Archive through August 10, 2005
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 365 Registered: May-05 | OK, guys, I know I'll get killed if I do this BUT I just bid on a Denon 5803. (Hey, if 110 wpc is good, 170 wpc has to be better, right?) Also, I've read several reviews and everyone seems to think the 5803 does music and HT as well as any separates out there, without spending $3000 plus AND that's why I'm not looking at the 5805. Any one want to weigh in. If I spend another $1500 and continue with 60% HT and 40% music, although it's getting a closer to 50/50 with the new setup, is there a better way to go, while still being able to "do it all"? |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | I take it you bid on e-bay or some such place for the 5803. If you can get it at good price you have done a good thing. I don't know about the 5803 and the reviews you mention but it is[was] a very good receiver and should last you for many years. For most people, if not almost all, the 5805 is overkill in the extreme. At it's price of $6000 list you have many brands of separates to choose from. A used 5803 or any top of the line recent receiver like the Elite 49, 59 or Onkyo 989 is a pretty good way to get a great receiver for far less money than you would otherwise have to spend for similar performance. Good luck and hope you win the auction. On second thought maybe I'll bid on this thing myself! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 366 Registered: May-05 | Anon, I've already got a denon 3803. I'm just trying to figure out whether going to the 5803 and selling the 3803 makes sense or simply adding an amp(s) to the 3803 makes more sense, given my current and expected use? As many people already know, I have Ascend CBM 170s around and a 340c center with a Denon 2200 DVD universal player and a Samsung 34" HDTV. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZorroPost Number: 16 Registered: Jul-05 | Dakulis, IMHO if you are more and more into music you might be better off adding the amp. Here are some options to consider. http://www.hipposaudiovideo.com/nadt973.htm http://www.saturdayaudio.com Look for the NAD S-250 My two cents  Good luck ! |
|
Anonymous | Wudd up... Quick question... just want some reviews as to whether you guys think the sound system i bought was any good... Polk Audio RTi12 CSi3 Rti4 Velodyne DPS Sub HK AVR-635 lemmie know what you guys think |
|
Anoni Unregistered guest | Anonymous, Your question has been answered in two other threads where you posted the same question |
|
Anoni Unregistered guest | Anonymous, Your question has been answered in two other threads where you posted the same question |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | I did not know you had a 3803. Zorro's suggestion is a good one. I used to have a 3803 and could not stand it. It was very bright and while ok for movies it drove me nuts trying to listen to 2 channel sources, especially music. The sibilance was overwhelming. Other Denon's I have heard did not seem to have this problem. The 5803 is a terrific unit but using a good, smooth amp and using the 3803 as a preamp would be a good alternative. Just a matter of which way you prefer to go. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1408 Registered: Feb-05 | How much did you bid David? I must say unless you are getting it very inexpensively there are many better ways to go. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 367 Registered: May-05 | Art and multiple Anons, Right now the bid is around $1200 and I would go higher, I suspect. But, after I bid, I thought about Edster's approach recently where he bought a used amp and improved his sound for music. I haven't found the 3803 to be "very bright" but I'll have to listen more closely, especially for sibilance because, frankly, I haven't heard it since adding the 2200 and the new speakers. As always Art, I'd value your thoughts on how better to go about this. I'll PM you briefly to let you know how I intend to pull this off. Thanks all and keep the comments coming. BTW Anon, I love what you bought. Your system is outstanding. Now, go home and listen to it! |
|
New member Username: Cp1Mount Prospect, IL USA Post Number: 2 Registered: Aug-05 | Am I able to have both Digital Optical and Digital Coxal Output hook up at the same time connected from your HD tuner to your surround sound receiver. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1409 Registered: Feb-05 | David you've been PM'd. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1433 Registered: Mar-05 | David, For well under $1500 I'd add the NAD c372 integrated amp for 2-channel and possibly (pending a sidey by side listen first) the NAD c542 CDP, those 2 additions should take your 2-channel music to another level by themselves. It'd also save you the trouble of what to do with the 3803 you already have. HT sound is HT sound, I can't imagine the 5803 making much difference in that department. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1823 Registered: Jan-05 | That's like asking which is better........paper or plastic? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4835 Registered: May-04 | Anyone wondering about the relative merits of a fully packed reciever vs. a separate pre amp and power amp should only need to look inside of the receiver to notice all the wire looms and slip on connectors; the power supply X-former for the amplifier siting within inches of the pre amp's circuitry (often times both being controlled by the same stages of the power supply) and switches; the digital tuning system which cannot be turned off when not in use, the heatsinks that get very hot when producing 125 watts x 7, and so on and so on. Then look at the internals of a pre amp/processor, pick it up and notice the weight. Now, walk across the room and look at all the things that go into a good power amp sitting 15' away from the pre amp circuitry. 'Nuff said! |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 217 Registered: Apr-05 | David they have the 5803 at Ubid for about 2K shipped, and I think you get the warranty with it. My question is what is your need to upgrade to a 5803? Just the extra power, or do you need the extra connections? Ethernet? If your need is the extra power then go for it. If it is the extra connectors, then wait a little bit. I think they are dumping units like these because they are ramping up for their next models with better connectivity (wireless TCP/IP, HDMI etc.) |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 219 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan are you suggesting against the packed receivers because of density and power consumption? How much power does the digital tuning take up? Have you looked under the hood of you car lately? |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1829 Registered: Jan-05 | Stof, He was merely fashioning the 'stock' music snob reply to the question. |
|
New member Username: StevizardIndianapolis, Indiana USA Post Number: 5 Registered: Aug-05 | I just checked my catalog and the Denon 5803 isn't there. That can mean only one thing - its being discontinued. |
|
New member Username: StevizardIndianapolis, Indiana USA Post Number: 6 Registered: Aug-05 | CORRECTION: My catalog doesn't have it because my catalog is out of date. The 5803 has NOT been discontinued. Sorry for the goof. |
|
Anoni Unregistered guest | It's funny how Paul wants be involved in a subject of which he has no knowledge whatsoever. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4840 Registered: May-04 | No knowledge? Paul's never even walked past the library. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4841 Registered: May-04 | Stof - I'm trying to make the point, despite the yapping little dog at my ankles, that cramming a digital tuner that can affect pre amp performance; a pre amp with low level signals being routed through switches and push on connectors and a high wattage power amplifier with the attendant power transformer that radiates noise outward and the heat of the power output transistors all into one box run by a large scale IC "system management chip", you might be sacrificing some performance vs. separating each component into a separate chassis where the designer can do a better job of designing the single piece of equipment to do the single job it has to perform. Most contemporary high end receivers are sold on button, knob and light gee gaws as much as anything else. How many shops have a high end (?) receiver set up to compare to separates of approximately the same value? How many shops selling the top o' the line receivers have them set up for serious comparison against anything? Sell the sizzle, not the steak is a common motto in sales. Sell the face plate is what that translates into when pitching an expensive receiver. How many of those "features" even get used by the average consumer? Most separates are more purpose driven designs; they typically have minimal functions to get the job done. The power supplies are purpose driven to accommodate the equipment it's feeding. Large scale