Eclipse CD8454 vs. CD8053 ?
Printed From: the12volt.com
Forum Name: Car Audio
Forum Discription: Car Stereos, Amplifiers, Crossovers, Processors, Speakers, Subwoofers, etc.
URL: https://www.the12volt.com/installbay/forum_posts.asp?tid=54117
Printed Date: May 14, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Topic: Eclipse CD8454 vs. CD8053 ?
Posted By: greg12a
Subject: Eclipse CD8454 vs. CD8053 ?
Date Posted: April 17, 2005 at 11:02 PM
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!
Replies:
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 17, 2005 at 11:10 PM
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
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: April 18, 2005 at 12:07 AM
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."
Posted By: greg12a
Date Posted: April 19, 2005 at 12:25 AM
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!
Posted By: erobinson
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 3:24 PM
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.
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 4:43 PM
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
Posted By: erobinson
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 8:31 PM
kfr01] wrote:
hanks 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.
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 8:50 PM
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
Posted By: erobinson
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:04 PM
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.
Posted By: kfr01
Date Posted: April 26, 2005 at 10:50 PM
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
Posted By: haemphyst
Date Posted: April 27, 2005 at 12:48 AM
erobinson wrote:
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.
I also am not trying to say you are foolish, but that statement is simply wrong. kfr01 and I have been over this a few times, and I could sit you down in front of my system, and you WOULD hear the difference, NO MATTER the bit rate. I did an experiment I ripped a song I was VERY familiar with - Jennifer Warnes - The Hunter - with EAC (it was the first and ONLY time I have ever gotten it to work, BTW) saved as a WAV file. I then converted THAT file (using EZCDExtractor) to various bit-rate MP3 and FLAC formats, and without converting them back, I burned them DIRECTLY to CD, using Nero5. There was a NOTICEABLE difference, between wav and MP3, even at 320kbps. I (think, may have, might have) heard a difference even in the flac recordings. (This has yet to be empirically proven - as I said I MIGHT have heard a difference - the experiments are incomplete as of this writing.)
Now, in the *CAR*, where the noise floor is so high already, it is very unlikely you will hear the differnece in MOST music, rolling down the road at 70MPH, with the windows down, but in the house, with an even moderate resolution system, you WILL hear the difference. ------------- 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."
|