---------------------------------------------------------- XDP4000X-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 01/09/04: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:01 AM - Re: c90 and such... (DB) 2. 08:57 AM - Re: c90 and such... (One Park) 3. 09:08 AM - Re: Re: c90 and such... (Bobby Braun) 4. 02:59 PM - Re: c90 and such... (Roland M) 5. 03:04 PM - Re: c90 and such... (Roland M) 6. 03:26 PM - Re: c90 and such... (Roland M) 7. 04:01 PM - Re: XDP-4000x Toslink Input... (Roland M) 8. 07:00 PM - Re: c90 and such... (One Park) 9. 07:27 PM - Re: c90 and such... (Roland M) 10. 11:10 PM - Re: c90 and such... (One Park) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:06 AM PST US From: DB Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: DB Hey, Don't use the XDP-210EQ...either stick with the XDP-U50 or the XDP-4000... The 210 is a dirty piece, IMHO. I've had my experiences with it, as the unit works out well, but when the volume is turned up, there's an inherent "hiss" in the background. I took it up with sony of canada, and showed their techs on their test bench. They concurred. In the end, they bought it back from me, as they could not repair the hiss. Design fault. :-P Just an FYI... D One Park wrote: >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" > >I currently use an OLD OLD XR-U700 hu with an equally old XDP-U50D >(You guys are the ONLY ones who still remember these. Also had an old U404 >CD >changer, but my dad finally broke the RCA connection part. Maybe i'll fix >that up) > >Finally, an upgrade after 8 years... I'm about to receive a second >hand C90 and a XDP-210EQ soon, and I would very much like to run the >signals >using the toslink cable. (reduce possible RCA noise interference) > >However, when i browsed some Q&A here, (actually, i looked at ALL the ones >that were posted herer) some say they use the XAD210, while the websites >are telling me to get the XAD211. What are the diff between the two? > >Also, what would be the ideal thickness of the optical cable that I should >use? So far, I can find either a 5mm, and up to 7.5mm. > > >Hmmm, that guy selling his 4000x for $300 shipped, he still have it? > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:57:36 AM PST US From: "One Park" Subject: XDP4000X-List: Re: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" **************QUOTE************************ "Subject: Re: c90 and such... From: DB (dbotel6500@rogers.com) --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: DB Hey, Don't use the XDP-210EQ...either stick with the XDP-U50 or the XDP-4000... The 210 is a dirty piece, IMHO. I've had my experiences with it, as the unit works out well, but when the volume is turned up, there's an inherent "hiss" in the background. I took it up with sony of canada, and showed their techs on their test bench. They concurred. In the end, they bought it back from me, as they could not repair the hiss. Design fault. :-P Just an FYI... D ********UNQUOTE************* SOrry I had to reply this way, cause I don't think my subscription has been approved as yet. Ok, I DID read about that hiss, but the music would pretty much make that sound go away.. I'm not competing in any SQ event (rather leaning more towards SPL). My U50D seems...inadequate. Although I don't compete, I do like good imaging. That being said, I find that certain frequencies aren't being produced as well as the others. This is why I figure the EQ ability of the 210 might give me some help. (Who knows? If someone offers a good deal on a mint condition 4000x, i'll be changing it). so two questions now.. 1. what is teh diff between the XAD210 and the SAD211? 2. what is the preout voltage of the U50D as well as the 210EQ? thanks guys~ ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:08:19 AM PST US From: "Bobby Braun" Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: Re: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Bobby Braun" There is no difference between the xad210 and xad211, just model number, as for the output voltage of the 210eq, it's the same as the c90, 4volt, I cannot say what it is for the u50d. ----- Original Message ----- From: "One Park" Subject: XDP4000X-List: Re: c90 and such... > --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" > > **************QUOTE************************ > > > "Subject: Re: c90 and such... > From: DB (dbotel6500@rogers.com) > Date: Fri Jan 09 - 6:01 AM > > --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: DB > > Hey, > > Don't use the XDP-210EQ...either stick with the XDP-U50 or the XDP-4000... > > The 210 is a dirty piece, IMHO. I've had my experiences with it, as the > unit works > out well, but when the volume is turned up, there's an inherent "hiss" > in the background. > > I took it up with sony of canada, and showed their techs on their test > bench. > They concurred. In the end, they bought it back from me, as they could not > repair the hiss. Design fault. :-P > > Just an FYI... > > D > > ********UNQUOTE************* > > SOrry I had to reply this way, cause I don't