Basic question for a starter audio system

[Rock789]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Phase-Technology...QQcmdZViewItem

a little cheaper than the focals...

[digital]

.

1. Should I decide on the receiver and then pick a suitable speaker or the other way

2. Do you have any recommendations for any particular brand

Answers:

1) Decide on any modern, well-built receiver, including any of the 'big names' such as Pioneer, JVC, Onkyo etc. first. All modern receivers have decent enough electronics within them, you'll not 'hear' a difference in the amplification stages (despite what forum-folk say, the truth is that no one has - ever - passed an unsighted audition showing that they could detect sound differences between amplification stage as long as the amps were not driven to clipping). Your decision on receiver will come down to features and aesthetics. My two cents worth: buy a used, one year old Pioneer Elite receiver.

2) There are (many) excellent loudspeakers on the market - recommendations come down to personal preferences - so you're bound to hear a hundred and one recommendations... My biased version: buy a used set of Paradigm Acoustics Reference Studio Series bookshelf monitors.

I suggest buying used because this damned hobby features some of the most amazing hardware depreciation on earth... I don't know what country you are in, but a great buy / sell site (with, unfortunately - a very 'cable-hocus-pocus' discussion forum), to check out might be the Canadian Canuck Audio Mart. It has a huge selection of kit at attractive prices, especially to you if you are in the States...

www.canuckaudiomart.com

Good luck - rock on!

Andrew D.

cdnav.com



.

[bobsticks]

...I'm not saying one needs to spend $5K...simply that, while it may be a perfectly satisfactory product, a $499.95 HTIB and the high-priced spread won't be in the same league on any number of levels; to even suggest it seems...a...er...overly optimistic...

My lo-ball suggestion would be an Onkyo MC35TECH mini-system and a Polk 10" powered sub...for the money <$500USD, IMHO it's a pretty neat set-up...is it going to rival a $5000 2ch stereo? For the most part, I am of the opinion it will do a very good job, within its' limtations...It won't shake the room and it won't make it sound like E. Power Biggs is doin' a Bach two-step on the floor pedals but, in the right room, with the right program material and at reasonable volume levels it will do a credible job.

jimHJJ(...just some clarification...)

..."overly optimistic", how adroit and I'm sure you knew I was just messing about.

barnabasvictor, I am not familiar with the particular unit of which RL speaks but can attest to Onkyo's bang-for-the-buck value. I started off with one of their mini-systems before this silliness we call a hobby took full hold--now I eat Ramen noodles and give plasma with jrhymeammo on the weekends.

Worth checking out, no doubt.

[Mr Peabody]

I disagree with Digital's post, as he stated some one might, but don't take my word for it, go to a store that carries Onkyo and select a brand like JVC or Pioneer, try to use same source and speakers, if you can't tell a difference, so be it, but you should easily be able to tell that Onkyo has more slam and control. It's because, there is, a difference in amp sections. To be able to tell better take a small Onkyo and compare it to a larger rated other brand, then scratch your head and wonder why the Onkyo still sounds stronger. I think you stated in an earlier post you heard a difference between Yamaha and HK. I have no idea why anyone with any experience with audio would still try to say there is no sound difference between gear. The difference may be subtle between certain brands but lumping JVC in with Onkyo is a big mistake, the difference should hopefully be apparent to anyone with close to normal hearing.

[Rock789]

amps will perform differently at different frequencies...
a good amp performs near equally at all audible frequencies...
many amps I have seen will perform +or- 3db from 40hz - 18 khz... however there are many amps that don't even meat this...

I do not claim to know the specs of the receivers digital was comparing, but even if they do perform within decent specs, I highly doubt they perform equally...

[digital]

Guys,

This is on the brink of turning into a diversion from the O.P.'s original question. Please refer to this site for my own as well as other's experiences on the topic we have inadvertently created.

http://cdnav.com/cdnav/viewforum.php...e9267852139384

O.P: Sorry bout’ that...

I stand by my comments that you should: not be concerned about the amplification stage, worry about looks and features and should blow the most cash on speakers, room treatments and music!

Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com

[barnabasvictor@yahoo.com]

Today was at the only Audio store that carries Paradigm. He had B&W and Definitive. I barely made it to the store as he was closing. I asked him to demo me just a few speakers with the basic Yamaha. I feeling more inclined to the Yamaha (not decided on that though). Do you want to know how I felt about the Paradigm... Awesome is the word. It seems the store is stopping B&W and going to carry Klipsch. He asked me to come sometime next week when he will have the Klipsch on display. I also heard they are getting rid of the B&W for half price. Need to take a closer look at that too. But as of now, I am terribly impressed with the Paradigms and also the Yammy receiver seems to draw me. But I have not done a thorough audition of all the brands in the stores in town. Will be doing that shortly.

[emorphien]

I'm no big fan of Paradigm or B&W but if he really is selling off B&W at half price, that's a deal worth checking out. Definitely audition them!

[Mr Peabody]

I'm not a big B&W fan but I'd have to wonder about some one who would drop the line for Klipsch. Of course, dealers are in business to make money not to care about sound quality. B&W at a discount would be a real option. I said I'm not a fan but I'd use B&W over most any mass-market brand. In my opinion B&W's entry level stuff is pretty good compared to other brands that price but there are many other brands I prefer as you get into the higher dollar models.

[barnabasvictor@yahoo.com]

well... BB had Klipsch, Bose, JBL, Sony, Yamaha and the like and among the lot Klipsch definitely sounded more rounded and worthy.

[emorphien]

I'll agree I've never heard of anyone dropping B&W for a "lesser" brand like I suppose Klipsch is, but I do know of a shop dropping B&W in favor of carrying more Focal. The Klipsch is an interesting move.

[GMichael]

Average Joe brand recognition.

[StevenSurprenant]

Okay, maybe not the cheapest, but in my opinion if you're looking for a system that plays music very well and is also good for surround sound then consider any of the Panasonic digital receivers and Ascend Acoustic speakers.

Many people with higher end equipment have sold their good stuff and gone to the Panasonic SA-XR receivers, myself included.

I was running with Levinson gear (very expensive) and switched to a $250 Panasonic SA-XR25 receiver and never looked back.

The sound I am getting through my system rivals that of some of the very best systems I've heard at any price. In fact, I used to visit audio stores all the time looking for that holy grail of sound, but not any more. That's amazing for receivers that range in price from $200 to $500. I am using a home brew Newform speaker system with the Panny and as I tweak the speakers, the panny just keeps sounding better and better.

Reviews:
http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/panas...2_2718crx.aspx

Keep in mind that some people have reviewed these receivers and hated them. I'm not sure why, but I've heard that when used with a Panasonic DVD player they are very good. Some people have remarked that when they used a different brand DVD player the sound was less than spectacular. My receiver and DVD player are both Panasonic and together, they are pure magic. By the way, I am using a glass optical cable between the Receiver and the DVD player. "The only way to go!"


I've also auditioned the Ascend Acoustic CBM 170s at home and they were phenomenal. They are only $348 per pair. Since then they have improved their model line with the CMT 340s. A friend of mine has both the 170s and the 340s and he says that the 340s are way better than the 170s. The 340s go for $568 a pair.

From the Ascend Acoustics site...

"I went slackjawed…I was struck immediately by the 340s articulate sound, with a detailed, airy presentation I’ve only thought possible with much more expensive speakers." -Clarke Robinson, Affordable Audio

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/

Reviews:

http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/ascen...2_1594CRX.ASPX

By the way, they have a 30 day return policy.

If your goal is to get clarity and soundstaging then this is the way to go, for the money.

I am not the final word here. There are many great systems available, but I've been at this for a very long time and for the money and my tastes, this is a no brainer.

****
As other people have said and to answer your question, get your speakers first.

[Mr Peabody]

Okay, maybe not the cheapest, but in my opinion if you're looking for a system that plays music very well and is also good for surround sound then consider any of the Panasonic digital receivers and Ascend Acoustic speakers.

Many people with higher end equipment have sold their good stuff and gone to the Panasonic SA-XR receivers, myself included.

I was running with Levinson gear (very expensive) and switched to a $250 Panasonic SA-XR25 receiver and never looked back.

