The sad demise of good head units

[naksteve]

I used to have Nakamichi tape decks--TD-500, 700, even a 1200 (basically a Dragon for the car--with NAAC (Nak Automatic Azimuth Control). These kicked-ass over the first digital systems when I competed in IASCA in the '80's. with a Dragon at home, my analog tapes seemed to sound much better than the early CD's. Analog is so much more forgiving when recording, it offers more headroom, a higher saturation level, which when considered with noise-reduction, approaches the S/N of digital. With digital recording, one must be very careful not to let peaks exceed O dbfs; otherwise harsh digital noise results. As a result, the recording level has to be kept lower than analog, which results in a less "dynamic" recording.)

Later, I had the classic Alpine 7909. still a great source unit.

When someone stole my Nak CD/tuner1, I looked at the Alpine F1, some of the rare Asian Denon units and, of course a Nak. Most head units today are receivers with built-in power and an emphasis on more features than SQ.

There just aren't many quality SQ head units. Alpine has the 7990 DVD/CD unit I considered. But there weren't many others.

Well, since Nak is no longer the company it once was before it got bought out by a Singapore holding company, it was difficult to find a Nak CD700II. I got a great deal from the Orient on a new Japanese-made one. Most of the stuff made today is manufactured in China.

Although it doesn't have many features, it does have great SQ. Like the old Nak's it has a separate DC-DC converter (like the TD-1200) and a phenomenal, high-voltage pre-amp section. It has digital ins/outs so I can connect my Sony D7 walkman DAT.

Even though speakers are probably the best improvement you can make in a sound system,this head unit definitely improved SQ to a significant degree.

[smoker]

ive been thinking this for a while, im not much into features, all i want is am/fm/cd......i dont burn discs so mp3 isnt that important to me personally and i really dont want dolphins and race cars and sqiggly lines and stuff dancing across the screen, i dont use the loud button so i definitely dont want built in eq and mega bass and excite features and so on......i dont even want built in power......and believe it or not i can live without the sub out.....aux input is nice for the video system i dont want to do without....one of my favorite head units i used to love was the kenwood kdc83r....it was killer all preamp with no bullshit, of course bullshit wasnt invented yet back then

[Ryan from Ohio]

Well Ive never had super high end SQ deck untill now.

May I sugguest a McIntosh ;)

[naksteve]

I did consider the McIntosh CD Player.It is certainly a fine unit SQ-wise, but I thought its old-fashioned twin-knob look would look aesthetically better in my '63 Riviera than some other new ones, even the the Nak.

[Ryan from Ohio]

Thats its built in anti-theft feature...

Really, its a classy unit. Not a flashy, classy ;)

[smoker]

i saw one at the meca finals installed in a 300zx and i thought it was gaawjus........

[naksteve]

the Nak CD700II has that, too

[Ryan from Ohio]

The problems with Naks is since theyve been sold out, they are being produced in a less than desireable place. Still a good unit, just the build quality has went down a notch or two.

[joeyc]

Have a chance to get naks as one of my products now, but from the picture they look kinda ugly! Is it just me?

[OnYrMrk]

No, you and the headunit are both equally ugly...J/K bro!!!

Nak HU's are traditionally ugly...but damn do they sound good!

[naksteve]

The problems with Naks is since theyve been sold out, they are being produced in a less than desireable place. Still a good unit, just the build quality has went down a notch or two.

yeah, the other units are, but the CD700II was made in Japan.

[Ryan from Ohio]

Relevance?

They are on CD700III now.

[Jonathan]

The CD700 I and II had their issues as well, especially to be such a high end head unit. Mainly in the CD section.

But yeah, the most recent stuff has went down in quality.

[geolemon]

Most head units today are receivers with built-in power and an emphasis on more features than SQ.
This simply tells you what sells.

If you were a head unit manufacturer, would you decide to manufacture a head unit that hundreds of thousands of people want to purchase, with the features that make them desirable to those hundreds of thousands of people?

Or would you rather build a head unit that only appeals to maybe a few hundred tweaky SQ enthusiasts who also have a system that could take advantage of that nominal sound quality increase?
(Oh - and those SQ guys have to also NOT be interested in the features that are offered in HU #1, by traditional standards) :rolleyes:

I'm a tweaky SQ freak, and I can tell you which one I'd be manufacturing. #1.:p

You can't fault the manufacturers for building what people want to buy.

The people to blame are the tweaky SQ manufacturers, who failed to build tweaky SQ head units that ALSO included those features. ;)

The people to blame are people who presumed that "SQ guys wouldn't want that, or that, or that..." :rolleyes:

I'm a big SQ guy, and it so happens that I've also got a whole collection of my old cassette tapes that I ripped to MP3 format. To be honest with you, the old crackles and hisses are nostalgic - I remember every detail from when I listened to the old punk rock walking to work with my headphones on. :thumbsup So, I'm one guy who wants a deck that can play MP3's. And I'd never argue that MP3's are a good SQ format.

I like to experiment with time alignment, although I usually never have it set up, because I usually like to demo my system to people in the passenger seat.

I like to have onboard crossovers, because I (like MANY SQ guys) change my system up quite a bit - and experiment with different speakers, and layouts.
Same reason - I like to have a built in subwoofer control, and adjustable crossover slopes.

I think that an external "aux in" would be a great idea. I've got an even better idea - a USB interface so that you could put songs onto a portable MP3 player - two way transfer, if you will. Lots of people have portable audio players.

Hell, I'd build a HU that had a wireless NIC card into it, so that I could upload and download to it. Better still, I could provide software that ran on the computer through the wireless NIC, and the software could provide RTA and other features, and then maybe the resulting EQ curves could be uploaded from the computer up to the HU for it to use. Just an idea. Lots of things can be done in the digital domain on the cheap, although the software development adds a lot of expense.

All I'm saying is that maybe some SQ guys want strippo-model HU's, and don't mind dropping $1K on a HU that just plays CD's and nothing else.

But even more SQ guys would enjoy features and more modern "today's basic" feature set as well. And that's why, just like cassette decks and 8-tracks, strippo-model SQ purist HU's have gone the way of the dinosaur.

(wait a minute - wouldn't it simply be easier to take one of those modern, fully-featured HU's and ADD good CD transport and D/A converters on board, maybe even upgraded MP3 decoding or proprietary MP3 enhancement software or something?)

[naksteve]

a lot of good points you just made,

yeah what sells the most is what manufacturers have to make to stay in business; but the car industry, each division, needs an imageproduct (e.g., Corvette, Viper, Acura NSX)--something to attract buyers into the showroom, so that, even though they may not be able to buy that showpiece, they may see something in the company line they associate with the same image and quality.

When the American car industry went to sh*t, it was because people didn't think they offered quality products on the same level as foreign competitors, or were responsive to consumers needs.

As an engineer, I know how valuable resources usually aren't spent where it counts--on making the best product possible, but on marketing, distribution, etc.

Yet, even if it takes money to design a "showpiece"that never sells or loses money, the benefits will be demonstrated in increased sales across the company's product line, because the "image" of quality created by that one piece will be associated with the entire company.

On inputs: USB is the way to go and the future for digital connection. Most new home audio DAC's include them so people can run their computer audio through USB to their home systems. And what's often "better" is not what always prevails. I2S digital transmission is one of the best ways to carry digital audio because of its extremely low jitter. It's even used internally in a lot of high-end DAC'S. But in terms of actual use, only a very select few manufacturers used it (Audio Alchemy, Perpetual Technologies, Mark Levinson). Since almost everyone has a computer, it would make sense to go with USB. I hate it when a company (say, Denon with their iLink) has a proprietary digital connection/transmission method that can only be used in their products. For consumers, there are optical and S/PDIF, which both have their shortcomings. AES/EBU is one professional standard that just isn't available on many consumer electronics. So, I agree with you that USB would be a great format that could be universally used/incorporated into digital devoices

Your download-able EQ idea: that was used by...damnit, let me think...not Eclipse, but the company that touted their high voltage-low impedance pre-amp outputs. You could go to their site, design some EQ curve, download it on a Cd-R, put it in the HU, and the changes would be made. Doesn't Alpine have this same feature now, too?

Time-alignment: I'm not a big fan of too much processing. But, at home, i have a Lexicon DC-2 digital controller with "panorama", a feature that allows you to move the sweet spot almost anywhere, using bands white noise to set phase, speaker angle, distance from front speakers' center to listening position, etc. When you get done, the imaging is VERY convincing. Vocals seem like they're coming out of the wall in front of you; instruments have a definite position and depth and space around them. I guess processing is just dependent on the quality of the processing itself.

