Archive through September 12, 2005
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1808 Registered: Mar-05 | ...actually a lot more than I expected! Tonight I finally got a chance to spend about 2 hours with it, sheesh I feel stupid to have paid for 2-day shipping when it ended up sitting in the box for almost a whole week afterwards while I was away and then after returning have been inundated with work so too busy to really listen. But here are a few preliminary impressions: 1. I'd be lying if I said the Panny were as warm as my Marantz or NAD, but on the other hand I didn't find it "harsh," "cold," "flat," "lifelessly analytical" etc. as many anti-pure-digital audio folk have claimed. "Precise" and "neutral" would be how I'd describe it. 2. Yes, the pure-digital fans are correct about the amazing lack of noise/distortion and the jaw-dropping detail of the mids and highs. Yes, I noticed many more subtle background sounds and textures than I ever did with analog equipment. I haven't hooked up my DVD player to it since I bought it strictly for 2-channel music but this kind of meticulous detail should be ideal for HT, one would think. 3. On the other hand I am in no hurry to run out and eBay my NAD separates...not yet at least. Supposedly these pure digitals need something like 100 hours of burn-in time before they really sound good...don't know if this has any technical basis or if it falls into the "cable burn-in" category of audio folklore. 4. The Panny made me doubly appreciate the intuitive ease of use I enjoyed with my old Onkyo and current Marantz. Both setup and manual are rather convoluted. You cannot use the remote to change the setup, for one thing...argh! 5. The Panny certainly has no shortage of power...its volume goes from silent at -79 and maxes out at 0, I was easily hitting 80db at -40 and not the slightest hint of distortion. I am very curious to hear how it sounds when I get some extra speaker cable and bi-amp my Ascends, a very handy feature that I had only seen on the Pioneer Elite series in the $700 and up range. 6. The Panny doesn't provide quite the same muscular bass of the NADs, nor the aggressive fullness that the NAD achieves at high volumes (+80db)...it seems to have more of an intricate and laid-back personality best suited to moderately loud volumes of around 70db. 7. Cosmetics. I wasn't crazy about the small, crude-looking LED display which reminded me of my $65 Panasonic DVD player's display but oh well this is a $228 receiver after all. Otherwise the simple black faceplate is pretty tasteful. Should score some WAF brownie points for any guy who decides to keep it. The remote is indeed a cheap POS but still a pretty minor gripe at this price. PERFORMANCE I didn't have the kind of euphoric reaction to it that I had when I first got my NAD separates. On the other hand, those separates have probably spoiled me quite a bit, along with the recent addition of the Marantz CDP. But it was fascinating to listen to the music unfold in a very different way with the Panny. It does indeed have a very airy, wide open soundstage that works very well with certain types of music and less well with others. That "veil lifted" cliche also applies here...made me realize that maybe what people enjoy about a "warm" sound is PRECISELY the layer of hidden noise and fuzziness that acts like a cushion of sorts. I definitely would not pair this receiver with speakers that already have an exaggerated high end though! Oh well, compromises compromises. More in a few days, still have to get out from under this mountain of work I've come back to... Right now I'd say that all the hoopla is not unfounded. This Panny is definitely a bargain, and I'd happily take it over most AVRs costing 3-4 times more especially if HT was my primary application, hands down. It certainly was worth paying shipping fees for an in-home audition, that's for sure! Next week I'll try to have Marc come over and listen to it, he hated the Onkyo 552 all digital but I think this Panny is a whole other ballgame. He's agreed to take a blindfold test so it'll be interesting to see what a trained musician's ears can or cannot truly pick up. Would love to have more seasoned folk like Jan, Tawaun, and Art home audition this little baby too...what say you, guys? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1810 Registered: Mar-05 | BTW, anyone know if it's possible to "burn in" a receiver simply by leaving it on with a source (say FM radio) turned up to moderately high volumes but with the speakers disconnected? What happens to the signal, is it automatically shut off or does it dissipate into the ether at the ends of the speaker cables? : ) |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain,, MA USA Post Number: 1 Registered: Mar-05 | I love your comment about the "veil lifted" cliche. You are obviously accepting the truth about audio equipment and letting go of the folklore. Unfortunately, there are many who fall in love with the myths (such as the inherent superiority of analog sound) . They are never able to accept that many things they have long believed and endlessly repeated are, in fact, myths. There are several such people who contribute to this forum. Be ready for them to spew all sorts of hearsay and folklore that contradicts what I'm about to write. They're simply wrong. No honest audio engineer will disagree with any of these comments about your numbered thoughts: 1. You are incorrect to think that they Panny isn't as warm, cold, etc. as the NAD. Well-engineered/built receivers are designed to pass the musical signal as transparently as possible. Assumeing none of these receivers (or the separates) are broken or overdriven and all are well-made, they should sound exactly the same. If one of them sounds different, there's something wrong with it. 2. Burn-in is basically folklore that encourages you to keep something beyond the point at which it can be returned to the seller. Ask a qualified audio engineer about this. People who think otherwise are misinformed. 5 and 6. These two points are internally inconsistant. If the Panny has no lack of power, it should sound the same as the NADs after you match volume levels. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5558 Registered: May-04 | What a fun guy Kurt is. This isn't meant to be a slam; but I gotta know. How many letters do you have after your name? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1811 Registered: Mar-05 | Kurt, "All receivers should sound the same" I have not found to be true in my own experience, when I went from an Onkyo 601 to a Marantz 5400 to my NAD separates. I guess it depends on what one considers "well-engineered/built" receivers...I'd imagine that beyond a certain price point, say $1000, the differences become minute. I just always thought of that as the law of diminishing returns, lol. > Burn-in is basically folklore that encourages you to keep something beyond the point at which it can be returned to the seller. That thought has definitely crossed my mind many times, since I'm a pretty skeptical consumer by nature. > If the Panny has no lack of power, it should sound the same as the NADs after you match volume levels. I guess when I wrote "power" I was speaking of SPL. To assess true nuts-and-bolts "power" would probably require some sort of bench testing and electrical knowledge that I don't have. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 14 Registered: Aug-05 | Edster, it is true, there is no such a thing as electronics "burn in". Manufacturers will tell you that, I know, I asked the same question several times and the response was the same every instance. Regards |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5569 Registered: May-04 | Who'd you ask? |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain,, MA USA Post Number: 2 Registered: Mar-05 | Don't assume that I'm "not fun" simply because I prefer facts over hearsay. I have Ph.D. after my name, but as my advanced degree isn't in audio or electrical engineering, it's not worth much to this discussion. I love music from Ozzy to Mozart to Garth and a similarly wide range of movies. The one thing I do hate listening to is bull sh-t. The only real 'magic' is in the music. The role of audio equipment is to bring that sound to my ears with as little degradation as possible. Designing good audio equipment is the realm of qualified audio engineers, not quacks and magicians. I accept that some people prefer the way music sounds after it has been altered/degraded by poorly designed or outdated components. However, I wish such people would quit trying to delude others into thinking that those components are superior to modern, well-engineered ones. Jan, Based your many well-written posts in this forum, I can't help but conclude that you are a prime example of someone who is more interested in defending strongly held opinions than on getting to the truth. You are articulate and intelligent, but that doesn't change the fact that your beliefs are often wrong. You regularly ignore conclusive evidence from carefully designed studies in favor of hearsay. Eddie, From your posts in other forums I know that you are at least convinced that when volume levels are matched and DSP processing modes are the same, good receivers (even $228 ones) can sound EXTREMELY similar. It is unfortunate that your experience doesn't include careful listening tests in which all major variables except the receiver itself have been eliminated. One of the most vocal opponents of such careful listening tests, John Atkinson of Stereophile, has admitted that was unable to hear any difference in the sound of two amps (one tube, one solid state) in a carefully designed blind listening test. As a result, he purchased and began using the solid state one. According to his story, he eventually went back to his old tube amp because 'the magic wasn't there' with the solid-state amp. If you want to pay for 'magic' that even the best ears can't hear, I suggest you follow his advice. Otherwise, stick with the advice of qualified audio engineers when it comes to picking audio equipment. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1815 Registered: Mar-05 | Kurt, good and persusasive points, esp. the John Atkinson article. Reminds me of something from a lit crit class I took in college: the theory that there is an actual physical text AND there is a text that the READER brings TO the text, consisting of that reader's totality of life experiences and social-cultural background/conditioning/history which together create the total EXPERIENCE of that text. A fancy schmancy way of saying that most things are relative and subjective in how they are actually experienced by most people. It may well be that subjective "magic" is simply a much more pleasant experience than cut-and-dry objectivism...IF that "magic" happens to work on you. So I can't see any merit in pushing oneself in one direction or another, would rather just go with whatever does or does not work for the individual listener. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 878 Registered: Sep-04 | I have no problem with what you say about the role of a hifi system - to bring out the signal on the medium. However, all electronics does not sound alike and in fact every different brand seems to provide its own version of the signal. This is true for all brands not just the 'boutique' brands. Sony have a different presentation to Pioneer, Denon and Yamaha, and each of those has its own subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) different approach to presentation. If you can't hear the differences I would be very surprised. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1816 Registered: Mar-05 | Vader, yeah I'm curious too, who' you ask? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5580 Registered: May-04 | Kurt - Pick up the last few copies of Stereophile to see the continuing saga of the double blinds. I have no intention of doing battle with anyone over the idea of do electronics sound different, are some people absolutely nuts or just downright mean, will it rain on the fifth day of the five day forecast or any BS of that type. I'm happy just the way I am and only hope to get better with age. Have a nice day, Kurt. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 15 Registered: Aug-05 | NAD Pioneer Simaudio to mention some. I will post a reply from NAD as soon as I can log in, it appears that their server is down for the moment. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5582 Registered: May-04 | Try Conrad Johnson, Krell and Mark Levinson. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 924 Registered: Jun-05 | I agree with Frank all audio gear sounds different if it didnt we wouldnt have all the audio choices as we do.Thats common knowlege though thats like saying Coke and Pepsi taste the same that is simply not true by any means,yes they have similarities,but not exactly the same Kurt that kind of makes me think of a quote my grandmother used to say"it goes in one ear and out the other" no pun intended us salesman make a living off of audio gear sounding different,its the cornerstone of audio to each its own. |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain,, MA USA Post Number: 3 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, I read Stereophile because I find it to be entertaining, but I don't consider it to be a reliable source for even the most basic audio education. To get such an education, I took a deep breath and forced myself to wade through the writing of boring audio engineers. That said, I salute Stereophile for having enough courage/honesty to publish the following letter to the editor: "Editor: I'm very disappointed to discover John Atkinson's position on blind testing ("As We See It," July 2005, p.3). As he is the editor of Stereophile magazine, it is now even more difficult for me to respect anything that I read in the publication. To deny the validity of blind testing is to ignore science. Blind testing is objective science. To ignore its value is equivalent to believing that the world is flat, that there is no truth in evolution, that man didn't land on the moon." (I have reproduced this fragment of a full letter published on the Stereophile website with absolutely no permission from the author or editor. God forgive me for violating copyright, but I couldn't have said it better myself) Frank-- Take a deep breath and read this http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm Eddie--I accept your point about each person bringing their own subjective experience to reading a book, but saying that good amps sound different when listened to under identical conditions is just silly. It's equivalent to saying that when each person reads a book, his life experiences actually change the words written on the page. It's not a matter of opinion. It simply isn't true. |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain,, MA USA Post Number: 4 Registered: Mar-05 | Many people can easily tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi in well controlled double blind tests. For me, that's enough to prove that they do taste different. On the other hand certain components, like good amps, cannot be distinguished from one another in properly designed listening tests. If they don't sound different, then they must sound the same, right? The engineers who design the quality amps from companies like Krell, Boulder, and McIntosh will happy tell you that the alterations to the signal that their various amplifiers introduce is FAR below the level that humans can hear. If neither amp audibly changes the signal, they'll 'sound' exactly the same. It's a fact engineers readily accept. Why do some audiophiles have so much trouble accepting it? In fact I'm only telling part of the truth. Amps can be differentiated in double blind listening tests based on sound alone IF you pass the signal through the amp 5 times. Perhaps if Stereophile uses this method, they'll eventually be able to have their subjectivity and their honesty too. If you want to hear for yourself solid evidence that amplifiers can sound different if (and only if) you take the odd step of passing a signal through them 5X, you can find it here http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm Be warned that you will need to have a bit of time to learn the method, train your ears, and excellent quality audio components connected to your computer. All audio gear sounds different? I know it's the cornerstone of many who make a living off selling audio gear. Why else would anyone become dissatisfied with their Bryston Amp and decide they need a Mark Levinson? Just because something is a cornerstone of sales technique doesn't make it true. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 929 Registered: Jun-05 | Kurt its a matter in how the world opperates as a society"Difference" is what makes this world go around.different countries different Cars,different people,different animals this is all relative to life.Just because a Chevy Malibu has 6 cylinders doesent mean it should go the same speed as a Porsche 911 because it is a 6 cylinder.If I wanted to go to the beach in Miami surely that isnt the same as going to the beach in Alaska,you have to ask yourself theses questions before you come to this decision in your mind. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5587 Registered: May-04 | " ... saying that good amps sound different when listened to under identical conditions is just silly. It's equivalent to saying that when each person reads a book, his life experiences actually change the words written on the page. Now saying somethin's "silly" is just plain funny! Kurt - Give "To Kill A Mockingbird" to a young preppie at a high priced British prep school and to a young. poor black male in a Mississippi prison. See if the words don't change. La di da, have a nice day, y'all. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 930 Registered: Jun-05 | I have never heard any piece of audio gear thats sounds the same,just like I have never met a person who is just like someonelse,maybe thats what this sharade Kurt is trying to claim is about. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 931 Registered: Jun-05 | Edster please continue with this review,I,ve been waiting on this for 2 weeks,this not about all amps sound a like,because they certainly dont if Kurt wants to think that fine,he may be one of a select few who believe that. |
|
