Its okay for surround and maybe its even something of a bargain, given the right speakers and the right room. But for me and my serious late night 2-channel binges it just didn't mate well with my Paradigm Studio 40.v3's. Sound was almost passable on instrumental stuff like straight ahead jazz, latin jazz, and out jazz. But when vocals were mixed in things got pretty thin and bright. I'm a novice and there are people on this board who know a lot more than I do. But it seems to me the vox humana is the real test. On the Panny, both male and female vocalists just sounded too thin and too bright and I couldn't get them to pop in to the middle of the soundstage. Amy Mann, Manfred Mann, Kurt Elling, Curt Cobain, Tom Waits, Tom T. Hall, Neil Young, Ferlin Young, T.S. Eliot, Eliot Smith, Chuck D., Dee Dee Ramone, Emmylou Harris, Lou Reed, Johnny Cash, Johnny Rotten, Iggy Pop, Pop Wagner.... They just didn't sound like they were in the room.
I appreciate this forum. Your collective experience with the NAD surround receivers kept me from making a big mistake (I think). And I don't at all regret giving the Panny a ride. I don't care for any of the brick and mortar hifi shops around here, so its great to audition a piece of gear in my own home for a month and simply pay the shipping cost to return it. Its my kind of shopping. Thanks again, Edster.
I really wanted to like the Panny. And I think Edster has really been quite restrained, given the level of zeal he has for this piece of equipment. But, in the end, I just found the Panasonic a bit bright, thin, and fatiguing for my speakers and my room and my ears.
You've heard the same thing everyone on here (except Edster) has heard. I'm sure it's a great piece for HT, but it's awful for music. I couldn't even tolerate it with instrumental jazz. But thanks for the review!
All too often people (esp. newbies) mindlessly conform to the self-serving price=quality conventional wisdom that is the bread and butter of the audio industry and audio press, rather than finding out for themselves what works or doesn't work on their gear, room, and ears.
Kudos to you for ignoring all the shrill naysayers around here and making up your own mind!
So what will you try next? If you are after a more pronounced midrange, you could look into the NAD c320 or c352 integrated stereo amp. Their 2-channel gear doesn't have the hiss/hum issues of the multichannel receivers. Nowhere near the Panny's clarity but they do push voices more...I recently found that I did prefer hearing Diana Krall on my NAD separates on my friend's Wharfedale speakers than I did with those speakers on the Panny. So a lot of synergistic factors do come into play.
PS. You listed "TS Eliot" as one of your musical sources...surely this is not the man of "J. Alfred Prufrock" fame?
PPS. I should add that I did come very close to the sound of the NAD-Wharfedales combo with the Panny-Wharfedales combo by using the "Vocals" DSP setting on the Panny.
Yes Mark, you heard what myself and others have hears from the Panasonic. If you only have 250 or so to spend, and dont want used, then choices are limited.
But if you can pony up a few dollars more, just about any analog with a good power supply will push vocals closer to where they belong, IMO.
Hey Edster. Actually, I do have vinyl of T.S. Eliot's "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats." Its really insane. He's reading his own poems and his voice is just amazing. But I fibbed a little bit about listening to it in my current system. Someday I'll get a nice Rega table and a phono pre-amp and I will be able to listen to vinyl.
I'll keep you posted on what gear I try next.
I do have a NAD C370 and I love it, but its destined to move into my study and mate with some Maggie MMG's. So I'm still looking for an inexpensive HT solution that will do justice to my Paradigms. I might go back to H/K.
The other day, an old friend starts semi-raving about his new Panasonic XR70 digital receiver. This is extraordinary, because in the 30 years I've known him, I have never seen him use any receiver. Over the years, I've seen him use all sorts of McIntosh, Mark Levinson, and many other high-end electonics too numerous for my feeble memory to remember. Also, he's had many expensive esoteric speakers throughout the years as well. He is the quintesential restless audiophile with a good ear and a love of good music...in other words, an Old Dog of the first order. There are no surround systems in this guy's house.
I e-mailed him later to find out what speakers the panasonic receiver was hooked up to. I did not get his permission to quote his response here, but I'm sure he doesn't mind.
