Sometimes I just push your buttons for kicks
(because I ALWAYS get a response). ;)

So YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Stay tuned. I may say something completely
different tomorrow, like, Howdy, I love you.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

You should attended a SQ competition, just to get an idea of what you are
talking about. Then enter a SQ competition and make good friends with a judge
and get him to spend a month in your car setting up your system just right.
Then enter another SQ competition so that the next judge can tell you that
your system does not sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.
>
>Isn't it depressing? Just when great and affordable DSP become
>available, they are no longer sought after by the customers...
>
>I never entered a SQ competition, not even attended one, but I
>understand their importance for pushing the enveloppe as to what is
>wanted from the manufacturer. Maybe one day SPL will go out of fad (or
>will be rendered illegal, who knows!) and SQ will take back its place...
>

[MOSFET]

sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
> your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.
> >
True. But if you do it JUST right, you can get a pretty good hand-job.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

In article >, "MOSFET" > wrote:
>> Is that just today, or just on your off days? Maxie and having balls is in
>a
>
>It's moxy you bonehead. It's like trying to explain something to a 9 year
>old. Why did I bother? I'm sure nothing I said registered if you don't
>even understand the words I use.
>

Yes I do even when you don't spell them right. But aren't you quick to point
it out when someone else doesn't spell it right.

It's moxie you bonehead. It's like trying to explain something to a 6 year
old. Why did I bother? I'm sure nothing I said registered if you don't
even understand the words I use.

[Eric Desrochers]

You want me totally depressed today aren't you? :)

But I have those observations on this.

A lot of *younger* people, like students, aren't driving new Lexus and
Infinities, but beat up 92 Jettas or Reliant K from the eighties. Those
people on a budget won't hesitate to put an aftermarket, aesthetical
being damned.

And more importantly, some people won't accept the sound of a Delco, or
even Bose, no matter how well integrated and pleasing to the eye and
will have what they want installed.

Maybe some reputable manufacturer should enter the OEM business with car
manufacturer? Or maybe it's already being done now?

But there surely will be a rationalization to be done in the industry.
I recently came back on the car audio scene after a few years off (with
a satisfying system!) and I cannot believe the sheer number of
manufacturer, mainly in the amp and speaker business!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

Captain Howdy > wrote:

> You should attended a SQ competition, just to get an idea of what you are
> talking about. Then enter a SQ competition and make good friends with a judge
> and get him to spend a month in your car setting up your system just right.
> Then enter another SQ competition so that the next judge can tell you that
> your system does not sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
> your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.

Oh. But such things happens all the time in all spheres of the life in
a society! Judges are being purchased or influenced. A new American
administration arrives and the DOJ release their grip on Microsoft,
things like that...

Anything that is judged by humans, on subjectives criterias on top of
that, are bound to cause injustices and disatisfactions. I don't have
to participate in a car sound competition to know this.

But I really don't see the relevance of your comment with mine.
Independantly of how competitions are held, the quest for SQ means we
expect more from the manufacturers. And this advance the state of the
art.

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Captain Howdy]

What the **** are you talking about? Misfit stop talking out your ass again.
Back in the day cars had on OBD that is true. You started your car and it ran
like an ass one morning and one would say, I wonder what could be wrong. Is it
my EGR that has failed or is it just a bad spark plug or wire? Maybe a vacuum
leak, or could it be a stuck float in my carb, or clogged converter, bad
rotor/cap, maybe a bad coil???

Now my little misfit with today's cars since 1996 all cars share one standard,
It's called OBD2 (Onboard Diagnostics). When your check engine light comes on,
you plug in your scan tool under the dash and the scan tool returns a code or
codes. Say P0301 which means that you have a misfire in cylinder #1. This
boils down to a bad plug/wire, or injector on cylinder #1. If you have a bad
cap/rotor you would see a P0300 code multiple misfire on all cylinders.

In 2008 all cars are going to a CAN standard, this will intergrades all
onboard controllers on to one network, such ABS, air ride, air bag
controllers. But never mind that, would hate to make your brain bleed.

