Panasonic SA-XR55 / NAD T742 2-channel comparo (long)

RJW1138 Bronze Member Username: Rjw1138 Regina, SK Canada Post Number: 23 Registered: Nov-04	Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 04:52 GMT Hey guys and girls, I was recently given the opportunity to borrow a Panasonic SA-XR55 receiver for a few days and compare it against my NAD T742 receiver in my system. A local fellow was selling one, and when I showed interest in it, he let me borrow it to audition for a few days. I was really interested in listening to one, due to all the hype around these things, so I could hear for myself how it sounds (who wouldn't be?). My line of thinking was that if it equaled or bettered my NAD, I'd buy it and sell the NAD, and spend the difference on something else, like better speaker wires or a headphone amp. If not, I'd thank the guy, give him a few bucks for his troubles, and send him away with his receiver. I realize now, after a few days of researching this site, that there's been a lot of controversy here around the Panasonic Class D receivers. Hopefully this review will be found interesting by people here, and if anyone learns anything from it or is better able to make an informed decision because of it, then good stuff! I encourage feedback and commentary, and hopefully we can start an interesting thread here. I've been a self-professed audio geek for a few years now, and this is my first review of this caliber. I hope that it's not too terrible. (!!OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER!!: The views expressed in this review are MY opinions, based off MY experiences listening to MY music through MY system in MY dwelling. The opinions are MINE alone. Your opinions may differ. I try not to state anything as an absolute, but rather as a relative difference between one component (NAD T742) and another (Panasonic SA-XR55). My system is quite mid-fi, and I have no delusions about this. I've heard a truly great system and few pretty good ones, and I know what's possible. In absolute terms, my system is very mediocre, and I can tell you exactly what its strengths and weaknesses are. Despite the modestness of my system (which is only due to financial reasons, and not to the lack of desire), I am capable of hearing fairly subtle differences, and I know that I have enough of an ear to hear, pinpoint and describe these things that I should be taken somewhat seriously. I believe that I have heard the differences that I claim, and have taken the necessary steps to prove the existence of these differences beyond a reasonable doubt to myself. I may still be wrong, because I'm only human, but I truly do believe the things I've concluded, and that has to count for something. As always, caveat emptor though! YOU'VE BEEN DISCLAIMED!!) Now, here are the details about this comparo that you're all dying to read. I have the following equipment in my system: - NAD T742 5.1 receiver - Cambridge Audio Azur 640C CD player - B&W 602 s3 speakers - Nordost Blue Heaven interconnects, 0.6m - generic high purity 16 ga copper speaker wire, approx. 10 ft./side This is the system I compared the Panasonic SA-XR55 to. The NAD is a true 50W x 5 5.1 channel AV receiver, but which is known for its musicality, lack of bells and whistles and no-nonsense approach to good sound. It does 60W x 2 in stereo mode (8 Ohm). If you want to know more, Google it, dammit! With the NAD, the CD player was hooked up analogly, and with the Panasonic, it was hooked up digitally through an Acoustic Research Toslink cable. Why? Read on. When I got the Panny into my system, the first thing I did was evaluate the inputs. I needed to know which was better, the analog input over the Blue Heavens, or the digital input over the Toslink. The difference wasn't immense, but I quickly learned that the digital input sounded better. Through the analog input, there was less resolution, with a noticeable grain in many timbres. This was easy to pick out in voices and in instruments like piano and violin, but not as obvious on guitar and percussion. Transient attack was also muted over the analog connection, with edges being too rounded off and dull. Tonal balance was pretty close, with maybe only a smidge of warmth being lost through the analog connection. The soundstage and imaging were both on par, but this is a weak link in my system anyways, and thus differences are harder to detect. After I had decided that the digital connection was the better one to use with the SA-XR55, I knew how best to compare the Panasonic to my NAD. I proceeded to run a gamut of tests comparing the two, the NAD hooked up to the Cambridge analogly, and the Panny hooked up digitally. I listened to a song or two on one setup, then switched the speaker cables over and listened to the same songs again on the other. I left both receivers powered up the whole time to remove the variable of warm-up. It took a little while to finally become confident in my findings, as the process of switching speaker wires added a significant delay over what would be ideal instant A/B switching (like I was able to do when testing the inputs). Nevertheless, I was eventually able to settle on a conclusion, and it only became more and more apparent with time. Well, after 2 afternoons of thorough, strictly 2-channel listening, the verdict was in: the NAD was staying and the Panny was going. Ultimately, the