Hi John. Yes, the speakers I am presently listening to are the Apogee Duetta Signatures. This is the second or third from the top of the line in the Apogee production. The larger speakers mandate bi and tri-amping which is too expensive, tricky, and complicated for the little gain in performance. Apogee also made ribbon speakers which use a conventional woofer, depending on the model, a 6", an 8", and 10" woofer models which sounded quite good, if not quite as clear and coherent as the full out ribbon design for both tweeter ribbons and bass panels. The Duetta is a completely ribbon design, tweeter and woofer panels. As you probably know, the Apogees are extremely difficult loads to drive. The larger Apogees hover around one half to 1 ohm !! Quite a challenge. The Duettas hover around 2-3 ohms and have the reputation of being somewhat hard to drive. Nonetheless, the Panny 70 drives them with ease and power to spare, plus sounds great doing it. No hum, lots of detail, extraordinary high end, and really punchy bass. Quite a bargain even if it were only putting out half the power. One item to note, if you are thinking of acquiring the Panasonic 70, it has a digital volume control which is demonstrably better than the conventional controls in the slightly lower cost models. I purchased my 70 from J&R Electronics in NY for $289.00 plus $15 shipping with 30 day return rights. It is a little difficult to read and do the setup from the manual; I am still discovering settings. Just make sure the subwoofer connection is turned off to get full range response in the other channels when driving two speakers. It is an impressive product and makes one wonder what sort of flips other manufacturers are presently going through to match it.
I will be going over to his house after the holidays to check this out.
> The other day, an old friend starts semi-raving about his new Panasonic XR70 digital receiver. This is extraordinary, because in the 30 years I've known him, I have never seen him use any receiver. Over the years, I've seen him use all sorts of McIntosh, Mark Levinson, and many other high-end electonics too numerous for my feeble memory to remember.
Wow! Well this is definitely not someone thinking with his pocketbook, that's for sure.
Thanks for the Panny tip Edster....but it's on its way back to Amazon
Go figures, that's what happens when someone with very little experience in audio dares to make recommendations. tsk tsk tsk, Big No No
Mike, shame that you had to burn the money for the freight chargers to send the panny back, although it is a very moderate sum, perhaps eddie would like to pick up the tab?
Vaderonymous Now, that's funny, most creative thing you have come up with in a long time! See! not everything is obscure in that little head of yours, you have your moments.
Last post, I already kinda hijacked this thread, Sorry Mark S.
well it's nice to have you back after you went away for a few days to lick your wounds as usual.
btw you poor brainless twit, you claim to be "new to this forum" and yet you cited 1. Paul of CerwinVega fame, and 2. me listening to speakers at Fry's...both of which have not come up for at least six months.
I guess Edster's never read any old posts from the archives while searching for information. Guess shilling the POS Panny takes up too much of his time.
Poor mentally underprivileged eddie, the things that come out of his mouth, I have already begged him to take his foot out of his oral cavity before he says anything but he just does not listen, that is a babyish soul in great misery.
He is sooooo predictable; I know what he is going to say next:
"You forgot to take your medications" "You are that anonymous" "You are a poor girl" lol
no the truth is I don't bother reading archives and I doubt very few people other than obsessive freaks do either, or someone searching for some specific review info.
In any case, Vader is far too flaky and stupid to actually research archives.
btw Ziggybabe, did you not read John's post about his friend who switched from Mark Levinson to the Panny? Just because your gear/room/ears isn't good enough for the Panny, don't assume the same of everyone else, LOL!
> He is sooooo predictable; I know what he is going to say next:
I have to say, all you do is copy other people's words. I was calling you a predictable bore in several other threads, and now here you go plagiarizing shamelessly again...
In fact when you were "anonymous" you once went through a phase of typing back VERBATIM exactly whatever the other person wrote...a cyber-echo of a freak you were. This was right before you started posting color photos of lacerated wangers, if I remember correctly.
Omigod, what will Vaderonymous farrt out next? lol
Anonymous
Posted on
up yours Edster! fyi, it was a different Anonymous who was posting those photos of "lacerated wangers!" Sick sick sick.
I love your circular logic Edster. You called out Vader, saying he "claim[ed] to be new" but cited old information. Yet I showed exactly why that would be so easy to do for anyone fairly new here. The truth is there's a lot more value in the older threads since not every one of them has been hijacked into a Panny infomercial. And speaking of "obsessive freaks" I'm not sure there's a more glaring definition of that term than someone who has the same Copy/Paste response to EVERY thread that comes up regarding receivers.