Anoynymous Unregistered guest | How about we give the book to Jan and to 1000 other people. I bet Jan will be the only one to see different words and those words would be the "right, correct, accurate, exact, precise, truthful" words. 1000 people would be wrong of course.  |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain,, MA USA Post Number: 6 Registered: Mar-05 | At one point I thought we'd lost the thread. The point is that the Panny XR55 is a pretty sweet little reciever and under certain conditions, it may not be possible to distinguish music that is played throught the XR55 from music that is played through expensive separates... Now, anything intelligent to say about audio components that sound different or double blind testing? Tawaun--Can you accept the possibility that two things are so similar that no human can tell the difference between them? Lets try this one: Suppose we got two Panny xr55s that were made by the same person on the same day. Do you think they would sound the same? If you don't, I have a can of magic Coke that I'll sell you for a mere $100. It may look and taste like an ordinary can of Coke, but it is different. Drinking this special Coke will allow you to hear music as you've never heard music before. Bass will be faster, highs will have more pizaaz, the mid-range will speak to your soul... |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 310 Registered: Jul-05 | Thats a pretty good deal if the Coke will do all of that. Where can I find this magic Coke? Does it come in a diet version? |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 7 Registered: Mar-05 | It does come in a diet version. In fact, some users have reported that Bass sounds less bloated if they drink the diet version. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1617 Registered: Feb-05 | C'mon guys if you had Kurt's gear wouldn't you want to feel as he does? I can't imagine any audible difference between his receiver and Jan's amp can you? Personally I prefer my Bach on period instruments. That's just me though. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5590 Registered: May-04 | Kurt - We have been down this road so many times with so many people with letters after their name that some of us are just worn out from the back and forth and back and forth. I'm just not interested in doing this tango one more time. It only gets ugly the longer it lasts. Here's my take on the whole shebang. If you want to keep on going on after this, be my guest. There have been more than enough arguments over this whole test this, no test this, can you hear it now BS. None of us on this side are ever going to convince any of you on that side to change your mind. We don't try. We're content to hear what we hear and if you want to pick your gear by looking at a spec sheet, go right ahead. I can't tell what you can't hear. I can only tell you what I hear. The thing that bothers me the most is that your side is always ready to insist there is no difference. None of you guys thatI've ever run across have been content to let me listen to my music. You all want me to do some silly double blind test. If I cared to we could stay on this forum until kingdom come and neither one of us would budge an inch in the other direction. I've got plenty of ammunition to take on anyone who wants to debate this. I'm just plain tired of doing the same debate over and over and over. Now, instead of asking me whether I've compared this to that or black to white, let me ask you something. What is it that's wrong with all you guys on that side that you always want to start this argument? It's got to be pathological; doesn't it? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5591 Registered: May-04 | Art - The man owns what the man owns. Everybody's got to own something. That's got nothing to do with it. Does it, Kurt? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 311 Registered: Jul-05 | Perceptions are a funny thing. The best example I can think of is vodka. Smirnoff sells three brands of vodka at three different price points : Smirnoff (mid shelf) , Popov (bottom shelf) , and Relska (mid to bottom shelf). Amusingly enough, they are all the same product with a little bit different packaging. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1618 Registered: Feb-05 | Choices, we all make them and they say alot about us. If one piece of well engineered gear sounds the same as another then why spend more? |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 8 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan-I'm not telling you what I can and can't hear. I'm telling you what human ear is capable of hearing and not hearing. Interestingly, there may actually be that illusive middle ground that most of us never thought existed. You may have missed it earlier. Forgive me as I do that nasty thing called reposting. In fact I'm only telling part of the truth. Amps can be differentiated in double blind listening tests based on sound alone IF you pass the signal through the amp 5 times. Perhaps if Stereophile uses this method, they'll eventually be able to have their subjectivity and their honesty too. If you want to hear for yourself solid evidence that amplifiers can sound different if (and only if) you take the odd step of passing a signal through them 5X, you can find it here http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm Be warned that you will need to have a bit of time to learn the method, train your ears, and excellent quality audio components connected to your computer. BTW thanks Jan for defending the fact that some of my gear is inexpensive. Art, thanks for reminding me to update my ancient profile. If it means something to you, check it again. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5593 Registered: May-04 | "I'm telling you what human ear is capable of hearing and not hearing." No, you're not. "If you want to hear for yourself solid evidence that amplifiers can sound different if (and only if) you take the odd step of passing a signal through them 5X ... " Yeah, thanks, Kurt, I'll get to that as soon as I finish cleaning out the crap behind my refrigerator. Awww, I'm just kidding ya, big guy. No, I really don't care to play your silly game. I do have betetr things to do. I don't have excellent components hooked to my computer. It's a computer! I am a very, very, very long way from listening to stuff other than AirAmerica through my computer. And I don't even have to do that any longer. They finally got a station here in the Hemorrhoid of the Redneck Rearend. So, thanks - but, no thanks. You listen instead. I'm sure you find it fascinating. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1619 Registered: Feb-05 | Looks like some fine gear. I'm curious why you would buy high end amps like Bryston. Did you hear the difference between those and others? Did you get a really good deal on them? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 318 Registered: Jul-05 | Art: The science types don't dispute that a quality amplifier has its advantages, driving hard loads for example. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1817 Registered: Mar-05 | Kurt, > It's equivalent to saying that when each person reads a book, his life experiences actually change the words written on the page. It's not a matter of opinion. It simply isn't true. My knowledge of electrical engineering is nonexistent, so I'm content to just sit back and listen to both sides of the argument on the subject of audio. As for books though, you seem to miss my point: not that a reader's social-historical baggage can change the PHYSICAL WORDS in a book, but it most definitely can (and usually does) how the book as a whole is experienced and interpreted (="read") by that person. Just look at the endless variations, mutations, and manglings of the major religious texts (the Bible and the Koran in particular) which has resulted in an infinite number of religious sects and an infinite amount of religious strife. So what I am saying is that a person's experience---or maybe PERCEPTION would be a better word---of a given piece of audio equipment may be just as inescapably subjective as his experience of a book, a film, a painting, etc. and that any discussion of audio should take this as a given. Empiricism has its uses but it certainly does have its limits just like any other thought system. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 486 Registered: May-05 | Ah, that word "perception" again. I wondered when someone would revisit that word in response to Kurt's musings. Let me see, I had a 12 year old Denon AVR receiver that was 85 wpc and I now have a 3 year old Denon AVR receiver that is 110 wpc. As Jan tells me that approximately 4-5 db difference in loudness and probably about 20% more power. Yet, I get 2-3 times the sound, OK, that includes a speaker upgrade also. BUT, the old receiver should sound as good on these speakers, it doesn't. And, I suspect anyone could tell this in a double blind listening test. So, did Denon suddenly come up with a new way to make music and sound from its AVR receivers? I'm not buying that, Kurt. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1820 Registered: Mar-05 | well, I've had the Panny running continuously for almost 24 hours, will leave it on for another 24, since the magic threshhold number I usually read about is 40. Only had time to listen to some more Norah Jones tonight. I likes! I've come to realize that one of my limitations in evaluating audio equipment is that there are very few CDs that I can really say I'm INTIMATELY familiar with so as to have many clear-cut "aha!" moments. That's where having a musically trained person like Marc over has been really interesting. Have been meaning to buy those Stereophile auditioning CDs that tell you what to listen for on each track... |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 321 Registered: Jul-05 | Dave: Not to get too involved in this, but a lot of things can change about a company and its products in the course of a decade. Moreover, you should know as well as anyone that the wpc rating of a receiver is about as useful as its color. Compare a bottom of the barrel Pioneer 100wpc AVR to a 100wpc Pioneer Elite which weighs 3 times more and see which actually delivers the goods. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5597 Registered: May-04 | Dak - You've misunderstood what I 've said somewhere along the line. Going from 85 watts to 110 watts won't get you 4 to 5 dB of loudness difference. When EVERYTHING is equal, doubling the power will achieve 3dB gain in output level. From 85 to 170 would double and get you the 3dB. Since the difference between the old and new receiver is, on paper, only 25 watts, you have less than half (42.5 watts) the difference in wattage of your original receiver. So not even 1.5 dB difference should be expected. Adding 25 watts output to the level achieved by an 85 watt amplifier will probably get you about 1dB of output level difference. Assuming everything else remained constant. Of course, the volume change is not what we are discussing here. Believers in DB tests grant the level change and actually make it a part of their stipulations why two amplifiers might not sound alike. Their stipulation has only to do with the point where the smaller amplifier clips, however, and as long as the two amplifiers are within their respective power envelope (not clipping), the thinking is they will be identical in sound quality - if they measure the same in \i[all other parameters.