Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:49 AM - Re: XT-100DAB question (ToR)
2. 08:23 AM - Re: XT-100DAB question (Mark Laird)
3. 08:32 AM - Okay, I'm changing the topic!!!--> DVX-100 Changer (Roland M)
4. 08:47 AM - Re: optical /rca quick question-y or n? (Sqxpert@aol.com)
5. 08:52 AM - Re: XT-100DAB question (Roland M)
6. 09:06 AM - Re: production, encoding and reproduction quality, pcm-CD vs (Roland M)
7. 03:33 PM - Re: optical /rca quick question-y or n? (Bobby)
8. 03:40 PM - Re: optical /rca quick question-y or n? (Sqxpert@aol.com)
9. 03:45 PM - Re: production, encoding and reproduction quality, pcm-CD vs mp3-CD vs atrac3-MD (ToR)
10. 08:03 PM - Re: XT-100DAB question (Bobby)
11. 08:44 PM - Re: XT-100DAB question (Roland M)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | XT-100DAB question |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "ToR" <calculathor@hotmail.com>
Colin,
That would have been a nice solution but
When you burn a DVD at home, it's format will be one of
DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW or DVD+RW, depending on your DVD burner hardware.
DVX-100 supports only CD,CD-R,CD-RW and DVD
It does not support DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW or DVD+RW
Also DVX-100's SNR is only 90 dB.
So it's not a good solution for quality even if it worked.
Now one thing that puzzles me is that the optical output on DVX-100 is
primarily for linking to a DTS/Dolby Digital processor.
That's the reason why they implemented optical out, not for linking to
210/4000. (thats why SNR is 90 dB)
But Sony does not have a DTS/Dolby Digital processor????
Pioneer has a very cool IP-BUS DTS/Dolby Digital processor.
DEQ-P7000: optical in, 24-bit/48kHz, DSP, time alignment etc..
Retails around $500, $300 in ebay
Now the question is, why sony does not have a processor like this?
And to what processor are they expecting me to connect DVX-100 to?
It seems to me that top sony people decided that there will be no more
external DSP's bec. they wanted to push internal HX-DSP and EQ7 crap.
And now they had to make a dvd changer bec everybody else is making, but
because of the internal DSP direction they took, they're having problems
with DVX-100.
Does anyone know anything about the CDX-M610, one of the last head units
supported DSP control.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Colin (DP Motorsport)" <colin@dp-motorsport.co.uk>
>
> Just a thought, you could get a DVD changer and write all your songs
to
> DVD to get the good quality sound as well as the high capacity. Will
more > than likely have an optical out too.
>
> Colin
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | XT-100DAB question |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Mark Laird" <mark_laird@hotmail.com>
On the subject of burning cd's... I took all my cd's and made burned copies
of them with Nero Burning ROM with the cd text feature on. It will lookup
your cd's online and burn the cd text to them so that the album name,
artist, and song name show up on the C90 display. Plus, all my original
copies are at home in case someone decides it would be a good idea to lift
my cd book from my car.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Chambers
Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: XT-100DAB question
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Paul Chambers"
<xdp4000x-list@lists.bod.org>
Yes, the quality and feature set of the CD-RW drive definitely matters -
features like Optical Power Control definitely make a difference.
I've also found which brand/type of media matters a great deal too (and
for some media, the speed you burn it at). My experience has been that
most CD players will play at least one brand/type of CD-R media burned
at 4x or 8x, but not always the same brand/type :-) Not wishing to
contradict Roland, but my experience has been that CD-R compatibility
across CD players is generally good, but can't be assumed. I've
generally enjoyed better compatibility with the brand-name media (TDK
and Maxell) than the no-name discs. The no-name discs also seem to fare
worse at higher burn speeds, so a cheap disc burned at 4x tends to be
more compatible than one burned at 16x.
For example, I have found some cheap silver/blue 'GQ' brand CD-Rs will
not even be recognized in my Sony changer, and skip badly in the C90,
but the couple of Maxel 'Black' CD-Rs I've tried work very well.
On the burner front, I've had good results in the past from a TDK CD-RW
drive (which are rumored to be OEM'd from Plexor, who have an excellent
reputation). These days I'm using either a Lite-On LTR 48246S drive
(48x/24x/48x), or one of the Ridata 2nd generation DVD+R/RW drives
(which are also excellent CD-RW drives) to burn discs. A good source for
CD-ROM benchmarks is www.cdspeed2000.com which also has DAE (digital
audio extraction) benchmarks - very handy ;-)
Paul
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Okay, I'm changing the topic!!!--> DVX-100 Changer |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>From: "ToR" <calculathor@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com
>To: <xdp4000x-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: XT-100DAB question
>Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:48:12 -0500
>
>--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "ToR" <calculathor@hotmail.com>
>
>Colin,
>That would have been a nice solution but
>When you burn a DVD at home, it's format will be one of
>DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW or DVD+RW, depending on your DVD burner hardware.
