Archive through September 15, 2005
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 958 Registered: Jun-05 | Jan he sounds just like Paul Bayless full of Sh1t!Maybe it is him their wording and tone are quite similar. |
|
Silver Member Username: DanmanQUEBEC CANADA Post Number: 516 Registered: Apr-04 | Edster, I would not say that some of your comments were over the top BUT they were honest. No one is denying what you heard. I agree that of all the lower end brands (JVC, Onkyo, Sony....) I think Panasonic has an advantage. I own a lot of there little stuff and a 47" HDTV that I love and have never had any issues. As I said however, the dealer I went to had one playing and I only found it a little thin compared to what I was used to hearing. In all consideration though, I am running two very powerful amps and a seperate Pre-amp and this does have something to do with it all. Kurt.....a word of advice, don't push Jan too hard, he knows an aweful lot about audio that most of us (especially you) could only dream of! I agree with him that your rediculous comment of not being any difference with sound between various makes of amps only shows your lack of experimentation in audio. Have you ever gone to see a live show? Have you looked at there equipment? I am sure that they do not use JVC as a power amp! Your ignorance is astounding! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1859 Registered: Mar-05 | David, the $15 is play-money, I tell you! Now whether you decide to keep it or not, that will depend on what your ears tell you. Mine are very impressed, as you know. Right now I see this all-digital technology as flipping the audio world on its @ss. Using a digital connection, my cheapo $65 Panny DVD player does CD playback very close or equal to the Marantz CDP I recently got. I guess if you could compress time, this could be likened to today's $500 Dell P-4 trumping a $50,000 supercomputer that filled up two rooms from 20 years ago. whoops there I go again, hyperboling...lol |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 13 Registered: Mar-05 | OK. 1) I am trying to discredit your claims that a) you can hear differences between music passed through two audio component when the variation between input and output is less than 0.1% and that b) the reason no human can demonstrate such an ability is that double blind testing is invalid. If you and your opinion on these matters are one and the same, then I am trying to discredit you. 2) I hate starting it this argument over and over. What I'd prefer to do is finish it. 3) I'm not challenging your unshakable belief that you think can hear differences. I'm saying that the differences you're hearing are due to something other than alterations to the signal introduced by quality amps. 4) Listen to music all you want. Just don't keep spreading hearsay. 5) I'm not claiming anything wonderful about artifical signals. The sound could be a single guitar string plucked over and over. or any other sound of your choosing. 6) Did I mention THD measurement? No, I said distortion--any changes in the output music that were not present in the input music. Do we need to get rid of measurements? OK, here's one. I'll bet that when you are blindfolded, you will have a very hard time telling a difference between 80 and 80.5 dB . That's a ~1% difference. Once you see how hard that is, you may start to question your own claims that you can hear things that are 10 times more subtle. 7) It's true that you cannot prove what I can't hear, but that's not the point. I could be stone deaf. You still wouldn't be able to hear the difference between two good amps with the levels matched--even if I gave you a lifetime with your choice of music to do it. 8-10) I lost track of numbering. There. If you need the last word, have it be an answer my question about whether or not humans can hear alterations of less than 0.1% in any kind of sound. Otherwise, I think the truth of what I've said up to this point is clear to those that have an open mind. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1631 Registered: Feb-05 | David I've heard the digital gear and I see why someone might be impressed (I'm not) but try living with it for awhile and you'd see. It just isn't musical to my ears. It may be to yours. We all want to believe that we can get something for nothing but it just isn't so. Kurt, I know I probably missed part of the discussion and I apologize if you've answered this already. What is a good amp? You said; "You still wouldn't be able to hear the difference between two good amps with the levels matched--even if I gave you a lifetime with your choice of music to do it." I'm just curious what constitutes a good amp to you. Is Edster's Panny one? Is my Hafler? Is a Bryston? What makes an amp "good". |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 962 Registered: Jun-05 | Art he doesent know its all about measurements to him. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 963 Registered: Jun-05 | Art have you gotten to hear the Revel Concerta series yet ive been trying to but the dealer in my area keeps selling out of them.David i would say the idea couldnt hurt anything im thinking about it myself just for kicks $15 aint bad for a nice 30 day audition and it could be a keeper. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 14 Registered: Mar-05 | In addition to being well built, a good amp has high input impedance, low output impedance, a flat frequency response, low distortion, and a low noise floor Two such amps will sound exactly the same when operated at matched volume levels and not clipped. This has been demonstrated so many times in double-blind listening tests that opinions to the contrary should be totally disregarded. Unfortunately, I'm not always mature enough to do so. Bryston and your Hafler certainly qualify as good amps. There are many others. (The Marantz MA-500 is the cheapest good amp that springs to mind) Although I don't know with certainty, I am willing accept that Edsters panny sounds exactly the same as better amps would when driving easy speakers and not clipped. It certainly won't be as durable, long-lasting, or elegantly engineered. The switches may not give the same satisfying feel and I wouldn't count on the case to stop a bullet, but what do you expect for $228. Cheers. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 964 Registered: Jun-05 | Boy this guy is a character,he really is funny Wow! im over here cracking up! |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 15 Registered: Mar-05 | Tauwaun, why not add something meaningful to the discussion. I'd like to hear the Revel Concerta series too. Tell us what it is that attracts you to the Revels? While you're at it, why don't you google Floyd Toole, tell us who he is and why his contributions at Harman International (parent company to Revel) are so important to the audio world. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1861 Registered: Mar-05 | > it certainly won't be as durable, long-lasting, or elegantly engineered. True; I'll be happy if this Panny lasts for 5 years. But at this price, I'll have a great excuse to get the newest generation xr1055 in 2010, lol. The xr1055 will probably be sold at Walmart for $75 with HDMI upconversion, 5 times as many connections and 3 times the power by that time, heh! |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 967 Registered: Jun-05 | Personally im not concerned with anything else from Harmon International except for Revel and Mark Levinston ,so maybe you can ask someonelse that question.And what makes you think you are adding something meaningful to this discussion? After all you did high jack Eddies thread that was about the Panny digital receiver that some of us kinda wanted to hear until you came on here and started a fued with Jan that doesent have anything to do with this thread,and besides I hardly think you have the audio knowlege to elaborate with me on the Revels or any other serious audio subject. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 16 Registered: Mar-05 | The xr1055 will probably come with a little robotic mike that will zoom around the room beeping and clicking. After 5 minutes, the receiver will convince us that we need better speakers, place them, EQ bass in the room and talk us into adding sound absorbing panels on the walls, and change itself into a color that your wife will like. At that point, I'll break down and move my Bryston separates into the bedroom. : ) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1865 Registered: Mar-05 | ooh, it's getting kinda hot in here! I'm not taking any sides in this but in all fairness, I have to note that it was actually Jan who got the ball rolling with the following: **** Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 10:17 am: "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?" |
|
New member Username: AdventusPost Number: 6 Registered: Sep-05 | So, Ed: Does this mean that you would recommend the Panny over the Yamaha RX-596 I was telling you about last week? (I'm serious, I still have time to cancel the order.:-)) Greg |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5649 Registered: May-04 | Kurt - Here's your original question to me: " ... 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?" Now, if we take your later statement to be your belief,: "No, I said distortion--any changes in the output music that were not present in the input music." and we lump ALL CHANGES to the original signal into the larger group of "distortion", then I believe humans can hear below the threshold of "01.%". I may be wrong. I really don't care. I really don't remember what the threshold levels are for the various anomalies in steady state signals. They really are not important to me to remember. When I sold to someone similar to yourself, Kurt, I showed them the specs, talked about the parts used and mentioned the warranty. I hardly had to play music. I learned ages ago there is no point in discussing anything with anyone who has letters behind their name. (Just so you know, I'm not totally prejudice against letters, I have some behind my name too.) Kurt, you know discussing the distortion perception threshold and the volume perception threshold is similar to comparing apples to elephants. Why'd you try that trick, Kurt? You really only cheapen your stance when you fail to apply any logic what so ever to your argument. Just as you fail to strengthen your case by ignoring exactly what it is I am asking in my questions. Yes, you were trying to discredit me once I told you I was in sales. That is always another of the "convincing" arguments your side has in this argument. Salespeople are inherently stupid and dishonest about what they sell. I really have no intention of getting back into that debate! Kurt, you go ahead and think what you think and buy what you buy for the reasons you figure out on your own. I believe what I believe. I bought my components because I liked them and I still do. Isn't that enough? You guys always come on this forum and you want to convert us poor, deluded souls who only think we hear differences. I still have no answer as to why you guys do this. There are other forums you can read were almost everyone agrees with you, Kurt. You're unlikely to find as many on this forum who haven't yet had the opportunity to open their minds. Kurt, this has been going on in the audio world for over 50 years. In reality, this has been going on since someone first expressed an opinion.* Long before you knew what THD stands for. Are you so full of yourself that you think you will be the one who finally drags all of us stupid, heathen "audiophiles" to salvation? Would you really like to be the one to finish it? You were the one who started it on this thread, Kurt. You still haven't told me why. Please, Kurt, I am very weary of your game. For one thing, you don't play it nearly as well as most others I've run into over the past three decades. Your arguments are minor and repetitious, your logic is omitted most of the time and your reading skills, when asked a question, are miserable. I do congratulate you on getting around to Mr. Toole. No discussion from your side is complete without mentioning Floyd. Can't we just go our merry ways and you can stare into your Bryston amplifier and I can listen to my music? (Honest to God; you look at the inside of your amplifier? Do you ever listen to it or just stare at it? I hate to ask, but I just gotta. What kind of toaster do you own? How's the inside of it?) In closing, here's your question as you posed it most recently: "If you need the last word, have it be an answer my question about whether or not humans can hear alterations of less than 0.1% in any kind of sound." My last word is; I don't listen to numbers, numbers are not gathered while the product is playing music. Therefore, I consider it a stupid question. That may not satisfy your missionary soul, you may not get into Linkwitz Labs without saving this audiophile from myself, but that's my answer. Goodbye, Kurt. Go read some reviews and stare at your amplifier. My advice - you'll be happier on another forum. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 969 Registered: Jun-05 | He still high jacked your thread Eddie I know I wanted to hear more about the Panny,I dont really care about their fued I wanted to hear more so come on with the review Eddie. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5650 Registered: May-04 | * http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index3.html |
|
Anoni Unregistered guest | Jan, If you were working for me I would have fired you long time ago....you certainly spend too much time on this forum on working hours....mmmmm...  |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 17 Registered: Mar-05 | "Yes, you were trying to discredit me once I told you I was in sales" I was simply pointing out that you have a financial stake that you feel forces you to hold onto your opinions despite hard evidence to the contrary. Hopefully no one else misunderstood what I said as negative comment about salespeople. Let me be perfectly clear. There are many intelligent, honest salespeople and I have the highest respect for them. If my family situation didn't prevent me from doing so, I'd love to take a pay cut and work in an audio store myself. Do you own this forum? If not, I have a right to speak the truth here and I resent you suggesting that I do otherwise. |
|
