What became of digital AV receivers?

[Poultrygeist]

I have a Panasonic SA-XR55 AV receiver that I've enjoyed daily for the past 5 years. It's compact, powerful, sounds great and produces no heat. After great initial reviews why have the panny's and other digital receivers gone the way of the dinosaur?

[pixelthis]

That depends, what do you mean by "digital" receiver? DIGITAL AMPS?
Digital tuner? A LOT OF HT players started out in audio, and prefer their audio straight,
no digital chaser.:1:

[Poultrygeist]

If you read my post it asks the question "what became of digital AV ( meaning audio/video ) receivers?"

[recoveryone]

If you read my post it asks the question "what became of digital AV ( meaning audio/video ) receivers?"

Your question is confusing, since about 98% of receivers are digital now days. If you can input coax, toslink, HDMI (which are all digital signal transfer option) your receiver is digital. If it can decode DD, PL, PLIIx, DTS, and so on its digital. if it can convert composite, S-video, component and output HDMI its digital. So what type of AVR are you referring to. What you may be asking what happen to the big DIGITAL labling in the passed. Its the standard today so there is no need to lable it any more. Just like Fuel injection in cars, its the norm by todays standards so no need to bring it up as an added feature or upgrade.

[audio amateur]

Poultrygeist is referring to 'digital' amps in AV receivers, similar I believe to Class D amps, but different if im not mistaken. I seem to remember that these digital amps dont need D to A conversion of the signal before it reaches the amps.
Sony's S-master amps are digital (again if i am not mistaken) and so were some of Panasonic's AV receiver amps such as the one Poultrygeist mentionned.

[Poultrygeist]

My Panasonic SA-XR55 AV receiver is class D and has the TI chip ( digital amplification ). The major difference with amplifiers of other types ( A, B, AB, etc ) is that class D is digital while the others are analog. My class D is skinny compared to the great majority of AV receivers and light as a feather yet it makes gobs of power. I also have a JVC RX-D20 class D AV receiver and guess what they don't make these anymore either. These two fly weight receivers are nothing like the gargantuan AV receivers that are available today yet that provide equal or better performance IMO and don't require a fan as they run so cool. You can bi-amp with the Panny in two channel which is not that common with other AV receivers.

So I'll put this question another way. What became of the excellent but low priced class D AV receivers made by companies such as Panasonic and JVC?

[recoveryone]

Thank you for clearing this up, asking what happen to Class D amps what have made a big difference.

[pixelthis]

My Panasonic SA-XR55 AV receiver is class D and has the TI chip ( digital amplification ). The major difference with amplifiers of other types ( A, B, AB, etc ) is that class D is digital while the others are analog. My class D is skinny compared to the great majority of AV receivers and light as a feather yet it makes gobs of power. I also have a JVC RX-D20 class D AV receiver and guess what they don't make these anymore either. These two fly weight receivers are nothing like the gargantuan AV receivers that are available today yet that provide equal or better performance IMO and don't require a fan as they run so cool. You can bi-amp with the Panny in two channel which is not that common with other AV receivers.

So I'll put this question another way. What became of the excellent but low priced class D AV receivers made by companies such as Panasonic and JVC?

CHECK out any high priced HTIB, OR just about any sub.
Digital amps do their amplication in the digital domain, and some don't like the idea of their analog signal being toyed with. AND THE GREAT UNWASHED DON'T CARE AS LONG AS ITS CHEAP.
Digital amps are a great innovation, but will probably not be used much in audiophile gear.:1:

[Poultrygeist]

pixie,

You probably don't remember the stir the XR55 created when it was introduced. I can assure you it's no HTIB receiver. The reviewer linked below on the AVS forum preferred it with his B&W 802s.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=600778

[pixelthis]

pixie,

You probably don't remember the stir the XR55 created when it was introduced. I can assure you it's no HTIB receiver. The reviewer linked below on the AVS forum preferred it with his B&W 802s.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=600778

Thanks, but I WOULD PREFER SOMETHING A LITTLE more "professional".
A guy that slams Panny straight outta the gate has credibility problems with me from
the git go.:1:

[Poultrygeist]

"Digital amps are a great innovation but, will probably not be used much in audiophile gear"

Check out the Bel Canto S-300i which qualifies as audiophile gear.


http://singaporehifi.blogspot.com/2009/06/bel-canto-s-300i-integrated-amplifier.html

[Hyfi]

Thanks, but I WOULD PREFER SOMETHING A LITTLE more "professional".
A guy that slams Panny straight outta the gate has credibility problems with me from
the git go.:1:


Cheap stuff on sale = really cheap stuff.
I know I have ragged Emotiva for their cheapness , and some questionable
design decisions

You would prefer something a little more professional but actually buy really cheap, questionably designed gear.