>DVX-100 supports only CD,CD-R,CD-RW and DVD
>It does not support DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW or DVD+RW
>Also DVX-100's SNR is only 90 dB.
>So it's not a good solution for quality even if it worked.
>
Where did you see that S/N ratio? Was that a tested one or Sony's stated
SNR? I read a report on it and the SNR was something like 85dB out from the
analog outputs and that was for CD-Audio only, nothing else was tested.
85dB isn't bad at all, but considering Alpine's similar changer tested at
over 100dB, it goes to show that Sony didn't really build this one with that
much CD-Audio quality in mind. Furthermore the Alpine already features dual
control (independent or Ai-Net) and requires no extra-cost adapter to hook
it to an Ai-Net HU.
The SNR of th DVX-100 may indeed be better through the optical output,
however. Also the DVD-Video quality may surpass the Alpine (the tests I
read did not test the video quality of either unit).
>Now one thing that puzzles me is that the optical output on DVX-100 is
>primarily for linking to a DTS/Dolby Digital processor.
>That's the reason why they implemented optical out, not for linking to
>210/4000. (thats why SNR is 90 dB)
>But Sony does not have a DTS/Dolby Digital processor????
>
>Now the question is, why sony does not have a processor like this?
>And to what processor are they expecting me to connect DVX-100 to?
>
Yeah I guess this is a bit funny eh? Perhaps they were meaning for you to
use that Pio processor! Or perhaps they meant for you to use a Panasonic
CY-AC300 DD/DTS processor! :D The Panasonic is pretty nice as well and
though the MSRP was originally $700 on that unit they are available
refurbished for $200-$250 sometimes on eBay.
>Does anyone know anything about the CDX-M610, one of the last head units
>supported DSP control.
>
I can't remeber which of the M units (ABP) could support a DSP, but if the
M610 does support a DSP, then it will likely be very similar to the M600,
M650, and M750 units. There are so many of them that are similar I can't
remember which one is which. Furthermore the number of the unit doesn't
indicate how new it is! For example the M750 is OLDER than the M730! So
that confuses things more. My best guess is that the M610 would be much
like the M750 but without HX-DSP.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with HX-DSP--it was a pretty nice setup and met
the needs of those who did not want to buy an external DSP for several
hundreds of dollars more, to add on to their unit. However in the days of
HX-DSP there were units with that and then other units that did not have it
but instead had DSP Control. That way you could choose which one you
wanted.
Nowadays it seems that EQ7 and DSO are actually very similar to what HX-DSP
was, only they don't call it "HX-DSP" anymore, just "DSO" and "EQ7". That
and there is no choice anymore--they don't make any XDP units nor any units
with DSP Control anymore. And that is what stinks!
Roland M.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: optical /rca quick question-y or n? |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: Sqxpert@aol.com
thanks dan- i don t listen to much to the radio- so i will just be running
the optical cable
thanks again
tim koehle
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XT-100DAB question |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Bobby" <mrblackc@msn.com>
>
>I highly doubt that there is a way to modify any of the changers currenly
>out there that play mp3's to give a digital output, or vice versa. I just
>doesn't seem like something that is easily do-able, unless you're a Sony
>engineer that is, and they decided that it wasn't a necessity. I guess I
>find myself stuck on this one question. Most of you, or at least alot of
>you are running car stereos using a c90 or c910, and a 4000x. Have any of
>you actually sat back and listened to the overall quality of sound
>reproduction of your top quality units while listening to a finely recorded
>CD? Then, after having heard your top quality system, how does it sound or
>feel to go and listen to someone elses Pioneer or Kenwood, or whatever they
>decide to use? It's not fun, nor enjoyable. At least I don't think so.
>What puzzles me is then, why, having chosen the route of purchasing truly
>high quality stereo equipment, would you want to install and listen to mp3
>audio with this equipment? I honestly have a hard time even burning a cd
>with an mp3 recorded onto it, if I plan on listening to it in my car.
>Honestly, if you haven't had the chance, take the time to listen to an
>actual mp3 burned onto a cd as cd audio (it will sound exactly the same as
>it would had it been played in an mp3 changer, if not a little better since
>you would be using optical. As much as most people seem to like the idea
>of
>mp3's because of $ and availability, they really don't seem to realize what
>they're listening to. It's crap! If you really listen to the music, you
>can hear how layered it is. The highs are very fake, they're there, but
>they have no depth. They tend to sound very 'tin'ny and lifeless, and have
>no direction at all. They seem to mess up the rest of the directional
>value
>of the mids since the stereo effect is so compressed. I guess I could go
>on
>and on about all the things I hate about listening to mp3's on a nice
>system, but really, I don't think the issue is big enough to toil over. If
>you want to listen to mp3's in your car, buy an mp3 changer, who cares
>whether it's optically connected or not, you're not listening to clean
>sound
>anyways.