} The measurement idea is both their Holy Grail and their Achille's Heel. "If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." - Daniel von Recklinghausen (Chief Engineer H.H. Scott) |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 937 Registered: Jun-05 | DA if you are comparing the Pannys weight it is like comparing a like comparing a digital speaker like a Meridian against a normal speaker.Digital amps are inheriently lighter than a standard class A/B amp.A digital amp runs much cooler almost ice cold I have digital amp in my car and its cold all of the time and they use less power and voltage gains I must admit its a different sound extremely clean and clear. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 325 Registered: Jul-05 | I'm not Tawaun. I'm just saying a bottom of the barrel 199 Pioneer rated for 100 watts versus a 899 Pioneer Elite rated for 100 watts. Its a no brainer to see which will actually deliver 100 watts. They just don't sell quality amplifiers for that price due to parts, except for perhaps Eddies Panny here. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 939 Registered: Jun-05 | DA your right it may be the only one,I sure havent heard glowing reports of the JVC digital receiver for around the same price. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 492 Registered: May-05 | Jan, Sorry, I did misquote the db gain. BUT, that wasn't what I was referring to in sound quality. Yes, I can match the db gain between the old AVR receiver and the Denon 3803 but I can't match the sound quality, the musicality or the "ahas" as Edster stated it. That was my point. I should just stay off anything technical, definitely not my bag and that's why I listen to you technically proficient guys, even if most of it goes over the windshield. DA, I understand your point. Yes, the technology may have improved, the company may have discovered a new "widget" that works wonderfully in their receiver. BUT, my 25 year old Luxman sounded better than my old AVR receiver, it just didn't do HT because it was strictly two channel. When I bought the old AVR receiver, that was pretty new technology and I thought 5 channel was pretty cool, BTW - it only sent 25 wpc or 35 wpc to the center and the fronts, I have no idea why. (So, Jan, my 4-5 db may not have been far off on 3 of the 5 channels.) Anyway, my point was the music sounds mucho better now and it's the same company and a similar power output on the fronts. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1825 Registered: Mar-05 | aha! Aha!! AHA!!! AHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! after several days of listening only to the Panny, today I finally started doing some A/B listening with the Panny vs. my beloved NAD...and the "aha" moments are coming in spades right now. Started with some Bach: a solo piano piece ("Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring") and the Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G Major (Allegro). The piano piece had both receivers pretty close at moderate volumes, though I could already hear a clarity advantage in favor of the Panny, which simply sounded more open and natural. However at high volumes (90-95db) and particularly on the violin concerto, the Panny simply WIPED THE FLOOR with the NAD, which started to get thin on the highs and weak on the mids during musical peaks, with a layer of fuzz settling in around the edges. The Panny on the other hand calmly delivered the goods with perfect aplomb, didn't even get hot to the touch, stayed the same warmish temperature to the touch throughout. Moved on to Norah Jones, "Don't Know Why" and "Seven Years"---didn't crank the volume above 80db this time, but again the Panny held a clear advantage. Wow, the midrange was just tremendous...Norah's voice seemed much fuller, her breaths more audible, when she held a note for a couple of seconds it all came through clear and effortlessly. In comparison the NAD seemd to favor certain parts of the frequency range over others, Norah's voice while still very pleasing did not have the same range. Van Morrison, "Moondance"---a mediocre recording, but again the Panny did it with a bit more life and verve than the NAD. Santana, "Put Your Lights On," "Maria Maria," and "Corazon Espinado." This is one of my favorite demo CDs because the songs have a variety of tempos and both simple and complex passages. There is also a lot of treble and midrange happening at the same time, all driven by a strong beat. Once again, during complex passages (by which I mean lots of instruments, voices, percussion all happening at the same time) the Panny pulled ahead and never looked back. Separation of musical inputs was outstanding, bringing out many details that were muted on the NAD. The NAD clearly does deliver more bass (I had my speakers set on large on the Panny, with the sub turned off) and on simpler compositions did have more of a laid back, warmish sound. However at about six times the price (an equivalent NAD amp + pre-pro today would run about $1300 compared to the Panny's $230) that's a lot of dough just for a particular sound characteristic with a particular type of musical compositions. In fact if I were buying my system from scratch today, I would choose the Panny without a second thought over both the NAD and the Marantz and spend the extra money on the speakers and sub...complete no-brainer. What particularly surprised me was the fact that the slim featherweight Panny actually seems far more powerful than the behemoth NAD in both SPL and maintaining SQ at high SPL. It is rated at 100wpc at 6 ohms, but after today I would guesstimate that they could easily list it at 150wpc at 8ohms if they wanted to and they'd still be far more honest than 90% of their competition. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this receiver even as a party appliance. Wow, wow, wow..a 230 lousy bucks suddenly goes a VERY long way, indeed! This Panny is far from perfect in terms of componentry, features, remote, and ease of use no doubt---but the performance it delivers at this ridiculously low pricepoint is simply staggering. If Panny adds another say $200 to the price tag to give it higher grade features and components, it will be extremely hard to beat. Simply put, I cannot imagine there being too many solid-state analog receivers around 10 years from now, other than the real high end die-hard audiophile niche. SOLD! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1826 Registered: Mar-05 | PS. Also will hook up my $60 Panasonic DVD player to the Panny for music playback and see how it sounds compared to the Marantz CDP since with the xr55 there are no DACs involved at all, the DVD player will simply be used a transport so unless its transport and chassis completely sucks it should produce the same musical output as the Marantz. If this proves to be true, I'll probably move my Marantz CDP and NAD to the bedroom and sell off the Marantz receiver. SHWEEET! Less clutter, less cost, better SQ! |
|
Silver Member Username: DanmanQUEBEC CANADA Post Number: 511 Registered: Apr-04 | Edster, not sure if you mentioned it somewhere but what is your speaker set-up (brand) with this amp? I have to admit, I do like Panasonic gear and have listened to the exact same amp as you in store not long ago as it was playing when I walked in. I don't agree with your review but that is my opinion, however, it sounded pretty good for the money that is for sure! You like it better than what you own is a step ahead that many on this thread seem to think that there is no difference in sound from brand to brand. Maybe you have not really heard many other brands from your NAD's therefore maybe the "NAD" sound was not for you in the first place. However maybe I am wrong and you have listened to a slew of brands.......please correct me if I am wrong. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1827 Registered: Mar-05 | danman, I have Ascend CMT-340s across the front, a speaker that recently destroyed $1500 Monitor Audio floorstanders (costing almost 3 times as much) I heard while auditioning CDPs. They are crystal clear, neutral flat frequency response, little or no coloration. Listening to CDPs in a shop with the MAs I thought that my Sony ES carousel was doing just fine, when I got the Marantz CDP at home with the Ascend speakers it was a night and day improvement. Other receivers I've listened to aside from my Marantz: Yamaha, Harman Kardon, Pioneer, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo, Sony ES, Denon, JVC. Haven't heard the specialized brands like Cambridge Audio, Parasound, etc. though. Up until now NAD was my favorite of the ones I had heard. The others on this thread who seem to believe that all receivers sound alike I think are referring to analog receivers. This all-digital technology is a whole other ballgame. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1828 Registered: Mar-05 | PS. Oh BTW the JVC I did listen to was a hybrid digital rx-f10 which also impressed me greatly. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1624 Registered: Feb-05 | This is when it becomes obvious that you are listening to an old low power NAD amp. What you describe is an amp running out of juice. Unfortunately I think alot of folks are going to fall for the digital sound. Before long everyone will be listening to their ipods through their Panny digital receivers. Everybody except me. I will remain a proud dinosaur :-). |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 942 Registered: Jun-05 | Me to ,but I would like to have a digital amp to play with. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1832 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, I hereby challenge you to pay Amazon $15 for an in-home audition of the Panny, and have someone blind test you on it against your NAD. Who knows, maybe NAD does something different with their amps now that they didn't do 10 years ago besides adding remote control. But before today I would never have IMAGINED that lack of power was even on a blip on my NAD's horizons. I think what I'm hearing is the reality of analog sound even when delivered through capable gear: an inherent layer of noise and distortion that at low to moderately loud volumes creates what some call "warmth" but when pushed to really high levels, does result in degradation of certain frequencies. Mind you I do not usually listen to music at 95db and doubt too many people do either, but it was a very revealing test. In any case, after a couple days of listening to the Panny, even at moderately loud volumes (75db) I find myself yearning for its superior detail and finesse when I go back to the NAD, which now sounds borderline coarse in comparison. To top it off, I haven't even used the Panny's bi-amping feature yet... |
