I just got my new speakers!! I went with the klipsch reference line. Thank you to everyone who patiently gave me suggestions and advice, I couldn't have done it without you!
Now, I am on the hunt for my receiver. I am 90% sure that I am going to get the H/K AVR330, but I am curious about their DPR line. I looked through previous posts and I only found one opinion from KEGGER that said that he wasn't convinced of their merit.
Does anyone know anything more about these DPR receivers and if they can perform as well as, or better than the AVR line??
Ryan: I own an H/K AVR-525. I just haven't caught onto the Digital Path Receiver's wave yet. Everything I read about Class D amplifiers tells me that they are still not that good compared with their Class A/B brothers.
Well, let me be fair. One could build a really good Class D amplifier which rivals its Class A/B brothers. The problem is mass-market electronics manufacturers... do they really want to do this right? Who knows. I would think in a couple of years, they will work their way into the mainstream and we'll start seeing lots more. As the technology improves, so will the number of these digital amplifiers.
For now, I would only put one in my bedroom and not my main audio room.
Until I see Krell or Crown build a mainstream power amplifier on a Class D design, I'm staying away. (Crown is currently doing some hybrids and I think they call them Class I).
Class D's seem to have many applications these days in computer speakers, some subwoofers, and other low-power required environments.
I'm just taking the wait-and-see approach. I wouldn't mind one, an H/K DPR, in my bedroom connected to my 42" Plasma TV. (No, I don't have a Plasma in my bedroom, but that seems a practical application.)
I just purchased a NAD T763 and I did a direct comparison at the very same moment with the H/K DPR and AVR receiver and I decided on the NAD.
From what I have heard H/K have started to alter their sound in their last line of receivers and now are no comparision to the NAD recievers. The NAD receivers, in my tests, were much fuller sounding and when I live switched between the T763 and the DPR2005 (volumes matched using SPL meter), the H/K DPR sounded less fulfilling.
At the moment I think that possibly the real driving force behind digital output amps is perhaps not a question of sound quality but the ability to make amps cheaper (probably not going to be passed on to the consumer). Smaller heatsinks, no fans and eventually smaller units mean less cost for the manufacturer eventually.
I went with the NAD because the H/K receivers just couldn't give the sound I was after on the b&w 600 series speakers.
Like everyone else on this board will tell you, the most important thing is how the receiver you buy will match your new speakers and your ears From my personal experience, don't let the idea of a Digital Amplifier sway your opinion on what reciever you get.
Ah, forgot to mention that people looking at purchasing the HK DPR receivers should look at the depth of the unit. It appears smaller in height than the AVRs but look at what they've done to the depth - it's a bit longer!
thank you, both, for your replies. now, i understand more about what these companies are trying to achieve with their digital receivers. so, from what you guys say, digital is the future? it seems that if they can produce dpr's smaller and cheaper, that will be the receiver of the future, and they will only get better and better. meaning that we could potentially get a better receiver for our money in the not too distant future...
i think that i will stick with the AVR330 for now, though. unless you think that the DPR's will develop further by, say, christmas time this year????
One other way to look at your dilemma is that the DPR now currently offered is the upgrade to the original DPR1001 (the 1005 and 2005 models). They certainly look sharp, and have some decent stats.
I personally really like the HK AVR line of receivers and think they offer real good value, especially for sound. They also have seperate bass and treble controls, which I love and which seems to be a feature that is ignored lately. However, I'm not a big fan of the remote for this or the other AVR models.
Yeah, the remote for the avr130/230/330 sux. Seems to be the biggest knock against these recievers. Otherwise, they look sharp and my avr230 sounds great.
John 85212
Unregistered guest
Posted on
The DPR's are great on paper and and OK at low to medium volume but suck when pushed. I bought into the hype and all the great consumer reviews of the DPR 1001. Within minutes of hooking it up I was depressed at how un musical it performed. It seemed good at the store during low volume side by side comparisons to others but at home it was really bad. I returned it the next day. My my 6 year old Technics SA-AX6 sounded much better.
One of the movies I watched using the DPR had a scene by a lake, birds chirping, etc. The DPR just didn't sound real, it was missing something. I did not feel as if the birds were in my living room using the DPR. My older set up did, however. It sounded so much more alive.
I tried another companies digital path, same exact problem. The best thing I can say about the digital amps is that they are totally clean, passages without sound are absolutely silent. But that means very little if the desired sounds are flat and un-lifelike.
This is for all those who are digital purists. As a general concept sound is analog, thats how our organic ears perceive sounds. Digital is a great medium for storage and pre amp processing, it's a mature technology. Since our bodies are not capable of digital interpretation it requires a conversion to analog. The only question is at what point in the chain should the digital media be converted to analog for us to hear. Our natural world is "analog", "organic", etc. I cannot hear ones and zeros. The benefit of digital is that we have a way to distribute source material with little or no degredation. The source itself is analog. With that premise I say with absolute confidence that the conversion has to take place before the power amplifier stage if you want to hear sounds that are natural. Articulating the unsatisfying sounds of digital amps is hard without falling back on words that are loose; not as "warm", not as "natural", etc.
I'll put it this way, I've heard many bands and styles of music live, often without a PA so I know how instruments really sound and feel. The digital amps, at this point in time, aren't close to duplicating the way music really sounds to the human ear.
There seems to be a void of pro reviews on these DPR's and I'll give you all my opinion on this, nobody wants to slam an HK at this point in time. I find it very strange that I could only find one editorial or pro review of a DPR on the web. You would think that a new exciting revolutionary product would have multiple reviews. Not so with the DPR's. The silence is deafening.
The digital path receiver needs a lot of work before it will be useful for anything beside onboard TV speakers, computer speakers, table top radios, cheap bedroom systems, etc. I agree with the idea that these are being marketed to the public because they are cheap to make, light weight, and convienent. As I understand it for the Panasonic, each channels amp module can be bought for $3.95. I'm sure the HK's is in the same ballpark. It sure sounds like it.
Maybe in the future digital amps will be viable, but they're not at this point in time. If you value the feeling of music and 5.1 movies do not get a digital path amp.
From my personal experience, don't let the idea of a Digital Amplifier sway your opinion on what reciever you get.