The sound I am getting through my system rivals that of some of the very best systems I've heard at any price. In fact, I used to visit audio stores all the time looking for that holy grail of sound, but not any more. That's amazing for receivers that range in price from $200 to $500. I am using a home brew Newform speaker system with the Panny and as I tweak the speakers, the panny just keeps sounding better and better.

Reviews:
http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/panas...2_2718crx.aspx

Keep in mind that some people have reviewed these receivers and hated them. I'm not sure why, but I've heard that when used with a Panasonic DVD player they are very good. Some people have remarked that when they used a different brand DVD player the sound was less than spectacular. My receiver and DVD player are both Panasonic and together, they are pure magic. By the way, I am using a glass optical cable between the Receiver and the DVD player. "The only way to go!"


I've also auditioned the Ascend Acoustic CBM 170s at home and they were phenomenal. They are only $348 per pair. Since then they have improved their model line with the CMT 340s. A friend of mine has both the 170s and the 340s and he says that the 340s are way better than the 170s. The 340s go for $568 a pair.

From the Ascend Acoustics site...

"I went slackjawed…I was struck immediately by the 340s articulate sound, with a detailed, airy presentation I’ve only thought possible with much more expensive speakers." -Clarke Robinson, Affordable Audio

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/

Reviews:

http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/ascen...2_1594CRX.ASPX

By the way, they have a 30 day return policy.

If your goal is to get clarity and soundstaging then this is the way to go, for the money.

I am not the final word here. There are many great systems available, but I've been at this for a very long time and for the money and my tastes, this is a no brainer.

****
As other people have said and to answer your question, get your speakers first.

This would have been a credible suggestion if it wasn't for the absurd statement made about back stepping from Levinson to Panasonic. The people that would do that would be in financial difficulty or insane, or maybe suffered recent hearing damage.

And, no matter the DVD player, if it is connected digitally there should be little to no noticeable difference in performance of sound. The same receiver would be doing the decoding. If this has been a problem for the Panasonic receivers, it is a technical flaw they need to address. But, what's a little decoding problem in a receiver able to defeat the highest end of gear for only $250.00.

[StevenSurprenant]

We are talking about two different technologies, analog versus digital.

There have been people who traded in much more expensive gear than mine. Why is that?

There are also people who have tried these receivers and were extremely impressed. They still thought their "good" analog stuff better, but not by leaps and bounds.

Apparently you believe that cost relates to performance. That's the pit that many people searching for the best fall into, myself included. At least that was the case...

Let me ask you this... Have you ever tried one of the digital amps? If not, how can you even have an opinion? On what do you base your comments: "The people that would do that would be in financial difficulty or insane, or maybe suffered recent hearing damage." ?

Please explain yourself.

As for your comment: "And, no matter the DVD player, if it is connected digitally there should be little to no noticeable difference in performance of sound."

In a perfect world that would be true, but this isn't a perfect world. I derive from your assertions that a $60 player used as a transport would sound the same as a $10,000 transport, as long as a digital connection is used to the same DAC. Did I understand you correctly? Would you trade your EAD transport for the $60 model and expect it to sound the same through your Audio Note?

As I said in my post, I did not experience using other brand DVD players. This was reported by other people who used different players.

Like I said in the begining, this receiver is totally digital from input to output. It never enters into the realm of analog, not even the output to the speakers. What can be better than that? Ones and zeros all the way with no degradation of data. Analog cannot even begin to make that claim.

This does not mean that it is always better than analog, but I would say that it takes some great analog gear to compete with it.

So, with that out of the way, how many Panasonic SA-XR receivers have you auditioned?

I must say that your equipment list is a list of who's who in the upper lineage of audio. Great stuff!

Do you think barnabasvictor can afford what you have?

The point is that I've been down this road for a very long time and have heard much better than what I have, but who has that kind of money? Certainly not Victor. I'm certain you would upgrade your gear too in a heatbeat if you had the money to buy better gear.

I was trying to help Victor get the best bang for his buck. Isn't that the purpose here?

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=StevenSurprenant]We are talking about two different technologies, analog versus digital.

There have been people who traded in much more expensive gear than mine. Why is that?

> I believe I gave my answer to this.

There are also people who have tried these receivers and were extremely impressed. They still thought their "good" analog stuff better, but not by leaps and bounds.