As for John's 'friend' I really couldn't care less. Yet another 'review' from someone I have no frame of reference with, other than his ability to name-drop expensive gear. To be perfectly honest, I've never felt that Mark Levinson gear offered anywhere near the value/dollar of brands like Naim, Musical Fidelity, Cayin and others. But that's irrelevant. I trust my own ears, and they tell me exactly the same think that Art, Vader, and the OP's ears tell them. The Panny is junk for music.
No Ziggy, my Panny blurbs don't hijack any threads at all, it's hysterical Pannyphobes like you and trolls like Vader who hijack them. Since you seem too dense to notice, whenever the OP does not respond to my Panny blurbs or politely declines interest, I just let the thread evolve on its own. It's people like YOU who hijack these threads since you are too comically INSECURE to simply ignore the Panny blurbs and get on with the thread. Instead you always throw the thread off-track by getting your knickers in a wad as usual that (gasp!) Edster *dared* to again suggest the Panny to another newbie.
> As for John's 'friend' I really couldn't care less. Yet another 'review' from someone I have no frame of reference with, other than his ability to name-drop expensive gear. To be perfectly honest, I've never felt that Mark Levinson gear offered anywhere near the value/dollar of brands like Naim, Musical Fidelity, Cayin and others. But that's irrelevant. I trust my own ears, and they tell me exactly the same think that Art, Vader, and the OP's ears tell them. The Panny is junk for music.
Ah, you're back in Muslim fundamentalist mode.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that OTHERS might have had very different experience with the Panny than you, Art, or Vader-anonymous? Whence comes this infantile intolerance and dogmatism? Are you truly so simple-minded as to doubt that audio is, like most things, mostly SUBJECTIVE? Do you think that simply because YOU disliked it, therefore everyone else will too and therefore should not even be allowed to try it out at home for themselves?
Like I've said before, if you Pannyphobes are so sure that this is such a POS, you should be ENCOURAGING people to try it out so that they can agree with you.
You certainly don't seem mature enough to accept DISAGREEMENT on this subject, that's for sure.
Ester... as for John's friend, and anyone else real or imagined that has a great frame of reference for audio, if they choose the Panny more power to them.
The problem with recommending that hunk of plastic to newbies is that they don't have that frame of reference, and all I (or any of my other band of "Pannyphobes") am trying to do is turn them towards what real audio sounds like. Get it through your head that does NOT have anything to do with cost. Or even digital vs. analog. The Panny is fine for cheap HT. But it is awful at reproducing music.
But this is the last I'm posting about it. It's really become tiresome. For that matter, I hope everyone who needs an AVR buys the Panny from now on. It'll make for some amazing deals on real gear when no one buys them anymore.
and FYI Edster.. about the whole "Pannyphobe." That term would imply that I fear the Panny, when in actuality I loathe it. My only fear regarding the Panny is that I might actually have to listen to music on it again.
> The problem with recommending that hunk of plastic to newbies is that they don't have that frame of reference, and all I (or any of my other band of "Pannyphobes") am trying to do is turn them towards what real audio sounds like.
LOL, as if you or anyone can actually DEFINE "real audio" for all humanity...my God, do you have any idea how utterly LAUGHABLE your arrogance is?
> But this is the last I'm posting about it.
awwwwwwww, I'm so crushed!
> and FYI Edster.. about the whole "Pannyphobe." That term would imply that I fear the Panny, when in actuality I loathe it.
On a conscious level, you might indeed "loathe" it---however, you consistently hysterical, intolerant and dogmatic reactions to the mere mention/recommendation of it suggests that there are deeper unconscious motivations in play, namely FEAR.
In this case, fear that a lot of people are going to try the Panny and like it, thereby contradicting YOUR experience with it.
Ziggy, if you were truly SECURE in your own audio gear and audio knowledge, you'd find better things to do than constantly go hysterical over the Panny like this.
Actually Edster what's LAUGHABLE is your inability to get your head around simple concepts. I said "real audio" which is easily definable as the faithful reproduction of live voices and instruments, something which the Panny is incapable of doing. When I listen to a live recording that I've made, I know EXACTLY what it should sound like. And there's nothing you can do to the Panny to make it sound like the real thing. I won't begin to make an argument that any really inexpensive analog receiver can duplicate that sound, but they're much closer to the real thing than the Panny gets. The Panny distorts EVERYTHING. Not in the sense of typical audio distortion, but in the sense that nothing that comes out of it sounds like the recording that goes into it.