power supplies with transformers to match are kept away from small signal components such as pre amps. Digital tuners which can degrade the sound quality by injecting switching noise into the pre amp are kept away from the pre amp. The advantage has to go to separates when considering the next upgrade. Swap out what needs to be replaced instead of scrapping the whole thing. If a listener can't discern the difference in sound quality between a receiver and separates (and many can't because their listening tatses are not attuned to what the separates do better), then they should consider only the last point regarding future upgrades. Shop with value in mind and everyone sets their own defintion of value. If you believe this will be a receiver you keep for fifteen years, then the receiver might be a better choice. If you think the world of HT is going to change enough in the next five years that you will want to upgrade, you might want to disregard the receiver. There's no way to tell someone this or that is THE component they should purchase. Everyone sets their own priorities. Decide whether your money is better spent on the features you may not use or on the sound quality you will enjoy. It's your money, not mine. I have looked under the hood of my car lately; but I fail to see the connection since I don't plug my speakers into the radiator of my Honda and, for the most part, am not concerned with the sound quality of my power steering pump. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4842 Registered: May-04 | Paul - What's it going to take? I thought you might get the message I don't appreciate repeatedly being called a snob or anything dealing with my boutique speakers by someone who doesn't listen to anything but explosions. I find your one note humor tiresome and bordering on offensive. If there are other people on the forum who chuckle at your conceits, make funny with them. I stopped laughing a few months ago. OK? |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | Jan, Your point is well taken but we are talking about the Denon 5803 here, not some $300 unit. This is a very well built, laid out receiver with lots of clean power and for $1200 or so is a steal. I am saying this and I am not a Denon fan at all. Overall you are right but I think this is an exception especially at the price. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1835 Registered: Jan-05 | Jan, I merely stated that you fashioned the stock music snob response, and nothing more. In other words, I was saying the 'response' was a snobbish stock answer, not you as an individual. Lets face it, this is a forum for discussing opposing viewpoints, and my views differ from yours on many levels. What fun would this forum be if everyone shared your opinions?? What else would there be left to discuss?? At least you know that I dont mince my words, and you never have to guess where I stand on any topic. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1836 Registered: Jan-05 | "Your point is well taken but we are talking about the Denon 5803 here, not some $300 unit. This is a very well built, laid out receiver with lots of clean power and for $1200 or so is a steal." ------------------------ I couldnt agree more, and that's why I thought jans origional response fit the label of my previous description. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 529 Registered: Jun-05 | Paul,Jan just went in depth in what I was talking about on one of the speaker threads.Its no way you can expect a musical performance from a receiver that weighs 22 pounds,with a tuner and volume run off of a bundh 12 cent ic circuits,with every bell and gadget impossing its sonic signiture on all of the music or movie. And on top of all that having 7 channels packed into 22 pound reciver with bogus power ratings which they never go in depth of their dampning factor or thier peak current availible,and power ratings down to 1 ohm,As far as I know the only massed produced companies who even hint at these ratings are Nad,HK,and Onkyo.Its a travesty that they sell these glorafied alarm clocks and get away with it.No way should we have to have 2 seperate systems to play differnt formats. |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | How about all of us keeping to the point of the original question that was concerning the Denon 5803 only. Anyone who knows anything about this stuff realizes a 22 pound receiver pales in comparison to a good separate amp but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Is the Denon 5803 used worth $1200 or so? Absolutely it is. Can $1200 be spend on a separate amp that will also improve Dakulis's system. Again, absolutely. I think we have kind of gotten off the original question. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4845 Registered: May-04 | Paul _ I ain't lookin' for nobody to "share my opinions"! You get to say what you want about anything you want, just leave the "funny stuff" and the politics out. I ask you not to refer to my opinions as those of a snob and you turn around and repeat the call twice! Come on, Paul, you can't have managed that by accident or ignorance. Maybe mincing a few words isn't such a bad idea. Like I said, do it with someone else; I'm not laughing. |
|
New member Username: StevizardIndianapolis, Indiana USA Post Number: 7 Registered: Aug-05 | I just checked out your ebay auction for the Denon 5803. I guess my only question is this: How on earth does a Home Theater company that goes out of business forget to take a high-end AVR with them? This doesn't make sense to me. Inventory is MONEY. Anyone running a business knows that. Even businesses going bankrupt sell or remove high-end inventory. The one thing they don't do is simply leave it behind. Maybe this guy is OK but I'd check his other sales out. Has he ever sold anything on ebay for over $1000.00? Has his other sales been just inexpensive items? If so, he might be a scammer. After all, that's ebay's biggest problem. Just saying . . . use your best judgment and proceed with care. Best regards, Steve |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 14 Registered: Jul-05 | This is what you do to solve this debate: Go to a store and listen to some seperates but remember what speakers you listen to them on, and then go do the same thing with a receiver you think you like. And when you do it, have the salesman do it as a blind test. That way there will be no bias, only your ears. If you are spending the kind of money that could buy good seperates, then they should let you demo them. Personally, seperates sound better than most receivers, but there is a price/performance curve. There are some new HD tv's better than my HD tv, but if I cannot see the difference then why would I pay for it? Same goes with audio. And for once, I agree with Paul. This would be boring if we all thought the exact same thing all the time. If you want that, then join the Borg. Jan is entitled to his 2 cents as is anyone else. As for the Denon 5803, at that price, have you listened to one yet? Do so before you buy. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4846 Registered: May-04 | The question was not, "Is the Denon 5803 used worth $1200 or so?" Show me where that is placed in the original post and I'll retract that statement. The question is, "If I spend another $1500 ... is there a better way to go, while still being able to "do it all?" That's taken directly from the original post. That's the question. I gave my answer to that question. I can't judge value for anyone else. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 531 Registered: Jun-05 | I still think if he goes to the 5803 while a good deal if nothings wrong with it,thats something I would worry about with all the bells and whistles it has.David musiclly its not gonna improve,you would be better served to keep your 3803 and go for a amp and even a premap to if you can.If you are not spending thousands on H/T gear you are not gaining much performance.Go for the better music approach. |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | Jan, You are right about the original question and I guess I am not conveying my thought very clearly. Of course if another $1500 was spent you could have a better sounding system. I would not dispute that for a second. I do believe however for $1200 or close the 5803 is a steal and a very good way to go. That is not to say there are other equally good ways to spend that money, ie Outlaw. I am just kind of stunned to see a very expensive and very outstanding receiver being sold for such cheap money. Stevizard's point about the seller is a good one and an example of why I am so leery personally to buy anything off e-bay. It is interesting for example how the new Yamaha 4600 was available on e-bay weeks before it was in the stores. Hot maybe? How does this happen? Does this stuff get stolen right off the boat before it goes to it's proper destination? I would really like to know this. Sort of reminds me of the crew in Goodfellas at Kennedy airport.[I just read Wiseguys so that sticks in my mind.] Sorry to ramble. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4848 Registered: May-04 | "This is a very well built, laid out receiver with lots of clean power and for $1200 or so is a steal." At the risk of once again being labelled a "snob"; can I inquire why "lots of clean power" is such a selling point regardless of price? How much louder is 170 watts going to get vs. 100 when they are from the same manufacturer and in essentially the same package? Dak, are you using 100 watts right now so that the extra 2dB will be an improvement? And, unless you've totally disregarded my previous posts, have you not considered the receiver's power might not be all that "clean" when it comes down to listening? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4849 Registered: May-04 | "That is not to say there are other equally good ways to spend that money" True. Keep what you have and give the $1500 to a respectable charity. Your music will sound better. "Of course if another $1500 was spent you could have a better sounding system. I would not dispute that for a second." 'Nuff said! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4850 Registered: May-04 | Oh, yes, if you give the money to a respectable charity, I promise you will find your children even more full of promise. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 533 Registered: Jun-05 | I wouldnt pay Paul much attention to what Paul says, He has CVs and Bose and he thinks Yammies are better than Nad and he watches more movies that anyone on here and he doesent even value timbre matching,so his opinion or advice whatever he calls it and espeacially lately since he has returned from his vacation are just totally bogus. |
|
New member Username: StevizardIndianapolis, Indiana USA Post Number: 8 Registered: Aug-05 | Dak, I understand temptation (having given into it time after time). Seeing the Denon 5803 for $1200.00 does seem very tempting. We all know that its a VERY good price. However, considering the following: 1. It is a Demo model. This means it runs all day every day (24 hours a day) unless someone remembers to turn it off. It could potentially have THOUSANDS OF HOURS on it already. 2. Is there a warranty? Get the serial number and call (don't write) the manufacturer to verify that a warranty exists prior to sending any money. 3. Am I buying it because its a good deal or because it will vastly improve my system? Only you can answer this question. Tempation, she comes at you and dares you to ignore her. She smiles, she dances, and before you know it, you're swaying to her music. Oh yeah, she's nice to hold - soft & warm. Until you get her home and think of all the money you've spent. Temptation is a b-i-t-c-h for sure. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 16 Registered: Jul-05 | If it comes with a warranty then buy the damn thing!! If not, leave it alone. |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | Jan, Have you ever heard the 5803 or read any reviews of this unit or are you just assuming since it is a receiver it can't possibly be worth the money. The warranty issue is an important one in any transaction and one if the issue I was alluding to in my previous post about e-bay. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 223 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan for the same reason that I would never recommend someone buy a totally integrated unit (amp, cd player etc.) I agree with your point that when you have distinct components you might have the engineers working at making these components work better at their specific jobs. However the point has been made that this is not a cheap integrated JVC system. I trust Denon (for the most part) in develepoing quality engineered products that sound very good. Now if your point about IC is that somehow by making the equipment densly fit into a box they will break down, I'm sure you have read all the complains about the NAD separates breaking down as well. As for their sound it's up to the buyer to decide. I asked the question from David about why he felt the upgrade was necessary. I honestly don't think he will see an improved sound quality over his existing 3803, but if he says he wants the bells and whistles (3 zones, 9 speakers, THX, Ethernet connection) and it's worth $1200 to him then why try to talk him out of it. The point about looking under the hood of your car , and I'm not sure what Honda's look like these days, but my Lexus is stuffed to the kilt. In near six years of owning this vehicle I have not had to open the hood for anything. My point was IC can work and work very well if engineered right. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4859 Registered: May-04 | I am not assuming anything; I'm answering the question posed in the first post of the thread. "If I spend another $1500 ... is there a better way to go ... ?" It doesn't matter whether I've heard the Denon or not. That is not relelvant to the question being asked. I assume Dak has heard it; I would hate to think someone would spend $1,200 having never even heard the product. But whether I've heard the receiver is not the question. The question, as I read it, asks whether spending 125% more money on anything in the way of separates is likely to result in a better product that gives "better" results. I said, yes, it would and gave logical reasons for my answer. A concurrent opinion was voiced, "Of course if another $1500 was spent you could have a better sounding system. I would not dispute that for a second." That, gentlemen, is the answer to the question which was put before us. I don't think you can fairly call the information I've provided concerning the pros and cons of any high powered receiver (Denon or not) vs. more expensive separates to be "trying to talk him out of it". From everything I can gather, Dak's a big boy and can make up his own mind. He asked a question; the question was answered. As I said, "If a listener can't discern the difference in sound quality between a receiver and separates (and many can't because their listening tatses are not attuned to what the separates do better), then they should consider only the last point regarding future upgrades. Shop with value in mind and everyone sets their own defintion of value." You folks, on the other hand, are the ones pushing "lots of clean power and for $1200 or so is a steal." Why is it a steal if it does nothing to improve Dak's system? That's $1,200 wasted. He can decide if he needs or wants "the bells and whistles (3 zones, 9 speakers, THX, Ethernet connection) and (whether) it's worth $1200 to him". The issue at hand was, as I saw it, the improvement in sound quality for the dollars spent when the higher dollar amount was offered as a possible consideration. Once again my answer was, yes; here's why. If I had to place a value on the receiver in question, I would say what I have said, "How much louder is 170 watts going to get vs. 100 when they are from the same manufacturer and in essentially the same package? Dak, are you using 100 watts right now so that the extra 2dB will be an improvement?" If not, then I would consider this a purchase made because something appears to be "a steal". If getting something because it is "a steal" is the motivation (and not improving Dak's system), then I apologize and will back out of the discussion. At that point there is a motivation I can't quantify. If the motivation is to improve the sound quality, spending the extra 125% for separates will accomplish that goal even if Dak bought the separates while blindfolded and wearing ear muffs. I can only assume that by spending the extra $1,500 Dak would get a warranty on the separates also. ******************* My point is, the IC's which run your car are not easily comparable to the IC's which run a top of the line receiver. How crowded the engine compartment is does not affect the overall performance of the vehicle. How crowded the inside of a high wattage receiver is just might affect the sound quality for the reasons I stated. And even giving the receiver the benefit of the doubt, can you imagine a power transformer having less effect on the low level signals when it is 7" from the inputs to the pre amp or when it is 15' away from the inputs to the pre amplifier? I have to say I still don't catch the relation between the car and the receiver in terms of how crowded it is with IC's "under the hood". In my mind, there is a large difference between a $45,000 vehicle that might require a $3-4,000 repair of the master computer and a $1,200 receiver that might require a $5-700 repair of the systen control IC. If you doubt my numbers on the receiver, call a Denon repair center. Getting all that stuff that's in the receiver out of the way so the IC can be replaced is expensive. |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | Jan, I just reread your original comment and I have a problem that you can help me with. In what situation does the power amp in a typical system sit 15 feet away from the pre/pro? In my experience they sit on top of each other in a rack of some sort. Do you keep your equipment spread out in your room so you can walk around and look at it or what? I am not trying to be a smart alec or provoke you, I just don't understand that comment and how that makes any sense at all. I hope you understand from my other posts that in theory I do agree with your main point but it is also true that at least according to the so called experts that review this stuff and work with it every day keep saying in the reviews I have read over the last couple years in the three magazines I read every month that upper level receivers such as the 5803 approach the performance of separates or equal most. Maybe this is too general of a statement to make but we all make such statements as this thread makes clear. So what about this 15 feet business? |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 547 Registered: Jun-05 | Expensive and not worth it, if he is going for better 2 channel.How is $1200 a good deal when he could save $800 and buy a brand new Nad 320bee for $400 dollars that will blow all the ic circuits out of the 5803 in stereo.The 3803 is good enough in H/T,and you are still coming out cheaper and better. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1123 Registered: Feb-04 | I wouldn't spend that much for 2 dB. Are there any features you'd get that you want? |