NAD beats the Panasonic in just about every way. The NAD has a flatter tonal balance, more resolution, more enjoyable highs, better attack, superior separation, a larger soundstage, and less listening fatigue. These differences weren't always large, and in some cases they were very subtle, but regardless, they were there. Tonal Balance First of all, the tonal balance of the Panasonic was not as even as the NAD. It has great sub-bass and mid-bass, but the upper bass and lower midrange are recessed. Compared to the middle midrange, the upper midrange and lower treble are too high, but the rest of the treble came back to where it should be. I'd like to demonstrate this response numerically. I will do this by dividing the musical spectrum into its 10 octaves, and using a 0-10 system with 5 in the middle and a 0 or 10 being an extreme deviation appearing to be > 10dB. Therefore, a change of +/- 1 is approximately 2dB, more or less, but don't take that to the bank. My ears aren't precision lab instruments, ya know. The "middle midrange 1" octave is calibrated at 5, as a reference point. This is the octave where vocal fundamentals are found (hey, you have to pick something as a reference point, and why not this octave?). Here is how I envisioned the frequency response of the SA-XR55: Relative level 5 5 3 4 (5) 6 7 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 9 10 Octave Octave: Frequency (Hz), Description 1: 20-40, sub-bass 2: 40-80, mid-bass 3: 80-160, upper bass 4: 160-320, lower midrange 5: 320-640, middle midrange 1 6: 640-1280, middle midrange 2 7: 1280-2560, upper midrange 8: 2560-5120, lower treble 9: 5120-10240, middle treble 10: 10240-20480, upper treble The outcome of this skewed frequency response was as follows: For one, the sound was thin and cool, lacking warmth due to the missing upper bass and lower midrange frequencies. It was not thin because of a missing mid-bass or sub-bass, which is something that I've heard several people claim. In fact, these octaves were fine and in some ways almost better than my NAD. The problem was that the 2 octaves above these were lacking. Guitar, lower drums, lower male voices and other sounds that populate this "power region" were lacking in comparison to the rest of the mix, and this is a serious no-no in my books. The resulting sound was thinner than it should be, and lacked the power, energy and fun that it should have. The other main frequency response anomaly was the rise that starts in the middle midrange and goes up to the middle treble octave. Since this rise covers the vocal band, it was easy to tell that voices, both male and female, didn't sound right. The upper harmonics were over-emphasized compared to the fundamentals, and as such, vocals sounded thin, lacking in body, and all around unnatural. A strange side-affect of this is that voices were actually MORE intelligible, as intelligibility is found in the harmonics and not in the fundamentals, but this was a positive side-effect that was not worth its penalty. Also, found in the same affected regions are percussion and lots of other instrument harmonics as well, and these came across too strongly and disproportionately to the rest of the musical spectrum. Since the harmonics were skewed with respect to the fundamentals in many instruments, many timbres were altered and a lot of instruments lost their naturalness. Piano spans many octaves in its fundamentals, let alone in its harmonics, and it was easy to tell that the piano lacked in the lower registers, and was too prominent in the upper ones. Many of the notes sounded thinner and lighter than they should've, and on the whole the instrument sounded slightly anemic. All in all, the tonal balance, timbre and naturalness of the Panny were not up to the standards of the NAD. Resolution/detail Resolution was also weaker on the Panny than on the NAD. In using the typically accepted parlance, the Panny appeared to have more "grain". Now keeping in mind that this whole system is only a medium resolution affair, neither of these receivers was exactly killer in the detail department. But, when switching to the NAD, it was clear that notes were more solid, more contiuous, more connected through from the attack to the decay, and basically smoother and cleaner sounding. As a result, instruments and sounds were more natural and enjoyable to perceive on the NAD. The Highs Somewhat merging the effects of frequency response and resolution, the quality of the highs must be discussed. On the Panasonic, highs in the octaves 7-9 were perhaps the least enjoyable frequencies in the musical spectrum. The FR peak and graininess, which was higher here than at any other frequency, combined to make highs which were relatively unpleasant when compared to the NAD. Some sounds which dominate these ranges are the upper harmonics from voices and stringed instruments, and the fundamentals and lower harmonics from percussion. Cymbals and metallic percussion of all sorts, upper guitar strings, bells, and other high frequency instruments and effects were all compromised. These frequencies sounded, to use onomatopoeic expressions, "zippy" and "tizzy". They were artificial sounding, grainy, somewhat harsh, and not near as enjoyable as on the NAD. My hypothesis is that these frequencies are where artifacts from the Class D amplification show up and rear their ugly head, but