|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4981 Registered: May-04 | This thread is duplicated in the "Receivers" section and posted here to reach a broader segment on the separates community. Post your answers here, and if desired, copy and paste them into the thread under "Receivers". ***** This is a long post. If you want to cut to the chase, advance to the bottom of the post now. I shall post this in the "Home Audio", "Home Theater" and "Computer" sections of the forum since those seem most relevant to the question. ******* On another thread in the "Home Audio", "Receivers" forum I got involved in a "discussion" which began as a question about the value of separate pre amp/power amp combinations as compared to one high wattage HT receiver. The "conversation" drifted onto the issue of how separate components are constructed and configured vs. how the industry has moved to make HT receivers a part of the trend toward integrating the Home Theater system into a whole house "Home Entertainment" system. One side of the "debate" went like this: "The basic point of the circuitry of the amplifier is to allow for general amplification of the analog signals it receives, hopefully without distorting it. Basically choices are made as to what to do when signals of various designs are received and these are coded into the solid state circuitry that you are used to. The instructions used to be hard coded with the use of the electronics that were available then. The signals have moved from analog source to digital source and the amps made adjustments. The whole idea behind the process of creating a VLSI chip is not just to pack 350 transistors in a chip and recreate the circuit that already has been working. ... When we get to a point when you have access to a high number of MIPS (millions of instructions per second) you have the ability to create and recreate the circuitry that was previously soldered into circuit board, by programming. In this way you are not limited to the original design of the circuit. Now part of this flexibility comes through, at this juncture, as what we see when we do on-screen programming of units such as the (Denon) 5803. Speaker placement, lots of pre-set audio and channel settings are still fairly rudimentary use of this technology. It is capable of a lot more. The programming of these chips allow you to completely control the above mentioned signals so that they can be amplified in any way you like them. Warm, bright, high bass, low tones and millions of other settings can simply be programmed to match the taste of the user. Jazz, hip hop, country, rock? Set it up in any way you please. It shouldn't be too far down the road when the receiver will make adjustments as it plays the song because it recognizes the genre and knows your taste for listening to that type of music. I'm sure even you would enjoy being able to tune your amp to do just what you would like and not just how some engineer thought it should sound. The units such as the 5803 have the ability to receive updated programming through a port in the back. I don't know how often software upgrades are released by Denon, but it sure makes it exciting to know you are not limited to what you got from the factory. I'm looking forward to the day when the manufacturers will release a software development kit (SDK) for these units so owners can do the modifications themselves. Try that with your tube amp and $.28 diode. Jan there is a reason why, for the most part, amps are not built with the older technology. They don't meet our needs any more." My own thought was: "Why don't you begin with the reason there are so many high end (audio) separates not using IC's in the signal path, or even for system management, if they sound as good as discrete component circuits." Obviously, from the information provided above, you can recognize I prefer to state my case in as few words as possible. But, I digress. The home entertainment industry has headed in two very distinct directions over the last twenty years. One seeking the highest fidelity from discrete components and the other seeking to intgrate the entertainment experience into a more "complete" and visionary component. As with everything today, common ground between the two camps is minimal and tenuous. The buying public is also split into groups. Some such as myself, who use forty year old vacuum tube amplifers in my two channel system, have no need for the integration of Ethernet connections, no desire to plug our amplifiers into anything other than an AC outlet and cringe at the thought of "Warm, bright, high bass, low tones and millions of other settings can simply be programmed to match the taste of the user. Jazz, hip hop, country, rock? Set it up in any way you please." To listeners like myself, the way I like it is the way it sounded when it was performed. I have no need for enhancements or alterations. (Naturally, I don't even have tone controls on my pre amp.) I do not look forward to "tuning" my amp anyway I please. I bought my amp because I liked it the way it was designed and have no desire to change it. This seems to be the attitude of the high end audio market where IC's are minimized, if not eliminated, for the "old fashioned" way of building with discrete components and to the point of hard wiring components instead of using a circuit board. Anyone who requires proof that this is the long standing tradition of the high end product manufacturers need only look at an issue of Stereophile (http://www.stereophile.com/) or any of the online review magazines. http://www.6moons.com/ http://www.tnt-audio.com/int.html http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ These are articles about the sort of product I would buy. Since I am not an "early adopter", I don't know what the future of audio at the other end of the spectrum offers. I've not really looked since it has no appeal to me. It obviously does have appeal to some people. So, here's the question. Which do you prefer and how would you spend your money (knowing what you know about the current state of audio/computers/electronics) if you were in a position to invest in a new "entertainment" system to last the next ten years? Would you invest your money in a very good two channel system using "old school" technology? Or, would you go for the integration of electronics in your whole house? (For those curious about the intial thread that raised this question; go here: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/152719.html) |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 703 Registered: Jun-05 | A 2 channel in my mind is the only way to go it hasnt changed directions from the original paths since the late 1800s,its dependable and dont have to worry about a new chip or another channel being added 6 months after you bought it.But thats only one side of the coin,it is superior because it only has on job.Yes true enough true enough it is more convinient and it does 2 formats 2channel and multi channel suround sound production,well comon sence over time has told us if you try to do to much you cant do everything as good as you do one thing,see that brings us to compramises it seems to have become a trend in modern life.Let me put it in another translation for you,Micheal Jordan is the greatest basketball player to ever put on a uniform,but when he put on a baseball uniform everything changed how could a guy be so physically gifted and be so medicore at baseball.It just goes to show you just because you can do mutiple things doesent mean you will be good at all of them,A A/V receiver is same way its priority is multi channel performance thats what is good at,yes it has the capability to play 2 channel music but its not that good at it,thats because it was not designed to be,the same way as why Micheal Jordan,not being good at baseball. |