> I said "real audio" which is easily definable as the faithful reproduction of live voices and instruments, something which the Panny is incapable of doing.
No, that's YOUR definition of "real audio"---and one favored among a very small segment of audio consumers.
Most people like whatever they like...whether it be Bose, Sony, or the high end stuff. If someone listens to the whole gamut of audio offerings and still decides to buy a Bose or a Sony that's there prerogative...for you to PRESUME to know what's "real audio" that everyone else should also agree with is laughable indeed.
Tell me: why in God's name should EVERYONE have the same "live music as reference" approach that you and a handful of others on this board claim to have? What kind of narrow-minded, arrogant and pompous horsesh*t is that?
Bottom line here is that many people who HAVE heard and owned much more expensive gear from Rotel to Mark Levinson, have found that they quite enjoyed the Panny. Same cannot be said of ANY OTHER budget receiver under $500, and therefore the Panny deserves to be tried out by anybody in the market for a receiver or amp...doesn't mean they'll like it too, but at $15 a pop for return shipping it's a very worthwhile experiment.
> Edster922, that is the most ridiculous thing I think you have ever posted.
Why so? Most people are comfortable with the concept of "subjectivism" in audio, especially as it pertains to controversial subjects like specialized cables and interconnects. Yet here we have a couple of Pannyphobes who are hell-bent on imposing THEIR tastes and standards on everyone else, LOL.
This "live music as reference" notion is just that...a notion. Not some holy scripture carved in stone.
And btw, I've heard many live recordings as well as live performances that were a pale shadow of the studio recordings.
Ed, what would you compare the music to? A summers day? A rose, to smell as sweet? The friggin' Constitution? Canadian beer?
The anchor is the live performance,Have you heard a studio session? Like being there?(I know you will say yes).
It is as disjointed and seperate, at times, as the American Idol Christmas Dinner Party.
Left to the techno-deviat minds, a live studio session comes out as 'Brothers in Arms'.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but gimme Jim Croce on a stool, and you, of all people, could appreciate live sound with the ascends(regardless of amplification).
Can't you back down from the 'liberal' notion of'be yourself' just long enough to realize that simple anti-establishment, or anti-common opinio ism just can't work all the time?
Yes, Edster, people like what they like. But what people like and what is real are not necessarily the same thing.
That you can continue to argue the point that music should sound like the instruments and voices that created it is all the proof I need that you have no idea what you're talking about.
And I never talked about "live recordings" vs. "studio recordings" - there are stellar and awful versions of both to choose from. I specifically mentioned MY recordings of events that I have been to, and the Panny's inability to reproduce the sound and the environment compared to the live experience.
> But what people like and what is real are not necessarily the same thing.
Of course it is, because "real" does not exist. The majority of audio buyers do not go out and listen to live music every weekend, maybe 2-3 times a year at best. Therefore what is "real" to someone who frequents live music performances and someone who does not are two completely different things. What's so hard for you to understand about THAT? And why should those audio buyers who don't frequent live performances try to adopt the tastes of those who do?
> That you can continue to argue the point that music should sound like the instruments and voices that created it is all the proof I need that you have no idea what you're talking about.
That's not the point I'm arguing. I'm arguing that AMPLIFIED MUSIC doesn't need to sound like *anything* in particular, just as long as the listener finds it pleasing.
Additionally, you seem unaware of the brevity and vaguness of aural memory. How do you KNOW that what you *think* sounds like a "real" piano when you're at home listening to say, Diana Krall is *really* how her piano would sound if you were sitting 15 feet away from her in a small cafe? Versus how her piano would sound if you were in row 50 in a 5,000 seat auditorium? How do you KNOW that the "piano" you think you are hearing in that auditorium is really the piano, rather than having been colored by the thousands of megawatts of analog amplification as well as the acoustic characteristics of the space?