>
>Bobby
>
I don't mean to nitpick, but perhaps separating such a long passage into
separate paragraphs would be good. It makes it a lot easier to read and
more likely that people will take the time to read it. Personally when I
see something very long like this all in one paragraph, I tend not to read
it. If it is separated, though, I usually read the post/email in its
entirety.
Well, on the other hand I guess it is better than those ones that are "one
sentence"--no periods or anything.
Roland M.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: production, encoding and reproduction quality, pcm-CD |
vs
mp3-CD vs atrac3-MD
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "ToR" <calculathor@hotmail.com>
>
>To get best audio quality use PCM encoded CD's produced by your
>trusted production house and listen with CDX-848x (102dB SNR) and
>connect optical spdif to XDP-4000x :)
>ToR
>
>
Just curious again as to where the SNR came from. Is that the Sony rating
or a measured one? I thought the *rated* SNR for the CDX-805 and 828 was
110dB (could be mistaken on that), I wonder if it somehow got lowered to
102dB by the time the 848X was released?
Roland M.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: optical /rca quick question-y or n? |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Bobby" <mrblackc@msn.com>
I just have to say, I have both analog rca's and optical installed in my
system, but from the cdx-c90 to the 4000x I'm forced to use analog all the
time because the install guys looped the cable too far and broke it and I've
yet to go in and install a new one. I have had optical working on the deck
to the eq beforehand, but now I am forced to use the analog outs. I also am
currently using a cdx-848x that does utilize the optical out to the eq.
Honest to god, I cannot tell any difference between the optical connections
or the analog one. I am using very high quality pre-amp leads, and I have
to say that I can tell a difference when cheap ones are used, but really, as
long as you use nice cables, I believe the two sound the same. I would
still prefer to use optical from the head unit to the eq, since I know that
it would techically be a cleaner sound, but I just honestly have to say, I
can't notice the difference. Anyone else?
Bobby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Botelho" <dbotel6500@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: optical /rca quick question-y or n?
> --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: Daniel Botelho
<dbotel6500@rogers.com>
>
> In general, yes,
>
> You *could* get away with running the RCA's alone, but it would sound much
> better to running the optical cable, not to mention more cleaner sounding.
>
> The reason you cannot run the optical cable alone, is because it is only
> sending out
> CD audio thru the optical cable. The AM/FM is transmitted on the RCA
> cabling.
>
> So yes, run BOTH cables thru the system. :-)
>
> Daniel
>
> Sqxpert@aol.com wrote:
>
> >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: Sqxpert@aol.com
> >
> >just wondering a yes or no
> >
> >when i run optical do i have to run rca cables too?
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >tim koehle
> >sylvania ohio
> >
> >p.s. have had some discussion about this before , but never got a
straight
> >answer!
> >
> >thanks again!
> >
> >tk
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: optical /rca quick question-y or n? |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: Sqxpert@aol.com
ok- thanks for your input!
tim koehle
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | production, encoding and reproduction quality, pcm-CD |
vs mp3-CD vs atrac3-MD
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "ToR" <calculathor@hotmail.com>
I don't know about the CDX-805.
Values are from their manuals.
if sony is lying about their specs like microsoft I wouldn't know..
CDX-828 SNR is 99dB
CDX-848x SNR is 102dB
CDX-C90 SNR is 109dB
CDX-757mx SNR is 102dB
MDX-66XLP SNR is 95dB
DVX-100 SNR is 90dB
ToR.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-xdp4000x-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roland M
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 12:06 PM
> To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: production, encoding and reproduction
quality,
> pcm-CD vs mp3-CD vs atrac3-MD
>
> --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>
> >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "ToR" <calculathor@hotmail.com>
> >
> >To get best audio quality use PCM encoded CD's produced by your
> >trusted production house and listen with CDX-848x (102dB SNR) and
> >connect optical spdif to XDP-4000x :)
> >ToR
> >
> >
>
> Just curious again as to where the SNR came from. Is that the Sony
rating
> or a measured one? I thought the *rated* SNR for the CDX-805 and 828
was
> 110dB (could be mistaken on that), I wonder if it somehow got lowered
to
> 102dB by the time the 848X was released?
>
> Roland M.