New member Username: AdventusPost Number: 7 Registered: Sep-05 | Ed, Earlier you stated: "I'm not taking any sides in this but in all fairness, I have to note that it was actually Jan who got the ball rolling ..." Now, who's the author of the thread that sounded the death-knell of the solid-state analog receiver? ;-) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5656 Registered: May-04 | Kurt - Let's make this the last comment on this, OK? I do not have a financial stake in what anyone believes other than myself. You are seriously off base if you think salespeople are "forced" into believing in what they sell. I've not met a salesperson yet who was "forced" to sell something. To begin with, I no longer sell audio. So what you believe doesn't matter to me in the least. In case you haven't figured that out. I am not selling any products on this forum. What exact financial interest do I have on this forum to promote any ideas? Also, if you weren't paying attention, I can sell audio equipment to someone who doesn't even want to listen to music. I have. I can talk your numbers all day. I just don't care to. They have their place and then that's it. Whether someone thinks all equipment sounds the same or all equipment sounds different, I can sell to either group. That means I have just as much of a financial interest in thinking all amplifiers sound the same. I never worked in a shop where I didn't have products that looked better with the top cover off. Once again your logic has failed you. You can stay as long as you want and post whatever you want. All I meant was you will get weary of simply posting that whatever we hear you disagree with. How much fun can that be. It's rather like a Free Methodist attending a liquor salesperson's wedding. Now, before you get your ambitions all worked up. How many audio shops do you think are going to be looking for a salesperson who thinks the warranty is the best reason to buy an amplifier? Anoni - What makes you think I'd work for you. I like my managers to pay attention to the shop and not spend their time on the internet. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5658 Registered: May-04 | Kurt - The pay cut remark was very damn low. You obviously are an arrogant, ignorant S.O.B. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1866 Registered: Mar-05 | Greg, I meant not taking any sides in Jan and Kurt's increasingly heated debate over whether all amps sound the same. I have not heard enough amps to take any position on that one. My review thus far only claims that the Panny actually sounds better than my NAD (to my ears) which would retail new for around $1300-1500. Yeah, if I were in your shoes I'd definitely take the Panny over the Yammie, no hesitation about that. The Panny seems to do both music and HT equally well from all I've read (haven't tried any movies on it yet but hope to tonight, have "Saving Private Ryan" here), I know that in my system it does music EXTREMELY well esp. considering its unbelievable pricepoint. The Yammie probably does HT competently, what analog reciever above $300 doesn't. But I'd be shocked if it could keep up with this Panny for music. Like I've been saying, what's $15 for return shipping in (the very unlikely, IMHO) case you hate it? That's barely two six packs of decent beer, lol! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 495 Registered: May-05 | Geez, Now I've got Art, my semi-hero (he got moving on the new speakers and did some very free educating) and my Ascend comrade (Mr. Edster of 340 fame who likes my 170s better) giving me completely contrary advice. What's a newbie to do? I think I'll just keep the Denon 3803 because it's "good receiver" and so it won't sound any different than anything else I could buy anyway, that costs more than $500. Is that a fair statement or am I simplifying this too much, Kurt? I need someone to break the tie between Art and Edster. And, if I am simplifying this too much, Kurt, how much do I have to spend before my receiver or amp is "good" enough that I won't be able to tell the difference between it and something else? HELP, I hate this hobby. NO, I love this hobby. NO, I hate this hobby. . . . |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 496 Registered: May-05 | Hey, I got letters behind my name, too. Lot's of them and, occasionally, I just make up letters to put behind my name. That and $3.00 may get you a gallon of gas, if you act quickly. LOL In my experience, the letters don't mean diddly, except you spent some time in school and probably missed life experience that may have done you some good. That is, if you were actually studying, something that I studiously avoided, I might add. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1869 Registered: Mar-05 | oh come on David, I've never met a lawyer who couldn't drop $15 for a home demo! ; ) |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 338 Registered: Jul-05 | Dave: If you are happy with the Denon, by all means don't buy anything else. As for Eddie and the Panny challenge, could be entertaining and potentially informative. If I had 15 bucks, I'd think about it. I will certainly audition it before I buy another receiver though. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1871 Registered: Mar-05 | just a quick note: ANALOG vs. COAX connection Just went over the same 10 seconds of a Norah Jones song during a cresendo while switching the Panny back and forth between the analog and coax connection to my Marantz: I could be imagining it, but it did seem like the analog connection was a bit smoother, the top edges of the treble were more polished. Why would this be so? I read somewhere that the JVC rx-f10 was a "hybrid" digital and was known to sound much better with analog connections but don't remember how or why. Also switching between my Panny DVD player on coax versus my Marantz CDP on coax, the Marantz similarly sounded better. Kurt, quick---is there any technical foundation for this or is my mind playing tricks on me? Will have to keep switching with different music I guess...wish I could teleport some of you guys into my living room for second and third and fourth opinions! |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 339 Registered: Jul-05 | No big mystery Eddie. Its a result of using different DAC's. When you use the coax connection, you utilize the DAC's of the receiver. When you use the analog connection, you use that of the Marantz. As for the Panny DVD vrs Marantz CDP with both using coax, there theoretically shouldn't be much of a difference, but differences in the transport might make a difference. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 340 Registered: Jul-05 | "I read somewhere that the JVC rx-f10 was a "hybrid" digital and was known to sound much better with analog connections but don't remember how or why. " Probably because it had crappy DAC's... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1873 Registered: Mar-05 | DA, so what exactly does the TI Equibit chip inside the Panny do? Does it act as a DAC or does it do something completely different? The guys on the car audio forum have a definition of "what is a digital amplifier" that I am still trying to wrap my head around: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/car-audio/160895.html |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 341 Registered: Jul-05 | Unfortunately, that question is over my head. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1874 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan? If you're still there could you help us out here a bit? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 342 Registered: Jul-05 | Scanning through Panasonics website there doesn't seem to be that much useful info about the XR-55, just a bunch of advertising BS. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1875 Registered: Mar-05 | yeah you'd need to look at that mammoth thread "list of digital receivers" on the avsforum.com must be at least 40 pages by now... |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 18 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan--Nice article from Stereophile. Go on to read the 3rd page "The great debate redux" http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index5.html. How is it an insult for me to admit that if I took an entry-level job as a salesman at an audio store, I'd make less than I do now? Can we keep the name calling to a minimum? If you want to tell me how and why I'm wrong, fine, but calling me an ignorant SOB is uncalled for. Arrogant? Maybe, especially when the facts say I'm right. Now go read the rest of that article that you linked. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 343 Registered: Jul-05 | "How is it an insult for me to admit that if I took an entry-level job as a salesman at an audio store, I'd make less than I do now? " It's still a comment made in poor taste, regardless of its truth. I understand you probably didn't mean anything by it, but one still must watch these things. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SteelhrdPost Number: 23 Registered: Jul-05 | I am not a guy with letters behind my name just a guy who likes music. I don't see how you can discredit double blind test however. If i hear a difference in a reciever i should hear in a sighted test or a double blind test. I believe there are different sounds to recievers to a point. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 973 Registered: Jun-05 | Its no big deal,Jan shouldnt let that coment rattle him I know a guy in California that made $167,000 last year being a high end salesman,its more than just selling its instalation to,I made 78,000 last year and when I open My own store,I dont wanna think how much right now.Its lots of money in it if you are in the right location,one thing people are alway gonna need in life and thats music which is part of the entertainment field so its profitable,and really how many people trully make living doing what they want in life,very few. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1877 Registered: Mar-05 | OK, finally took the Panny into 5.1 tonight. The movie was "Saving Private Ryan" and I have to say the surround channels did seem more distinct than on the Marantz 5400, along with all the other channels. A lot of ambient and background sounds and even some muttered dialogue coming from off-camera came out that I didn't remember from watching it in a very spiffy new multiplex. (Not that it really matters, this movie was much worse the second time around---ended up fast forwarding through at least half of it. Oh well that's another thread by itself.) Not a doubt in my mind that even if somebody might dislike all-digital music, it's nearly impossible to find much fault with the Panny for HT. Anyway, just for the hell of it, I decided to play around with surround music DPLIIx, Neo6, and all the DSP modes. SNORT! What a laugh, it only made me realize just how much better simple 2-channel is for music... One DSP called "Live" really made it sound as if the singer's voice was coming out of a tube or funnel sticking straight out of the center channel whilst very little was coming out of the front mains. Kind of annoys me when I think that Panasonic could've just skipped all these flaky electronic bells and whistles and just concentrated on better build quality and a better remote for the same price! Oh well, 'tis the way of the world I suppose...marketing, marketing, marketing. Now if NAD ever comes out with a digital 2-channel amp, that would be something... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1878 Registered: Mar-05 | > and really how many people trully make living doing what they want in life,very few. sad but true! |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 882 Registered: Sep-04 | Kurt, Sounds do not make music - I keep coming back to this. Why do all the blind listening and 5X tests use sounds rather than music? And why don't the tests ever look at the physiological reactions of the listeners, which is what it's really about? Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 1061 Registered: Feb-05 | "Sure, tell that to Krell, NAD, Pioneer, Simuadio. I am sure they all will find it very interesting if not entertaining." Totally misses the point (E)Vader. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1640 Registered: Feb-05 | No TW I have not hear the most recent Revels. They are getting some good press. I will have to go and give them a listen. Right now I'm happy with my 2 channel sound. My next move may be to get another sub to hook up to the LFE on the AVR to augment the bass for movies. I'm looking at the Hsu VTF2 mk 2. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1881 Registered: Mar-05 | Art if you're willing to wait until maybe November, Hsu is coming out with a new line of High Output subs that supposedly will revolutionize subs by delivering both high output and go very very low. The VTF2 is no slouch of course. I had the STF-2 when I was auditioning the Lings and quite enjoyed it. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 301 Registered: Apr-05 | Frank I may be able to answer your question. I think people make an emotional bond to music that they don't otherwise to sound. Look at Edster here continuing to test with the same music he knows. Why? becuase he has heard it lots and lots of times. Why? because he likes it. It makes total sense for him to do this test his way because he knows what he is looking for. However in a blind test you would have to remove the possibility that someone actually knows a music better than others and may or may not have an emotional attachement to it and instead listens for sounds only. True that sounds add up to create notes and music, but the only way to scientifically test equipment removing all prejudice is to do sounds. Just my opinion. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 1065 Registered: Feb-05 | Stof, in your listening scenario, what would be your frame of reference? Even if you listen to unfamiliar material, you must have a frame of reference, assuming of course, you want the most accurate evaluation. Now that frame can be material with which you are intimately familiar, or it can be your experience (knowledge of what a trumpet sounds like, for example). I'm not sure I agree with your hypothesis that using familiar material is prejudicial to the listening experience. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 885 Registered: Sep-04 | Stof, But if a set of sounds don't make music, you're not testing thew hifi for its primary ability, only its secondary! Also, I'm not saying it has to be music you know, just that it needs to be music to which you can relate. Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 20 Registered: Mar-05 | "Sounds do not make music - I keep coming back to this. Why do all the blind listening and 5X tests use sounds rather than music? And why don't the tests ever look at the physiological reactions of the listeners, which is what it's really about?" Frank-Sorry I took so long to get back to your excellent points. I agree with you. Music is better than simple sounds and longer clips of music may be better than short ones. Four of the 5 linked sounds in the comparison are of musical instruments (trumpet, triangle, timpani) and thus do represent real (albeit simple) music. Tests of psychological responses/emotions would difficult but not impossible to perform. I wouldn't work with just just one person because current mood influences psychological response so strongly. Playing a piece of music through one system to a large group, switching a single component in the system, playing the same music to a second group and then doing a written survey of how each person in the two groups felt about the music? It could work. If the groups were large enough, one might be able to demonstrate a statistically significant and generalizable differences in psychological response. The only other option I can think of would involve non-invasive brain imagining. Also difficult but not impossible to do. I'd enjoy reading a review where the writer said "I honestly couldn't hear a difference between amp A and amp B, but after listening to B, I felt much happier than I did after listening to A." (That's the