I'm not talking about Diana Krall in those different environments. I'm talking about me standing 20' from a stage and listening to a recording from RIGHT THERE. But that's not the point either. Regardless of where in the venue I am/was, I know what a real piano sounds like. And on a good recording with good equipment I can tell the difference between a Steinway, a Yamaha and a Bosendorfer piano. I can't tell that difference on an inexpensive AVR, but I can still tell it's a piano. On the Panny a piano does not even sound like a piano. Nor does any other instrument sound like the real instrument. Regardless of the source recording, I know what MOST instruments sound like, and nothing that comes out of the Panny sounds like a real instrument.
> Regardless of where in the venue I am/was, I know what a real piano sounds like. And on a good recording with good equipment I can tell the difference between a Steinway, a Yamaha and a Bosendorfer piano. I can't tell that difference on an inexpensive AVR, but I can still tell it's a piano. On the Panny a piano does not even sound like a piano. Nor does any other instrument sound like the real instrument. Regardless of the source recording, I know what MOST instruments sound like, and nothing that comes out of the Panny sounds like a real instrument.
Ohhhhhh-kay, if you say so...I hereby congratulate you for your exquisite million-dollar hearing and pinpoint aural memory!
Bottom line remains: many other people have different hearing experience, abilities, and most importantly, TASTES on this matter. (Not to mention different rooms, CDPs and speakers.) Why is this so hard for you to simply ACCEPT? Do they all have to conform to YOUR "special" standards? Do they all have to hear the Panny the way that YOU happen to hear it?
As do I congratulate you Ziggy, a true musicphile!
If only I had the talent...
Ed, you are hopeless and helpless. My simple point(3 billion aside) is that you hold views and opinions contrary to most of the forum members on the reference thing.(see bathroom farrt)
This is your lot in life, your pastime, if not your job, and your personal pleasure, and that's fine. But as you preach to the already steadfast, your views and beliefs fly like a Led Zeppelin.
Tell me: why in God's name should EVERYONE have the same "live music as reference" approach that you and a handful of others on this board claim to have? What kind of narrow-minded, arrogant and pompous horsesh*t is that?
PUH-LEEZ, Nuck! Surely you don't consider what, maybe 6 or 7 people (not counting the various "anonymous" registered and unregistered incarnations of this "Vader" flake) to be some overwhelming majority comparable to 3 billion Chinese? LOL
How many active regulars are there in the entire Home Audio area anyways, maybe 2 dozen tops?
LOL, what a *staggering* and representative cross-section of the audio-buying public!!!
Not necessarily all of the audio buying public, thats not the point. If the 'other' 95% buy utilitarian, or more pedestrian, or budget stuff, then they could buy at cc or bb. With their noodles.
> Not necessarily all of the audio buying public, thats not the point.
Of course that's the point. The newbies who pop up here asking for advice do not hail from this forum's clique of 6-7 Panny critics with their "live music as reference" orthodoxy, so why on earth should my advice to them bear ANY relation to the dogmatic fixations of such a completely irrelevant and microscopic number of individuals?
Moreover, without my steady Panny postings, many of those same newbs are likely to buy overpriced receivers at CC/BB without ever knowing that lo and behold, somewhere out there is a $230 little marvel that they MIGHT (at least a 50/50 if not 70/30) like as much or better than say a $500-1000 HK, Yamaha, Onkyo, etc.
I'm simply giving people more choices, Nuck...is that not democracy at its best?
I will nod in mock supplication to the masses of underpowered buying public who might succoumb to the panny.
However, I still suggest a refurbed H/K or so for beginners.
Although, in light of the season, will bow to the need for affordable entertainment for those who find this thing entertaining.
So there.
Now i must wash my hands.
And crank up the stereo.
Disclaimer:
This, in no way endorses any cheap piece of plastic that Ed endorses. However, if any said item expounds the enjoyment for the masses, then I must endorse enjoyment for the masses.
> Although, in light of the season, will bow to the need for affordable entertainment for those who find this thing entertaining.
ah yes, but there are also many Panny lovers who chose it for reasons totally divorced from its pricetag, such as the friend that John S. referenced here, and the guy withe Rotel 1095 that I linked to from avsforum.com ... THAT is what makes this such a remarkable little device!
> However, if any said item expounds the enjoyment for the masses, then I must endorse enjoyment for the masses.
well now that you mention it, the Panny is indeed an IED, it simply EXPLODES with stunning and absolute sonic brilliance...an Incomparably Excellent Design!