|
T2T Unregistered guest | Allow me to kick in a few observations, if I may. 1) I've owned a boatload of receivers. Each one has its unique sonic characters. If they were all the same when it came to sound, we'd all just be happy with brand "X" and all the other brands could just pack it in. 2) I do believe that if a blind test is performed, one could tell the difference in sound characteristics between the different receivers. They may not spot the exact receiver, nor make the correct match. But, I'll be willing to bet that they can physically hear differences. 3) I'm not sure where I stand when it comes to burn in. I do know that speakers can "loosen up" a bit and tweeters can calm a bit reducing some of the initial harshness after some break-in time has been alloted for the speakers. I didn't think receivers would subscribe to such break-in. However, some of the brightness issues initially heard with the XR55 have tamed a bit. It just seems like the sound is more pleasing now than 5 weeks back when I installed the receiver. 4)Regarding sound differences between receivers. I only have an H/K AVR-125 in my home at the moment besides the XR55. H/K is known for its musical signature that many appreciate. The difference between Panasonic and H/K can be heard. I won't make a harsh statement like the Panasonic stomps the H/K, because that would be rediculous. However, though, the Panny does have a bit of a "boost" in the upper mid-range, low-treble area that provides it with a unique signature. Some may, or may not appreciate this sound. With my jazz collection of music, I find the sound a perfect match. A person just has to try a few devices to determine which receiver sounds best to them with their music, their speakers and their listening environment. By all means, don't be afraid to make some decisions and buy some gear. Sell it off if it doesn't please you. I know I've learned lots of great information by such exercises. This knowledge would not have been gained through reading posts of experiences by other members as what they hear is different from what I hear. Finally, in closing, the XR55 has got to be the bargain of the year when it comes to economical, great sounding receivers that surpass their cost by providing sound comparable to equipment priced at higher levels. Oh, I do have some letters after my name too: T2T, HMFIC Enjoy ! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1834 Registered: Mar-05 | > Before long everyone will be listening to their ipods through their Panny digital receivers. heh that's pretty funny, Art! I do have an MP3 player, an old Rio S35 that I just use when running. It doesn't sound as good as a normal CD but easily equals a good chrome or metal cassette. Mostly I'm just too lazy to convert all my CDs to MP3 format... |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 944 Registered: Jun-05 | That biamp feature is nice Eddie its the same one that was on my Technics SA-AX6 receiver oh yeah its good now it has true audio roots yep Technics is still alive and kicking,and still getting better. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1625 Registered: Feb-05 | Against my NAD C162 pre amp and Hafler Transnova 9505 power amp or my NAD T763 AVR. In either case I won't do it as I know that I am unimpressed with digital receivers. My NAD/Hafler combo is 250 watts per channel and my T763 is 100 per channel. Both provide plenty of current which I don't think the 10 yr old 25 watt per channel NAD integrated does. "I think what I'm hearing is the reality of analog sound even when delivered through capable gear: an inherent layer of noise and distortion that at low to moderately loud volumes creates what some call "warmth" but when pushed to really high levels, does result in degradation of certain frequencies." Eddie you are hearing the reality of the limitations of your equipment. Believe me if you were listening to high end analog gear the noise would be gone. "Art, I hereby challenge you to pay Amazon $15 for an in-home audition of the Panny, and have someone blind test you on it against your NAD." Sorry, I just don't play around with gear like that anymore. It's more trouble than my back can take to move my gear all about. I have heard the digital gear and was altogether unimpressed. It's clinically detailed with a glass like smoothness. To me that is very unlike music. "Mind you I do not usually listen to music at 95db and doubt too many people do either, but it was a very revealing test." Like I said, what you are hearing is the limitations of your NAD. Limitations that I'm not experiencing with mine. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1836 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, er, I don't have a "10 year old 25 wpc NAD integrated." I have a 10-14 year old NAD 2200 amp and a 1240 pre-amp. The 2200 is rated at 100wpc with 400wpc dynamic power (short burst). You can go to this link and click on "2200" for NAD's own write up and specs: http://www.nadelectronics.com/support/productinfo_framset.htm I'm sure NAD has added some refinements to its present day models that its vintage models lack, but I'd be surprised if it adds up to anything more than subtle improvements in noticeable SQ. I'm going to have to go to a real high end shop this week with my CDs to listen to their gazillion dollar gear... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1837 Registered: Mar-05 | > Sorry, I just don't play around with gear like that anymore. It's more trouble than my back can take to move my gear all about. The Panny weighs in at 14lbs, so all you'd have to do is put it on top of your stack, plug it in and reconnect your front mains' speaker cables and CDP digital cable. > I have heard the digital gear and was altogether unimpressed. Can you elaborate on what it was, where, and for how long you were listening? You've really piqued my curiousity. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1838 Registered: Mar-05 | BTW Art, I don't mean to imply that my NAD amp is in the same league as your Hafler. Just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 946 Registered: Jun-05 | I have a Alpine digital car amp and I was skeptical at first until I heard the total lack of smearing and clarity it was mind blowing to say the least,it clearly bettered my high power Kicker amp,but the bass does seem a bit lighter though but very textured and detailed.But by no means can my car speakers compete with my home speakers though, but digital amps do sound much different from the norm though unfair comparrisons but thats the only experience I've had with them yet most audiophlies havent taken them serious me included,im gonna check into them lots companies are coming out with them now,it is a guy up here who sells the Channel Island digital monoblocks for $1500 a pair. |
|
Anoynymous Unregistered guest | I don't know edster, I really think you are a good guy and you are learning quite a bit about audio but you still have long ways to go.....when you say that your speakers "destroyed" the $1500.00 MA's it really sounds very silly. I understand you are quite happy with the ascends and you really want to convince yourself of what a great purchased you made but, guy, keep things in perspective. Challenge for you. Listen to the MA's driven by a Moon I-5 (not your panny) and give us your impressions, I assure you big guy it will be a completely different experience for ya' |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1839 Registered: Mar-05 | what model Alpine is that TW? I looked at their lineup at crutchfield.com and didn't see anything that was listed as "digital." Do you know if anybody makes a car headunit that has pure digital amplification? I wanted to upgrade my Camry's sound system but didn't want to bother with an external amp like I have in my truck. Sure would be nice if someone came up with a compact, ridiculously cheap yet powerful and great-sounding car digital amp! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1840 Registered: Mar-05 | anoynymous, LOL, now where on earth am I gonna get a "Moon I-5?" > when you say that your speakers "destroyed" the $1500.00 MA's it really sounds very silly. well that's the only explanation I can really think of for how the Marantz CDP sounded a *little* better than my Sony CDP in the shop, yet sounded a *lot* better at home. And two people on this forum have also whacked on MA's recent downgrading of their gear in the past couple of years, so I don't think it's all my imagination. Who knows, IF I hooked up the Panny to those MAs maybe that might help them a little too. lol |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1626 Registered: Feb-05 | "I don't know edster, I really think you are a good guy and you are learning quite a bit about audio but you still have long ways to go....." You know I like you Eddie but I have to agree with the above post. Listening to a cd player with the digital coax through a digital receiver. It definitely sounds different, strikingly so. But to my ears it sounds far less musical and in the end tiresome. I didn't really know what NAD amp you had so I just threw something out there. I had a low power NAD receiver many years back and it sounded good but not as good as any of their current gear. "I'm going to have to go to a real high end shop this week with my CDs to listen to their gazillion dollar gear..." If you don't hear a difference then it may be time to step back and reflect, while ofcourse making an appointment with your local ear, nose, and throat specialist...lol. BTW Edster I know the Panny only weighs 14 lbs but the rest of my gear don't. My hafler weighs 50 lbs and my NAD T763 weighs 40 lbs. It's not so much the weight but the awkward positions one gets into while fussing with the gear that causes injury. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 879 Registered: Sep-04 | Kurt, I have taken the deep breath and read what you pointed me at. I have problems with the double blind tests and even more so with the 5X listening test. I have no problem with the concept of placing the systems in 'blind' places and to setting them up to have matched volumes. My problem is with the measurement criteria. There are no truly repeatable measurement criteria that can be used to test the full gamut of performance of any one component. Furthermore, the methods used during the test often do not leave enough scope for the listeners. It's usual that parts of tracks (typically less than 30 seconds) are used for the listener to make a judgement on which component they're listening to and how it sounds. As a seasoned listener myself, I would argue that listeners are not being given the chance to form an opinion most of the time, so the results become largely useless. The 5X listening test is even worse. It grades on 5 criteria - Tone Quality, Loudness, Noise Distortion, Distortion, Articulation - and it uses signals of a very prescribed nature, not decent tracks. This is the cornerstone of the musicality vs sound argument. Sound does not music make, it is merely a part. Furthermore, music is meant to generate an emotional response. It is that response that needs to be measured, if possible. I would be far more impressed if heart rate or eye movement monitors were used during blind tests. These should corroborate findings or make a mockery of them, but again only if the listeners are allowed to listen properly and in conditions were they are likely to be relaxed! FWIW, tonal quality is quite important to me, but noise distortion, distortion and articulation all come under that in my personal 'testing' of any component. More important to me are the pace, rhythm and timing qualities of a component, which are often ignored by most of the buying public and the magazines. Now you may scoff (as many do) at these qualities but there are a relatively large minority of people for whom most systems do not make the grade irrespective of price simply because those qualities do not come through on most systems. Listening is one thing, engaging in the performance is another. It's nothing like reading the book you mentioned earlier. If you had to use that analogy, it's all about the effect of reading the book. Two people read the same book. They have different reactions to the book, but it's the same book, so why is that the case? Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 16 Registered: Aug-05 | Edster and Jan, Earlier on this thread I mentioned that I do not believe in electronics "burn in period" based on information provided by some manufacturers. Here are the replies from NAD and Krell Hello, Is there such a thing as "Break In period" for a Pre-Amplifier ? If yes, how is this accomplished ? Thank you very much for your support. --------------------------------------- Karen Pritchard 07-21-2005 10:41 re: Thank you for your recent request via the NAD Electronics web-site. Our units do not require a breaking in period, and should sound great coming right out of the box. Best regards, Karen Pritchard ================================================= Dear Sirs, This is a simple question and I was hoping you would be so kind to answer. Is there such a thing as "burn in period" for your amplifiers? Someone mentioned this to me and assured me that my amp will sound better after 100 hours of use. Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards ------------------------------------------------- Although there may be improvements in sound as it comes up to operating temperature. All Krell product should sound good from the moment there turned on. No need to wait to listen. Regards, Steven Leckrone Service Department sleckrone@krellonline.com 203-799-9954 ext. 343 Fax:203-795-2287 -------------------------------------------------- Any thoughts? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5641 Registered: May-04 | Yes, I had one this morning! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 17 Registered: Aug-05 | Jan, You are a funny fellow, given that this contradicts whatever you have said before regarding this subject, this is all you can come up with? I provided evidence that you can refute and all you do is ignore it. Just Pitiful! Not that I really care what you think nor I need for you to agree with me but the facts are the facts buddy. No need to reply if you don't feel like it, I will not address you anymore anyway. Good luck |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5642 Registered: May-04 | Ok, this is an old one, but I like it. I have no idea what you can't hear. You cannot prove a negative. That is what all this is about. Someone who wants to believe all things sound the same wants to prove to the other person there is no difference. If I say I hear a difference in this situation, they adjust the situation. The "measurements are all" folk want this played on their field with their rules. When someone says I hear a difference as I switch between amplifers in my home, they argue that is not a scientific test. No, it's not. It is a test of how the product reproduces music to suit my needs. What is scientific about running an amplifier into a purely resistive load and having it reproduce sinewaves and then saying that represents what happens when the amplifier reproduces music when hooked to a loudspeaker? Or squarewaves? Or measuring THD for that matter? Audio equipment is one product that is tested in a manner that has virtually nothing to do with how the product will be used. Load resistors do not fight back, they absorb energy. Loudspeakers do not absorb energy in the strictest sense of the word, but instead they fight back. Music is not a single sinewave and squarewaves do not exist in nature. Measurements are a guideline to how well you are doing. They are not the end all and be all of audio design. Even the most numbers committed designer will sit and listen and let that be their decision maker as to how good they're doing. And, they will do so with a wide variety of components because they know there is an interaction between components. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of a cook placing a meal before you without once tasting the ingredients or the finished dish. It is not about 1/2 teaspoon of basil. It is about how the basil interacts with the tomatoes. In audio we are not supposed to have that freedom. Why? I've never seen an answer to that. I've just been told that all 1/2 teaspoons of basil are the same when it comes to amplifiers and such. I said early on in this thread, I did not wish to get involved in yet another "you can't hear it because I can't hear it" discussions. This is futile. No one changes their mind until they finally hear what they perceive to be a better sounding product. The suddenly they realize there are differences. It has happened several times on this forum in the past year. People have heard a difference. Until that time comes for each individual, they are totally free - as far as I'm concerned - to believe whatever they want to believe. Some people believe you will burn in hell for listening to music. Others don't. Who's right? If you think you have the answers to too many things, you are probably wrong on most of them. Not that many people are that wise. Unfortunately. I personally don't care what anyone else can or can't hear. I spent twenty five years selling to people who could and couldn't hear. If they couldn't hear and they wanted to buy something I thought was terrible, that was their perogative. I just don't understand why anyone wants to prove I can't hear what I hear. What point is there to that? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1844 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, Okey-dokey, as Jan would say. I admit that I'm still a relative newcomer to the audio world, which is why I try very hard to keep an open mind about everything, even the lunatic fringe stuff like cable burn-in LOL. Will report back after my foray to the few high end shops in Houston this week. Apparently for a city of over 4 million people there are only 2-3 of them, according to my friend Marc. |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 9 Registered: Mar-05 | "I'm telling you what human ear is capable of hearing and not hearing." "No, you're not" I guess you're right. I haven't so I will. The human ear not capable of hearing distortion less than ~0.1%. Many audio components, including amps, are approaching perfection as far as human hearing is concerned. The distortion introduced by good amps can be as low as 0.002%. Think about it. If you take two such amps, neither of which audibly alters the signal, how could you possibly hear a difference? If you do hear a difference, it must be due to something else. (like the volume) Why does the argument go on (and ON and ON)? Because reviewers who work for magazines that rely on advertising know that if they admit that a $1000 Benchmark DAC is close to perfect and fail to say that a more expensive one sounds better, everyone who sells more expensive DACs will pull their advertising. So the magazine reviewers continue to rave about how much better brand X sounds. Occasionally, when someone points out that the reviewer couldn't possibly be hearing what they say they're hearing or challenges them to prove that they can, the reviewers are forced to take the only outlet left--criticize and attempt to discredit double blind testing. Readers accept those arguemnts and repeat them as if they were facts. I enjoy reading magazines like Stereophile and I'm glad many of you do to. I also enjoy reading historical novels, but I keep in mind that mixed in with the story is both fact and fiction. If it doesn't sound better, why would I pay for a Bryston Amp? Because I like looking at it. Because it has a 20 year warranty. Because when I open the case, I get the same kind of thrill that some people get from looking at the engine of a fine racing car. It is a beautiful piece of engineering that is worth owning even if it sounds exactly like some much less expensive amps. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1848 Registered: Mar-05 | > If it doesn't sound better, why would I pay for a Bryston Amp? Because I like looking at it. Because it has a 20 year warranty. Because when I open the case, I get the same kind of thrill that some people get from looking at the engine of a fine racing car. It is a beautiful piece of engineering that is worth owning even if it sounds exactly like some much less expensive amps. WHOA! In all the time I've been surfing audio forums, you are the ONLY person I've ever come across who does NOT claim that he actually got exponentially better SQ by paying exponentially more $$$. Kudos! A 20 year warranty is pretty darn impressive...as long as Bryston never goes out of business of course. |
|
New member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 10 Registered: Mar-05 | "I personally don't care what anyone else can or can't hear. I spent twenty five years selling to people who could and couldn't hear. If they couldn't hear and they wanted to buy something I thought was terrible, that was their perogative." Oh, I didn't realize that you had a cash interest in this. Now I understand why you side with magazines/advertisers. Why am I skeptical about what you claim to hear? Because you're claiming to be able to do something that humans simply can't do. If you were, say, a bat, I'd be willing to believe outrageous claims about your ability to hear things that humans can't. Or that you could fly. It wouldn't end the world if you conceeded the truth. You'd just have to change your selling technique from saying "it sounds better" to saying "it's better made, more reliable, will last longer and looks better". |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 294 Registered: Apr-05 | Edster I read your comments much like I do a movie critic's. I read about what they say about a movie not so much whether they give it a thumbs up or down, and make my own decision. It seems that you are making a general statement that audio engineering has finally moved beyond tubes and transistors in reproducing good sound. Imagine that! |
|
anoynymous Unregistered guest | edster, If you are willing to drive you could visit these guys in San Antonio http://www.gcaudio.com/about/index.html After your visit to Galen, you could drink some Margaritas alongside the River Walk while feeding your eyes with some fleeting looks at the "señoritas" |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1409 Registered: Feb-04 | A 20 year warranty is pretty darn impressive...as long as Bryston never goes out of business of course. Edster, Bryston was making audiophile-grade amps when I was a teenager. They'll be around... One Canadian company we can be proud of. http://www.bryston.ca/ Another local manufacturer is Classe Audio http://www.classeaudio.com/ Personally, the only large differences I was ever heard between amplifiers (not that I have much experience) occurred with difficult to drive speakers (usually low impendence dips). On my KHorns, I can't tell my h/k receiver from a Nikko Alpha 220 power amp, and a Carver M4.0t sounds a little more real with voices and acoustic instruments. The change is subtle and far from night and day. Perhaps upgrading my source will allow further differences to be heard. If not, I'm sure it'll be because of the interconnects! ;-) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1849 Registered: Mar-05 | Peter & Stoff, well I can't claim to have heard EVERY solid state or tube (never heard a tube, actually) amp out there so take my comments within the context of my own personal experience, which when compared to someone like Jan or Tawaun or Art is decidedly limited. But yeah right now I have the definite impression that with analog amps there is an audible difference going from low-fi to mid- or hi-fi, but much less so going from mid- to hi-fi, and when you throw the all-digitals into the mix it appears that you get at least mid-fi if not hi-fi SQ for low-fi prices. I stress the "if"---pending my visit this week of what few high-end audio stores I can dig up around here. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 336 Registered: Jul-05 | Eddie: IIRC Panasonic did sell a head unit with digital amplifers rated for something like 60wpc. I don't suppose you have checked crutchfield lately? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1850 Registered: Mar-05 | anoynymous, thanks for the tip, the website is impressive...wow, a $59 power outlet! http://www.gcaudio.com/products/feature.html San Antone is one of the two interesting places in the Lone Star state (Austin is the other one) and the Riverwalk is nice but best walked during daylight hours. We do have plenty of tasty senoritas here in Houston too, though! : ) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1851 Registered: Mar-05 | DA, is this the model you're referring to? http://www.crutchfield.com/S-jI276hZWMR6/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=300&I=133C9801 claims 31 not 60wpc though...and for a whopping $500! Damn if Panny can make a great home digital amp for $230 you'd think they could do the same for the car too! This HU looks like you're paying through the nose for the fancy high-def display. Sheesh! Also wonder just how truthful wpc ratings are in car HUs? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5644 Registered: May-04 | " Occasionally, when someone points out that the reviewer couldn't possibly be hearing what they say they're hearing or challenges them to prove that they can, the reviewers are forced to take the only outlet left--criticize and attempt to discredit double blind testing." "Oh, I didn't realize that you had a cash interest in this. Now I understand why you side with magazines/advertisers." Please. I don't want to be part of this idiocy. Look at what you stated first and then what you did second. Are you not trying to discredit me, sir? Are you not attacking who I am and not what I have said? I have asked the question several times and not received an answer. Let me try one more time. What is wrong with you that I am not allowed to hear what I know I can hear? What drives you to prove me wrong? Is it pathological? Please answer my question. There has to be something wrong that you are not at peace until I tell you I can't do something. You insist I lower myself to your level of inadequacy. This has nothing to do with being correct or incorrect. Your attitude that I cannot do something is far more arrogant and dismissive than anyone who claims they can hear better than a bat. You want to lower me to your level. You refuse to just let me listen to my music. WHY? Kurt, I do not give a flip about why you bought what you bought. People buy stuff all the time for reasons that I find incomprehensible. However, you are like everone else who makes this argument. Whether an amplifier measures beneath our audible limits of THD is not the issue. It is one measurement. There are others. When do you stop measuring and say that's sufficient? If an amplifier does measure differently, then it's allowed to sound different, sir. Or, have you not gone that far in the playbook? Sir, if you're going to do this dance, learn the steps. Then let me dance to whatever tune I hear. OK? I am not claiming any superhuman power and you certainly know that. Or, maybe you just plain don't. It is you, sir, who are claiming less skill, not I. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I hear what I hear. I cannot prove what you can't hear. Why go on? Please, go play in the traffic. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 950 Registered: Jun-05 | Jan is it me but doesent measurements to this degree sound so familiar espeacially in the last 48 hours to you? This guy sounds like that idiot Paul Bayless doesent he? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1853 Registered: Mar-05 | DA, looked at the Panny website, the digital amps are in their top-shelf CQ-9800 and up models that retail for $500 and up. Found some on eBay for $350 shipped brand new just no Panny warranty. Think I'll wait on that. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 1057 Registered: Feb-05 | Kurt, you sure have Jan pegged. Those who claim electronics do not burn in simply can not hear a difference. That does not mean that there is no difference, but only no diffrence to their ears. There can be significant sonic differences between similarly priced equipment from various manufacturers. A cheap Pioneer probably sounds very close to a cheap JVC or Panasonic. But when one moves up in quality, the differences become readily apparent. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 951 Registered: Jun-05 | Eddie I forgot the model # of that Alpine I sold all my car audio someone broke in, one of my cars and stole about $3000 worth of gear not to mention the damage to my car.I know they had cheap digital amp and then the top line they had 3 in the line I had the middle one they are the best car amps i ve heard,I had very nice sounding system in my Miata but I just took it out because im trading my Miata in for the new one. |