think my subscription has been > approved as yet. > > Ok, I DID read about that hiss, but the music would pretty much make that > sound go away.. I'm not competing in any SQ event (rather leaning more > towards SPL). > > My U50D seems...inadequate. Although I don't compete, I do like good > imaging. That being said, I find that certain frequencies aren't being > produced as well as the others. This is why I figure the EQ ability of the > 210 might give me some help. (Who knows? If someone offers a good deal on a > mint condition 4000x, i'll be changing it). > > so two questions now.. > 1. what is teh diff between the XAD210 and the SAD211? > 2. what is the preout voltage of the U50D as well as the 210EQ? > > thanks guys~ > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 02:59:21 PM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" > >Finally, an upgrade after 8 years... I'm about to receive a second >hand C90 and a XDP-210EQ soon, and I would very much like to run the >signals >using the toslink cable. (reduce possible RCA noise interference) > >However, when i browsed some Q&A here, (actually, i looked at ALL the ones >that were posted herer) some say they use the XAD210, while the websites >are telling me to get the XAD211. What are the diff between the two? > >Also, what would be the ideal thickness of the optical cable that I should >use? So far, I can find either a 5mm, and up to 7.5mm. > > >Hmmm, that guy selling his 4000x for $300 shipped, he still have it? > > The 210EQ is not that bad. Bobby's right about the hiss problem but still, it isn't really a big deal--you can even eliminate it if you set your amps' gain controls up so that you max the volume before the hiss "kicks in" (which it literally does, like an "on/off" switch!). Then just put a mark or remember the max volume on the HU before the hiss and you're all set. The 210EQ is definitely a better processor than the U50D. It has better D/As (and A/D) than the U50D and is an EQ rather than a soundfield processor (unless you rather have the surround modes that is). The one small disadvantage of the 210EQ (and even the 4000X for that matter) v. the U50D is the fact that the U50D has a BUILT-IN capability for 2 changers, without an MCA (Multi-Changer Adapter). For more than 2 changers, an MCA is required with the U50D. The other two require an MCA for anything more than one changer. The 210EQ has a rated output voltage of 4V across the board. The U50D I *think* was the same but it might have been only 4V on the F/R outputs (I'm not certain really). Having said all that you should realise, however that the D/As in the 210EQ and the U50D are inferior to those that are already in the C90, they are still quite competent but the C90 does have better D/As. There is a difference in that the 210EQ has a D/A per output PAIR while the C90 has a PAIR of D/A one for Left, one for Right channels. The outputs F/R/Sub are all then run after the D/A. This means any crossover is done in the digital domain on a 210EQ or U50D while it would be done in the analog domain on the C90 alone. The 4000X is really the match for the C90--often times people will actually say it is better to use the C90 alone rather than use the C90 with the 210EQ or U50D. As for the D210 and D211 adapters, the D211 is just the newer "revision" of the adapter. Sony changed *something*--likely to make it more reliable as most revisions do; but functionally they are identical. Either one will fit the bill for any given application that calls for either of them. Roland M. Expand your wine savvy and get some great new recipes at MSN Wine. http://wine.msn.com ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:04:54 PM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >From: DB >Reply-To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com >To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:00:52 -0500 > >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: DB > >Hey, > >Don't use the XDP-210EQ...either stick with the XDP-U50 or the XDP-4000... > >The 210 is a dirty piece, IMHO. I've had my experiences with it, as the >unit works >out well, but when the volume is turned up, there's an inherent "hiss" >in the background. > >I took it up with sony of canada, and showed their techs on their test >bench. >They concurred. In the end, they bought it back from me, as they could not >repair the hiss. Design fault. :-P > >Just an FYI... > >D > Oops, sorry I thought it was Bobby that commented about the hiss from the 210EQ (what I said in my last post); looks like it was "D" (Dan?) above though... Roland M. Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 03:26:18 PM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" > > >Also, what would be the ideal thickness of the optical cable that I should >use? So far, I can find either a 5mm, and up to 7.5mm. > Oh, as for the optical cable, the difference in the 5mm and 7.5mm ones is simply the *jacket*. The actual optical fibre inside the cable is always the same diameter and is part of the Toslink standard. The difference is mainly in the protection of the cable. A thicker jacket = more protection so it will stand up better in harsher environments. The car is indeed one of these environments so it would be better to use the thicker jacket cable. Also the thicker cable will prevent (to some degree) over bending/flexing of the cable which would otherwise permanently damage it. You may also want to look for other "new" Toslink features such as the non-directional "round" end cables. These cables don't have the dumb square plug on the end which requires insertion in only one way--instead they fit the standard square Toslink connection in any way making for an easier install. (NOTE: The "round" standard end cables are NOT the same as the Toslink miniplug connection which is a smaller, minijack connection). Also if you can afford it, a glass-core optical cable is technically best. Though one of these would cost a lot more than a "regular" Toslink cable, AND it would be more fragile as well. Really you should be fine to stick with a "regular" cable with a nice jacket. Roland M. Expand your wine savvy and get some great new recipes at MSN Wine. http://wine.msn.com ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 04:01:09 PM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: XDP-4000x Toslink Input... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: Matt Dralle > > >Hey Guys, > >I was wondering if anyone knew why the Toslink inputs on the Sony XDP-4000x >are hard set at a 480000 sample rate? It will not auto-sync at any other >sample rate such as the common CD rate of 44.1k. This means that all of >the Sony Changers and head unit CD outputs have to be up converted from the >native 44.1k sample rate to the 48k required by the 4k. This just doesn't >make any sense to me from a performance or quality standpoint. It would >keep 4k owners from just hooking up any generic cd changer to the unit, but >that seems a little subversive. > >Any thoughts or information on this would be most appreciated. > >Matt Dralle > > Are you certain of that Matt? That would also mean that the sampling rates coming out of the C90, C910, MDX-400, and all CD changers with an optical output would ALL be throwing 48kHz through their outputs. And that would also mean both the 210EQ and U50D also use 48kHz sampling. This is non-optimal indeed! I know that I once used the optical out from my CDX-828 to record to a portable MD player (by simply removing the optical cable and plugging it another optical into the MD unit) but of course the portable MD had a built-in sampling rate converter so I'd never have known it was 48kHz or not. This certainly seems odd... I think I should try hooking some of this equipment up in my house (I have a spare MDX-400 I can use for starters) to my receiver and since it displays the word lenth, sampling frequency and bit length I can see if that is the case without a 4000X connected. (Perhaps the changers, etc. can be "commanded" to output either 44.1kHz or 48kHz?) I'm assuming you have done something similar already to verify this 48k sampling frequency yourself then eh? The CS D/As in the 4000X are certainly capable of multiple sampling rates so I wonder why they wouldn't allow them to be used? I'm guessing you've also tried inputting other sampling rates such as 44.1kHz or 32kHz without success? This is certainly quite the revelation! 48kHz? Why on earth??? Roland M. Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:00:31 PM PST US From: "One Park" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" >The 210EQ is not that bad. Bobby's right about the hiss problem but still, >it isn't really a big deal--you can even eliminate it if you set your amps' >gain controls up so that you max the volume before the hiss "kicks in" >(which it literally does, like an "on/off" switch!). Then just put a mark >or remember the max volume on the HU before the hiss and you're all set. Hmmm, then again, the C90's manual says it's got a digital volume mumbo-jumbo, and so I shuldn't set the gains too high. I'llmake a few adjustments and see what I like. But again, I'm convined that I won't be able to hear the hiss with the music playing at such volumes. :) >The 210EQ is definitely a better processor than the U50D. It has better >D/As (and A/D) than the U50D and is an EQ rather than a soundfield >processor >(unless you rather have the surround modes that is). The one small >disadvantage of the 210EQ (and even the 4000X for that matter) v. the U50D >is the fact that the U50D has a BUILT-IN capability for 2 changers, without >an MCA (Multi-Changer Adapter). For more than 2 changers, an MCA is >required with the U50D. The other two require an MCA for anything more >than >one changer. Nah, only planning to use one. Currently using the 757MX, gives me mp3 capabilities on any sony, so I can't complain. If anything, though, them 757MX changers skip like crazy with mp3 (clean disc and won't skip on PC's). Is there a way I could control the C90 to access tracks that are really really far ahead, like track 125, or would I have to use the old-fashioned way(hit random, hope it hits a higher number, then switch off random and go to desired track)? >The 210EQ has a rated output voltage of 4V across the board. The U50D I >*think* was the same but it might have been only 4V on the F/R outputs (I'm >not certain really). Ok, so I'll take it that my current U50D has 4v. You think the U50D is a collector's item, or get rid of it? >Having said all that you should realise, however that the D/As in the 210EQ >and the U50D are inferior to those that are already in the C90, they are >still quite competent but the C90 does have better D/As. There is a >difference in that the 210EQ has a D/A per output PAIR while the C90 has a >PAIR of D/A one for Left, one for Right channels. The outputs F/R/Sub are >all then run after the D/A. This means any crossover is done in the >digital >domain on a 210EQ or U50D while it would be done in the analog domain on >the >C90 alone. But what are my chances of being able to tel the diff between D/A's? I couldn't tell the diff between the alpha 24 bit processor(Denon) and an alpine 7998(although I know both can't be set EXACTLY the same). >The 4000X is really the match for the C90--often times people will actually >say it is better to use the C90 alone rather than use the C90 with the >210EQ >or U50D. Ok, so my next post will prolly be WTB XDP-4000x cheap! ;) >As for the D210 and D211 adapters, the D211 is just the newer "revision" of >the adapter. Sony changed *something*--likely to make it more reliable as >most revisions do; but functionally they are identical. Either one will >fit >the bill for any given application that calls for either of them. > >Roland M. Ah...so either one of them will work. Looks like many people have been problems with that stupid lil adaptor. I think I'll order a few of them in case any breaks off. Thanks! ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:20 PM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >From: "One Park" >Reply-To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com >To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:00:15 +0000 > >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" > >Hmmm, then again, the C90's manual says it's got a digital volume >mumbo-jumbo, and so I shuldn't set the gains too high. I'llmake a few >adjustments and see what I like. But again, I'm convined that I won't be >able to hear the hiss with the music playing at such volumes. :) > > Yeah, but both the C90 and the 210EQ would be using digital volume. The thing is once you hook up an XDP unit, the C90 no longer controls the volume, the XDP unit does. The control is still handled by the C90 as a user interface but it is acutally the XDP which changes the volume. This is why you will find there will be a certain point (if you're playing back pure silence) that the hiss will come on. It actually quite weird because it is really just like that--it just goes from not being there to being "on" just like that. Anyhow if you use the XDP-210EQ what I described is a way to avoid that situation. Truth be told when the volume is up that high you aren't going to notice the added hiss while actually listening to program material--well I don't at least. >Nah, only planning to use one. Currently using the 757MX, gives me mp3 >capabilities on any sony, so I can't complain. If anything, though, them >757MX changers skip like crazy with mp3 (clean disc and won't skip on >PC's). >Is there a way I could control the C90 to access tracks that are really >really far ahead, like track 125, or would I have to use the old-fashioned >way(hit random, hope it hits a higher number, then switch off random and go >to desired track)? > > Really? The 757MX skips with MP3 discs? Do you mean it skips due to read errors or it skips because of impact/rough roads? You'd think the buffer would hold quite a bit of information in MP3 mode thus eliminating any skips due to vibration. I'm guessing it just can't read the discs very well? In that case I'd try a different brand of CD-R or RW (depending on what you are using). Give Verbatim discs with the AZO or Super AZO dyes a try. The original AZO ones can be found in their "Vinyl" CD-Rs (look like records) and the Super AZO in their current DataLife Plus line. Barring that you could also try discs with black bottoms and see if that helps. >Ok, so I'll take it that my current U50D has 4v. You think the U50D is a >collector's item, or get rid of it? > Ahh, I dunno--if it is in mint condition in might be a "collector's item" but even then I'd imagine it wouldn't really be a collector's item at all. Not many people looking for those processors these days. You might get $50-$100 US for it on eBay though. Even 210EQs aren't fetching much these days--they are usually going around $100-$120 or so. People are all into new fancy dancy HUs with screens, MP3, DVD, etc. etc. Plus there haven't been any Sony models for pretty much the last 4-5 years that can even control an XDP unit--they stopped DSP control a long time ago :( You could keep the U50D for old time's sake or for another car, or just sell it--it's up to you. >But what are my chances of being able to tel the diff between D/A's? I >couldn't tell the diff between the alpha 24 bit processor(Denon) and an >alpine 7998(although I know both can't be set EXACTLY the same). > > >The 4000X is really the match for the C90--often times people will >actually > >say it is better to use the C90 alone rather than use the C90 with the > >210EQ > >or U50D. > >Ok, so my next post will prolly be WTB XDP-4000x cheap! ;) Well you're right--the chances are that you won't hear a difference in the D/As. That is why I said that some people would say the above. Not everyone would agree. Some people would see the EQ and crossover adjustments from the 210EQ to outweigh the fact that it uses lesser D/As (which probably aren't very different audibly to most people anyway). The 210EQ is still a very competent unit for what it does, IMO. >Thanks! Hey no problem! Hope everything works out with the new gear! The C90 is a really nice peice! :) Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:09 PM PST US From: "One Park" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: c90 and such... --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "One Park" >Yeah, but both the C90 and the 210EQ would be using digital volume. The >thing is once you hook up an XDP unit, the C90 no longer controls the >volume, the XDP unit does. The control is still handled by the C90 as a >user interface but it is acutally the XDP which changes the volume. This >is >why you will find there will be a certain point (if you're playing back >pure >silence) that the hiss will come on. It actually quite weird because it is >really just like that--it just goes from not being there to being "on" just >like that. Anyhow if you use the XDP-210EQ what I described is a way to >avoid that situation. Truth be told when the volume is up that high you >aren't going to notice the added hiss while actually listening to program >material--well I don't at least. Ah, okok... so basically raise my gains enough so I don't "enter the hiss realm" Got it.:) Curious.. jsut what kind of hiss are we talking about? As loud as what you'd get on a tape deck? >Really? The 757MX skips with MP3 discs? Do you mean it skips due to read >errors or it skips because of impact/rough roads? You'd think the buffer >would hold quite a bit of information in MP3 mode thus eliminating any >skips >due to vibration. I'm guessing it just can't read the discs very well? In >that case I'd try a different brand of CD-R or RW (depending on what you >are >using). Give Verbatim discs with the AZO or Super AZO dyes a try. The >original AZO ones can be found in their "Vinyl" CD-Rs (look like records) >and the Super AZO in their current DataLife Plus line. Barring that you >could also try discs with black bottoms and see if that helps. Yes, it skips with mp3, and the SLIGHTEST bump will do that. I'm thinking maybe something's wrong with the MP# conversion thingy, since CD's don't EVER skp, even if I shake it violently with my hands (yes, i literally did it to test ) About brands, I thought that might have been the prob, so what I did was try various brands (except TDK). Tried imation, kodak, samsung, and a horad of loudy b grade stuff as well (We're talking USD20 for 50~80 CD's) I'll give the black surface a try. Technically, it shouldn't have any difference at all, all just 1's and 0's... >Ahh, I dunno--if it is in mint condition in might be a "collector's item" >but even then I'd imagine it wouldn't really be a collector's item at all. >Not many people looking for those processors these days. You might get >$50-$100 US for it on eBay though. Even 210EQs aren't fetching much these >days--they are usually going around $100-$120 or so. People are all into >new fancy dancy HUs with screens, MP3, DVD, etc. etc. Plus there haven't >been any Sony models for pretty much the last 4-5 years that can even >control an XDP unit--they stopped DSP control a long time ago :( > >You could keep the U50D for old time's sake or for another car, or just >sell >it--it's up to you. Since it's served me so well for so long, I think i'll more than likely keep it. Thanks!~ >Well you're right--the chances are that you won't hear a difference in the >D/As. That is why I said that some people would say the above. Not >everyone would agree. Some people would see the EQ and crossover >adjustments from the 210EQ to outweigh the fact that it uses lesser D/As >(which probably aren't very different audibly to most people anyway). The >210EQ is still a very competent unit for what it does, IMO. So basically, I'll be happy with the 210EQ anyhow. Still, the 4000x looks very tempting. God knows I dont need it, but then again....hmmmm > >Hey no problem! Hope everything works out with the new gear! The C90 is a >really nice peice! :) Yupyup~ also, if things go well, i might be ble to get my hands on the XES here in about 3 months time. Gotta see why that's so hyped. I wasn't too impressed with the Alpine F1 anyway. no diff to me.