Man do you talk out of both sides of your @ss.

[pixelthis]

You would prefer something a little more professional but actually buy really cheap, questionably designed gear.

Man do you talk out of both sides of your @ss.

I BUY WHAT I can afford. My Emotiva was 250 bucks, and a godsend to a poor starving
audfiophile such as my self. Considering my finances I probably shouldn't have bought it,
but don't regret it. You do what you can.:1:

[pixelthis]

"Digital amps are a great innovation but, will probably not be used much in audiophile gear"

Check out the Bel Canto S-300i which qualifies as audiophile gear.


http://singaporehifi.blogspot.com/2009/06/bel-canto-s-300i-integrated-amplifier.html

And you think regressive audiophiles will give up their antique tube gear that was obsolete
in 1945, and go with a amp that (gasp!) turns their precious music into ones and zeros?
Most of them would buy an amp that runs on steam if they could.:1:

[Robert-The-Rambler]

For me it almost sounds too good to be true when they are telling me that a near 100% efficient amp is going to sound the same or similar to a class A/B amp. I was reading this info here.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/3977

I have 2 receivers that sound drastically different and I'm guessing they are using different class amps. The power output ratings are similar. The amp with much higher power consumption is in the Onkyo 606 and the lower power consumption amp is in the Yamaha 665. Now people are noticing that the new lighter amps Yamaha is using are not that great sounding and lack punch. I bought the Yammy for use in a bedroom where electrical current is limited to one line where while using a powerful PC you won't start a fire. If i had bought it for a large room I might have returned it although I got it on clearance for a huge discount.

I just wanted to mention my experience and the only real judge is your ears but I'm not convinced until I hear/see a class D do the job as good as traditionally higher quality gear.

[Hyfi]

I BUY WHAT I can afford. My Emotiva was 250 bucks, and a godsend to a poor starving
audfiophile such as my self. Considering my finances I probably shouldn't have bought it,
but don't regret it. You do what you can.:1:

I understand that totally. I do the same. I would never have the gear I have if I didn't get it cheap.

But, you also could have purchased a used killer amp for the same money.

Again, you didn't read my post about the Rotel properly. First of all, at it's original $800 price, it was in no way cheap gear. I also said that although it sounded pretty good, it did not sound as good as the Hafler, Stratos, or Counterpoint.

I plan to use it to drive family room and outdoor speakers as well as have a tuner and headphone capabilities in my main system.

The only time I waste and can never get back, is when I respond to your posts, but like others said....it's sometimes the most fun that can be had here.

[E-Stat]

And you think regressive audiophiles will give up their antique tube gear that was obsolete
in 1945, and go with a amp that (gasp!) turns their precious music into ones and zeros?

Ever heard of measuring square wave response? It is a good measure of linearity. Here are 10 kHz square waves from a tube amp, an AB solid state amp and a switching amp. Can you tell any difference?

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/tubesw.jpg
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/SSsw.jpg
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/classDsw.jpg


rw

[Feanor]

Ever heard of measuring square wave response? It is a good measure of linearity. Here are 10 kHz square waves from a tube amp, an AB solid state amp and a switching amp. Can you tell any difference?

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/tubesw.jpg
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/SSsw.jpg
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/classDsw.jpg

rw
Of what provinence are these measurements? Which amps? When where they made (the amps and the measurements)?

All switching amps require filtering of high frequences at some point in the spectrum in order to get rid of the modulation frequency; this limits square wave performance but not necessarily the audible sound.

[E-Stat]

Of what provinence are these measurements? Which amps? When where they made (the amps and the measurements)?
1. Stereophile
2. Irrelevant, but easy to find
3. All in past four years. Don't have the foggiest clue where Atkinson makes his tests.


All switching amps require filtering of high frequences at some point in the spectrum in order to get rid of the modulation frequency; this limits square wave performance but not necessarily the audible sound.
Actually, what you are seeing is the residual high frequency noise or fuzz that is not filtered.

rw

[Feanor]

...
1. Stereophile
2. Irrelevant, but easy to find
3. All in past four years. Don't have the foggiest clue where Atkinson makes his tests.