substance of John Atkinson's admission that he can't hear a difference between amps but feels more satisfaction after listening to his tube one). Linked MP3 file of his discussion here http://www.stereophile.com/images/downloads/HE2005_GreatDebate.MP3 |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1413 Registered: Feb-04 | Edster wrote: ANALOG vs. COAX connection Just went over the same 10 seconds of a Norah Jones song during a cresendo while switching the Panny back and forth between the analog and coax connection to my Marantz: I could be imagining it, but it did seem like the analog connection was a bit smoother, the top edges of the treble were more polished. Why would this be so? DA replied: No big mystery Eddie. Its a result of using different DAC's. When you use the coax connection, you utilize the DAC's of the receiver. When you use the analog connection, you use that of the Marantz. I don't think so. Using a digital input into a digital amplifier does not lead to analog conversion. All the processing and amplification is done in the digital domain. In theory, if we are to believe the pro-digital amp advocates, the digital connection should sound better. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 497 Registered: May-05 | Edster, Most of the above is over my dinky little brain. Yes, I do have $15 for a 30 day trial and it's mighty tempting. As I related above, it's not the $15 it's the lack of experience with better quality sound and amps. It may sound reasonably close in quality, possibly even better and maybe that's all that matters. BUT, as a previous psych major, I also know we tend to "like" what we invest in to some extent and it colors our preferences. So, I might like it, keep it and have Art come over and fall on the gruond laughing at me. Then, I would feel bad, kinda like my friends who swear by their Bose HT system and refuse to come over and listen to the Ascends. Cognitive dissonance. BAD BAD thing, it is. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1888 Registered: Mar-05 | David, the thing is, you've obviousy invested a lot more in the Denon than you would be in the Panny, so wouldn't personal bias favor the Denon? Also remember that personal bias cuts both ways: it might also color the perception of someone who's spent years and years and thousands of dollars building an analog setup, who might not want to accept the possibility that a dinky little $230 Panny might equal or surpass what they've invested so much time and money on. Besides, with all due respect to Art and the other more experienced 'philes here, in the end YOU are the one whose final opinion matters most not them---YOU are the one who is going to live with whatever gear you end up keeping not them. Heck if you ever decided you prefer a Bose system to your HT, you shouldn't let any of us here stop you from having it either. As long as you have taken the time to expose yourself to other alternatives (unlike your friends) and STILL prefer Bose, then your preference is totally legit in my book. I'd say that as a Denon 3805 owner you've certainly been exposed to very decent quality analog sound...it's not like you're going from a Sony miniystem to the Panny, know what I mean? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 349 Registered: Jul-05 | "I don't think so. Using a digital input into a digital amplifier does not lead to analog conversion. All the processing and amplification is done in the digital domain. In theory, if we are to believe the pro-digital amp advocates, the digital connection should sound better. " My mistake; although the output is still analog, so the conversion takes place at some point. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1642 Registered: Feb-05 | Edster, I'll call Hsu today and get the specifics. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MonkeycycleJamaica Plain, MA USA Post Number: 21 Registered: Mar-05 | In this case I think DA is right and PG is also partially right. If you use the analog RCA outs of the Marantz, the initial digital to analog conversion does happen inside the Marantz, but the Panny then converts back from analog to digital for preamp, processing, and amplification steps and then back to analog just before output to the speakers. When you connect the Marantz to the Panny via coax, the signal should remain in the digital realm until just prior to output to speakers. Do I remember correctly that while A-Bing the Marantz with other players, you noticed that the volume had to adjusted to set the Marantz at the same level as the others? Was there any volume differences in this case? Even slight enough to only show up on your SPL? Such as difference could easily make one combination sound better but not obviously louder. I think that's the most obvious explanation. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 498 Registered: May-05 | Edster, You're absolutely right. But, my point is that you have more experience with SS components than me and it would be nice if someone like Jan, Tawaun, Art or just about anyone with a broader knowledge base tried the Panny and gave us their thoughts. I'm happy to try it and spend the $15 but like my trial with the Lings, it was interesting to me but I wonder how they might have impressed me differently if I had changed the setup, thought of ball bearings or tip toes or just about anything else that Jan tried. My lack of experience makes my opinion, and trial for that matter, somewhat less than helpful for the rest of you. Granted, it might make me happy but what the heck do I know, anyway? LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1890 Registered: Mar-05 | Kurt, no I didn't notice any SPL changes while comparing the analog and digital connections. All I did notice was that the mids and highs seemed a little more restrained with the analog. By a very small margin. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1891 Registered: Mar-05 | David, in that case I'd encourage you to browse and ask around on the sa-xr55 threads on avsforum.com and the small one on the ascend forum. There's a really huge on called "list of digital receivers" on avsforum in which I think the forum's owner opted for one of these Pannys (an earlier model, probably an xr-25) over his own expensive separates setup. Believe me, these scores of Panny lovers are not just a bunch of relative newbies like you and me. Bottom line though is that you have to trust your own ears, and with 30 days to do it they'll have plenty of time to make up their minds, lol. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5675 Registered: May-04 | "When you connect the Marantz to the Panny via coax, the signal should remain in the digital realm until just prior to output to speakers." It is converted to an analog signal as it is passed to the gain or output stages of the amplifier. The output stages are still analog in nature, i.e. transistors or IC's, but are switched on and off in rapid pulses by a digitally controlled power supply. Filtering is then applied to remove the ulrasonic and infrasonic components of the power supply's digital noise. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1646 Registered: Feb-05 | OK Eddie I called Hsu today. The new high output products which they had hoped to have out by Xmas could be delayed due to production problems. They still hope to meet deadline but just aren't sure. What are the High output products? VTF2 and VTF3 equivalents with 4 inch ports instead of 3 inch ports they will also sport new amplifiers with 350 and 500 watts respectively. He said that there are some other design differences as well. The VTF3 equivalent will run around 1k and the other in the $700-800 range. The turbocharger products for the current mk 2's has been postponed until the HO products are released but they hope to have those available by next spring or summer. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1892 Registered: Mar-05 | Yowsers, that's a bit outside of my price range for a sub. Do you plan on waiting for the HO units or going ahead with the VTF-2? I can't imagine you being unhappy with that one, unless you have recently developed some Paul-like tastes, lol. |