this is only a hypothesis, and I have no interest in proving, disproving, or arguing this. Attack/Transients Another area in which the Panasonic was bested by the NAD is in attack. The difference wasn't huge, but the NAD had more weight and speed to its attack from the midrange on up. In the lowest octaves, there was no difference. The Panasonic wasn't poor in this aspect, but just slightly lacking in comparison. Separation The NAD was also better than the Panasonic in its separation of musical components. On the NAD, many musical passages could comfortably coexist, with each being able to be focused on and separated from the overall picture. On the Panny, this aspect wasn't as good. In some instances it was fine, but I found some instances where it was more difficult to follow a certain instrument's activity, and this wasn't necessarily even on complex music. On one piece which was just a piano and a female singer, the piano melody was more difficult to discern than it should've been. The Panasonic did OK on some complex pieces, but on others, sounds blended together too much and elements didn't seem to stand as delineated as they did on the NAD. Soundstaging One more area where the NAD was slightly better than the SA-XR55 was in the soundstaging. My system is not exactly a soundstaging champ, but I'm confident that the NAD projected an image that was a bit taller and a bit deeper than the Panasonic. In terms of width, they were both pretty similar, with the soundstage extending only a bit beyond the width of the speakers. Listening Fatigue Finally, and for reasons we've already discussed, the Panasonic was more fatiguing to listen to for extended periods than the NAD. This was mostly due to its less than enjoyable highs, uneven tonal response, and lack of resolution, which I believe eventually seriously annoys our subconscious mind. So then, is there anything the Panasonic did right? Well, yes. The sub-bass and mid-bass were very, very good, and perhaps even a smidge better than the NAD, which is itself quite good. At times I thought the NAD was fuller sounding in these octaves, but I think I only got that impression because of the upper bass and lower midrange dip of the Panny. Trying to exclude those is hard, and your brain wants to combine it all together, but I think I can conclude that the Panasonic really was no worse in these lowest frequencies. Low notes shook the place, and sounded as tight and controlled as possible. In fact, one particular phrase involving a grooving bass guitar line actually sounded slightly tighter and more defined on the Panasonic. Is there anything else? Well, the increased vocal intelligibility of the Panasonic was nice, but its too bad that it came at the expense of vocal unnaturalness. My system admittedly has an intelligibility problem, and I'm not sure if it's due to the room or some other factor, but it was nice to have that alleviated for a while. I listened to songs that I had heard many times but whose lyrics I wasn't always sure of, and learned a few new words on those two days. I could see how this could be a huge plus to some people, and getting this effect at the expense of naturalness may not be a big deal in some people's eyes. Other noteworthy things about the Panasonic are its absolute silence and lack of hiss or hum, which is already very well documented, and its small size, lightness and energy efficiency. But, you all already know those things, and I'm supposed to only be talking about its 2-channel audio quality anyways. Also, the headphone socket on the Panasonic sounds acceptably decent, and it's interesting to note that it still sounds better through the digital connection than through the analog one. I think this proves that all analog signals are converted to digital anyways, even if they are to be output via the analog headphone socket and thus ultimately converted back to analog. This is a silly design, but one that obviously comes with the territory of implementing the TI Class D technology in this receiver. Well, that about does it for me. You all already know that the Panasonic Class D receivers ARE incredible value for the money in the multichannel receiver segment, and I don't deny that at all. In fact, I corroborate this fact. That you get 7 channels of decent quality Class D amplification and all the latest surround sound decoding in a little box at this price point is pretty amazing, and I hope that companies keep pursuing the Class D paradigm. However, in pure 2-channel listening, I found the SA-XR55 to be bested by the Class AB NAD T742 receiver, and that's about all I have to say about that. (BTW, after I was done with the unit, the guy came to pick up his receiver, and adamantly refused to accept the $20 gratuity I offered him for his troubles, citing his love of this hobby and entertainment he derives from such activities as his reasons. I love this hobby!) Oh yeah, some tunes I used: Ani DiFranco - Up Up Up Up Up Up Beck - Sea Change Sarah McLachlan - Fumbling Towards Ecstasy Tool - Aenima Tori Amos - From The Choirgirl Hotel Weeping Tile - Cold Snap A special thanks to you, you music-making people who give me so much pleasure! RyGuy
Nuck Gold Member Username: Nuck Post Number: 3003 Registered: Dec-04	Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 10:34 GMT Well thought out and well written,RG! Thank you for your effort.