Actually, what you are seeing is the residual high frequency noise or fuzz that is not filtered.

rw
Not irrelevant, but in any case square waves reflect a near infinite frequency spectrum and most edge anomalies are well beyond the audible range. Square wave performance is no longer esteemed to the degree it was a couple of decades ago as an indicator of sound quality. It obviously doesn't do justice to class D amps.

Bottom line is that many class D amps sound great. Many have made Stereophile's 'A' list, (so I guess JA isn't totally against them). I have owned three class D amps. One was merely good, the Panasonic XR25 receiver -- an example of the OP's question re. "digital" receivers. The other were two excellent, Bel Canto eVo2i and Class D Audio SDS-258. The last is my current amp: cost me <$500, a huge value.

[E-Stat]

Not irrelevant, but in any case square waves reflect a near infinite frequency spectrum and most edge anomalies are well beyond the audible range.
"Edge anomalies"? How about gross distortions as with the $6000 Bel Canto? I've heard many Class D designs and find they are not my cup of tea. They sound great at first, but extended listening reveals their limitations. We'll just have to disagree.


The last is my current amp: cost me <$500, a huge value.
They work super as subwoofer amps.

rw

[Feanor]

"Edge anomalies"? How about gross distortions as with the $6000 Bel Canto? I've heard many Class D designs and find they are not my cup of tea. They sound great at first, but extended listening reveals their limitations. We'll just have to disagree.


They work super as subwoofer amps.

rw
We can certainly disagree about class D. There's the matter of taste and, like other technologies, there are good and bad examples. However I have listened to a few class D for extended periods and haven't heard "limitations" I can ascribe to class D. Maybe you coulld spare us a moment to describe the "limitations" you hear?

"Gross distortions" is gross hyperbole, IMO. It's supercilious to dismiss class D as worthy only to power subwoofers.

[E-Stat]

Maybe you coulld spare us a moment to describe the "limitations" you hear?
Flatness of field. Lack of air and natural ease at top.


"Gross distortions" is gross hyperbole...
You may characterize the overtly rounded shape of the square wave however you please.

rw

[Feanor]

Flatness of field. Lack of air and natural ease at top.
...

rw
You have me at a disadvantage, sir. I haven't had any $10k+ amps in my system. I can only say that the Bel Canto and CDA SDS-258 are those most transparent and "airy" amps I've owned, (and the latter, at <$500, is better if anything).

[E-Stat]

I can only say that the Bel Canto and CDA SDS-258 are those most transparent and "airy" amps I've owned, (and the latter, at <$500, is better if anything).
For what it's worth, I find them similar to the "Halcro" sound - somewhat bleached and sterile. Some reviewers, however, seem to go for that character. To each his own.

rw

[Feanor]

For what it's worth, I find them similar to the "Halcro" sound - somewhat bleached and sterile. Some reviewers, however, seem to go for that character. To each his own.

rw
I understand what you're saying in so far as I understand "bleached and sterile". Note that these are pejorative terms that reflect a large amount of personal preference. I suppose the opposite would be having more "harmonic color". Arguably the Bel Canto eVo2i (Tripath) had the these qualities relative to, say, a lot of tube equipment or my own Monarchy SM-70 Pros.

I preferred the Monarchys over the Bel Canto on 70% of recordings -- but the other 30% were the better recordings. FWIW, the Class D Audio SDS-258 I judge to be less "bleached and sterile" than the Bel Canto. Also, though it is a more "spare" sounding amp than the Monarchys, it has truer rendition of the complex harmonics of accoustic instruments -- to me this is more important than pleasant coloration. So now my preference ratio is reversed: I prefer the class D amp on 70% of recordings. :22:

[pixelthis]

I understand that totally. I do the same. I would never have the gear I have if I didn't get it cheap.

But, you also could have purchased a used killer amp for the same money.

Again, you didn't read my post about the Rotel properly. First of all, at it's original $800 price, it was in no way cheap gear. I also said that although it sounded pretty good, it did not sound as good as the Hafler, Stratos, or Counterpoint.

I plan to use it to drive family room and outdoor speakers as well as have a tuner and headphone capabilities in my main system.

