About 5 years ago I fell in love with the quality sound of the Sony ES recievers. Thanks to my new credit card, I'm thinking about buying one. But I noticed they are alot cheaper than they were 5 years ago. Is the ES quality still as good as it was 5 years ago?

Thanks,
-Darin

Much much better, with the advent of S-Master digital amplification. This is present from the sdr-da2000es up.

Sorry for the social commentary but please don't buy something because you have access to credit. Buy something because you have the cash. Don't fall into the Debt Trap.

lol....that's the only way I can buy things like that, but I do it responsibly though. Usually I'll buy one expensive item and won't buy another untill I pay that one off.



Yeah, I was going to get the base ES model, sdr-da1000es, but I notice it has more distortion than the others. I also noticed the sdr-2000es jumps up $100.00 for just 20 extra watts, so I guess the S-Master digital amplification(what ever that is) explains why. I've seen the 2000es go $459.00 which seems to be really cheap for ES.

-Darin

If you are short of cash you might consider other manufacturers. The new class D technology (s-master, tripath, equibit, etc) has made good amplifiers available cheaply. If you tell me how efficient your speakers are and whether you will be using digital or analog input I can advise.

Well, I might go cheaper. I haven't got the speakers yet, but I am looking for a reciever that is about 100 watts per channel and I'll be hooking it up from my sound card through the digital out. I would really like it if could sound like a Sony ES.

You have to match amplification to speakers. Deciding on any power level, let alone a massive one, is not sensible before you know your speaker efficiency. With most speakers 100W will be ear-splitting unless you are in an open space very far from your speakers.

Yeah, I was just thinking about going lower myself. What about maybe a 50 or 80 watt reciever with a digitial input? Know any ones that sound as good as an ES?

It depends on the speakers. If you have efficient and easy to drive (flat impedence curve) speakers a panasonic SA-XR series receiver with digital input will work well. If less efficient/harder, JVC RX-F10 or TEAC A-L700P with analog input. Not sure what the Sony works best with.

I'm pretty dead set on getting JBL book shelf speakers: http://www.jbl.com/home/products/product_d...NRE&sCatId=BFSI


I think I might get me the panasonic one as a tie me over untill I get a really nice Sony ES someday. I've always been a big fan of the old Technics receivers so the Panasonc SA-XR50 might suite me fine. I don't like to use DSP's, or in this case Sound Field Control....does this receiver have Treble and Base controls?

SA-XR10/45/50 should all work very well. I imagine it has tone controls if you need to use them. All the amplifiers here are much better than their price would indicate, so if you feel like upgrading later your speakers should be the first thing to change. My speakers for instance retail at over ten times as much as my TEAC class D power amplifier and don't reveal any flaws in the amplifier that I can tell.

I just downloaded and finished reading the instructions for this reciever and I have two major problems with it.

1). It saids that I cannot adjust the treble or base when in 2 Channel Stereo mode with digital input. That would be where I would be useing my soundcard through digital output/input.

2). It saids for "Notes on Digital Input" that it can not decode digital MPEG signals. Does this mean I can't play MP3's and FLAC files when I have it hooked up to my computer through the digital connect?

It probably means you have to send it an uncompressed data stream as it would get from a CD player. The mp3's and Flac's get decoded by the player program in your PC.

THe statement is in there as a warning that you can't feed it Dolby Digital, DTS etc from a DVD player.

Cool...

In all the reviews I have read on this 95% percent all agree that the highs are a little to harsh, or the sound is a little 'to bright'. In this one particular review, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...e&s=electronics, the guy claims:

"The only caveat I have with this receiver is that it requires a 20 hour break-in period. Right out of the box, the sound is a bit too bright and has a hard digital edge when used for critical listening. It takes about 20 hours of use before it mellows into the smooth but crisp sound reproduction it is capable of."

How is it possible that after 20 hours/a break in period can change this?

With most "break in " claims the suspicion is that it is really your ears taking 20 hours to get used to the sound.

With mechanical items like speakers or phono cartridges there are flexing parts that may change characteristic after a few hours, so that at least gives you a basis for speculation.

In electronics there isn't much... electrolitic caps can take a bit of time to fully form, but they won't be in the signal path of any decent gear. There are some other aging effects of interest to engineers, but they are longer term and I would think they are mostly degradation rather than breaking in.

In that case I don't know if I would like to have one of these.... I like a digital sound but not to an extreme as this sounds like.

OK. You can play anything from your PC. You can equalize on PC if you need to.