Edster922 Gold Member Username: Edster922 Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4218 Registered: Mar-05	Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 15:44 GMT Excellent and incredibly detailed review! My experience with the xr55 in a direct comparison with a Marantz 5400 as well as with some vintage NAD separates is quite different from yours, but I admire your thoroughness---and above all your civility, maturity and healthy perspective as reflected in your disclaimer. Those last 3 qualities being all too rare in online discussions of this particular product. I am a bit surprised you preferred the digital over the analog connection though ... I've always preferred the greater warmth of my (Marantz 4300) CDP's DAC ... yes the digital connection yields more resolution but also some rough edges in the upper treble. My view on the xr55 has evolved from ecstatic enthusiasm during my first few months of owning it to a still vigorous but qualified enthusiasm today. Qualified by my realization that this receiver is very unpredictable in how it mates with different speakers --- the working theory, as corroborated by much more technically educated people than myself, is that it struggles with speakers with dramatic impedance swings. What I've always said from the beginning though is that it does best with speakers that are usually characterized as "warm" or "neutral" --- its frequency response (aptly described by a Sound and Vision reviewer as "ruler flat" as he listened to it on some M&K speakers which are famously neutral speakers) only makes already "bright" speakers more so. My take on one of your principal dislikes, vocal unnaturalness, is that many of the analog amps that are favored by music listeners such as HK and NAD actually have a hump in the midrange and an upper-treble roll-off, and if one is used to that type of presentation then going to the Panny would indeed be a very jarring experience. However I admit to not being a regular attendee of live concerts so perhaps others would have a better idea of what "real" voices sound like. Though there are some limitations to the "live music as reference" approach, namely the room accoustics and amplification colorations that are inevitable in any live performance unless one is lucky enough to be 12 feet away from a vocalist singing a cappella.
Markus Silver Member Username: Markusp Toronto, ON Canada Post Number: 142 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 15:50 GMT I agree - well thought out and well written. Kudos for trying the product out yourself and deriving your own conclusions. I am home demoing an XR57 right now and I am having quite a different experience than you have had but I would put that down to room & gear differences as well as simple listening preferences. If I had to guess, I would say that your NAD and B&W synergy is quite balanced and that the Panasonic with the B&W is not. I've owned those B&W 602 s3 and found that they had the exact faults that you described of the Panny - recessed upper bass and lower midrange as well as fatiguing highs. The NAD is a nice balance to this as it is bloated in exactly these areas. This is not a bad thing - it is simply NAD's sonic signature. It gives a warm feeling to music. I have owned so much gear over the past five years it is scary and I still love to try new things. It all comes down to finding the right balance and sound that we like. Luckily there is so much out there to choose from. Sounds like the NAD and B&W work best for you so enjoy. When I owned the B&Ws, I ended up partnering them over time with a NAD T752 and liked the results but eventually the upgrade bug bit and I said goodbye to both peices over time (speakers first, receiver awhile later). Back to the Panny - so far I am undecided about it. I have been using it for approx 2 weeks now with the biamping and biwiring options and find that it is a really a surprising performer for most types of music and movies. Highs are smooth, upper and lower mids are pronounced and bass is fast and tight. I will say that the Panny reveals poor sources to a fault but well recorded sources sound amazing, with both a deep and wide soundstage and great PRAT. Will I keep the Panny? Unsure right now. I own a Sunfire Ultimate receiver with Totem speakers and the Sunfire does a better job of handling weak recordings but not as great of a job showcasing great recordings. The Sunfire is also far more configurable and powerful but it also costs 10 times the price new. Again - I applaud you on demoing the Panny and reaching your own conclusions. I also love the way you shared your thoughts. I don't critisize your conclusions and hope you continue to enjoy your system. Hopefully I will make up my own mind soon as well so I can go back to just enjoying the music and stop fiddling around with gear each evening. Cheers.