|
Bronze Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 55 Registered: Aug-05 | "Frank I may be able to answer your question. I think people make an emotional bond to music that they don't otherwise to sound. Look at Edster here continuing to test with the same music he knows. Why? becuase he has heard it lots and lots of times. Why? because he likes it. It makes total sense for him to do this test his way because he knows what he is looking for. However in a blind test you would have to remove the possibility that someone actually knows a music better than others and may or may not have an emotional attachement to it and instead listens for sounds only. True that sounds add up to create notes and music, but the only way to scientifically test equipment removing all prejudice is to do sounds. Just my opinion." Stof- Well said. DBTs are generally done with unfamiliar music, in unfamiliar rooms/acoustics, with unfamiliar speakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5681 Registered: May-04 | Here's a bit from a Stereophile review of Class D amplifier; http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/805cia/ ""Class-D does not mean digital," Dusty Vawter groused. "Class-D is basically an analog switching amplifier, unless a digital input is used to modulate the output, which we don't do. Class-D amplification uses a comparator/modulator scheme to look at the input signal and switch output devices on or off at a very high frequency to replicate the input signal. That's where the differences in class-D amplifiers come from--everybody does that slightly differently." "Usually, the switching is done from a single rail of the power supply, which means that if the amplifier's circuit runs off 60V, it will have +30V at each speaker terminal--in reference to ground, not to each other. That's a shock hazard, and it won't pass CE or UL safety tests, which is why amps with that topology use Speakon connectors to get around that." "There's another problem with this approach: The amps all have frequency-response fluctuations that are relative to the speaker load. If the amp was designed for flat response into a 6 ohm load, the high frequencies would rise into an 8 ohm load and roll off into a 4 ohm load." "When I opened a D-100, I was shocked at how much transformer was in there and how little of everything else there was. The D-100 boasts one huge toroid attached to the 3/16"-thick front panel. There's also a small, high-quality circuit board that contains eight capacitors and the power-supply electronics, and a small module, presumably the customized UcD-180, attached to the 3/16"-thick rear panel, which serves as a heatsink." "The D-100 looks as though it's mostly power supply, I said to Vawter. " "Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it. The majority of the circuitry is power supply--the D-100 has a big transformer and a large power-supply board. The actual amplifier module itself is a 2"-square circuit board, but the parts count for that real estate is tremendous. However, the quality of the power supply has a huge effect on the sound quality of the amplifier, which is really true of all amplifiers--basically, you're just modulating what you're taking from the wall, so the better the DC is that's running the amplifier, the better the output signal is going to be." ""Some of the other class-D amplifiers use switching power supplies, but I just don't think they sound good enough yet to use in audiophile amplifiers--they're probably all right for subwoofers, but I still think a linear supply is the best thing for an audio amplifier." |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1899 Registered: Mar-05 | Somewhere on that massive avsforum.com thread "list of all digital amplifiers" I believe someone also dismantled the Panny and analyzed what they saw. I wish I were not too lazy to browse through 40 plus pages and find it again; also wish I had the electrical know-how to do the same and understand what I saw. That D-100 sure is a nice looking piece of gear though! $1600 a pair, whew. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1900 Registered: Mar-05 | Stof, actually the reason that I use the same music over and over when ABing stuff is not so much because I like the music, but because I have a pretty good idea of how it normally sounds so I can detect any changes in how it sounds with different gear. Otherwise I agree with your post. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1905 Registered: Mar-05 | Not much music listening tonight, just saw "Collateral"---again the Panny handled itself flawlessly. So much better film than "SPR" last night. Never heard so much life coming out of my crappy Polk surrounds before. All the same, it kept occurring to me that I really would not have minded watching it in 3.1, all the surrounds basically do is ambient sound and the usual cars and bullets whizzing back and forth...ZZZ! I think the speaker companies all got together in some smoke-filled room and came up with surround sound to boost their sales volume. |
|
Silver Member Username: TpizzlePost Number: 359 Registered: Apr-05 | anyone know about the model up from the panasonic xr55, the xr70. Amazon is selling it for $290 shipped and it MSRP's for $499. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1906 Registered: Mar-05 | the xr55 is better according to some on the avsforum.com thread. The xr70 does have HDMI, not sure if the 55 does or not, and I'm too lazy to get up and look at its back panel because I have zero interest in these electronic gimmicks. BTW you do know that the only people who pay full MSRP (for *anything* not just audio) are morons or millionaires, right? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5685 Registered: May-04 | "the xr55 is better according to some on the avsforum.com thread." Eddie, you expect us to believe what some forum geeks say?! One of the issues with Class D amplifiers, as you will see noted in the Stereophile blurb, is they are very susceptible to frequency response changes due to the load they work into. "The amps all have frequency-response fluctuations that are relative to the speaker load. If the amp was designed for flat response into a 6 ohm load, the high frequencies would rise into an 8 ohm load and roll off into a 4 ohm load." Any idea whether the extra detail and so forth you are reporting could be attributed to a slight mismatch between the Panasonic amplifier's designed preference and your speakers actual impedance load? Certainly the low output impedance of the NAD would make it far less susceptible to this frequency fluctuation and it would be giving essentially flat response while the Panasonic will be tilting the response upward in the high frequencies. This is very much like listening to a speaker with a tilted high end and commenting on "how clear everything sounds". |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1912 Registered: Mar-05 | yep, my Ascends are 8 ohms so that's a valid point. How do I figure out if that's what the Panny's doing, use an Avia disk? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5699 Registered: May-04 | I doubt if you could figure out what the Pansonic is doing with a test disc. The effect is probably rather small but enough to consider as a possibility. The way to begin deciphering what you are hearing would be to play the Panasonic and the NAD using several different loudspeakers with which you are familiar regarding their sound balance and their impedance and phase angle charateristics. Since Class D amplifiers are, at this point, not known for their ability to drive current hungry speakers, the phase angle should be a consideration also. In this respect they are not unlike their similarly priced Class A-B counterparts. The total of impedance and electrical phase angle will determine how reactive the load is and therefore the amount of frequency shift which might occur. Lacking the ability to swap out speakers with known qualities, you will merely have to consider the likelyhood of this shift as part of your response to the Panasonic. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1915 Registered: Mar-05 | whelp, consider it I will. The thing is, I've heard "bright" speakers (JBLs, Klipsch) and receivers (Yamahas) before and I did not like them at all. That's why I have a hard time thinking of this Panny as "bright" I guess. All I know is that I've yet to experience the "listener fatigue" that is commonly linked to a "bright" sound. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 978 Registered: Jun-05 | Here is another thing that receivers under the $250 mark do sometimes they dont rate them 20 to 20 so they can beef up their specs. Whats the frequencey response on the Panny? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5707 Registered: May-04 | I didn't say the sound would be "bright". It doesn't take much to account for an initial sense of additional clarity from a slightly tilted frequency response. Keep listening and let your ears determine what you are hearing. Then consider why you might be hearing what you are. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 308 Registered: Apr-05 | So Edster what I'm reading here it seems this $15 experiment is going to cost you $260. Is that right? Are you actually going to keep this and sell the other units? |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 2391 Registered: Jan-05 | That Panny looks like the best invention I've ever seen. Sincerely, Sliced Bread |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1652 Registered: Feb-05 | Yo Eddie I'm just going order the VTF2 mk2. It should be fine for the purpose. I'll be running 2 subs in HT mode and just the Era for music. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1655 Registered: Feb-05 | Well I took the plunge! One more chance for the online etailer. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1925 Registered: Mar-05 | Can't wait to hear what you think of the VTF2, Art...especially considering your horrified reaction to the SVS sub that you sent back. PS. If you are willing to take the chance of moving a big bulky sub around, what's moving a few cables around for an in-home audition of this Panny? : ) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1926 Registered: Mar-05 | Sliced Bread sounds like just the perfect name for you, Paul! lol |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1927 Registered: Mar-05 | Stof, yeah right now I'm planning to move the NAD to the bedroom and unload the Marantz...this Panny is just too damn good to send back. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1928 Registered: Mar-05 | TW, Here's Panasonic's specs, see what you can figure out: http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?storeId=15001&c atalogId=13401&itemId=93545&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702& surfModel=SA-XR55K&catGroupId=25013&surfCategory=Receivers&displayTab=S It lists "output power" as 20-20 but "frequency response" as 4Hz-88KHz. (???) |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1657 Registered: Feb-05 | Eddie to be honest I know that the Panny sucks so why bother, Sorry. I know how you feel about this newly discovered sound but it ain't for me. I'll bet money to marbles as you gain more experience it won't be for you either. Anyway I only have to setup the sub once. Don't unload that Marantz too fast or you may wish you hadn't. I still have my SR5400 and my CC4300 in boxes in the other room awaiting some speakers and a second HDTV. Trying to setup a system just for my wife. |
|
Anoynymous Unregistered guest | I said it before edster; you are still going uphill on the learning process and have still some climbing to do. I am happy that you are happy with your recent acquisition but I cannot be convinced that this "marvelous" unit will outperform the sound of separates. I just don't see how the panny could drive a pair of Paradigm Studios 100v3 (Just to give an example) the same way or better than a Rotel or NAD Pre + Power Amp. I hope you take this as a constructive comment. Perhaps for us old dinosaurs, it's more difficult to believe it! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 499 Registered: May-05 | Edster, Art, and all: I won't take the plunge on the Panny at this time. T-Man, help us out here. You have more gear than most stores. Heck, A/B the Panny against some of your stuff and let's see if we should be jumping on this bandwagon. Or, I haven't seen Tim on this thread but it might be interesting to put the Lings or Rosas with the Panny and have an HT system for around $1500 with a decent sub. Think about that, Tim. You might be able to bundle the Rosas with a Panny and make some people very happy. Anyway, I'll wait to take the plunge until I have some other confirmation. I'm too dumb to be a guinea pig. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1930 Registered: Mar-05 | Anonynymous, My relative inexperience is a valid point. However, all I can say is that until you drop $15 and listen to this Panny for yourself at home for a few days then AB it against your analog gear, you're just groping around in the dark as far as I'm concerned. If you AB it at home with an open mind (and after listening to it for a couple of days) and you STILL find you prefer your analog setup, then more power to you. Until that happens your comments cannot be taken seriously. Nothing wrong with being a dinosaur, as long as you're an INFORMED dinosaur. : ) |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 887 Registered: Sep-04 | Stof If all you do is test for sound instead of for music, what's the point of the test? Kurt, thanks for your considered reply. One does read reviews with feelings in them but never in double blind testing and certainly I don't believe anything has been done with heart monitors/respiratory rate etc. Either way, this is why I don't really take too much concern over the numbers. I look at them to ensure that the various components are likely to work together electrically, but that's about it. I only ever evaluate with music I know in rooms I know. The evaluations often turn up surprises. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 2404 Registered: Jan-05 | Some people are smart enough, and know that it isnt always necessary to eat sh!t to know that it will taste bad. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1931 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, you keep saying you've "heard" digital sound before but you still haven't said which receiver, where you heard it, what you heard it with, and most importantly how long you were listening to it. You know, the only place I've ever seen an all-digital receiver set up was at Fry's. They had the all-digital Onkyo 552 in one of their HT rooms, all you had to do was push a button and you could compare their whole Onkyo lineup from the 502 up to the 901. They only had "LOTR" on the day I saw it, and at least for HT I could not honestly hear any difference between the 552 and the almost-top-of-the-line 901. Didn' have any music CDs with me because I didn't come in there to shop for a receiver that day, was just killing some time in between errands. Fry's also had the Panny xr70 but it was on the shelves next to all the other receivers and each one was hooked up to some lousy little KLH speakers, no CD or anything. Plus they must've screwed up the connections because whenever I tried to turn it on, it'd say "overload" and shut itself down. I'm hoping that the digital receiver you listened to was in a much better setup. The other thing too is that yes, digital sound does take a little getting used to---maybe this can be called "burn-in" or it can be "user burn-in." I was impressed with the Panny right out of the box, but after about 3-4 days later even more impressed with it, esp. when I ABed it against my NAD separates. Today I went back to the NAD separates and found that headroom was indeed about the same, maybe even favoring the Panny. But what was more striking was that while the NAD seems to roll off the treble earlier and therefore seem a bit gentler during high-frequency peaks, the rest of the time it actually sounded kind of CONGESTED compared to the Panny. The midrange and up was simply not as cleanly separated and clearly articulated as the Panny, nor did they flow together nearly as smoothly. Also the bass on the Panny is much tighter and cleaner, it's easier to distinguish individual drumbeats and bass notes, whereas the NAD's bass is deeper but kind of sticking together (I hate to use the word "muddy" because that's how I describe my horrid little JBL subwoofer). LOL this whole thing reminds me of Dave, a guy I used to work with. He's a big strapping Italian-American, ex-high-school football player, who joined the Peace Corps after college and spent two years in Mali. When he came back, he found himself unable to really be attracted to any women not of African descent...which totally freaked out his friends and family (he came from a fairly racist section of Brooklyn I think). This predilection was also interesting because Dave was the kind of guy who usually could just go to a bar and bang the girls would be all over him, that lucky SOB never had to do any work to get play. After Mali though he NEVER even looked TWICE at any non-black women. He used to tell me, "Eddie, once you go black you just can't go back." So right now I say to you, "Art, once you go all-digital, you just can't go back"---deeply ingrained local prejudices be damned. Dave ended up marrying a beautiful black woman from Atlanta and got excommunicated by 1/3 of his family, LOL. Last I heard they have one or two kids. I'll probably just end up raving about this Panny for a long time to come...let the excommunications begin!!! : ) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1932 Registered: Mar-05 | > I'm too dumb to be a guinea pig. LOL Oh come on, David---dumb people don't make it through law school. I can't guarantee that you'll love the Panny as much as I do. All I'm saying is, just open your mind and trust your ears. You don't need anyone to TELL you what does or does not sound "good." |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1933 Registered: Mar-05 | > Some people are smart enough, and know that it isnt always necessary to eat sh!t to know that it will taste bad. Yeah, like some people used to diss subwoofers all the time, then finally took a chance on an SVS and now can't stop raving about it. Hmmmm, I just can't seem to recollect WHO that was, exactly. I just remember he loved to blow smoke out of his @ss a couple dozen times a day and annoy everybody else on this little Internet audio forum... ROTFL... |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 2406 Registered: Jan-05 | Today I went back to the NAD separates and found that headroom was indeed about the same, maybe even favoring the Panny. ================ Somehow, that doesnt surprise me. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1414 Registered: Feb-04 | Dave was the kind of guy who usually could just go to a bar and bang the girls In front of everybody, just like that? would be all over him, Oh, there was more to that sentence... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1935 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL, I knew somebody would tag me for the missing comma! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1664 Registered: Feb-05 | Eddie some of us have heard the digital gear we are not groping in the dark, trust me. Like I said I'm glad you like it, but I don't have to adopt it know that I don't like it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1936 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, Oh I believe your opinion is sincere, but still I'd love to hear the details of what/how/where/how long you listened to whatever it was you listened to. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 311 Registered: Apr-05 | Frank what is music but a collection of sound. Certainly an amplifier does not know or care what is being pumped through it. I'm suggesting that perhaps playing sounds will remove other prejudices including pre-concieved notion of what the music should sound like and be more accurate. I will be willing to bet that if you gathered a group of average people and tested two different amplifiers one playing music from Mozart and the other playing music from Turkemanistan, most would pick the one playing Mozart over the second. Speaking of prejudices, that's quite a story about your friend Edster. What century was this? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1938 Registered: Mar-05 | > Speaking of prejudices, that's quite a story about your friend Edster. What century was this? Late 20th...God bless America. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5724 Registered: May-04 | Ed - Your point concerning dinosaurs is well taken. Just consider there's nothing wrong with being a relative youth, just as long as you are an informed youth. Put the Panasonic aside for a few days and listen to the NAD again for an extended period. Stop listening for your "aha" moments. Pretty much any decent system will have moments where one system does a particular instant better than another. Listen to unfamiliar music and movies. See which piece of equipment finds the heart and soul of the music as opposed to the hifi "aha's". Dig deep into your collection to find pieces that you didn't like because of their hifi failings. As an example, with Tim's speakers it was when I played recordings that suffered severely on the fidelity side that I found the music, the phrasing and the composer's ideas to be the most important thing the recording had to offer. Bootleg Dylan and mono Robert Johnson proved to be far more interesting than ever before, though the tonal fidelity was still crap. I constantly read about the details that are being revealed when a new piece of equipment is put in the system. I see reviewers telling me the bar has been raised once again. I long ago began to wonder where the detail stops. When do you sit back and listen to the music and stop listening for your system to impress you. If the bar continually gets raised with each successive issue of a magazine, when do we finally reach the point where music does sound better in my home than in the concert hall? Step back and listen to the music for a few days on the NAD. Then put the Panasonic back in place and compare the whole tree not just a few pieces of fruit. |
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