Why doesnt any one like sony?
|
GeorgeC Unregistered guest | I am by no means an audiophile, but I do like to listen to music. Over the years I've owned two recievers, both of them being sony's. they still work perfect and one is over 15 years old and has seen continous use. Maybe I dont have the ear alot of yall seem to have, but I cant tell that they sound any worse or better than Onkyo, Denon, or other manufactueres. Throughout the years my friends and I have always seemed to think that Sony was the best out there. (My friends have never heard of Krell, NAD, and others in the high end class). Just recently I have really been trying to get into higher end audio and have come to find out from various boards such as this one, many people are not bing fans of Sony including the Sony ES line, which I thought for the price was awesome. Just by reading there specs and comparing to other companies specs. Could someone please exlpain why so many people wouldnt recommend Sony to there worst enemy. I know not all of there products are great, but whos are? Sony has produced many classic audio components through the years known for there performace and breakthrough technology. Just a question, im not trying to say its the best or anything, but sony has always come through for me. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DrumsuckSt. johns, Newfoundland Canada Post Number: 51 Registered: May-04 | If you like Sony products and they work for you, then that's fine. A lot of people (myself included) find that Sony, along with a lot of other Japanese companies, sounds overly bright, harsh and un musical. As well, a lot of people find the build quality to be inferior. Sony cd players, especially, are notoriously bad sounding. Their turntables are abysmal. I have a Harman/Kardon receiver, which admitedly is only midfi at best, but it's worlds above my father's Sony. Some people listen or hear things differently than others. It all comes down to what makes you happy. |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 324 Registered: Dec-03 | George: don't get (the collective) us wrong. Sony has applications for combinations of people, speakers, and listening environment. I generally feel that Sony is the "Bose" of the receiver world. "You can't get more receiver for your money by buying something else." (That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.  ) I grew up on Nakamichi, Sony and Marantz. I owned Sony, Kenwood, and now Harman Kardon. I use to love sony and always go "ga-ga" for the higher end "ES" line. I now know to shop around... Same with speakers... Bose is a fine product, great customer service, and awesome service and reputation. But, you can buy more speaker for the money. Ciao |
|
Bronze Member Username: StoneWest CoastUSA Post Number: 76 Registered: Dec-03 | The SONY DVP-S9000ES is a very good DVD player being sold on the used market, even better after its been modded. But their receivers and amps are average. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 40 Registered: Jul-04 | I think the key with sony receivers is that you can get better for the money from many other brands. Compare the sound of a $300 or $400 receiver from Harman Kardon, Onkyo or Marantz versus a Sony in the same price range. In a nutshell that is the biggest reason people don't buy or talk much about Sony receivers. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2016 Registered: Dec-03 | I had a lot of esteem for Sony, based on the old Trinitron CRT TVs and a classic stereo power amp. Lately, it seems to me Sony is producing pointless gadgets and absurd digital formats on the assumption that its customer base is so large it can tell people what is good for them, instead of making competitive, quality products. It is heavily into planned obsolescence. Then there is the great CD scam; a mid-fi format that was marketed so aggressively that it convinced people to throw away and replace their LP collections. Then there is SACD, designed not for sound quality but for copy protection with the aim of getting people to throw away all their CDs; remember Sony never was a record label but has bought up and now owns huge swathes of recorded music catalogues which is the basis of its need to own new playing formats so it has a monopoly on how you can hear the music. The only other gripe is anecdotal, but the whole philosophy is there in my local Sony Centre: they think customers are privileged to be able to visit them, and have no interest in fixing the good stuff Sony used to make (I have a Walkman Pro cassette recorder; they deny it has the flutter I can hear) urging me to chuck it away if it is "old" and get the latest "because the technology is changing" (true - but for the worse, and for reasons of market control, not improved sound quality). Sony has just invented a new MP3-type format, which they own, so they can sell you players (which have no other format) as well as the files (which no other player can play). It is a scam, honestly. Get an iPod, instead. I could be a bit unhinged on this, but it seems like classic case of a small, innovative quality manufucturer turning into a complacent giant run by bean-counters and marketing experts who see its profits in control rather than in quality engineering to make a truly competitive product. In short, an audio Microsoft. Then "specifications". They play every trick to inflate amp power ratings on paper; publish wholly meaningless signal-to-noise ratios; release SACDs that