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XT-100DAB question |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Bobby" <mrblackc@msn.com>
Dear Roland,
My answer to you Roland as to why I did not separate such a long passage
into separate paragraphs is because I am not in school anymore, nor am I
being graded on whether I outline my thesis, clearly support the body of my
report, nor whether correct punctuation is utilized.
I made a reply, and when I do such a thing, I look at it moreso as
having a conversation with someone rather than actually having to polish up
on my English skills. If you really weren't interested in what I was saying
from the beginning, then I expected you to stop reading and to not post a
reply. That is how the system is supposed to work.
However, since you did take the time to reply, I then have to look at it
in the manner of you being rude, and truly I have no respect for that.
This message group is a source for those interested in the 4000x and the
various setups and different uses that people find while working with this
equipment, and it is quite improper, and may be considered abuse of the
system and rules to post such an off topic comment.
I will make a true effort to correct my English inaccuracies from this
point on for your benefit alone, but please, be considerate to others when
making a post, and remember what it is truly about. It's the reproduction
of the music we listen to Roland, not sentence structure. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bobby
P.s. I apologize to all who decided to finish reading this post, and I
assure that this is the final response I will make to any off topic
subjects.
I don't mean to nitpick, but perhaps separating such a long passage into
> separate paragraphs would be good. It makes it a lot easier to read and
> more likely that people will take the time to read it. Personally when I
> see something very long like this all in one paragraph, I tend not to read
> it. If it is separated, though, I usually read the post/email in its
> entirety.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: XT-100DAB question
> --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>
> >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Bobby" <mrblackc@msn.com>
> >
> >I highly doubt that there is a way to modify any of the changers currenly
> >out there that play mp3's to give a digital output, or vice versa. I
just
> >doesn't seem like something that is easily do-able, unless you're a Sony
> >engineer that is, and they decided that it wasn't a necessity. I guess I
> >find myself stuck on this one question. Most of you, or at least alot of
> >you are running car stereos using a c90 or c910, and a 4000x. Have any
of
> >you actually sat back and listened to the overall quality of sound
> >reproduction of your top quality units while listening to a finely
recorded
> >CD? Then, after having heard your top quality system, how does it sound
or
> >feel to go and listen to someone elses Pioneer or Kenwood, or whatever
they
> >decide to use? It's not fun, nor enjoyable. At least I don't think so.
> >What puzzles me is then, why, having chosen the route of purchasing truly
> >high quality stereo equipment, would you want to install and listen to
mp3
> >audio with this equipment? I honestly have a hard time even burning a cd
> >with an mp3 recorded onto it, if I plan on listening to it in my car.
> >Honestly, if you haven't had the chance, take the time to listen to an
> >actual mp3 burned onto a cd as cd audio (it will sound exactly the same
as
> >it would had it been played in an mp3 changer, if not a little better
since
> >you would be using optical. As much as most people seem to like the idea
> >of
> >mp3's because of $ and availability, they really don't seem to realize
what
> >they're listening to. It's crap! If you really listen to the music, you
> >can hear how layered it is. The highs are very fake, they're there, but
> >they have no depth. They tend to sound very 'tin'ny and lifeless, and
have
> >no direction at all. They seem to mess up the rest of the directional
> >value
> >of the mids since the stereo effect is so compressed. I guess I could go
> >on
> >and on about all the things I hate about listening to mp3's on a nice
> >system, but really, I don't think the issue is big enough to toil over.
If
> >you want to listen to mp3's in your car, buy an mp3 changer, who cares
> >whether it's optically connected or not, you're not listening to clean
> >sound
> >anyways.
> >
> >Bobby
> >
>
> I don't mean to nitpick, but perhaps separating such a long passage into
> separate paragraphs would be good. It makes it a lot easier to read and
> more likely that people will take the time to read it. Personally when I
> see something very long like this all in one paragraph, I tend not to read
> it. If it is separated, though, I usually read the post/email in its
> entirety.
>
> Well, on the other hand I guess it is better than those ones that are "one
> sentence"--no periods or anything.
>
> Roland M.
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XT-100DAB question |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Bobby" <mrblackc@msn.com>
>
>Dear Roland,
>
> However, since you did take the time to reply, I then have to look at
>it
>in the manner of you being rude, and truly I have no respect for that.
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Bobby
>
I am sorry if I came off as rude, I didn't mean to be. I was just saying
that it might make it easier to read for not only myself but others as well
if it were a bit spaced out.
I don't care about the length of post (as I often make lengthy posts
myself), but I just find it easier to read in paragraphs rather than one big
lump of writing. I'm sure others will probably find this as well.
Again, I apoligise if I was rude, it was more of a suggestion than a
criticism.
Roland M.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|