So with this **** said and examples given, how the **** is it all of a sudden
that much harder to fix cars? You silly little freak.






>
>The best analogy to this whole thing is the progression of the automobile
>engine. At first, anyone with a set of tools and a little know-how could
>work on their own car. They could perform modifications and fix most
>problems. Then cars went and became computerized. All of a sudden, you
>needed a WHOLE LOT of know-how to work on a car.



Now if we had Onboard Diagnostics in car audio, your check tweeter light would
come on and when you hooked up your DEI can tool it would give a code CXXXX
crossover frequency too low or crossover frequency out of range. :) That's car
audio progression that you can use. LOL


This is what I see
>happening to car audio. As factory HU's become more and more integrated
>into other car functions, it will become increasingly difficult for the
>DIYer to change or modify anything. And again, I'm not JUST talking about
>the electronic end of this, but styling considerations will become more and
>more important. Again, people are going to be nervous messing with the
>dashes of their new Infinities. This wasn't the case 20 years ago when even
>high-end cars (Mercedes for instance) used the standard DIN sized HU.
>
>MOSFET
>
>
>
>

[MOSFET]

> It's moxie you bonehead.

Hey, you're right! Two points for you.

I love you.

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

This is why SQ competitions are dead and will never come back, this is the
relevance of my comment to your comment of SQ competitions returning some day.
If the win or loss in drag racing and football depended on a judge, I'm that
these sport would face the same faith. We have beauty pageants and figure
skating that need judges, not car audio.

I don't think that the quest for SQ means we expect more from the
manufacturers, I think that we expect more tools to achieve SQ with little to
no effort and head units loaded with crap don't make them very user friendly.
You have to understand that most people out there that buy head units, don't
want them full of crap that they don't understand. All they want is a head
unit that looks nice and plays sound out of their speakers and this is mostly
because their factory radio failed in some way or they want to change formats.
We the ones that are interested in high performance head units are just a
small percentage of this market.



In article >,
(Eric Desrochers) wrote:
>Captain Howdy > wrote:
>
>> You should attended a , just to get an idea of what you are
>> talking about. Then enter a SQ competition and make good friends with a judge
>> and get him to spend a month in your car setting up your system just right.
>> Then enter another SQ competition so that the next judge can tell you that
>> your system does not sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that
> untill
>> your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.
>
>Oh. But such things happens all the time in all spheres of the life in
>a society! Judges are being purchased or influenced. A new American
>administration arrives and the DOJ release their grip on Microsoft,
>things like that...
>
>Anything that is judged by humans, on subjectives criterias on top of
>that, are bound to cause injustices and disatisfactions. I don't have
>to participate in a car sound competition to know this.
>
>But I really don't see the relevance of your comment with mine.
>Independantly of how competitions are held, the quest for SQ means we
>expect more from the manufacturers. And this advance the state of the
>art.
>

[Captain Howdy]

True, if self service is your kind of thing.

In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
> sound right. Feel free to pull your dick like that untill
>> your nuts turn blue. Then let me know what you think.
>> >
>True. But if you do it JUST right, you can get a pretty good hand-job.
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Captain Howdy]

Okay with that said, feel free to pull your foot out of your mouth.


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>> It's moxie you bonehead.
>
>Hey, you're right! Two points for you.
>
>I love you.
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

> True, if self service is your kind of thing.
>
Of course it is. But I'd make an exception for you, Howdy. You have SO
much maxie.

I love you,

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

this is the
> relevance of my comment to your comment of SQ competitions returning some
day.
> If the win or loss in drag racing and football depended on a judge, I'm
that
> these sport would face the same faith.

Would they face the same faith? Christianity? Buddhism?

You slip into Bob-speak when you type fast.

I mean, you barely make any sense as is, but it doesn't help when your
grammar is poor.

Oh, and I love you. Big wet kiss......