The only time I waste and can never get back, is when I respond to your posts, but like others said....it's sometimes the most fun that can be had here.

Why buy used when I GOT A NEW killer amp with a three year warrenty?
A lot went into buying the Emo, for one thing I was rather disbelieving about them.
Also I HAD 300 BUCKS left from my 401k, and it was the Emo or the TRACK.
Also also I DON'T BUY USED, works for you fine, but I PUT UP MY SOLDERING GUN
a long time ago, some like the fuss and heartbreak of buying used stuff from someone you never met, and all of the risks that go along with it.
BASICALLY I was surfing the web (kowabunga) and saw this amp for 250 bucks,
with 125 WPC, a toroidal transformer the size of a cats head, distortion specs
under .1%(lower than talkys I.Q) and great looks and warranty.
Ordered it on the spot (at night yet) and it got therethe next day double boxed
and being handled by a Fed ex guy with surgical gloves.
I love it basically, it runs cool, plays LOUD, and is a delight.
WANT TO BUY someone elses problems, go right ahead.:1:

[Hyfi]

Also also I DON'T BUY USED, works for you fine, but I PUT UP MY SOLDERING GUN
a long time ago, some like the fuss and heartbreak of buying used stuff from someone you never met, and all of the risks that go along with it.

WANT TO BUY someone elses problems, go right ahead.:1:

The Rotel I just got came from people I have known for 25 years. I finally talked them into buying the Rotel after smoking several mass market receivers trying to run a whole house system. I have probably used it as much as them over the years but only ever heard it drive crappy ceiling speakers. I couldn't go wrong for $100.

As far as my main setup goes, here is a link to how I came to own it. Again, I knew the guy for 20 years and the gear came from David Lewis Audio in Philly. I knew it's history and had listened to it all many a night kicking back with some brews.

I had never bought any used gear until then.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=30535&highlight=Counterpoint

[Woochifer]

I think the most telling aspect of this is that Sony has moved its receiver lineup back to Class A/B after migrating the ES models to Class D a few years ago. Word got out very quickly that those receivers did not sound very good, and had horrendous reliability issues. Of course, they'd had issues with their receivers for years even before the design change.

[Feanor]

I think the most telling aspect of this is that Sony has moved its receiver lineup back to Class A/B after migrating the ES models to Class D a few years ago. Word got out very quickly that those receivers did not sound very good, and had horrendous reliability issues. Of course, they'd had issues with their receivers for years even before the design change.
I'm not sure what it tells me. Maybe that Sony's implementation of class D was poor -- maybe due to their inexperience or maybe due to cheaper alternatives of design. I suspect that good class D control chips cost a lot more than the few cents for bipolar or MOSFET transistors.

In any case you shouldn't generalize from the Sony example. I've owned three class D amps and they are sounded good and were (or are) reliable. That said, their sound might not appeal to everyone, but I observe that the nature of that criticism bears a strong resemblance to the perennial tube vs. sold state debate. My current Class D Audio amp is the best sounding amp that I've owned.

[Poultrygeist]

My Panny XR55 has been run daily for the past 5 years and it resides on a cramped unvented shelf under my 46 inch Hitachi. In all these many hours of operation it has never missed a beat. The same holds true for my bedroom JVC digital AV receiver. My brother-in-law has worn out two Denons during the same time period.

I suspect the Class D AV receivers didn't catch on as they are smaller and weigh so little. Many people equate weight and heft with quality.

[pixelthis]

I'm not sure what it tells me. Maybe that Sony's implementation of class D was poor -- maybe due to their inexperience or maybe due to cheaper alternatives of design. I suspect that good class D control chips cost a lot more than the few cents for bipolar or MOSFET transistors.

In any case you shouldn't generalize from the Sony example. I've owned three class D amps and they are sounded good and were (or are) reliable. That said, their sound might not appeal to everyone, but I observe that the nature of that criticism bears a strong resemblance to the perennial tube vs. sold state debate. My current Class D Audio amp is the best sounding amp that I've owned.