Apparently you believe that cost relates to performance. That's the pit that many people searching for the best fall into, myself included. At least that was the case...

> I actually prefer to use my ears to evaluate equipment. I have found in general that cost does equate to performance. There are definitely exceptions but it takes money to pay for better parts and build quality. This is why a $60.00 DVD player won't perform like one costing $10k.

Let me ask you this... Have you ever tried one of the digital amps? If not, how can you even have an opinion? On what do you base your comments: "The people that would do that would be in financial difficulty or insane, or maybe suffered recent hearing damage." ?

Please explain yourself.

> I've heard Levinson gear. I have also heard a few Krell home theater set ups. I've heard many HT receivers, including a couple Panasonics and trust me when I say there is a huge difference. My Primare isn't a slouch either. I certainly am not trading for a Panasonic receiver. Thanks anyway.

As for your comment: "And, no matter the DVD player, if it is connected digitally there should be little to no noticeable difference in performance of sound."

In a perfect world that would be true, but this isn't a perfect world. I derive from your assertions that a $60 player used as a transport would sound the same as a $10,000 transport, as long as a digital connection is used to the same DAC. Did I understand you correctly? Would you trade your EAD transport for the $60 model and expect it to sound the same through your Audio Note?

I would not. I have certainly found some difference in transports for CD playback. I believe the differences between DVD outputs would be smaller. Even if not, the difference in sound of transports would pale in comparison to the difference in analog outs of the players.

As I said in my post, I did not experience using other brand DVD players. This was reported by other people who used different players.

Like I said in the begining, this receiver is totally digital from input to output. It never enters into the realm of analog, not even the output to the speakers. What can be better than that? Ones and zeros all the way with no degradation of data. Analog cannot even begin to make that claim.

Really? I wonder how the digital out of your receiver runs the analog device you call a speaker. You should check, I really think that some where along the line your receiver converts the signal to analog. Not too many speakers can be driven by 1's and 0's.

This does not mean that it is always better than analog, but I would say that it takes some great analog gear to compete with it.

So, with that out of the way, how many Panasonic SA-XR receivers have you auditioned?

I must say that your equipment list is a list of who's who in the upper lineage of audio. Great stuff!

Do you think barnabasvictor can afford what you have?

The point is that I've been down this road for a very long time and have heard much better than what I have, but who has that kind of money? Certainly not Victor. I'm certain you would upgrade your gear too in a heatbeat if you had the money to buy better gear.

I was trying to help Victor get the best bang for his buck. Isn't that the purpose here?

> I understand what you were doing and the Panasonic would be a good option. But let's not get carried away by saying people are dumping their high end systems to grab up Panasonic receivers.

[StevenSurprenant]

Let's not get too carried away with this, but...

You:
I actually prefer to use my ears to evaluate equipment. I have found in general that cost does equate to performance.

Me:
Listening is the only way to evaluate, so we are in agreement there. In the analog world, I would also agree that in the majority of cases I am again in agreement.

You:
There are definitely exceptions but it takes money to pay for better parts and build quality. This is why a $60.00 DVD player won't perform like one costing $10k.

Me: Quoting you...
"And, no matter the DVD player, if it is connected digitally there should be little to no noticeable difference in performance of sound."

You:
Really? I wonder how the digital out of your receiver runs the analog device you call a speaker. You should check, I really think that some where along the line your receiver converts the signal to analog. Not too many speakers can be driven by 1's and 0's.

Me:
The XR45 is instead a "true" digital amplifier in that it converts a PCM (digital) signal directly into a PWM signal.

You:
I understand what you were doing and the Panasonic would be a good option. But let's not get carried away by saying people are dumping their high end systems to grab up Panasonic receivers.

Me: Excerpts from AudioCircle...

I replaced 8k worth of pre/pro and multichannel amp whith the 45

it is in no way out of place powering my outstanding speaker collection.

There have been numerous incidents where I thought someone was calling me from upstairs so powerful are the holographics - I scare the hell out of everyone when I mute it and yell back "whaaat"???? Even on disappointing recordings, the 25 will pick out everything that IS there

I just got back from listening to Cantate Domino on the 801's and the Little Sa XR 45.
It gave me goosebumps.


the little Panasonic is creating pandemonium in the high end community.
I am enjoying the heck out of mine, thats for sure, and it just keeps getting better.

The dynamics and detail were astonishing. I have played this disc quite a few times but it never sounded even close to what we were hearing. I have never heard high-rez digital sound like this.

When it came to bass, slam, dynamics, and clarity, Mike's poor Outlaw amp didn't stand a chance, it really had it's lunch handed to it.

it was obvious that the Pany's dynamics really were world class
__________________________________________________ _______________

Just bought a Panasonic SA-XR-50 amp the other day and had to post a message. I'm a bit of an audio snob, avoiding the mass market names like the plague. Presently have about $20K audio gear kicking around, good pedigree. Caught the buzz about these digital amps and on an impulse ordered one online. The best available at the time was the SA-XR50 (the 45 is discontinued and the 70 isn't out yet). It's quite an unassuming thing, weighing in at 9 lbs. And it's got 6X100W channels inside. So, it got creamed by the high priced gear, and all was as expected, right?
WRONG!!! The stupid Panasonic digital receiver smoked all expectations! It's a week so far, and the little digital amp has me reassessing everything I thought I knew about audio. Honestly, I remember playing a well worn CD, and wondering whether I had somehow gotten a "remix", because there was just a whole lot more going on. Lots more instruments, the musicians were lots more inspired, and where did those background singers come from?

Anyway, I took the requisite several days to calm down, and now I can write this message. The stupid (sorry) Panasonic receiver made mincemeat of most audio gear I could name. The thing is it's so transparent. Average systems will sound great, but with speakers out of its price range (Audio Physic Virgo, Living Voice Avatar) you can start to appreciate what's been accomplished here. Astonishing!!
__________________________________________________ _______________

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

As for my system...

I am using a Panasonic XR25 biamping through a Behringer DCX Digital crossover into a homebrew Newform speakers using R45 tweeters and SEAS mid woofers.

They sound like my old Quad ESL's but with greater transparency, soundstaging, and dynamics. I loved my Quads, but the only area that the Quads are better in is that they are a little smoother in the voices. Very few speakers do voices better than Quads.

I don't even want to walk into another high end store again and that used to be what I did for fun. That's how good the sound is. The neat part is that this system only cost me a fraction of what my old high end system did. I'm glad to be out of the game.


Thanks for the discussion...Enjoy your system, It looks like it would be wonderful too.

Peace

Mr. Peabody,

I apologize for picking your post apart. I hate it when someone does that to me. I just felt I had to defend myself. More often than not, there is no right or wrong, only differences of opinions.

You brought up some good questions which deserved answers. I don't have all the answers. Most of the time I am floundering just trying to make sense of all of this.

Have a great day!

Steve

[Rock789]

Like I said in the begining, this receiver is totally digital from input to output. It never enters into the realm of analog, not even the output to the speakers. What can be better than that? Ones and zeros all the way with no degradation of data. Analog cannot even begin to make that claim.

FYI

a "Digital Amp" simply refers to a "high power DAC"...

more info if you are not sure what this means:

A typical receiver now days will do all processing in the digital domain (if it has an analog input, this analog signal will be converted to a digital signal before processing),
Once any processing is completed, the receiver will then convert the digital signal back to an analog signal (this is a low voltage signal)...
Once the analog signal is created, it then is sent to an amplifier stage, which simply does what it sounds like, amplifies the signal... (higher voltage, and higher current rating)...

a "Digital Amp" receiver also does all processing in the digital domain, and again converts any analog input signals to digital signals before processing...
Once the processing is performed, the digital signal is then converted to an analog signal using a high power digital to analog converter...
This high power digital to analog converter is able to provide enough voltage and current capability to drive the speakers directly, without requiring an extra amplifier stage within the receiver...

The pluses to this depend on the specific DAC, however have the capability to have less noise and less IIR heat loss.