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

You should stay on the topic of engines, seems that you know more about them
then car audio. LOL

Mr Moxy


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
> this is the
>> relevance of my comment to your comment of SQ competitions returning some
>day.
>> If the win or loss in drag racing and football depended on a judge, I'm
>that
>> these sport would face the same faith.
>
>Would they face the same faith? Christianity? Buddhism?
>
>You slip into Bob-speak when you type fast.
>
>I mean, you barely make any sense as is, but it doesn't help when your
>grammar is poor.
>
>Oh, and I love you. Big wet kiss......
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

> You should stay on the topic of engines, seems that you know more about
them
> then car audio. LOL
>
> Mr Moxy
>

I KNOW you can do better than that, but I got to quit for tonight. Until we
meet again....

Take care sugar,

MOSFET

[GregS]

In article >, (Eric Desrochers) wrote:
>> The time alignment crap
>> was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
>> crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
> typical
>> home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it.
>
>How would you know...
>
>TA is indeed used for live sound on about ALL high end pro sound
>systems. TA has nothing to do with the quantity of high frequency in
>the system, so you obviously are confusing TA with some other gimmick...

I was refering to BBE time or phase. Don't change the topic.

greg

[GregS]

In article >, "RG" > wrote:
>Most professionals do like it, and it is not just a "dynamic" boost of the
>highs, nor is it a treble control. I would never buy another HU without it.
>But to each their own I guess ...


You must be in another world. Listen what a few recording proffesional say about BBE.
I know exactly what the circuit does.
I have studied it in detail.

greg


>- RG
>
>
>"GregS" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "RG"
>> > wrote:
>>>My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time
>>>alignment
>>>and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
>>>parametric. My personal experience is this:
>>>
>>>1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in my
>>>experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
>>>Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
>>>alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation of
>>>BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs
>>>and
>>>lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
>>>alignment IMO.
>>
>> BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
>> is a real winner. SO lame.
>>
>> What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
>> but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment crap
>> was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical selcted
>> crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
>> typical
>> home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
>> can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble
>> control.
>>
>> greg
>
>

[RG]

Me too, Greg.

- RG

"GregS" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "RG"
> > wrote:
>>Most professionals do like it, and it is not just a "dynamic" boost of the
>>highs, nor is it a treble control. I would never buy another HU without
>>it.
>>But to each their own I guess ...
>
>
> You must be in another world. Listen what a few recording proffesional say
> about BBE.
> I know exactly what the circuit does.
> I have studied it in detail.
>
> greg
>
>
>>- RG
>>
>>
>>"GregS" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, "RG"
>>> > wrote:
>>>>My opinion on this differs somewhat. I have had Alpines with time
>>>>alignment
>>>>and other HU's as well. My current HU's have EQ's with one being a
>>>>parametric. My personal experience is this:
>>>>
>>>>1/ Time alignment is not for everyone. I never used this feature as in
>>>>my
>>>>experience it actually degraded the sound (in my particular experience).
>>>>Alpine's return to including BBE far outweighs the exclusion of time
>>>>alignment. In fact, time alignment would be at odds with the operation
>>>>of
>>>>BBE. Time alignment does nothing for inherent phase delays between highs
>>>>and
>>>>lows whereas BBE does. The current BBE feature is much better than time
>>>>alignment IMO.
>>>
>>> BBE is not what its cracked up to be. That demo on their website
>>> is a real winner. SO lame.
>>>
>>> What BBE does, is boost the highs dynamically. It has some benefit,
>>> but mostly, you can do that with a treble control. The time alignment
>>> crap
>>> was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound system , at some typical
>>> selcted
>>> crossover frequency, typically around 1 kHz. This does nothing for the
>>> typical
>>> home or car sound system. Most professionals don't like it. It
>>> can help playing bad compact cassettes, but again, so can a treble
>>> control.
>>>
>>> greg
>>
>>

[Eric Desrochers]

> We the ones that are interested in high performance head units are just a
> small percentage of this market.

That's true, but we are also those with the deep pockets, so
manufacturer should keep at least a few high end models with some high
end features that we need since we WILL buy them.

Porsche sells to a small percentage of the population and seem to be all
well thank you!

--
Eric (Dero) Desrochers
http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Eric Desrochers]

> I was refering to BBE time or phase. Don't change the topic.
>
> greg

I'm not changing anything, I even quoted you. Here is the text again :

>> The time alignment crap > was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound
> >system , at some typical selcted > crossover frequency, typically around
> >1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical > home or car sound system. Most
> >professionals don't like it.

You are talking about time alignment. Or you wrote it while thinking of
BBE. If it's the case, may I suggest organizing your thoughts
before typing.

Time alignement is a generic term applicable to a wide variety of
situation. BBE is a product and technology by a company. Maybe
live-sound pros don't like BBE but it change nothing to the fact that
pro sound systems must and ARE time aligned most often than not.

-- Eric (Dero) Desrochers

http://homepage.mac.com/dero72

Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Jamie Pruden]

Hi Nick,

You're killing me here... I've put the good Captain on my kill list, so
I read a post you put up... then read your response... etc, etc. It's
almost like you're talking to yourself sometimes. :)

I am glad Howdy is on the kill list, though...

smiles,
Jamie
On 2006-10-04 18:19:30 -0700, "MOSFET" > said:

> You're right, I don't know **** about cars. But I'm not the one who
> duct-taped his rear-view mirror back on (be careful before you deny that, I
> MAY have saved a picture). ;)
>
> Anyway, I'm in a goofy mood right now so I'm ****ing with you just to amuse
> myself (because frankly you're just TOO easy to annoy), but I know this
> little game of mine ****es the others off so I'm going to stop now.
>
> See ya, Howdy
>
> MOSFET

[GregS]

In article >, (Eric Desrochers) wrote:
>> I was refering to BBE time or phase. Don't change the topic.
>>
>> greg
>
>I'm not changing anything, I even quoted you. Here is the text again :


You are the one who deleted the reference to BBE.

greg

>>> The time alignment crap > was orginally for some arbitrary pa sound
>> >system , at some typical selcted > crossover frequency, typically around
>> >1 kHz. This does nothing for the typical > home or car sound system. Most
>> >professionals don't like it.
>
>You are talking about time alignment. Or you wrote it while thinking of
>BBE. If it's the case, may I suggest organizing your thoughts
>before typing.
>
>Time alignement is a generic term applicable to a wide variety of
>situation. BBE is a product and technology by a company. Maybe
>live-sound pros don't like BBE but it change nothing to the fact that
>pro sound systems must and ARE time aligned most often than not.
>
>-- Eric (Dero) Desrochers
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/dero72
>
>Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95

[Dzeq]

Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
Connect with ?

Regards
Jacek

[MOSFET]

Dzeq,

I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. It apparently is a flaw in ALL
9853's. When you go to MENU, then SETUP, then AUDIO, one of the choices
should be SUBW CH. That determines whether your sub is in mono or stereo.
BUT IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!! You're not going crazy, it is not accessible on
mine either. It appears to be a flaw. Now, there MAY be a way to get to
SUBW CH, but you can't do it following the instruction manual. It's
possible that it isn't a flaw in the unit as much as a flaw in the
instruction manual. There are TONS of nested menus so you might want to
just start experimenting and trying to find SUBW CH somewhere else.

It was not a big deal to me because I simply combined the two channels (with
a Y adaptor) and ran that into my sub amp. Seems to work just fine for me.
I would recommend doing the same thing.

But no, you are not going nuts, SUBW CH does not seem to exist on the 9853
(at least not where they tell you it should be). I was frustrated at this
as well, but as I said, if jsut combine both channels it doesn't seem to be
a problem. Unfortunately, stereo is the default setting for the subwoofer
output on both the 9853 and 9855, so you WILL have to combine them if you
want bass information from both channels to go to your amp.

If anyone has figured out a way to access this feature (SUBW CH) on a 9853,
I would LOVE to hear it.