|
Silver Member Username: DanmanQUEBEC CANADA Post Number: 514 Registered: Apr-04 | Edster, if I can be blunt for a moment. Is it possible that you have a thing or two against high spending on audio equipment and convince yourself that you enjoy your Panny so much that you believe it has better sound than your NAD? Please do not think this is a dumb question or a personal shot at you because it is not! I really appreciate the fact that someone can actually use their ears on this board for a change HOWEVER, comparing 10-14 year old NAD's to a newer digital receiver that costs peanuts is one thing but I would love to listen with my set-up! Also, if I go back a few posts, I can also compliment you on your comment about your speakers to MA's BUT once again you mentioned that they "destroyed" them! I have heard many MA speakers and thought they were quite good. I wish I could listen to yours however to have a better comparison. Destroy is a big word maybe you should say that you liked them much less than what you own. I respect your honesty to yourself and think it is great to have different opinions. the main thing is you enjoy your gear. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 18 Registered: Aug-05 | Those who claim electronics do not burn in simply can not hear a difference Sure, tell that to Krell, NAD, Pioneer, Simuadio. I am sure they all will find it very interesting if not entertaining. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 11 Registered: Mar-05 | OK Jan, calm down. My arguments rest on one fundamental thing--neither you nor any other human can hear distortion of less than 01.%. Can you save us a bunch of time and either conceed or refute that? |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 953 Registered: Jun-05 | Vader this debate can go on forever about breakin for electronics,I for one beleive in breakin |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1856 Registered: Mar-05 | Danman, Funny but I was wondering the same thing, if I had thousands of bucks to blow on audio would I also be dismissive of the Panny? And I think it's a valid consideration, as valid as saying that people with thousand dollar analog amps are likely to resist the idea that a $230 digital receiver can come close, match or exceed their much more expensive gear. Everyone has a vested psychological and economic interest I suppose, just a matter of how much. You're right, "destroy" was a bit hyperbolic, and yes I do love to love my Ascends. (Though I had no trouble admitting that Tim's Lings bested them in certain specific departments, and that it turns out I prefer the smaller 170s to my 340s, if you remember that thread.) As you know my NAD separates cost me about $400 shipped rather than $1300-1500 new retail, but I believe that I AB'ed against the Panny with a fairly open mind...I would not have minded forking out $15 to ship the Panny back to Amazon and then congratulating myself for discerning through the hype about the all-digitals and feeling good about having better gear. Again I think you are right that some of my comments on the Panny have been a little over the top. Still, I think the mere fact that a $230 piece of gear can at least keep up with something that today would cost 6 times that amount is absolutely stunning. I would definitely encourage you to also do a home demo of the Panny, especially if you can get someone to blind test you. $15 is really play money for this kind of experience. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1857 Registered: Mar-05 | TW, ouch, $3K worth of gear! Didn't you have an alarm on the car? |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 12 Registered: Mar-05 | "A cheap Pioneer probably sounds very close to a cheap JVC or Panasonic. But when one moves up in quality, the differences become readily apparent." I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Really poor quality equipment would distort the music more but in different ways, so, two poor quality components would both sound bad but in different ways. As one moves up to better engineered equipment, the amount of deviation between the input and the output signal (distortion) becomes less and less. Seems like that would make it harder and harder to tell the difference until, eventually, the very best equpiment would sound (Gasp!) identical. PS--Please note that these differences do not apply to speakers. There is no speaker yet made that has a sufficiently flat frequency response in all directions. Each one has deviations that are discernable to human ears. Thus, unlike many other quality audio components, each speaker does have its own signature. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 337 Registered: Jul-05 | Eddie: I think thats probably the one. Still 31 watts RMS isn't half bad if it actually delivers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 19 Registered: Aug-05 | Tawaun, I loved your reply. If you belive in it that is just fine. No need to say more even less no need get a n a l about it, you are absolutely right the debate could go on forever with no agreement. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. Good luck Man |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 955 Registered: Jun-05 | Your right its to many opinions on the matter to argue about,some gear may not need as much time as others see this is only one of reasons why I think it makes it so objective.It trully is a endless arguement. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 956 Registered: Jun-05 | Eddie I had a $700 alarm it doesent make a difference if they want it they will get it.I got back $2200 for everthing but a far cry from $3000 for the system and the $3500 damage they done to my car,man insurance companies are fuck1ing crooks! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1858 Registered: Mar-05 | $700 alarm! That's really scary. I have a $400 Clifford, knock on wood it'll never be tested. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5647 Registered: May-04 | I asked first, Kurt. (Several times actually.) You've dodged the answers once again. You answer my questions and then I'll answer your question. That seems fair. Let me make it simple to understand what I'm asking. 1) Are you not trying to discredit me, sir? Are you not attacking who I am and not what I have said? 2) What is it that's wrong with all you guys on that side that you always want to start this argument? 3) What is wrong with you that I am not allowed to hear what I know I can hear? What drives you to prove me wrong? Is it pathological? 4) You want to lower me to your level. You refuse to just let me listen to my music. WHY? 5) Music is not a single sinewave and squarewaves do not exist in nature. What is scientific about running an amplifier into a purely resistive load and having it reproduce sinewaves and then saying that represents what happens when the amplifier reproduces music when hooked to a loudspeaker? Or squarewaves? Or measuring THD for that matter? It is only one measurement; is it not? Whether an amplifier measures beneath our audible limits of THD is not the issue. It is one measurement. There are others. When do you stop measuring and say that's sufficient? If an amplifier does measure differently, then it's allowed to sound different, sir. Or, have you not gone that far in the playbook? I cannot prove what you can't hear. Why go on? I just don't understand why anyone wants to prove I can't hear what I hear. What point is there to that? Does that make you feel better about yourself? I know those are a lot of questions compared to your one about THD but you have ignored them all in the past. I think they are worth answering before we proceed. And I am not that interested in proceeding, to be honest. This is a futile exercise as far as I'm concerned. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5648 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, I got distracted. Make those last few questions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 494 Registered: May-05 | Geez guys, Leaving the Jan and Kurt debate aside, I must admit Edster, you've got me curious. Geez, spend $800-$2000 on another receiver, integrated amp, separates or spend $15 on shipping costs on the Panny and give it a shot. I hate it when you do that, although anyone with alot more experience than me want to take the Edster challenge and give us your thoughts? If Eddie's right, I could probably sell my 3803 and be money ahead and sound ahead. ANYONE? |
|
Anoni Unregistered guest | 1) Yes 2) Nothing 3) No 4) Because 5) Hey ! Number five has 5 questions! mmmm..not fair. 6) Yes...I guess 7) No 8) ????? 9) because it's fun, besides, seems like you got nothing else to do 10) Yes. |
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