|
New member Username: AveesPost Number: 3 Registered: Mar-05 | I am planning to buy a samsung HLR6163W DLP TV 61'.I purchased a 5.1 speakers ysytem from PARADIGM Cinema110 series. From the prevous thread there were good recommendations for PANASONIC XR55 6.1 reciever .MY budget is under $500. My question will it be a good match for the above configuration? I was reading there is no HDMI inputs on the receiver. Do you really need it for the future.If yes what is the next best receiver for the money. Right now panny is on sale at CC for 239 |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3144 Registered: Mar-05 | No, IMHO you do not need HDMI because these petty little format wars are far from over, and besides, there isn't much difference between a video feed through a HDMI connection vs. one through a component video connection anyways. Don't fall for all the industry-generated hype about new formats and connections being "the future" every 3 months, it's just their way of making you constantly give them more of your money. But if you MUST have HDMI anyways, the Panasonic xr70 does have it, it's pretty much identical to the xr55 in other respects except for lack of binding posts on all channels, and it costs not much more. PS. The xr55 has 7 channels not 6, for some reason some sites list it incorrectly. |
|
ListenForYourself Unregistered guest | HDMI is not worth limiting yourself at this point, as future formats are far from settled. But do yourself a favor and listen to other receivers besides the Panny. If you listen to any music at all, the Panny sounds like @ss. If all you're using it for is movies, the Panny is fine. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3150 Registered: Mar-05 | oh Art, you are such a tragic figure, standing there screaming your lungs out into the wind... King Lear where art thou? |
|
Listen For Yourself Unregistered guest | Please Edster, this is not Art. Although I am in full agreement with him on the Panny. It's just not nearly as good as YOU think it is. Look, I've tried the thing, and, quite simply, it's audio performance is marginally better than atrocious. I even tried to like it - a good bargain is a good bargain - but it's just not that good. Sorry to rain on your parade. But for anyone that listens to music at all, there are simply better products out there for not much more money. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3154 Registered: Mar-05 | rain on my parade, LOL you poor thing, such delusions of grandeur. All you have to do to make people want to try something is to condemn it in exactly the same comically dogmatic and pompous tone you are using right now. So hey, keep up the good work bro...LOL! |
|
All Snobs Must Die! Unregistered guest | never trust an Unregistered Guest. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2346 Registered: Feb-05 | Eddie....that would be the same pompous dogmatic tone you use to support it. The same tone used to put down analog. People who live in glass houses and all that good rot you know. |
|
ListenForYourself Unregistered guest | Hear Hear Art! For the record, I am a registered user. But all my sign-in information is at home on my desktop and I can't remember the arbitraty password eCoustics gave me to log on from my laptop. |
|
black mamba Unregistered guest | Ok ok, we get it. Art thinks the panny sounds like crap and Edster thinks it sounds great. That does not answer the question of "is it a good receiver"? Is it built well, does it perform as advertised, does it have up to date features, etc, etc.? I think H/K's "sound good", but they malfunction, alot! Therefore I would not recommend them; see my point? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3168 Registered: Mar-05 | black mamba, about the only thing "ListenForYourself" has going for him/her/it is the pseudonym. I've always told people to AB the Panny at home against the analog receiver of their choice, yet this new PANNYS ENVY CLUB (also known as the UNPLANNED OBSOLESCENCE CLUB) has now seen fit to follow me around heaping all this hysterical abuse on the Panny. Go figure. Are these poor guys peeeing in their pants or what? LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3169 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, puh-leez. I have never pretended to be an "AUDIOPHILE" on his high horse with the final word on what sounds good or bad, just a saavy audio consumer and enthusiast. That's why I've always phrased my Panny recs along the lines of "try it and see if you like it as much as I do" rather than "you must be deaf or stupid if you don't like it." I have never insulted anyone just because they disliked the Panny after hearing it, yet you are now stooping to insulting people who listen to it and like it...if not insulting outright, certainly very patronizing, which is of course a very short step away from being pompous. In fact, lately YOU have taken to using the "you must be deaf or stupid if you like the Panny" invective more typical of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage. Quite surprising, given your usually gentlemanly persona---which to me indicates there is something much deeper at work here...in a word, FEAR. I think that deep down inside, you KNOW you're staring at a vast tidal wave about to come crashing down on this cozy little audio subculture, but you just don't want to admit it. Just think, 10 years from now people will be enjoying the SQ of analog receivers costing $1000 and up for the price of a 4GB Ipod today, around $200...and available in all those big-box evil chain stores and Walmarts and online, while ever more small audio shops go by the wayside! Sorry, that's just called THE MARCH OF HISTORY...and the only thing that might stand a chance of DELAYING it is the systematic dissemination of audiophile mantras like "you get what you pay for" and price-driven snobbism/cliqueishness. |