MOSFET


"Dzeq" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
> I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
> input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
> such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
> HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
> Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
> Connect with ?
>
> Regards
> Jacek
>

[Dzeq]

Thanks for help, I have spent over 3 hours and I am sure that
there is no SUBW CH in my unit
Any other users ?

regards
Dzeq
MOSFET napisal(a):
> Dzeq,
>
> I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. It apparently is a flaw in ALL
> 9853's. When you go to MENU, then SETUP, then AUDIO, one of the choices
> should be SUBW CH. That determines whether your sub is in mono or stereo.
> BUT IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!! You're not going crazy, it is not accessible on
> mine either. It appears to be a flaw. Now, there MAY be a way to get to
> SUBW CH, but you can't do it following the instruction manual. It's
> possible that it isn't a flaw in the unit as much as a flaw in the
> instruction manual. There are TONS of nested menus so you might want to
> just start experimenting and trying to find SUBW CH somewhere else.
>
> It was not a big deal to me because I simply combined the two channels (with
> a Y adaptor) and ran that into my sub amp. Seems to work just fine for me.
> I would recommend doing the same thing.
>
> But no, you are not going nuts, SUBW CH does not seem to exist on the 9853
> (at least not where they tell you it should be). I was frustrated at this
> as well, but as I said, if jsut combine both channels it doesn't seem to be
> a problem. Unfortunately, stereo is the default setting for the subwoofer
> output on both the 9853 and 9855, so you WILL have to combine them if you
> want bass information from both channels to go to your amp.
>
> If anyone has figured out a way to access this feature (SUBW CH) on a 9853,
> I would LOVE to hear it.
>
> MOSFET
>
>
> "Dzeq" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
> > I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
> > input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
> > such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
> > HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
> > Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
> > Connect with ?
> >
> > Regards
> > Jacek
> >

[MOSFET]

> Thanks for help, I have spent over 3 hours and I am sure that
> there is no SUBW CH in my unit

Yep, it's just NOT THERE.

There is no SUBW CH setting on a 9853. The instruction manual is wrong.

Again, just combine the left and right channels (with a Y adaptor) and run
that into your subwoofer amplifier. That's what I did and it seems to be
working GREAT!!!

Good luck,

MOSFET

[Captain_Howdy]

LOL
>
>Again, just combine the left and right channels (with a Y adaptor) and run
>that into your subwoofer amplifier. That's what I did and it seems to be
>working GREAT!!!
>
>Good luck,
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Chad Wahls]

You are not crazy, I have a later 9855 that has an addendum to tha manual
saying "We F'd up" The feature does not exist.

Chad


"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Dzeq,
>
> I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. It apparently is a flaw in ALL
> 9853's. When you go to MENU, then SETUP, then AUDIO, one of the choices
> should be SUBW CH. That determines whether your sub is in mono or stereo.
> BUT IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!! You're not going crazy, it is not accessible on
> mine either. It appears to be a flaw. Now, there MAY be a way to get to
> SUBW CH, but you can't do it following the instruction manual. It's
> possible that it isn't a flaw in the unit as much as a flaw in the
> instruction manual. There are TONS of nested menus so you might want to
> just start experimenting and trying to find SUBW CH somewhere else.
>
> It was not a big deal to me because I simply combined the two channels
> (with
> a Y adaptor) and ran that into my sub amp. Seems to work just fine for
> me.
> I would recommend doing the same thing.
>
> But no, you are not going nuts, SUBW CH does not seem to exist on the 9853
> (at least not where they tell you it should be). I was frustrated at this
> as well, but as I said, if jsut combine both channels it doesn't seem to
> be
> a problem. Unfortunately, stereo is the default setting for the subwoofer
> output on both the 9853 and 9855, so you WILL have to combine them if you
> want bass information from both channels to go to your amp.
>
> If anyone has figured out a way to access this feature (SUBW CH) on a
> 9853,
> I would LOVE to hear it.
>
> MOSFET
>
>
> "Dzeq" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Hi could somebody with 9853 HU check one think for me
>> I had that HU with helix H500 Esprit AMP, Amp has Mono
>> input for Subwoofer signal. In OwnerManual I can find that HU has
>> such setting as Subwoofer Channel (ST/MONO), but I can not find it my
>> HU. Could somebody check it if your unit has it?
>> Next question, if amp has mono input which channel in HU should be
>> Connect with ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Jacek
>>
>
>