|
anonymousII Unregistered guest | Where did he say he was going for better 2 channel reproduction? He said his proportion has been 60/40HT and is getting more like 50/50. Going for strictly better 2 channel music was never mentioned by DAK, only others. If he did say that I would agree that a good 2 channel amp would be the way to go. I think if a amp is the final decision a 5 channel amp makes more sense and then use the 3803 as a pre/pro. As I said before I used to have the 3803 and didn't like it so not using it's power amp in any way would be an improvement to me. I have compared the 3803 and 5803 together and the differnce was considerable. So was the difference between the 3803 and the 2802 I had before. The 2802 was not bright at all while the 3803 was. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4867 Registered: May-04 | "So what about this 15 feet business?" The value to be found in separating each component into its most basic form is the flexibility you can find in how you use each component. I have two monoblock amplifiers, so, yes, my amps sit about 15' from the pre amp and the source components and directly adjacent to the speaker position. As a general rule, there are less problems driving long interconnects if the output and input impedance of the pre and power amp are low enough and high enough respectively than trying to drive long speaker cables. The output impedance of my pre amp is 600 Ohms and considered sufficiently low to drive long cables. The input impedance of my tube amps is 250kOhms. That combination should allow at least 200 feet of interconnect before signal loss occurs if I watch the overall capacitance of the interconnects. Whether using a monoblock or a stereo amp, the distance between the pre amp and the power amp is left up to the owner. Stacking one on top of the other is convenient but seldom the best route for excellent sound quality. It might look really cool in the component stand though. ********************* " ... it is also true that at least according to the so called experts that review this stuff and work with it every day keep saying in the reviews I have read over the last couple years in the three magazines I read every month that upper level receivers such as the 5803 approach the performance of separates or equal most." "If a listener can't discern the difference in sound quality between a receiver and separates (and many can't because their listening tatses are not attuned to what the separates do better), then they should consider only the last point regarding future upgrades. Shop with value in mind and everyone sets their own defintion of value." |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 551 Registered: Jun-05 | You read that because they are paid to say that,but you know and other serious music listeners Know that is total nonsence.Its for the same exact reason a DVD player{of any kind}cant play redbook Cds better than a dedicated CD player.DvD players, univeral players whatever and A/V recievers are very convinient thus this is the biggest reason for their sales,but when it comes to music they are a total compromise.I have never heard any A/V reciever regardless of what it cost sound better than the Nad 320bee intergrated amp and it costs $400 now thats sad for people who still listen to music and they go out and pay $4000 on the top of the line receiver and be dissapointed to find out that a$400 intergrated amp sounds better than your $4000 A/V.Reading reviews from those fraud H/T mags telling you your $4000 flagship receiver is the holly grail of audio,is just totally misleading and wrong. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1435 Registered: Mar-05 | > I have never heard any A/V reciever regardless of what it cost sound better than the Nad 320bee intergrated amp and it costs $400 Wow...that's a very strong statement, Tawaun! I'd love to have a chance to audition the 320bee against a $4000 flagship AVR myself, wow that would be interesting. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 555 Registered: Jun-05 | None I mean none! |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1841 Registered: Jan-05 | LOL...yea right. A cheapo bottom of the line NAD is better than a $5,000 Denon?? You better stop smoking that wacky tobacky. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1443 Registered: Mar-05 | David, I've never listened to this thing but you might want to consider it, sure looks impressive on paper: http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/770.html Or try a couple of these: http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/200.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1444 Registered: Mar-05 | Paul you better be nice to Tawaun, looks like he's about to get his hands on a pair of your beloved D9s...I can't wait! |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1844 Registered: Jan-05 | If you do your research, there are a few 'real' reviews out there to be found. Whatever you, Taw, or the regs here say doesnt mean didly........no more than if I reviewed the Lings. As if I care what owners of petite halfpints think of the CVs.......Thats no different than that redneck Carville hillbilly reviewing the GOP during his Crossfire show that just got canceled from the Clinton News Network. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1445 Registered: Mar-05 | oh you mean Carville whose innocent question chased Robert Novak off the set? LOL Now if Kerry had hired Carville to be his campaign manager he might've had a fighting chance! |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1849 Registered: Jan-05 | That Novak guy is a dolt, and for good reason. You dont actually think CNN would hire a conservative with enough wit to make the resident CNN liberals look like fools, do you? Novaks thoughts are in the right place, but he's a tongue tied bafoon and incapable of delivering the message. He was the perfect CNN stooge. Hell....I could do better than him. Maybe I should send my conservative resume, and apply for the new opening?? HEH |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1421 Registered: Feb-05 | The difference between the "regs" reviewing D-9's and you reviewing the Lings is that the "regs" know movies AND music. Some of the "regs" have real home theaters with matching speakers and everything. Wow what a concept! All speakers matching for a coherent sound all the way around. A real home theater is more than a big TV, lound fronts and a chest freezer sized sub. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4884 Registered: May-04 | Yeah! You need Popcorn and beer! |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 557 Registered: Jun-05 | Yeah,but Paul doesent understand that somewhere in time and space,he thinks he has discovered a new method of timbre matching called not timbre matching.And Paul how do you know if a 5803 sounds better in stereo than a320bee,Am I missing something here,you say you dont listen to music,so how can you come up with that conclusion?Paul you are a funny guy I'll give you that,but you really need to stop contridicting yourself.What makes you an expert on A/V receivers,when on countless different threads you plainly admit to listning to music?What makes you think you know the performance in stereo on any A/V receiver?Paul I hate to say it but you dont seem very bright. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 227 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan I have agreed from the begining that a good separate can beat a good receiver in terms of sound production. You asked the same question from David about his needs for the bells and whistles that I did at the begning (no answers, I think David has tuned us out by now ) which can decide whether this deal is worth his money regardless of the ultimate sound, so I think the term I would use is that we are in violent agreement. However, you are indicating that somehow there is a physical impossibility in making receivers that sound as good as amps due to heat generation, dense IC's etc. and I can't agree with that. That's just the matter of good engineering. If you don't like my example of a car, then open up a high end server where heat and noise affects performance and functionality as much as it does in A/V equipment. Yet the move is constantly towards integrating components and making them work better and include more features. You can discount these features where they come at the expense of better sound quality, but you can't argue someone out of their need. And sound quality is always judged by the ears of the beholder. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1859 Registered: Jan-05 | Well said, stof. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4895 Registered: May-04 | I'm getting confused about what is the issue. "Yet the move is constantly towards integrating components and making them work better and include more features." Am I to believe Sony, JVC or Denon has my best interests at heart? Is that integration a recipe for good sound or good sales numbers? Good sound or convenience? Good sound or disposability? The trend is to small little "bookshelf systems" that have no sound quality, higher profit margins and electronics that are disposable once they break. Audiophiles always assume they have a much larger influence on the market than the small 1-2% of sales they represent would actually allow. What audiophiles want is seldom what the industry wants, otherwise there never would have been an Elcassette. *** "You can discount these features where they come at the expense of better sound quality ... " Thank you, I will. I only wish more people did. " ... but you can't argue someone out of their need." Have I argued? I thought I simply tried to answer Dak's original question. That my statements have been challenged and I have had to defend my position is not arguing for or against Dak's original question. I would have hoped Dak could have made up his own mind from no more than the first two of my posts on this thread. Now, concerning this "need" issue ... what "need" exists? Dak has a very good receiver. He asks about replacing that receiver with the next step up that will gain him features and 2db in SPL (maybe) at a cost of $1,200. There wasn't a "need" implied or expressed that I can see. If I can take any implication from the original question there is a "desire" to improve the sound of the music he hears. Fair enough. I can "desire" a Ferrari Tesstarossa, but I don't "need" a Ferrari Tesstarossa. So I might "need" more clarification about this "need" issue. *** "And sound quality is always judged by the ears of the beholder." Hmmmmmph! "If a listener can't discern the difference in sound quality between a receiver and separates ... " I think that's what I've been saying. Stof, I'm glad to hear you agree with so many of my ideas; but does this have to be "violent"? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4896 Registered: May-04 | "If you don't like my example of a car, then open up a high end server where heat and noise affects performance and functionality as much as it does in A/V equipment." Stof, is this really an argument for your position? Shouldn't we be arguing for better performance and reliability instead of just accepting the diminishing performance the industry wants to give us? That you have Paul agreeing with you should indicate the footing your points of discussion rest upon. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1864 Registered: Jan-05 | If I were Jan, I'd be more concerned about speakers, and ditch those tiny ones he listens too, and replace them with something that offers a little substance. No wonder he has to sit so darned close to them to get any enjoyment out of them. Ah yes, but they sure are accurate, right? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4902 Registered: May-04 | Paul, when was the last time you said something intelligent? Is this your response to my request you do say something intelligent? You just step up the level of inanity? I'm not out here looking for a fight, Paul, but I think most people on this forum would rather have any level of accuracy than your level of crap. On the "Home Audio" forum, Paul, people listen to music, not explosions. If you want to talk to people who only listen to explosions, Paul, stay on the "Home Theater" forum. This is getting very old, Paul, and you're not helping the situation. I don't feel I started this; all I did was ask you to put a stop to it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1868 Registered: Jan-05 | Actually, You've been dishing it out pretty good yourself, but I'll take this opportunity to be the bigger person to diffuse our differences of opinion. At least for the time being, anyway. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1449 Registered: Mar-05 | hey Tawaun, I'm curious as to your opinions of the pure digital receivers...have you ever listened to any of them? (Panasonic sa-xr series, JVC rx series, Kenwood VR7100, Onkyo LR522, etc.) If yes, where would you place their performance compared to the NAD 320bee, midfi AVRs, flagship AVRs, and entry-level separates? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4903 Registered: May-04 | "At least for the time being, anyway." Anyway?! This is supposed to be a friendly audio discussion group. Why don't we drop the "anyway" and let it be what it's supposed to be? You lay off the small speaker/big speaker crap and the political comments and things will be fine. Deal? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 20 Registered: Jul-05 | Jan, just chill. Paul will be Paul, and regardless of how much I disagree with him on almost everything, his opinion is his opinion. I have been viewing this website for over a year and just became a member. But I am already getting tired of guys getting off topic and personal. Call each other if you have issues or comments outside of the listed topics and questions. Jan and Paul, I value your knowledge, just your knowledge. Now, back to the real topics. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZorroPost Number: 17 Registered: Jul-05 | Herman, P l e a s e ! Paul, Knowledge? You got to be kiddin' ! The guy knows nothing about audio! It might be his opinion but still, he is very stupid. More than 1800 posts and 99% of them are useless....give me a break ! If you have been reading his posts you should agree that he is the one who gets off topic and starts all this crap with his non sense, childlike humor...I mean sooner or later you do get tired of the same poo poo...comic thing about it is that he really thinks he is funny I agree with Jan on this one. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1873 Registered: Jan-05 | Naw..Im done bickering, but Jans comments have gotten my interest(in a good way) I am a little confused though. You mentioned 36' soundwaves(under 30hz) not fitting and bouncing around rooms creating a muddy sound. Arent many of these absorbed, or pass right through your drywall?? I wasnt aware that was an issue unless you had cement block walls as it relates to the very low frequencies(very long waves >36'). Im aware of basstraps and the reasons behind them to improve the midbass, but not ones designed for absorbing the very long waves mentioned in your origional statement. Typically, basstraps and accoustal treatments address everything from midbass and higher. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 374 Registered: May-05 | Geez, My niece's wedding was absolutely beautiful and it's hotter than Hades in CA. So, Jan and Paul are fighting and Stof and Jan had some great points for and against the Denon. I, too, have reviewed the reviews and, possibly, T-Man is correct and they're all paid, Denon lackeys but everyone one of these guys gives the 5803 incredibly strong marks for clean, fairly dang good 2 channel sound. That said, I am working on seeing if it comes with any warranty but, I think, the answer will be "no" since this guy is not "an authorized Denon dealer." Now, Jan, I don't know if the additional 2db was what I was looking at. I was looking at the improved sound that, apparently, comes with the bigger Denon plus a slight to moderate improvement in HT, although I must concede that the HT improvement would not drive the decision. Frankly, I think it highly unlikely that I'll win the Denon for $1200 and, as i stated earlier, I would go higher BUT before I did that I posed the question because I didn't want to throw $1500 down the drain if it wasn't the best solution to the solve the pursuit of audio nirvana. I'll see if I can't articulate a better question and then let you folks help me out. If you had my existing system and you wanted to improve your 2 channel and 5.1 channel SACD and/or DVD-A listening experience and you'd take sound quality improvement on HT, if you could get it as part of the solution, how would you spend another $1000 to $1500 in order to get there, without buying more speakers? (The more or different speaker concept is definitely out of the question with wife right now.) Jan, I have listened to the 5803 but not on anything resembling my system, it was hooked up to a Denon 2910 and some very expensive speakers. Sounded great, BUT, I haven't heard a $4000 amp pre-amp set-up to compare. So, can't really judge whether there's a huge difference. T-Man, have you heard the Denon against the NAD? Hey, not that I think you're wrong, I don't know but, let's not hurl invectives at Paul if you're not making a fair, straight up comparison. Finally, Art, I'm not ignoring your post or PM but I can't check my stinking email from here for some reason. I think it's my brother's AOL, ARGH.... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4908 Registered: May-04 | Dak - If you're asking how I would spend $1-1.5k to improve your system, I'd start you off reading this thread: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/111344.html Begin about here: Monday, July 04, 2005 - 01:02 am And go back as far in the thread as you like to find the overall reaction to making this switch. The thread was started by Rick Barnes. That's my opinion. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4909 Registered: May-04 | Paul - The answer to your question, I think, belongs where the topic was first broached. I'll give a response on "the future of speakers". https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/152652.html |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 229 Registered: Apr-05 | "Am I to believe Sony, JVC or Denon has my best interests at heart? Is that integration a recipe for good sound or good sales numbers? Good sound or convenience? Good sound or disposability?" Jan it would be aweful naive of you to think Arcam, NAD or Rotel have your best interest in heart rather than staying in business. "Stof, is this really an argument for your position? Shouldn't we be arguing for better performance and reliability instead of just accepting the diminishing performance the industry wants to give us? " I think this goes to the bottom of our disagreement in that IC design and manufacturing is not the cause of diminishing performance or reliability, but rather the proponent of it. Fewer parts, less things that go wrong. Some years ago you bought a network card to put into your PC, now the entire thing fits into a chip, uses less energy and is very unlikely to break down because of IC and VLSI technology. Same technology is allowing the 5803 to use a tiny space on its board to allow ethernet connection for a fraction of the cost. Is that bad? It's very possible that Denon does not sound as good some of the others, but How would you prove that the addition of this chip has lessened its reliability or sound performance? "That you have Paul agreeing with you should indicate the footing your points of discussion rest upon. " With all due respect, now your are just grasping for straws. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4918 Registered: May-04 | The addition of a large scale IC does not in any way imply "fewer parts, less things that go wrong". As a very general statement, a circuit is a circuit. One designer might make the circuit work with fewer parts than another designer; but the parts required for what one designer requires will stay roughly the same no matter whether the circuit is discrete or accomplished through IC technology. The difference with the IC design is there are less apparent parts because 350 resistors, transistors, diodes, etc. have been reduced in size to fit on a chip 1" x 3" with 128 pin outs. Is that good for what the consumer wants in "high end" home audio? That depends on what your definition of "high end" amounts to, whether you prefer discrete circuits for their advantages and how you judge the value of a product. The first disadvantage to most IC based designs is they are just that. With an IC the designer takes what the parameters of the chip are and cannot change those parameters. If the chip is purpose designed and built, that solves part of the problem. Then the cost of design and tooling need to be included in the cost of the final product; so IC's won't save money in that configuration. The less expensive route of taking a chip off the shelf can be surpassed by a designer using discrete components to shape the circuit the way that designer sees fit. Since IC's are not tolerant of current or heat, the ability of a discrete circuit to deliver more amperage (generally considerd a good thing in audio) can outweigh the benefits of small size and cost when it comes to performance. If the product is designed to be, and accepted to be, a throw away product, IC technology works well. At some point people will replace their computers because of new generations of equipment. Personally, speaking as someone who uses forty year old amplifiers, I am not a serious believer in the idea that every month the magazine reviewers have a new crop of products that push the limits of technology. Speaking as someone who has maintained forty year old amplifiers, I know I can replace a single diode (or vacuum tube) and have a working product again. Having worked with IC technology I know when a large scale system management IC goes out it is catastrophic. The entire IC is replaced and typically a few components related to the IC. Densely packed boards and systems make the repair more costly than getting to one diode on a hard wired amplifier. On average products are more reliable today than two decades ago. But, that is true of IC and discrete component technology. The fact that so may of the vintage components that had a reputation for reliability are still running suggests it was not the discrete circuitry that was at fault but instead the design and implementation of the circuitry. Cheap is cheap no matter what components you use. Can I prove its the IC's that might cause the Denon to sound not as good as the unidentified separates? No. Because the two circuits are not the same. I can point to generally accepted concepts in high end audio concerning the effects of the two topologies. Is that just high end snobbery? Possibly. I am a firm believer in the idea that if someone throws enough time, talent, dedication and money at a situation there can be numerous ways to solve most problems. But wasn't it you, Stof, that first said, "I agree with your point that when you have distinct components you might have the engineers working at making these components work better at their specific jobs." We seem to be chasing our tails in violent agreement, Stof. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 230 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan your statement above shows me that we have reached the end of your computer and circuit engineering knowledge. I will respect the help that you give to audiophiles in that specific area on this forum and hope that you can continue to buy tubes and maintain your amp and enjoy it in good health for another 40 year. The rest of us will have to suffer with the new fandangled gadgets and gizmos and indoor plumbing. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4944 Registered: May-04 | Indoor plumbing? Aw, schucks, Stof! We done got indoor plumbing when we fixed the door on the outhouse last year. Us folks down here in Texas might be simple people, but we got some mighty fancy stuff too! Why, just the other day some feller was tellin' me 'bout a cousin what came to see him and he "flew" here in a room with some engines on it. Ain't that sumpin'? ***************************************** Stof, I'm not looking for brinksmanship here but I do hope my amps make it another 40 years as they are selling for about 15 times their original retail price right now. What do you suppose your IC based HT receiver is gonna be worth in forty years? In five years? Now that we have that out of the way ... People on this forum have a lot of different opinions of me but I would hope one thing most of them can say is I do try to help people when they seem honestly interested in learning and can carry on the discussion without resorting to insults. I never pretended or claimed to be an engineer or a circuit designer and I've always said there is plenty I have left to learn. So here's your opportunity to educate me, Stof. Instead of brushing off what I've said; tell me what the problems are. As you said we are in violent agreement about several things such as your statement concerning designers and discrete circuits "making these components work better at their specific jobs." So far what I've gleaned from your posts has been: 1) You think there are less parts because you see less parts when you look at an IC. 2) You don't see that replacing all the parts that a large scale system management IC represents ($300 for the part) is less cost effective than replacing one diode ($0.28 for the part). 3) IC based technology is more reliable than discrete circuitry. 