DonP, if the caps can change as you say, why can't the sound change? Not that I'm concerned about the answer to the question of break in; just seems natural that if the caps change the sound will change. Or else why do modders replace caps on all sorts of things?

darin, if the sound is bright and harsh, if could be a speaker mismatch which is due to a difficult impedance curve or inefficiency. See:
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtop...der=asc&start=0

Electrolytic caps (the type I said would have a break in effect) are used in power supplies, where a few percent change in value isn't going to change the sound. In the audio circuits the caps should be a type with solid dialectric (ceramic, mylar, ...) which aren't going to break in.

Modders change caps to get a more pure capacitance, with less parasitic resistance and inductance. THey might also add a small high quality cap in parallel to the electrolitics in the power supply to filter any high frequency noise on the power rails.

Cool...thanks. I was looking around for threads to learn more about this receiver...


I'm going to go ahead and try it... what the heck. It looks cool anyways. But I can't decide between the XR-25 model and the XR-50 model. I know the XR-25 model is the older model, but I wish I knew the differences between them. I went on the Panasonic site and they didn't have the XR-25 feature list anymore so I can't compare it with the XR-50. I also wonder if there would be a difference in sound qaulity since the XR-25 is the 2nd generation and the XR-50 is the third generation.

I would get the XR10 rather than the XR25, based on opinions on the Audio Circles. (I was considering these receivers.) You can get one on ebay for $100-$200. The XR10 and XR45 should be the best - there's disagreement about the XR10 - but the XR50 should be fine too.

Well, after doing much reading on the other forum I decided to go with the JVC RX-F10. I kept hearing how it is better for music because the Panasonic leans more to being harsh. So, I'll see how it goes when it arrives. If I don't really like it I'll probably send it back and ethier buy a Sony ES or just buy a cheap old Technics receiver off of Ebay(like those old school Technics from the 90's). I'm pretty skeptical about it, but I really hope I like it. I never thought I would lower myself to buying a JVC brand name, especially since they sell this model at Target. Thanks for the info though and helping me out.

-Darin

No problem. The JVC takes analog input, so make sure you pair it with a decent CD plsyer/DAC.

If you take digital receiver, note this. The sound quality you'll get will be limited by the DACs used in the receiver. And there's whole swamp of DACs. Most low-end/mid-end stuff uses cheap DACs. "If the sound is bright and harsh", suspect DACs.

If your receiver has DSP, it will most probably always do analog-digital conversion for all analog inputs, except perhaps few meant for DVDA/SACD or direct 5.1 input. You know that analog is directed directly to power amp when you find that you can't apply any DSP effects or change treble/bass on some inputs. That is good to have such inputs. If you don't have such, you're stuck with the sound the receiver's DACs make.

Your dream is this: http://www.avland.co.uk/pioneer/vsaax10ai/vsa-ax10ai.htm
Realistically though, VSX-814 or some such. Not to turn you over, but pioneer is making some good stuff.

I'd consider receiver an investment into several years, as you simply won't find it easy to justify its replacement as long as it works. YMMV though.

The Panasonic SA-XR series do not have DACs. The architeture is different. Same with the Sony S-Master amplifiers. The whole thing is a Power-DAC if you like.

Well, the whole arguement right now is that 'pure digital' is not good for music lestioning. At least, not untill they work on it and make it better. It seems with the Panasonic, and this is not from my own experience- only from countless posts that I have read, that without the the D/A A/D convertors music lestioned through a pure direct music signal seems to have a bright sound. From reports, it's not as warm and the lacks presence as compared to the JVC(this is for music lestioning only).

This article explains it really good:
www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amplifiers/digital_classD_amplifiers.html

As for the Sony ES, I don't really put it in the catorgory of the Panasonic and JVC for digital lestioning because it actually converts the PCM to DSD.

to bad this topic can't be changed to Digital Recievers to get more input and opinions...

All of these amps convert to DSD in some way.
Bruno Putzeys is an expert in these matters. However the pure digital route has been found to work well with certain speakers (flat impedance curves, high efficiency). There have been various comparisons on the Audio Circles. And eliminate the need for DACs. My speakers don't have these qualities, so I have gone with analog control.
I only know the basic minimal architecture of these things; I don't know how feedback works, which is supposed to be a difference between analog and digitally controlled Class D.

Class-D isn't at high enough level yet. It'll get there eventually, but not yet. There is much hype around it, and especially in low-end price range you can get such a crap, even from wellknown name.

The very basic principle of feedback is in the permanent correction towards target. You do that every single time you drive a car - you correct your course by means of sensing where the car goes and knowing where it should go. The difference between nofeedback and feedback amp is somewhat similar to difference between driving car drunk or sober. Sure, on the very flat wide surface (or idealised speakers) there isn't much difference, its in the subtleties on real "surface" they differ.

In addition, analog class-D can have much finer and faster feedback, while pure-digital amps are limited by the digital processing speeds, ie. much lower.

Analog class-D amps are not digital! And thus DSD is not applicable to them. Despite the similarities, stream of analog class-D is virtually unlimited in precision, while pure digital is strictly limited by the digital bitstream rate.

The only advantage pure digital has is in hype, ability to get prices down by avoiding decent DACs, and perhaps in rare honest cases have more budget to better the class-D part of the amp. But because they are fundamentally limited in their performance, pure digital will imo remain in the low-end, at least until we can throw gigahertzes of processing power in there (ie some 5-10 more years).

ps. Combination of Sony and DSD stinks religious, reminding me stubborn WMA and DRM. I'd become very cautious if Sony pushes DSD in its amps - it smells a steal.

What I meant was that Class D amps whether analog or digital create a PWM signal from the input. I said DSD by mistake; I meant PWM.
You and Bruno Putzeys may be right about the theoretical advantage of analog controlled class D. Interesting to see what Putzeys and the other engineers at Phillips come up with. I just would point out that there are good examples of digitally-controlled Class D in the experience of quite a lot of people (not including me). Some of the Sony amplifiers, particularly the STR-DA9000es are quite well regarded.

Ok, update. I have the JVC Rx-F10 and have been listening to it for a week.

Good points: No distortion...I can turn up the Wav slider on the computer all the way up with no problem. Also, good sound for being digital. I also notice the bass is tighter. In one way this is good, but in another way it makes it hard to have in an apartment because a tight distinguished bass(compared to bass more spread out over 2 speakers) travels further in the walls and floor.

Bad points: I think I hate digital. It lacks the fullness and warmth that I am so used to. They say that it requires a burn in period, at least other people do...not the manufact. I don't know if I put much faith in the burn in period theory and I don't know if I have the patience to wait and test and re test and compare. Also, lacks treble and base controls. EQ is a pain to adjust.

I'm probably going to send this receiver back and go with an old school receiver from the 90's.

-Dman

Side note: I went to Bjorns and lestioned to the Sony ES's and I hated them more than this JVC receiver I have. They sounded even more digital than the JVC....so glad I didn't buy one.

What set-up are you using - speakers, source?

burn-in lol. The only thing that burns in is owner's ears.
Its a smartarse way to telling others that you got used to the sound.

Well, I've been thinking about it and although I don't 100% believe in the burn in theory for audio receivers something did occur to me. I recently placed in a light fixture a 60 watt light bulb and notice that it was annoyingly bright(like on that movie polterdiest). It was brighter than the bulb I replaced it with which was also a 60 watt. About a week or two later I didn't notice it being annoying bright anymore. In fact, it became alot softer and looked normal....it was such at a difference I know it was not me getting used to it but the actual bulb itself. Now, if that's possible well I guess the audio burn in is also possible....but I don't think I can trust my ears and the psychology of the human mind adapting to be able to tell for sure.


On a side note, I miss some of that digital clarity and I plan on going back to hybrid digital amps but I'm gonna wait awhile and let them perfect them more before I do.

Its exactly this kind of analogies that fool the innocent. Let me illustrate what you say.

"I recently lighted up a match. And I noticed fascinating effect - first it burned intensely, then it was stable, and then after some time it burned out. Well, if thats possible, then I guess its possible that electrons inside the amp and wires also do the same."

What you miss is that one is chemical reaction, other is quantum atomic level operation. They are as far apart as apples and PC computers. PC's are not rotting - they either work or they are broken.

If you haven't noticed, then lightbulbs actually *burn* and also burn out. This is no "burn-in", this is straight *degradation* over time. Amp that is *degrading* over noticable time is bad product, and you ought to avoid such crap. Its using either crap components, or is designed to work in mode that actually destroys the components. Any quality amp is designed to work without any degradation for tens of years, let alone few weeks.

Want to experience the reality? Turn up your treble and bass in your amp. Listen like this for few weeks. After that turn them back to normal. Tell us what you experience during these few weeks and at the moment you return to normal. I'm pretty sure you'll experience clearly what burn-in really is.