Stof Gold Member Username: Chitown Post Number: 1090 Registered: Apr-05	Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 16:26 GMT Good job RJ. Well done and written.
kris march New member Username: Kris1970 LublinPoland Post Number: 2 Registered: May-06	Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 12:05 GMT Excellent review RJW1138,very elaborate. Anyhow I,ve divorced with my NAD 743 replacing it with Panny XR 57 which SQ I,ve found much better. BTW Panny XR57 costs in Europe nearly 500$
Stof Gold Member Username: Chitown Post Number: 1094 Registered: Apr-05	Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 17:18 GMT Kris what were your reasons for picking the Panny over the NAD?
Sem Silver Member Username: Sem New York USA Post Number: 592 Registered: Mar-04	Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 02:33 GMT RyGuy, thanks for taking the time to give such well thought out and detailed impressions of your comparison. As a T742/PSB combo owner, I found this most interesting.
RJW1138 Bronze Member Username: Rjw1138 Regina, SK Canada Post Number: 25 Registered: Nov-04	Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 19:52 GMT Hey all, Thanks for all the support and feedback, Nuck, Edster, Markus, Stof, Kris, and Sem! It's good to know that some people enjoyed my review, whether they agree with it or not. Sorry for taking so long to contribute again here, as I've been really busy, and I'll be going away for a few days now, but I AM interested in keeping this discussion going. Ya know, I really wanted to love the Panasonic, for obvious financial reasons, but it just didn't happen. I really wonder why so many other people prefer it to other receivers that they've tried, but why that didn't happen to me. Markus, your post was really interesting to me. Lacking any other basis for comparison, I really had no idea whether the components in my system were all tonally neutral, or whether they had flaws which more or less balanced each other out. Your experience illuminates this. It really sounds like the B&W 602's are at fault, and that the NAD has flaws which balances this out, and that it's the Panasonic's flatness that exposed this weakness and led to a less desirable system. I'm completely open to this, and can easily believe it. If that's the case, it really sucks that I have to make it sound like the Panasonic is the receiver that's tonally deficient, when in fact it's the NAD that is. This is why I'm glad I put disclaimers on my post. I don't claim to know the truth; I only claim to be able to discern relative differences. It's really fascinating that you find the Panny to be in the same or better league than a Sunfire Ultimate. Wow. That's really cool to hear. I wish that my speakers didn't have this FR flaw, and that I could've found the Panasonic to be as high of a caliber as you do. I have a question for you: What do you really think of the 602's in an absolute sense? Despite the frequency response imbalance, which I seem to have nullified by finding the right amplification, do you find them to be a "good" speaker? Go on, be honest. You've owned lots, you claim, so you should definitely have a reasonable opinion on this. Most importantly, I'm wondering if you think that they are capable of reproducing enough detail and soundstage to be worthy of higher grades of amplification and source without becoming bottlenecks, or do you find that my experiences with average resolution, average soundstaging, and mediocre vocal intelligibility to be pretty much due to the limitations of these speakers, and better upstream equipment can't do anything about this? Kris, I too am really interested in knowing why you preferred the Panny over the T743. I'd love to know what speakers/source you have, and why you found the Panny to work better in your system. Well, that's it for now boys. Later, RyGuy
kyle robinson Bronze Member Username: Gamerdude Ontario Canada Post Number: 62 Registered: Apr-06	Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 20:16 GMT I want a nad but i cant get in canada it tiny http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_receivers/L76_framset.htm
Nuck Gold Member Username: Nuck Post Number: 3044 Registered: Dec-04	Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 23:27 GMT Kyle, you must be the only one who cant get in canada.
kyle robinson Bronze Member Username: Gamerdude Ontario Canada Post Number: 63 Registered: Apr-06	Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 14:58 GMT well is says i cant get it in north america and i dont reallly wann buy somthing like that online Good amp tho? i like it seems great for what i need
kris march New member Username: Kris1970 LublinPoland Post Number: 3 Registered: May-06	Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 16:01 GMT Hi to everyone! Stof,sorry to be late with reply on your question but it,s so hard to find a bit of free time in these days,you know. So "ad rem".I,m not a kind of audiohpile,I just like listen to different kind of music /rock,blues,jazz,classic sometime even pop/ usually late at night.My speakers are Rubicon RHK 1000 /5.1 setup/.I liked and still have a great pleasure listening to NAD /I didn,t quit it,I just gave it to my brother/.One day I chanced listening to Panny and I fell in love with this funny,plastic box.My English is too poor to describe what I feel listening to it.The sound it generates is just what i,ve sought very detailed,fresh and clear,soundstage being so wide and deep.Well,I just have a very,very good time with this piece of plastic and that,s all. For the time being!