I bought a top of the line Sony HT in 94", left channel burnt out after a few years, paid
125 bucks, burnt out again six months later.
Brother bought a Sony a few after that, has always sounded like a cheap transistor
radio like the kind Sony started out with.
Sony makes great video stuff, I will never figure out why some insist on trying to
make them into an audio company.
You don't buy your groceries from the Ford dealer do you? THE ONE ADVANTAGE OF COMPONENTS is that you can get speakers from a dedicated speaker company, amps from an audio company, and monitors from SONY.
Why buy stuff they arent very good at making and probably outsource anyway?
Like, I heard they were using I.C's for amps! GOD.:1:

[pixelthis]

My Panny XR55 has been run daily for the past 5 years and it resides on a cramped unvented shelf under my 46 inch Hitachi. In all these many hours of operation it has never missed a beat. The same holds true for my bedroom JVC digital AV receiver. My brother-in-law has worn out two Denons during the same time period.

I suspect the Class D AV receivers didn't catch on as they are smaller and weigh so little. Many people equate weight and heft with quality.

Panny makes decent stuff that lasts, I have a DVD audio player, eight years old,
699$, two Technics turntables from the eighties, making a HTIB is childs play by
comparison.
THEY WILL DIG THAT THING UP in fifty million years(the aliens that find our planet after we
die off) , and hook it up in their saucer.:1:

[pixelthis]

Ever heard of measuring square wave response? It is a good measure of linearity. Here are 10 kHz square waves from a tube amp, an AB solid state amp and a switching amp. Can you tell any difference?

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/tubesw.jpg
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/SSsw.jpg
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/classDsw.jpg


rw

Whats important is can you hear any difference, and once again you miss the point.
IT DOESNT MATTER what a digital amp does to sound, so called "audiophiles"
don't care, they will be convinced its a bad job, and the same fertile imaginations that
find a difference between two power cords from radio Shack because one is a different color will never accept digital amps. If there is no difference between one and a
straight class a, they will find one, is all I AM SAYING.:1:

[E-Stat]

What's important is: can you hear any difference?
Indeed. In that respect, we most certainly differ in our abilities. You possess a strange fear of testing your sensitivity to harmonic distortion.

rw

[pixelthis]

Indeed. In that respect, we most certainly differ in our abilities. You possess a strange fear of testing your sensitivity to harmonic distortion.

rw

I don't need to test it, for me its not a "feature" like it is with tube buyers.
THAT "warm and fuzzy" tube sound is as obsolete as the gear making it.
YOU seem to have a "fear" of actually believing what test equipment says.
And considering your imagination more important.
I CAN'T AFFORD THAT, can't spend hundreds on , say a power cord from
an industrial supply catalog, just because it has a pretty package.:1:

[E-Stat]

I don't need to test it, for me its not a "feature" like it is with tube buyers.
You will never understand sonic aspects like harmonic accuracy and sound staging.


YOU seem to have a "fear" of actually believing what test equipment says.
On the contrary, I tested my ability to determine the relevance of the data. There is a difference between information and knowledge.


I CAN'T AFFORD THAT, can't spend hundreds on , say a power cord from an industrial supply catalog, just because it has a pretty package.
While I can afford pretty packages, I purchase product for performance gains. You'll not find much in the way of cosmetic enhancements, fancy meters, indicators or backlighting with my gear.

rw

[Woochifer]

I'm not sure what it tells me. Maybe that Sony's implementation of class D was poor -- maybe due to their inexperience or maybe due to cheaper alternatives of design. I suspect that good class D control chips cost a lot more than the few cents for bipolar or MOSFET transistors.

In any case you shouldn't generalize from the Sony example. I've owned three class D amps and they are sounded good and were (or are) reliable. That said, their sound might not appeal to everyone, but I observe that the nature of that criticism bears a strong resemblance to the perennial tube vs. sold state debate. My current Class D Audio amp is the best sounding amp that I've owned.

I'm don't think I'm overgeneralizing. The topic was digital receivers, which a lot of people thought would take over the industry. It made some inroads at the low end, in the subwoofer market, and at the high end. But, in the receiver segment, its use never took off and is now in decline. Sony and Pioneer both made the migration to Class D a few years ago, and Sony has completely pulled out, while Pioneer continues to use Class D only with their higher end models.

[Feanor]

I'm don't think I'm overgeneralizing. The topic was digital receivers, which a lot of people thought would take over the industry. It made some inroads at the low end, in the subwoofer market, and at the high end. But, in the receiver segment, its use never took off and is now in decline. Sony and Pioneer both made the migration to Class D a few years ago, and Sony has completely pulled out, while Pioneer continues to use Class D only with their higher end models.
Interesting that Pioneer continues to use class D on higher end models.