are quietly remixed so that you CANNOT compare with other formats while claiming the difference is in the format; push pointless simulated ambience formats for surround sound etc etc. Above all; "The Compact Disc. Perfect Sound that lasts forever". It was a lie. They knew it; otherwise, how can the "superiority" of SACD over CD (a) exist at all and (b) now be demonstrated using analogue tape masters from the 60s and 70 (Stones, Dylan, CBS classical.....) which by their own claim were inferior to digital recording at CD resolution? "many people are not bing fans of Sony including the Sony ES line, which I thought for the price was awesome. Just by reading there specs and comparing to other companies specs. " Precisely. They sell on specs, not on sound. And look hard at the specs. It is easy to see the massaging and spin that goes in. End of rant, but you did ask, George....! BTW and they won't give you user manuals in pdf form, which costs them nothing, or any feedback in e-mail correspondence. Yes, I have some nice Sony stuff, but it is all more than ten years old. Maybe there TVs are still good, but they are hardly at the leading edge with DLP and so on. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ShankPittsburgh, PA Post Number: 41 Registered: Aug-04 | John A., I couldn't agree with you more, especially on the SACD stuff. It seems the only thing Sony makes right now that has any quality is TV's. But I'm sure that will change one day, once sony owns every major motion picture studio and every TV station. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2018 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, shank. Glad I am not alone! Of course, anyone can just ignore all that and say "I want the best sound for my money", and if so, it is still possible Sony is in the race in some areas. If they can't make CD and SACD players then nobody can. Pioneer is a big Japanese company that seems to have its own ideas and leads the way by supporting DVD-A and implementing DVI. Sony won't touch, or support, DVD-A, of course. It was a great shame Sony did not join the DVD-A consortium and put their weight behind it, prefering to set up a rival, proprietory formay i.e. SACD. If they had joined, we would probably see a much greater adoption of multichannel and hi-resolution audio by now. In the 70s, analogue surround sound failed partly for the same reason: there were so many incompatible systems competing for a slice of the yet-unmade-cake that consumers just got bewildered and didn't go for any of them. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BienPost Number: 23 Registered: Apr-04 | This has nothing to do with the question asked, but do you remember the obnoxious "My First Sony" line for kids which were introduced in the late 80's. Apparently targeted at the 80's yuppie stereotypes who had more money than knew what to do with. I couldn't believe the pompous arrogance of Sony to think so highly of themselves to market such a product. |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 327 Registered: Dec-03 | Bien Kim: don't take this as a defence of Sony, but... Remember, they have made some innovative products. Creating a market where there was not one. Much like Apple Computer and the iPod today, Sony created the Walkmantm. Something that there was no market demand for, but something which everyone wanted... high fidelity in a compact (portable) device which wasn't a boom box. I think that after the Walkman, Sony believed they were invincible. Just as IBM created the IBM PC Junior, Sony quickly realized that the Walkman was just an invention at the right time, and that the "My First Sony" wasn't going to be the same! But you're right, it's just for yuppies with cash to spend on brand-name products for their children. You know, but they still market those products, so someone is buying them! Actually, this may not be a bad idea. What about "My First Krell", or "My First Nakamichi", or "My First Porsche"... to name a few... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2023 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to say I agree with both previous posts. The Walkman was a landmark. Without that there would probably be no MP3, iPod etc. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BienPost Number: 24 Registered: Apr-04 | Geekboy, I understand what you are saying. I own a few Sony products which I am happy with, but most of those are from a few years ago. I just don't agree with the direction, or the lack thereof, that Sony has taken in the last few years. Although Sony has been an innovator wtih a few products, as you said, they believe they are invincible. |
|
New to Sony Unregistered guest | I'm sorry I don't agree with the majority of the people.I purchased my first Sony Reciever (3000ES) just a couple of months ago and I couldn't be more pleased. My previous unit was a Denon 825 RA, a great reciever, but the new Sony plays rings around the Denon. The high ends are crystal clear, plenty of full body mid's and deep solid bottom ends. I listen to the ES3000 on Klipsh RF35'S with a RC35, RW12, and 4-RS35's. The sound is great. I'm not sure if the Sony will last as long as my Denon, but if it does, it was well worth the investment!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 336 Registered: Dec-03 | "New To Sony": read more carefully to what we wrote. We stated that "ES" was a solid -- yet overpriced -- Sony line. I seldom recommend any Sony product to anyone unless the letters "ES" appears in the model number. You bought one of the better Sony's. The consensus is that Sony is overpriced and that the mass-market line (the "non-ES" line) is nothing short of pandering to the uninformed consumer. So please don't get upset because we call Sony to the mat. We've also called, on ocassion, H/K for what appeared to be manufacturing issues. We've called NAD to the mat for issues with the 7x2 series. We've called many others as well. For our chief complaint with Sony to be mostly about pricing pressures... doesn't mean anything. I wish they would, however, publish real power ratings. That's my chief complaint. That's just my opinion, of course, I could be wrong. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 549 Registered: Aug-04 | John A Not defending Sony and I agree with much you say, but this quote "Then there is SACD, designed not for sound quality but for copy protection with the aim of getting people to throw away all their CDs" is one with which I must strongly disagree. Again John, you speak of something you have not experienced. SACD sounds excellent and if Sony wished for it to replace the CD then why allow "hybrids" which are fast becoming the norm for this format? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2042 Registered: Dec-03 | MR, I have been following the SACD story since 1999 and, although I could be wrong, it really did appear that SACD was intended to replace CD: that was their original intention, and it was touted as the solution to flagging CD sales, discussed in business news columns, etc. Sony certainly gave the impression it was the new, long-awaited leap forward in stereo sound. It was the "better than CD" that caught my attention, because in 1983 the same people said the CD gave "perfect sound" - and millions of people believed them. Personally I always had my doubts, but we seemed a bit like flat-earthers, and tended not to rock the boat. SACD has changed since 1999, twice. First into a multichannel format (2000 - after DVD-A was introduced). Second, into one that can be put alongside CD on the same disc (they denied this would be possible at first). But note that the mixes are still different, so it is impossible to tell what the format itself is doing to the sound. No, I haven't heard it, and would be interested to do so, but my opinions are based on reading informed and critical reviews from people who analyse mixes and tweaked frequency ranges, and well as what Sony themselves have had to say at various times. The two don't agree, that's the problem. I am pleased for "New to Sony" and would not wish to put anyone off getting an ES amp or SACD player. geekboy is quite right about the power ratings, however. Lots of independent tests agree on that, as I understand it. Then there is the DSD format, which seems designed primary to prevent copying and editing, not for sound. Apparently the official line to recording companies etc. is to convert to LPCM for editing and processing, then back to DSD. So what is DSD for...?! Probably half the anti-Sony feeling is generated by the conclusion that they take us all for fools. The stuff could still sound OK, of course. But, if you've really got a quality product, why not let it be judged for what it is, and does......? I could be a little paranoid on this, as the lady psychiatrist said to the hifi buff, on the couch.... |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 598 Registered: Dec-03 | To me Sony makes great tv's, good dvd players and that's about it. Their receivers are absolutely awful, even the ES series. I do like SACD's however. If you have never heard Dark Side of the Moon in SACD do yourself a favor and do so. Really incredible. I do not side with either SACD od DVD-A and have not bought a great number of them but have liked all so far. |
|
MarcUR Unregistered guest | The new digi amps are quiet impressive. Here are a couple of reviews, one from a person who owns +$3000 seperates and the second from a dealer who runs a hi-fi shop. He's well known around the live taping community. Both rave about the imaging, and after hearing these for myself, I couldn't agree more. http://www.nickspicks.com/stereo-3000es.htm http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=101&topi c_id=109&mesg_id=174&page=3 |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 49 Registered: Jul-04 | It is nice to know that the ES3000/5000 are getting that kind of response. I heard the ES1000 and was not impressed in the least. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Culp4684Post Number: 19 Registered: Aug-04 | I agree with a lot of what John A. stated. Although I don't quite understand his beef against the basic CD... I also agree with Geekboy about Sony being so innovative. It's just too bad that they are complete idiots when it comes to marketing their products. They had the superior Beta format which they constantly kept improving but never seemed to catch on. Now they are doing the same with their Minidisc format, which had developed at first as replacement for the audio cassette. The MP3 type format that John A refers to is Hi-MD. This is a further development of the same technology that actually allows non-compressed audio to be recorded on a 1 gig MD. It was released last month, and almost no one knows anything about it. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 561 Registered: Aug-04 | John A As far as hi-res formats go, I rate them according to the recording/engineering. DVD-A or SACD, I have no real preference and IMHO, they both surpass the best possible CD sound quality. Telarc is a recording company that I believe have always put out quality recordings and after releasing only two DVD-A's have decided to only produce SACDs from now on. For anyone interested, here is a link for their description of the Sony/Philips format (at bottom of page): http://www.telarc.com/sacd/default.asp?mscssid=W5740PHL47U89HWDG92SK98L591HFE00 Robert Culp One of John's beefs results from the early promise that CD's would carry unrivaled sound quality - something that was quickly proven to be false. There are others, but best for him to explain. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 562 Registered: Aug-04 | John A I know you're away having fun, but I guess you'll catch up with this sometime. "No, I haven't heard it, and would be interested to do so, but my opinions are based on reading informed and critical reviews from people who analyse mixes and tweaked frequency ranges, and well as what Sony themselves have had to say at various times. The two don't agree, that's the problem" From the Telarc Website: "You only have two DVD-A releases listed on Telarc.com. When will more product be available? Presently, we are not planning any further releases of DVD-A format discs. There are industry trends that lead us to put our support firmly behind the SACD format. We have long believed in the superiority of the DSD technology on which SACD is based, and for the ability to produce a backwards compatible (hybrid) product. We will continue to evaluate this developing market and keep our customers informed of new developments by way of our audiophile newsletter." And: "SACD has established itself as the closest sound quality to analog available in a digital medium." It's amazing how 'informed and critical reviews' can differ. Perhaps there is something in an old saying: "It is not the same to talk of bulls as to be in the bullring."* *(Taken from James Hall's novel, Off The Chart) As I stated, I agree with much you say about Sony, but I must defend DSD (SACD) in being a high quality sound format and not some subversive plan. Like the universal Pioneer DVD player, the new Denon 3910 outputs SACD in PCM. The difference is that the Denon employs twin Hammerhead Sharc processors for the bass management, but it allows the audio connoisseur to utilise a direct DSD path (as the 2200 & 2900) for the purest signal. Sorry if this has gone off topic a little, though I guess it has something to do with the original question because as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to SACD, Sony has come through for me also. But, then so has the DVD Emporium with DVD Audio! |
|
Unregistered guest | In sales revenues, Sony ranks as the 36th largest company worldwide, $63bil. Pioneer Corp. checks in at $6.5bil. Philips essentially dumped Marantz, now owning only 17%. Denon/Marantz is majority owned by Ripplewood, 70% interest, an equity investment operation (shark) which created the Denon/Marantz entity, D&M Holdings. Previous financial results have probaly not been stellar for D/M, in turn because Yamaha, Sony and a resurgent Harman Kardon are kicking their mid-fi rear ends. Which brings me back to Sony: >Don't own Sony receiver; the alternatives have better sound and power for the money >Own 4 year old Wega flat TV; to my eyes, the picture was better than JVC, Samsung, Toshiba >Own inexpensive Sony CD player as a transport to my NAD; depending on the source, sometimes prefer the analog Sony DAC's as they have more treble air and detail. Some have commented on this board (and others) that NAD DAC's can be a bit "cloudy" >Own Sony Mini DV Handycam; the performance of this gem has exceeded the best in class Reviews over JVC, Canon and Samsung >Walkman has served my family well Editorial/Consumer Reviews are widely available on many Sony products; from dvd/sacd to computers, many, not all, are very good. If the SACD issues continue to gall anyone, you're entitled. On the other hand, it's Sony's prerogative to market any proprietary formats and products they so choose with the obious goal of dominating their markets. Wal-Mart, Merck and Microsoft have every intention of "monopolizing"; every boardroom in the world schemes to manipulate and dominate their best interests. So do individuals, so, big deal. In the end, the conumer votes with their wallets on whether or not Sony will win or lose. To date, they apparently have in droves to the tune of $64,000.000.000. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Culp4684Post Number: 21 Registered: Aug-04 | Little O/T here...but I thought the parent company of Marantz was McIntosh. Or at least the same company owns both. Didn't realize that Denon and Marantz were affilated. |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 573 Registered: Aug-04 | I don't know who owns Denon, But Denon just recently purchased Marantz. (According to my Denon dealer). |
|
Unregistered guest | Attached, please note the info on Denon/Marantz; if more current is available, I stand corrected: http://www.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FPressRelease.asp?lArticleId=198 7&lNodeId=343 http://www.detnews.com/2002/techcolumns/0204/02/techcol01-454754.htm |
|
Silver Member Username: MyrantzPost Number: 580 Registered: Aug-04 | There you go - good to have accurate information. Thanks |
|
Unregistered guest | De nada. |
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