|
Silver Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 181 Registered: Jun-05 | Edster it's not about price, it's not about analog vs. digital.. it's about sound quality, plain and simple. And the Panny just doesn't measure up. I don't think you're an idiot for liking the Panny (nor is anyone else), just simply wrong about it. You have to look at your posts over the last few months and realize that you've become a parody. To you, the Panny is the answer to everything, when in reality it's nothing better than just another cheap receiver. Sure you can do worse, but you can do better too.... it really does come down to personal preference. But the Panny is NOT the end-all, be-all solution you continuously make it out to be. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3181 Registered: Mar-05 | Ziggy, you fail to notice that while I am constantly bringing up the Panny as a rec, I usually just tell people to AB it with the competition. I have no problem accepting that some people might not like it. That's because I understand that most of audio is all about totally subjective taste. There are no absolutes, just opinions for the most part. So all this pompous talk of "right" or "wrong" is frankly PREPOSTEROUS. Anyone who raves about Bose without ever listening to anything else is silly, but I say more power to anyone who raves about Bose AFTER listening to everything else. What amuses me is that it seems that some alleged "audiophiles" around here don't even WANT other people to give the Panny a fair shot, but attempt to pre-empt it with their clubbish insults. It seems that there is a real FEAR of the Panny catching on and destroying all the prestige and cachet of owning massive clunky and overpriced analog receivers/amps. Otherwise, if these people are so sure that the Panny is such a stinker, why would they bother? Don't they TRUST the common newbie to hear it next to other receivers and pooh-pooh it just like they did? Or (gasp!) does this self-appointed Audiophile Elite consider itself the final authority on what sounds "good" for everyone else? What I notice is that the more people come to this board, hear my rec about the Panny, try it and like it, the louder this juvenile vitriol gets. Thoreau once wrote, "Most men live lives of quiet desperation." Among the Panny-phobes around here it sure seems like LOUD desperation to me! lol I guess democracy is a bitter pill to swallow when it finally comes to audio... |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2357 Registered: Feb-05 | Eddie your posts on this subject only get more ridculous and "desperate" with time. Terms like "self appointed Audiophile Elite" just don't fit the folks you are labeling. I think some of us are tired of watching you mislead folks one after the other about a clearly inferior product. You can go on about how envious we are or whatever you like just keep in mind that I can drive across town and pick up the Panny today if I felt it were anything but junk. I have no reason to be jealous. I believe jealous is a better description of your feelings. "Fear" truly ludicrous. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3189 Registered: Mar-05 | "clearly inferior"---see, you are an audio dogmatist. No further proof needed. I respect your right to form your opinion about the Panny, yet you seek to prevent others from listening to it and forming THEIR own opinion of it. Why are you trying so hard to decide for others, Art? Isn't fear the basis of every authoritarian regime? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 547 Registered: Dec-04 | Authoritarian Regime? Do I see Edster and the other brownshirts, mounting a beer hall putsch here? A quantum moment, reversal of logic and everything else you post about the 230$ 'wonder' are amusing, Edster, but Regime? Maybe call G.B. for help with the regime change? Probably not necessary, no WMAD here. mass audio destruction |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3201 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL, more like "mass audio-SNOBBISM destruction," Nuck. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2365 Registered: Feb-05 | Like I said before Eddie your posts get more ridiculous and bizarre as time goes on. Ten years from now folks will still be listenig to tube amps and vinyl, not because they are fundamentally opposed to new technology but because it sounds good. It's that simple. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3205 Registered: Mar-05 | Sure Art, just like 10 years from now there will still be the Amish living in rural Pennsylvania without electricity or indoor plumbing. LOL |
|