Your last point: that's a good idea. Just make a decent transport with digital outs--that's it. Then SQ guys could add their own D/A, pre-amp's and whatever features they want. That's why I respect companies like Zapco, ARC Audio and old, old \Nak--which put out some really, really good dedicated pre-amps (e.g., like my preference-- the Nak TP-1200 pre-amp-only unit)

[naksteve]

yeah, it was Eclipse, which had the downloadable CD-R EQ/processing stuff.

[naksteve]

a NAK CD700III?

I haven't heard of that.

The CD700II I bought was among the last after production run. They stopped making them. I had to get mine from Japan.

[geolemon]

what sells the most is what manufacturers have to make to stay in business; but the car industry, each division, needs an imageproduct (e.g., Corvette, Viper, Acura NSX)--something to attract buyers into the showroom, so that, even though they may not be able to buy that showpiece, they may see something in the company line they associate with the same image and quality. That's a marketing concept - branding.
But even a product designed to enhance the brand image needs to make money. ;)

Also - it's hard to market a "strippo" product as an upgrade, when it doesn't have 1/3 of the features that the model below it has. And that doesn't enhance the brand image, that leaves the consumer simply with questions. "WTF?" You don't want your customers thinking that, especially when it's likely that your customers are being told "Oh, that's because it's loaded with higher quality components inside!" by the slick salesperson or some 17 year old kid you find at your local typical car audio joint. I wouldn't believe them either, and I don't want those people to be the foundation of my marketing and branding strategy. :sad017:

Take a Corvette as an example. It is Chevrolet's "image product", as you say. Even it, as a performance car, has power windows, leather seats, cruise control, and air conditioning. Because that's what people expect for $50,000.;)

As an engineer, I know how valuable resources usually aren't spent where it counts--on making the best product possible, but on marketing, distribution, etc.
No offense, but If I had an engineer that was thinking this way, I'd address that thinking quickly, or I'd need to let them go. That kind of "us vs. them" thinking is not only way off base, but harmful to morale within the organization, and begins a dangerous downward spiral - particularly if there are any particularly strong personalities speaking loudly.

A business is a single unit, with a common goal. You are either part of the team, or not. Or, perhaps better worded in one of my favorite business adages "you are either part of the steamroller, or part of the pavement." :happy055:

More importantly, no team can function properly if one unit is "doing their thing" while another unit is "doing their thing". One team has to facilitate the other, and compromise to yield a product that is properly aligned to the goals of the business - not the goals of engineering, or marketing, or human resources, or facilities, or purchasing, or manufacturing... its "and", not "or".

Think about it:
Market reasearch is done, in accordance with the branding and positioning of the company, to find out what consumers in that targeted segment want from their product, well into the next year. Technology trends play a role. Product designers and engineers work togther to unquestioningly design a product that meets those presented goals. Marketing people need to ensure that their target audience will be aware that their product exists out there. Logistics need to be addressed to make sure the product exists where those targeted demographics exist. It's really not fundamentally all that complicated.

And inherent in that, engineering needs to engineer not just functionality, but marketability, or the product will fail. It needs to engineer in packaging feasibility, or logistics (specifically distribution) become complicated and expensive. There are many interactions between units in a business, and all of those interactions are often even more important than the discrete function of any one of those business units on their own. ;)

But inside any of those business units, the danger is that employees might be working with such a head-down mentality, that they start talking about business areas in an "us vs. them" sort of way - and that is immediately harmful. :eek:

Your last point: that's a good idea. Just make a decent transport with digital outs--that's it. Then SQ guys could add their own D/A, pre-amp's and whatever features they want.
That's not at all my idea, although that would be one approach that could bring a cost-effective manufacturing approach to an entire product line, and end up arriving at the same place if that line was designed in a modular way - if implemented that way, I absolutely love it. :cool:

What I was saying is more in line with customer expectations: They expect to find an upgrade path, as the price increases. Consider the question "What do I get with the $800 model that I don't get with the $500 model?"

1) If the answer is "Well, it doesn't do MP3 like the $500 one, it doesn't have any auxiliary inputs like the $500 one does, it doesn't have the display features the $500 one does, it doesn't have the processing features that the $500 does, and you have to buy an amp that'll cost you another $200 to $400... but trust me, it's built with higher quality stuff inside, that means it'll sound better!" :rolleyes:

And god forbid if the customer actually tries to A/B compare the sound quality in the demo room. Does the customer have a trained ear? Is the equipment in the demo room such that the HU is actually the weakest link in the chain anyway? And realistically, how much of a SQ difference is it, comparing one already-good HU to this snobby model? It's a "sale lost" for sure.

2) On the other hand, if the answer was "Well, it has everything that the $500 model has, plus it has higher quality stuff inside, that means it'll sound better!" you may have just made a sale, and no demo necessary. That's a winning design.

And what does this show, really? Think about that:
Product 1 is engineering operating in a vacuum, operating independently of marketing. Product 2 is engineering working with marketing - and therefore customers. ;) Without that teamwork, despite engineering's best intentions, they developed a product that (as history has proved) customers actually don't want, despite upper-eschelon engineered performance - performance was only in one area, inadvertantly handicapping performance in all other areas.

I'm sure you understand this - as an engineer, you wouldn't want your legacy to be that you engineer in handicaps! :sad017: But to a non-technical person (such as management, who is fundamentally concerned with the organization as a team), that is what they would see in a product like that - and would inherently start asking questions like "Is this what market research identified? How are actual sales on this unit, by comparison?"
...and that's a whole road you don't want to be having responsibility for the answers. :o

And that's why that sort of "strippo performance" product doesn't exist anymore, I am convinced anyway.:thumbsup
I personally would love to "build my own solution", as a customer. To have the ability to take my pick of (and upgrade it later maybe) a CD transport. To have the ability to take my pick of a radio or satellite tuner. To have the ability to take my pick of a basic, traditional "bass and treble, fader and balance" processing section, or maybe a more sophisticated EQ-enhanced, DSP, crossover included processing section. To have the ability to select one of a few choices of interfaces (or maybe they in part correspond to the processing section).

Sure, you might end up with a HU that's needs an external chassis like a flip-out DVD, but it lets a customer honestly understand where their money is being spent in the HU, and gives them the flexibility to spend money multiple times with that company - starting small and upgrading, rather than buying once and maybe ditching it later in favor of another manufacturer's higher end later. I'm a fan of that idea. No one will build it though. :p

[geolemon]

That was strange - I made a post, and it didn't show up. Then, I made a second smaller post to see if I overwhelmed the forum or something :D and it didn't show up.
Then, today it shows up, but still sunk to the depths in the forum, as if there was no activity. WTF? :confused:

[geolemon]

Look at that - this thread is broken. :help:
I made a post, and it still says the last post was made "1 day ago".

[Chris from Washington]

The posts in this forum have to be approved first, and well we forget to check :)

[geolemon]

Oh - I didn't even realize what forum this thread was in... :oops:

I just log in here, and hit "find new posts" :o

Sorry. Maybe that last bit, or really most of this thread, doesn't belong in "reviews" at all? :confused:

[naksteve]

engineering needs to engineer not just functionality, but marketability, or the product will fail. It needs to engineer in packaging feasibility, or logistics :p

That is true. I used to write CFS (Customer Functionality Specifications)--what the customers expect and want subjectively; and Technical Specifications--which objectively define the performance of a product.

Of course, almost all company departments are involved in the first part.

But in terms of total budget expenditures, R&D and product engineering usually require a lot of up-front funding (w/o any tangible, immediate benefits to the company's bottom-line), and thus, are harder to procure and to justify to management. Whenever there are cuts, they often occur at these stages. There may be many great ideas or concepts, which may help produce better products, but most of the time are never adequately funded.

And it is true that many car audio companies with great products have gone bankrupt due to poor business organization/inter-departmental structure/sales strategies. Any company cannot survive without them. Yet to sell something, a company has to have products that are technologically advanced or engineered in the beginning to have features people want. To neglect this area is inevitably going to affect the profitability of the company.

[Tim]

Dude you guys just jogged my memory. I long for the dayz when the Naks and the Macs, were the head units to use. I agree totally, You can get features all day long on heads nowadays, but you just don't get the sound quality. Everything is all about convince, Gotta have Ipod built in, "sure would like to have bluetooth", "If it won't play MP3's I don't want it."

I guess all this is good cause I do burn CD's, don't got an Ipod, don't need bluetooth. But I would handily give up MP3's for some good sound quality heads, Especially now that I know the difference.

Tim