I have read many good things about the panasonic's, and would like to try one some day...
if I try one and I feel it sounds better than my anthem gear, this place will be one of the 1st to know, however I am not holding my breath on that one...
if it sounds better than my denon, I would again post on here, however this would not surprise me in one bit from all the info I have read...

word of advice... salespeople will say things to make joe public buy their equipment...
if it doesn't make sence (e.g. digital signal output to the speakers ), perhaps it may be better to ignore what this salesperson is saying...

[Feanor]

FYI
...
a "Digital Amp" receiver also does all processing in the digital domain, and again converts any analog input signals to digital signals before processing...
Once the processing is performed, the digital signal is then converted to an analog signal using a high power digital to analog converter...
This high power digital to analog converter is able to provide enough voltage and current capability to drive the speakers directly, without requiring an extra amplifier stage within the receiver...

The pluses to this depend on the specific DAC, however have the capability to have less noise and less IIR heat loss.

...

To describe the "digital amp" as a high powered DAC is a deceptive oversimplification. In fact the term "digital" as applied to the amplification is, arguably, incorrect; these amps are more properly called "switching" amps. In any case the digital approach is completely different from the digital encoding of the sound, whether the latter be PCM (pulse code modulation) or DSD (direct stream digital); the technique used for amplification is PWM (pulse width modulation).

Using PWM (or proprietary variants such as Tripath or ICEpower) a sequence of very high frequency 'pulses' is used to switch on and off the output transistors of the amp, (hence the term "switching"). This very high frequency digital signal is digitally generated, but is completely separate and different from the PCM or DSD signal assuming a digital source.

Note that the transistors, while switched on, always work a full power. The way it works is that for a low sound frequency the transistor is left on for more 'pulses' of the PWM control signal than for a high sound frequency. Because the transistor is off much of the time, switching amps are much more efficient and run cooler that standard amplfiers.

How do you get from a PCM/DSD signal to a PWM signal? Technically I'm not clear whether the the PCM/DSD encoded sound is converted to analog before being converted to PWM. In practice I suspect this is most often the case, although with the Panasonic SA-XR series the converstion from PCM to PWM might happen on a single chip.

I own a Panasonic SA-XR25 receiver and its sound is very good, however it does not have the the resolution and transparency that my Tripath "digital" Bel Canto had, nor is as good sounding as my current, high 'A' biased Monarchy amps. By the way, my XR25 took a very long time to burn in: I would say 400-500 hours, prior to witch the sound was relatively sharp and unpleasant.

[Rock789]

Pulse Width Modulation is performed with a complex controller and IGBT's

I am aware of research into using IGBT's for audio amplifiers, however I was not aware this is what panasonic used... ( I had thought the high power DAC was the similar to a typical DAC, only with high power capability... then again, I haven't ready done much study into a typical DAC design either...)

IGBT's are used in the motor control industry in practically all AC Motor Drives (Variable Frequency Drives, not soft starters)

the problem with IGBT's as Feanor stated, they are a voltage switch....
this means the voltage is either full on or off... no analog voltage control...
the current is controlled by the amount of "on pulses or on time"
this creates a very noisy signal, which for the most part, an industrial ac motor does not care about... however, this noise may cause severe problems with speakers...
one way around this may be an inline reactor or transformer...

if in fact Panasonic does use IGBT's, I am even more interested in these receivers, and defiantly want to check it out...

thanks for the info Feanor

[Feanor]

Pulse Width Modulation is performed with a complex controller and IGBT's

I am aware of research into using IGBT's for audio amplifiers, however I was not aware this is what panasonic used... ( I had thought the high power DAC was the similar to a typical DAC, only with high power capability... then again, I haven't ready done much study into a typical DAC design either...)

IGBT's are used in the motor control industry in practically all AC Motor Drives (Variable Frequency Drives, not soft starters)

the problem with IGBT's as Feanor stated, they are a voltage switch....
this means the voltage is either full on or off... no analog voltage control...
the current is controlled by the amount of "on pulses or on time"
this creates a very noisy signal, which for the most part, an industrial ac motor does not care about... however, this noise may cause severe problems with speakers...
one way around this may be an inline reactor or transformer...

if in fact Panasonic does use IGBT's, I am even more interested in these receivers, and defiantly want to check it out...

thanks for the info Feanor

From my limited knowledge all audio amps of the switching variety use a low pass filter to keep the high frequency noise you speak of from leaving the amp outputs. Sometime this is just a simple passive filter that operates far enough above the audio band to prevent phase shifting that might be audible.

I really don't know the specific technology the Panasonic XRs use: I'm told it's a Texas Instruments chip, but I can vouch for that.

[Mr Peabody]

My LINN amp is Class D, 11 lbs and 125x5. Class D is what Panasonic calls their receivers. PWM to my understanding works as Feanor stated. Panasonic, and I assume others, claim this is a digital output, but it's hard to get used to thinking of a transistor output being digital. I was aware of PWM being used in power supplies but I didn't realize it went to the extent that it does in Class D.

This opens up a whole new way of thinking for me. If analog signals are converted to digital, will there be any difference noticed between better, best, analog equipment through these amps? I wonder if my LINN converts the analog input to digital before becoming PWM? If so, this means the processor converts digital to analog just to be converted back to digital again. Being some what OCD about my signal path, this hurts just thinking about it. My HT sounds very good but I have to wonder about all this converting back and forth. The LINN retailed for about $3k and it is a good amp but for music I do not prefer it over my Krell or CJ amps.

I assumed in a typical receiver that the analog signals were preserved and bypassed the digital domain. I wonder if this is true? If not, I may be wrong in telling people they should notice differences in more expensive CD players using their analog outs into HT receivers. Will the better analog output sound be preserved in a conversion? I haven't done much study on analog to digital conversion up to now but this seems like it may become increasingly important.

Steven your excerps from the magazines is a prime example why I do not read them. Panasonic must have paid pretty good for those. I wonder how many movie soundtracks feature scenes where the actor calls the magazine writers name? At least it shows where you are coming from and we can't shoot the messenger, right. I still find their statements absurd.

I also don't pay much attention to specs but one thing that caught my eye when looking at the Panasonic SA-XR700 is the THD of .9%. Maybe they are just more honest, .9% is a lot higher than what one typically sees in receiver specs.

I know T+A uses PWM in the power supply but I'm not sure if they are Class D. I'll have to check. If they are Class D, T+A is a fine example that it can be done very well for musical reproduction.

[Feanor]

My LINN amp is Class D, 11 lbs and 125x5. Class D is what Panasonic calls their receivers. PWM to my understanding works as Feanor stated. Panasonic, and I assume others, claim this is a digital output, but it's hard to get used to thinking of a transistor output being digital. I was aware of PWM being used in power supplies but I didn't realize it went to the extent that it does in Class D.

This opens up a whole new way of thinking for me. If analog signals are converted to digital, will there be any difference noticed between better, best, analog equipment through these amps? I wonder if my LINN converts the analog input to digital before becoming PWM? If so, this means the processor converts digital to analog just to be converted back to digital again. Being some what OCD about my signal path, this hurts just thinking about it.
...
I assumed in a typical receiver that the analog signals were preserved and bypassed the digital domain. I wonder if this is true? If not, I may be wrong in telling people they should notice differences in more expensive CD players using their analog outs into HT receivers. Will the better analog output sound be preserved in a conversion? I haven't done much study on analog to digital conversion up to now but this seems like it may become increasingly important.

....

Mr. P, I believe it's very unlikely the the Linn converts to PCM before converting to PWM. (That is, assuming the Linn is a power amp only -- I don't know the Linn models very well.) Such a conversion seems point less: it would be easier to go directly from analog to PWM (or whatever PWM variant Linn uses).

Of course, it's different for an AV receiver where DSP is what you want. Many, but not all, AV receivers have a "bypass" mode where an analog signal can be sent directly from input to the output section without DSP, consequently skipping the ADC and DAC stages in most cases. The Panasonic XR25 that I have does NOT have a bypass mode, however, and always converts to PCM. Nevertheless it is a pretty good sounding amp.

[Mr Peabody]

My Linn is just a power amp. I think your answer is probably correct, like you said, there would be no reason to go to PCM and if it did do that I'd think the amp would include digital inputs as well.

[eugene49]

Hello! I am a new member. I just want to know what do I need to consider in choosing an audio system?



______________
Spirit Detective
McIntosh MC252 - Get the MC252 Power Amplifier Catalog by McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.