Unregistered guest | I stumbled accross this site and said to myself "hey, this is exactly what I'm looking for, i.e., experts discussing the pros and cons of various receivers. After a lot of homework, I'm purchasing a Panasonic TH-42PX500U Plasma. Concurrent with this, I'm building a surround-Sound system. I've pretty much decided upon the Sony SLV-D369P combo unit. Now I'm looking for a receiver that will accomodate the Sony, a CD changer and a tape drive. I plan on installing five speakers in the ceiling and a sub-woofer. So, without, creating another verbal war, what would be a good choice for a receiver to drive all this? I'm 63 years old and don't have the hearing I used to have, so my system dosen't have to be really super. Just something my wife and I can sit back and enjoy as we flow further into the golden years. Our kids are shocked that we're even going this far. If appropriate, you can reply to me at rondh@cox.net Thanks. Ron Hughes |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 362 Registered: Feb-05 | HDMI is noticeably better than even progressive scan component video,at least to me, sorry Ed i'll have to part with you on that. As I'll say once again video switching is best done through your display not your receiver as this keeps the signal path as short as possible and will not subject the signal to the extra noise it will likely encounter in being in close proximity to an amplifier section. If your tv won't accomodate all your video sources buy a video switcher. Who the hell buys a receiver for it's video switching capability?!! Also I haven't heard the Panny but I have heard the HK DPR2005,wonderful sounding with the right speakers of course, and I'll bet the Panny doesn't come close particulary with build quality. Compare the Panny to the HK, most likely there will be very little comparison. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3209 Registered: Mar-05 | Eric, I agree the HK 2005 should have better build quality, but surprisingly from what I've read, those who've actually had it at home have given it mixed reviews, roughly half said they preferred or could hear no difference with the Panny and so returned it. Its predecessor, the DPR1005, got a lot of unfavorable feedback so the 2005 is definitely an improvement. I'd love to get my hands on one myself to compare. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 505 Registered: Apr-05 | Edster I think you answered the wrong question. Peter asked originally if HDMI switching was necessary and you answered that HDMI is nothing but a format war and is as good as component. I agree that you probably don't need switching, but to argue that a pure digital connection (albeit with security in this case) will not give you an improvement over an anolog connection (component) is to go against all your own arguements for your beloved Panny. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3214 Registered: Mar-05 | to be honest Stof, my arguments in favor of the Panny are not based in technological details per se, because I readily admit to having a very shaky grasp of the technical nuts and bolts of various amplification types. My arguments for the Panny are based about 80% on my own experience with it in comparison to my other analog gear, and 20% based on other users' experiences as reported on other audio forum like this. I do make a point of telling newbies that the Panny is a "digital" receiver only to set it apart from analog receivers because many newbies are not aware of the difference and may instantly dismiss the Panny simply because of its small size, light weight, and low-prestige nameplate. I realize that it is not really DIGITAL in the absolute sense of the word, no. Ditto with my comment about HDMI vs. component, it's just experiential not empirical. I have looked at TVs being run on HDMI connections next to TVs being run on component connections and did not see any appreciable difference at all. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 508 Registered: Apr-05 | Point taken, although we are talking about digital signal processing here rather than amplification which is stil analog. In that, as you probably know, I favor as much streamline digital processing as possible vs. analog to digital back to analog and so on and so forth. Digital just does so much better in areas of signal loss, information transmission and software control. I don't think HDMI is the end all, but I see these analog transmissions disappearing at some point. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3216 Registered: Mar-05 | > I don't think HDMI is the end all, but I see these analog transmissions disappearing at some point. Certainly no argument from me there! |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 363 Registered: Feb-05 | I think we've neglected the main point here video switching is best done through the display instead of the receiver,pre-pro. Ed you and Stof agree? And yes I'll say I like both digital and analog design amplifiers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3230 Registered: Mar-05 | In theory I'd have to agree, Eric. In practice I have a very simple and primitive video setup: no cable box since I don't have cable, just a VCR and DVD with an ancient 20" Panny that only has one *composite* video input. I used to use a Y-cable to share that input directly, then recently I decided to run the video through the Panny. Didn't notice any picture degradation at all, probably due to the small image size and quality of the TV. |
|
Unregistered guest | Help - which would be the best av receiver to buy a Pioneer VSX815 or a Harman Kardon 135 - the Kardon would cost me $75 more?? I run a Polk soundbar and a Polk PSW 10 Sub Comments greatfully appreciated!! Ted |
|
Anonymous | neither one Ted, go and get yourself that Panny 55 thats pisssing everyone off because its just so much better than everybody elses gear. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3250 Registered: Mar-05 | hmm, this must be the good Anon at work here...yeah baby! |