Markus Silver Member Username: Markusp Toronto, ON Canada Post Number: 144 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 14:15 GMT RJW1138 - sorry for not responding sooner. Please don't misunderstand me, I think that the B&W speaker line is great and that they have their own characteristic sound. They are NOT "flawed" in any sense, they are simply voiced or designed to sound the way they do. If their sound is for you, terrific, if not, then there are plenty of other speakers out there to choose from. Since everyone has different tastes - this is a good thing. In truth, the Totem's that I love you may similarily hate etc. Given this, the Panny and your B&Ws simply may not be the synergistic match you are looking for. No harm, no foul. Some kids just can't play together. In my opinion, they weren't for me in the long run and didn't suit my musical tastes, despite my finding them great for home theater. They probably thrive on faster forms of music such as rock etc. but my tastes lean more towards female vocalists and as such, I like the smoothness of my Totems much better, especially thanks to their "soft dome" tweeter. In general, I tend to find metallic tweeters hard to take, with the exception of some found in the more expensive speaker lines such as PMC etc. I can't give you an honest opinion of whether or not your speakers will be bottle necks with higher grade amplification as I never used anything higher than NAD and Cambridge with the DM602s. I ended up selling them for different speakers by the time I stepped up to separates. I will say however that you are always better off spending more money on speakers than on amplification. Some people spend major $$$$ on separates but only $$ on speakers and I think this is a waste as great speakers can last for years while most people swap out gear in this hobby rather quickly (a couple of years or so) so money is wasted in depreciation etc. $2000 speakers can sound amazing with low powered integrated amps like the Rega Brio ($400 used) and make much sweeter music than a $2000 integrated amplifier with $400 speakers. As for the Panny being better than the Sunfire - this is not quite the case. The Sunfire is far more powerful and flexible in both setup and operation and sounds sweeter overall to the Panny but in truth, the Panny comes darn close after a very extended break in period. After all the demoing etc, I decided to keep the Panny for all around use, sell the Sunfire (to put money towards other things such as our new baby) and then purchased an integrated amp and cd player for some pleasant late night listening when the rest of the family is in bed. Even with this setup, it is hard to distinguish between the it and the Panny for most music. I haven't done any blind listening but to my ears, the Panny has become very smooth and enjoyable. At first, I could clearly hear the difference in musicality (is that even a word?) between my integrated set up and the Panny, with my clear preference for the integrated but now the sound quality is so close, I'm not sure which I could pick out in blind listening tests. Its my biased opinion that my integrated setup still sounds that last bit more "real" or "human" with a touch more sparkle or life than the Panny but that may just be me. I keep playing with my system every night for approx. 1.5 hours (all the time I have to myself since the baby came along) and still can't decide what I like best. I may just keep going with the two different systems (pain in the butt to keep changing speaker cables etc. though) or may just chuck it and settle on the Panny. Can't wait to just make a final decision and enjoy the music again (not that I am not enjoying this whole process - its the great joy of our hobby!). I will say this - the Panny is an eye openner for the $ and I was never a big believer in gear burn in but I do believe so now. Since I still have a great and sweet sounding integrated amp setup to use as a listening benchmark, I don't think this is a case of my simply becoming accustomed to the "digital" sound of the Panny as the two systems used to sound quite different and now they sound quite similar.
Edster922 Gold Member Username: Edster922 Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4254 Registered: Mar-05	Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 14:42 GMT > I will say this - the Panny is an eye openner for the $ and I was never a big believer in gear burn in but I do believe so now. I've always been intrigued at the concept of "gear burn-in" vs. "user burn-in." Probably the only way to find out is if one of your friends snuck over to your house while you were away and switched out your "old" Panny for a brand-new one without telling you. We should start a fund for a Covert Burn-In Testing Agency! : )

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Main Forums

Forum Help

Follow Us