4) Because my car and my computer have IC's I should accept that an audio system should also. 5) Because it has IC's I should believe it will sound better(?), or as good (?), as separate components which use discrete circuits, though you admit it shouldn't. 6) The reviewers say this is a good sounding receiver that approaches the quality of separates costing several times it's price so I should also. 7) That IC based receivers sound as good as separates. I have disagreed with those points and, I think, given my reasons for my disagreement. You have restated the same argument and asked if I don't agree. No matter how you state the question, as long as I understand the issues to be what I just laid out, I will disagree. Give me an education then, Stof. Tell me exactly where you think I'm wrong and why. Explain your computer and circuit engineering knowledge to someone who might need some assistance in that area. But, don't just write me off as some hick because I prefer vacuum tubes. Why don't you begin with the reason there are so many high end separates not using IC's in the signal path, or even for system management, if they sound as good as discrete component circuits. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 901 Registered: Mar-05 | Tubes = classical IC = disco lol |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4945 Registered: May-04 | BTW, the example of a computer using IC's is, to me, a weak argument when discussing audio equipment. Where computers are never asked to deliver high voltage or high current, a piece of audio equipment past the source component stage is routinely required to deliver high voltage and high current on a consistent and constant basis. Microvolts and milliamps do not have the same relationship as the voltage and amperage required to drive a loudspeaker which is in a position to argue back. Computers do not deal with dynamic voltage changes and operate, to the best of my knowledge, when voltage supply in/out is maintained at a very stable level. The analogy of computers to amplifiers is not a very good one I would say. The reference to a car is inaccurate for the reasons I've already given. Once again we are discussing a computer that is used to maintain and control various aspects of vehicle performance. This, like the PC analogy, is not synonomous with the requirements of an audio amplifier. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 376 Registered: May-05 | Well guys, I am reading and learning, AND finally home after over 24 hours in airports. That's what happens when you fly standby. I was nowhere near a computer so that sorta took care of any subsequent bidding on the Denon although from the posts up to my last one, y'all had done a pretty good job of talkin' me out of one of those new fangled doohickeys anyway. And yes Jan, I flew in one of those rooms with an engine, too. Pretty amazin' thingy, too. I'm working on reading the article and I'll get back to you folks with the follow-up question. Thanks all for the input. Expect more as I move farther down this bumpy road of audio. Dave. |
|
Unregistered guest | Jan, it's the local wolfpack syndrome. I'm not one to patronize, but your patience and perserverance is only exceeded by your knowledge and swagger; must be the good Mediterranean genes. Sometimes, it just becomes too predicatable. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4953 Registered: May-04 | Thanks. I like them genes. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 231 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan you are right. I have already testified to your help around this forum so for that I will shed some light on this topic so that perhaps we can come to more violent agreement. BTW this term is used when people are arguing the same point. It is not related to violence. First let me explain my indoor plumbing reference. It was not meant as an insult, though reading back through it I can see how it came out because of the tone of our discussion. I was chuckling reading through your previous post because it reminded me of my grandfather "They don't make things like they used to". It was in jest if you didn't see it that way I apologize. 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. BTW a chip of the size and pins that you wrote about contains the equivalent of millions of transistors, not 350. 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 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. Just because your old amp has a market is mostly because of nostalgia. It has nothing to do with its engineering being that great. A Studebaker is now sold for many times the original price. It is not because it was a great car. People pay obscene prices for an old RCA gramophone. Does that make it great? A carburetor for a 82 Ford Mustang is much cheaper to replace than a fuel injections unit for your Honda and you can do it yourself? It was a nice car at the time, but would you rather drive a 82 Ford Mustang? Now the reason why I cut off the conversation is that I have seen a pattern in your argument that I did not care for. Whereas I made every attempt to find common grounds between our points of view you choose to take specific phrases out of my posting and attack them. Whereas I write in relative terms such as "I agree with your point that when you have distinct components you might have the engineers working at making these components work better at their specific jobs.", with the emphasis on "might" to give some credence to your points and my always possible lack of knowledge in a specific area, you not only speak in absolute terms, but you use my phrases to attack my points and accuse me of chasing my tail. Whereas I make points and try to see everyone's view as equal so that we can establish some facts to move on, you Jan argue for the sake of argument. It is also obvious that you don't like to lose arguments, so you start to grasp for straws. Your pattern is to mix knowledge with half knowledge and confuse the readers with long posts. Please explain why you argued this point with me when you admit that you are not an engineer and do not have enough knowledge in this specific area? I saw that from reading your previous post. Instead of asking me to elaborate and that you would be interested in understanding more, you came back with a challenge. Why would you do that? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 378 Registered: May-05 | Well gentlemen, I am happy to read and learn as Stof and Jan punch and counterpunch. BUT, I'm really interested in improving the sound of my set-up some more. Art sent me a PM that for some reason has disappeared into the outer stratosphere. Honest Art, I tried to retrieve it while at my brother's without success. Now, I get home and it's no longer here. Please resend and I'll look for it again and reply. To reiterate the questions. First, given my existing equipment, is there a need to do anything or should I just be content with the improvement obtained with upgrading to the Denon 3803, the Denon 2200 and Ascend 170s and 340C. Hey, they're much better than their predecessors and maybe I should just enjoy for awhile, yes? Or, if I am to continue this quest for Audio nirvana, should I consider upgrading to the Denon 5803 for its improved audio qualities, as measured by several reviewers and my own ears, although admittedly with a much better set of speakers. I should have paid closer attention to make and model but he told me they cost about $2000/pair. So, I'm not much help there, I'm afraid. If not the Denon, what do the "experts" recommend as an amp? T-Man wants me to take a look at the NAD 320bee and Edster several Outlaw components. Then, once decided, how do I best construct the set-up for best sound AND ease of use, considering my split usuage for HT and music? (My lovely wife likes to come in, hit my one setup button on my Sony universal remote and be able to stick a DVD in or watch TV so that's a consideration, FOR HER.) I'm all ears. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4964 Registered: May-04 | HHHHLDMDMDYRMHYLODGOSHAGASVG!!!!!! Hat's off, Stof; you've got me so confused at this point, I don't know where to begin. What are we discussing? Just to bother you somemore, I'll pull a few lines and "attack you" with your own words. Let's begin with, "BTW this term is used when people are arguing the same point. It is not related to violence." DUH! You really do think us folk down here in Texas is stoopid; don'ya? ********* Here's what you posted: "I agree with your point that when you have distinct components you might have the engineers working at making these components work better at their specific jobs." Here's what you now want everyone to think you posted: "I agree with your point that when you have distinct components you might have the engineers working at making these components work better at their specific jobs." " ... with the emphasis on "might" to give some credence to your points ... " My most sincere apologies, Stof. I didn't read your mind! There is no "emphasis" on might in your original post. Please, don't assume me so stupid I can't scroll back to look at what is in front of me. If you doubt me, the original post was made on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 04:45 pm. Why dispute something that's irrefutable? ****************** "Now the reason why I cut off the conversation is that I have seen a pattern in your argument that I did not care for. Whereas I made every attempt to find common grounds between our points of view you choose to take specific phrases out of my posting and attack them." " ... you not only speak in absolute terms, but you use my phrases to attack my points ... " "It is also obvious that you don't like to lose arguments, so you start to grasp for straws. Your pattern is to mix knowledge with half knowledge and confuse the readers with long posts. Please explain why you argued this point with me when you admit that you are not an engineer and do not have enough knowledge in this specific area? I saw that from reading your previous post. Instead of asking me to elaborate and that you would be interested in understanding more, you came back with a challenge. Why would you do that?" *** I have to admit I didn't know I was engaged in an "argument". Once again my apologies. I am now fully convinced you and I have a different perspective on what has happened in this thread. Here's what I see; a question was asked that I responded to and then I was asked for more clarification. The clarification was written in clear and "absolute" terms in that I made the case for why I posted what I posted. You suggested I look under the hood of my car. After I responded to other people's comments you posted, "Now if your point about IC is that somehow by making the equipment densly fit into a box they will break down ... " I don't know where you got that idea. I can't find it anywhere in any of my posts up to that point. I was discussing the issue that revolves around sound quality and the generally accepted manner it is achieved. As far as I can recall, I said all components are more reliable today after you made that comment. Let's look. You made your post on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 04:45 pm. On Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 06:04 pm. I posted, "On average products are more reliable today than two decades ago. But, that is true of IC and discrete component technology." You and I see things that occurred in this thread quite differently it appears, Stof. But, I would say, unless you can pull a post out of your ... hat(!) where I referred to reliability before this, you brought the subject up. I didn't. And, I was in "violent agreement" with you. Grabbing for straws and all the rest seems equally ridiculous as accusations for what I put on this page. At this point, Stof, you are trying to discredit me instead of my statements. "Whereas I make points and try to see everyone's view as equal so that we can establish some facts to move on, you Jan argue for the sake of argument." No, I don't care to argue at all, Stof. I came here to answer a question regarding receivers and separates. That it has turned into something more than that is, to me, regrettable. I see no point in carrying this forward. You win. I'm a stoopid hick with tubes and a car without a pooter. What's left to say? You want to discredit me. Go ahead. You will have to stand in line, I'm afraid. Sorry for the long post. Oh, yeah, before I go. I was unaware I was required to be an an engineer and have enough knowledge in any specific area to post on this forum. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZorroPost Number: 21 Registered: Jul-05 | David, Earlier on this thread I suggested two multi-channel NAD amps but if you would like to go with a two-channel amp I would suggest the NAD C-272 or take advantage of the following offer. Just a thought |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 232 Registered: Apr-05 | "You really do think us folk down here in Texas is stoopid; don'ya? " That would be hard. I went to junior high in Plano. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4967 Registered: May-04 | So that's how you got this way. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 383 Registered: May-05 | Hey now, I come from a long line of Texans and I ain't ssstttuuupppiiiddd!!!!!!, stupididos!!! (Anyone been to Pittsburg, TX. Well, my family came from Cason, which is smaller still. Also, I learnt to talk from a Texas woman folk.) Zorro, sorry I overlooked your earlier suggestion, completely unintended, and you have addressed part of the question here. Do I somehow work a 2 channel amp into this system, and if so, HOW; or, do I go with a multi-channel amp or a multi-channel receiver, a la the 5803? Anyone care to weigh in on the questions du jour? |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZorroPost Number: 22 Registered: Jul-05 | IMHO, I reiterate, this is just my opinion, if I were to spend some money I would go with a power amp either Multi Channel or Two Channel just because I am a believer that separates do improve sound quality, indeed. Again, I my case, I would go for the Two channel option since music is more demanding than Movies when it comes to sound quality, please note that by demanding I do not mean loud and big explosions; for the most part, movies can be watched and listened to with average components but to be able to appreciate music I think that you would need to allocate more of your resources towards this area. Cheers Lots of options out there! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 388 Registered: May-05 | Zorro, Thanks, I'll take a look at your 2 channel suggestion above. How do you think it compares to T-Man's NAD amp suggestion? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1464 Registered: Feb-05 | David I sent you an email this time. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZorroPost Number: 23 Registered: Jul-05 | David, They are not apples to apples. The 320BEE is an integrated and the C272 is a power amp, however, in my opinion both are very good in their price range. Pardon me for asking but do you have a budget? Is it like $1200 - $1500 ? There are some different options that you could go by, like: Using the 3803 as pre and add a Power amp to drive your fronts Get a integrated, use it to drive your fronts for music and hook your 3803 to it as a source for movies (Art has a similar set up) or; Get a pre-amp plus a power amp and build a similar set up as described above. Please forgive me if I am confusing you even more but is just that there are these many options to upgrade ! Fun isn't it ! |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 608 Registered: Jun-05 | No, No, No, David you dont wanna use the pre in the 3803,thats to much interfearance with IC circuits totally diluted with all that electronic DSP crap, if that was the case you wouldnt need the C272 amp.The idea is to totally seperate your HT from stereo and thats why I suggested the 320bee for its built in preamp and amp. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1493 Registered: Mar-05 | Excellent point, Tawaun. I don't notice nearly as much of an improvment when I use my Marantz 5400 as a pre-amp to my NAD 2200 amp compared to using my NAD 1240 preamp with the 2200 and turning the Marantz off...not even close. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1495 Registered: Mar-05 | Dakulis, last post before bed here. If I were you I'd get either a pair of Outlaw monoblocks or the NAD 272 plus a used NAD pre-amp on eBay, they go real cheap, $100-200...that's fine for just music listening esp. since your 2900 should have its own bass management options if I'm not mistaken. The mains would be connected to the amp so your wife would only need to turn on the 272 and your 3803 to get full surround (leaving the pre-amp off), or the receiver only to get the center and rear channels which if she puts on the "multichannel" setting on the 3803 will be fine for TV and most wife-friendly movies. My own wife is usually fine with using just the center in that "multichannel" mode for TV and DVDs, lol...women are usually far less picky about these things than we are. Of course the absolute simplest-to-use option for your wife would be a Bose 3-2-1 system, but we don't want to go there do we. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 611 Registered: Jun-05 | David go to the www.odysseyaudio.com and go to the reviews you will see a review on the $1500 system.That includes my beloved Epiphonys in the package Hum idea huhh!well the Khartigo amp seperately is $775 and the Estiban passive pre Amp is $350 with Groneburgh interconnects and speakerwire.The Amp,Preamp,and speakers are wired with the same stuff,Its the best deal in HiFi the electronics will mop the floor with any of the Nad stuff.Yes you get it all for $1500 and Klaus Blunge is the nicest and best guy in audio,You say you have $1500 to spend do it like this its the absolute best way.Hey he is still honoring the package price for me and I already bought the speakers,My amp preamp and interconnect and speaker wires will be here Friday. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics