Eclipse CD8454 vs. CD8053 ?

Home / the12volt's Install Bay / Car Audio / Eclipse CD8454 vs. CD8053 ? (

Topic Closed)

Welcome Guest :)

Members

Next Page > < Prev Topic Next Topic >

greg12a

Member - Posts: 2

Joined: April 17, 2005

Location: United States

Posted: April 17, 2005 at 11:02 PM / IP Logged

Hey guys, I need your professional help (Car Audio that is). I've been struggling with which Eclipse HU I should go with:

Eclipse CD8053 (Originally $549 - on sale for $299)

Eclipse CD8454 (Originally $599 - on sale for $349)

My current setup on my 4Runner:

- Eclipse CD5303 Headunit (5V - no amplification)

- MB Quart Tweeters, Mids, Co-Axs

- JL Audio 10 inch subs (2)

- A/D/S P640 (6 x 40 watts)

- A/D/S P1400 (1 x 400 wattts)

I'm finally joining the IPOD craze and my current 5303 doesn't have an aux-in to support the IPOD input. I know these are slightly older models, but will fit my needs well.

Do you have any recommendations on which head unit would be the best for my current setup (pros, cons, pain-points, etc)? My biggest concern is that the 8454 is unintuitive/quirky/and the controls are frustrating. Would it make sense to go CD8053 for it's pure simplicity and sound quality OR go with the 8454 with all the bells and whistles (custom-tuning, mp3, etc)?

- Would the optional balanced line adapter for the CD8053 make sense in my case - to go 16 volt - or unnecessary with my A/D/S amps (which at least back in the day were great amps)!

- I don't currently listen to MP3 discs (which the 8454 supports)...so don't think that's a big factor (unless I'm missing something and missing out)!

Thanks in advance!

kfr01

Gold - Posts: 2,121

This member has made a donation to the12volt.com. Click here for more info.

Joined: April 30, 2003

Posted: April 17, 2005 at 11:10 PM / IP Logged

You are not missing out. Keeping music -uncompressed- is always the best way to go.

The 8053 is an awesome legend of a deck. I would buy it.

New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

haemphyst

Platinum - Posts: 5,054

This member has been recognized as an authority in Electrical Theory. Click here for more info.

This member has been recognized as an authority in Mobile Audio and Video. Click here for more info.

Joined: January 19, 2003

Location: Michigan, Bouvet Island

Posted: April 18, 2005 at 12:07 AM / IP Logged

The 8053 for 299 bux is a SMOKIN' deal... Is it hot? LOL The balanced line adapter is really unnecessary, just use the 8v non balanced option. You will basically have the 8051, which is the unit I am STILL using in my dash. The 8051/8053 both had a 1/8 inch aux inout jack on a cable dangling out of the back of them, for Eclipse options, but it will accept a signal from a portable unit as well...

kfr is right... Keep your music files uncompressed, and your iPod DOES support wav and (I think) flac, so those will be your better options, rather than MP3 (shudder)

It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

greg12a

Member - Posts: 2

Joined: April 17, 2005

Location: United States

Posted: April 19, 2005 at 12:25 AM / IP Logged

Thanks for your input fellas. I'm gonna go ahead and go with the 8053. Both head units are great - and you're right about steering clear of the MP3 capability - makes sense!

My local Seattle Cartoys has the 8053 going for $299 - brand new! Can't go wrong with that...

Thanks again!

erobinson

Member - Posts: 4

Joined: April 26, 2005

Location: United States

Posted: April 26, 2005 at 3:24 PM / IP Logged

haemphyst wrote:

kfr is right... Keep your music files uncompressed, and your iPod DOES support wav and (I think) flac, so those will be your better options, rather than MP3 (shudder)

Just fyi, an mp3 encoded with a good encoder (such as LAME) at a reasonable bit rate (say avg 220 VBR) will be basically impossible to differentiate from the original recording. Try performing an ABX test if you don't believe me. There is really no reason to put uncompressed files on your iPod, you'll never hear the difference, especially in your car. Not to mention, the iPod doesn't have a worldclass pre-amp or DAC so any theoretical benifit from uncompressed files is moot.

kfr01

Gold - Posts: 2,121

Joined: April 30, 2003

Posted: April 26, 2005 at 4:43 PM / IP Logged

Thanks for the "fyi." Lossless is still technically better. It always will be. If you don't care about space, like I don't, it would be 100% foolish to take a step back and use a lossy format.

If you care about space, by all means, lossy it up.

New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

erobinson

Member - Posts: 4

Joined: April 26, 2005

Location: United States

Posted: April 26, 2005 at 8:31 PM / IP Logged

kfr01 wrote:

Thanks for the "fyi." Lossless is still technically better. It always will be. If you don't care about space, like I don't, it would be 100% foolish to take a step back and use a lossy format.

If you care about space, by all means, lossy it up.

What deems it better? If there is no audible or perceptual difference then how is it better? Yes, lossless is actually lossless (lol), but that doesn't make it "technically better". It makes it "technically more accurate" though. But, if only a signal analyzer can tell the difference, and not your ears, what is the point? I don't know about you, but I keep my CD's, so it is not like I am making reference backups. Not to mention, it's probably more likely you'll lose your hard drive to a crash than the CD lose it's data.

And no, I don't really care about space, I have nearly half a terrabyte of storage, but I am far from a fool by not ripping my CD's to wave files.

kfr01

Gold - Posts: 2,121

Joined: April 30, 2003

Posted: April 26, 2005 at 8:50 PM / IP Logged

Sigh. There's simply no motivation for me, since I don't care about space, to lose information and resolution in my music. I don't give a flying rip that some mp3.com blind a/b test shows 9/10 people can't hear it. I simply don't care. 0 caring about that. My -opinion- is that it makes 00000000000000000000 sense to take a step backward for 00000000000000000000000 reason. I can't bring myself to say, "hey, I know -- for no reason whatsoever I'll take information out of my music today. Great idea! Why didn't I think of this sooner!?!" Sorry, isn't going to happen. Maybe it is just me. *shrug*

I want to take steps forward not backward. Forward. Not backward. Forward.

But whatever, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. I think mp3 makes little sense, you think I make little sense.

I appologize if you took offense to the foolish statement. I was talking about me. That's how I feel when I thing about taking information out of music for no reason. Me. Not you. I wasn't trying to imply that anyone else should feel foolish. You are most certainly not a fool. Again, my appologies for that. I should have been more careful.

This conversation has nowhere to go but you repeating yourself and me repeating myself.

You'll say, "but not audible!" I'll say, "I don't care, there's no motivation to degrade, even technically, for me." We'll repeat this over and over.... and over. We have nowhere to go.

This conversation should end.

New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

erobinson

Member - Posts: 4

Joined: April 26, 2005

Location: United States

Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:04 PM / IP Logged

Fine, I'm not trying to get you to convert to mp3, I use AAC anyways, I just want to make sure people know that mp3 is a great way to compress music because as long as you encode it at a reasonable bit rate, you will never hear the difference even on the highest end system. I felt people might get the wrong idea from your post. I personally see no reason to use lossless encoding, as there is no good reason to waste hard drive space simply because I have the ability to waste the space and not care. Anyway, I'm done.

kfr01

Gold - Posts: 2,121

Joined: April 30, 2003

Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:50 PM / IP Logged

I think on the highest end system there IS a difference to be heard. If you've seen a quality study on the subject that says otherwise, please link me up. Seriously, I've been searching for one as I've been having this same friendly argument in "real life" with a friend of mine. I can't find one. The only ones I've seen have all been done by people with names like mp3-4-eva or folks commercially involved in mp3 software.

Funny flip-flop of opinions we have.

You see no reason to waste disk space.

I see no reason not to use disk space.

One of those things that will never be resolved. ;-)

Cheers.

p.s. stick around the forum, we could use some more spunky members who can articulate themselves well. :-)

New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

Next Page >

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Search the12volt.com

Follow the12volt.com

Disclaimer: *All information on this site ( the12volt.com ) is provided "as is" without any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to fitness for a particular use. Any user assumes the entire risk as to the accuracy and use of this information. Please verify all wire colors and diagrams before applying any information.