Hey, that Sony sounds good...What, did I just say that out loud???

Options
AsSiMiLaTeD
AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
edited March 2004 in Electronics
I've neve been a fan of Sony stuff, sure I've mentioned this before on this forum somewhere...

So I went tonight to listen to the Denon and Yamaha to do some comparing, and thought "Hmmm, lemme see how bad that Sony over there sounds compared to these"

So I ruled out the Yamaha immediately...it has a very warm sound to it, I just didn't like as much. The Denon had a very bright sound to it...I like alot of highs and therefore liked the Denon alot.

Then came the Sony. I listened to this just to appease the sales guy. I was completely blown away by the sound. Is it the best I've ever heard? Of course not, let's be realistic...

But I will say that it's the best thing I heard tonight. I liked it over the Yamaha, Denon, and Pioneer Elite...

I was truly impressed. Note: I only listened in two channel stereo, but am assuming if that's good then moves will be great.

What I don't know is if it sounded so good becuase I was in shock expecting crap, or whether ir truly is a good piece of gear. I'm going back tomorrow night prepared and am doing some more informed listening.
Post edited by AsSiMiLaTeD on
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • PolkThug
    PolkThug Posts: 7,532
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Pay VERY close attention to all the settings on the receivers.

    Have fun testing,
    PolkThug
    Never Forget
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Originally posted by PolkThug
    Pay VERY close attention to all the settings on the receivers.

    Have fun testing,
    PolkThug

    Could you expound a bit?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • VR3
    VR3 Posts: 28,073
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Alot of receivers in stores are effed up...

    CC receiver round hurr.....

    The bass is set to 3+, and the treble to 10+............
    - Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    I agree with the suggestions on receiver settings. I also agree with you about the higher end Sony stuff. I heard some PSB towers on a Sony ES receiver and I was blown away. Better than my 800i/Onkyo set up I had at the time. Try to demo them again with bass/treble settings flat or bypassed and make sure bass management is not screwed up.

    Maurice
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Is this Sony reciever one of the new ones with a digital amplifier? I am not sure that I would want to play high rez on one of these because the input signal is converted from analog into PWM (pulse width modulation), and then amplified, and then reconverted into an analog signal. I don't think that this is the ultimate way to enjoy high rez audio.
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pixiedave
    pixiedave Posts: 227
    edited March 2004
    Options
    I have the 3000ES, and I like it alot. It's running LSi15's 9's C and FX's From what I have read on the forum, my LSi's are greatly under driven by this amp, but as I have nothing to compare, They sound GOOD. I would love to demo some amps and preamps on the LSi's, but Somone will have to lend me eqip as I am broke from buying thise speakers and the amp.
    Purple.jpg
    You never blow your trip forever! < Daevid Allen
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tour2ma
    Tour2ma Posts: 10,177
    edited March 2004
    Options
    I think the point of the comparison caution is that a dealer can make anything sound better, or worse, than something else by the set up.

    AVR's with EQ capability deep in the set-up scheme are even more tamperable (if that's a word) than good ol' 2 ch's with their knobs right in your face.

    Thing that got my attention above was saying that anything could sound brighter than a Yammie. Maybe they've cooled their sound some, but it would have to be more than a bit...
    More later,
    Tour...
    Vox Copuli
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Old English Proverb

    "Death doesn't come with a Uhaul." - Dennis Gardner
    "It's easy to get lost in price vs performance vs ego vs illusion." - doro
    "There is a certain entertainment value in ripping the occaisonal (sic) buttmunch..." - TroyD
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Cool thanks for the insight guys....I'll pay more attention to the details tonight when I go back...

    As far as them setting up receivers to make them sound one way or another...they weren't even trying to sell me the Sony, were trying to sell the Yamaha really hard...

    I wanted to listen to the RX-V740, but they were having issues, so I had to listen to a stereo eceiver instead, so I'm going back tonight to compare again...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Just be wary of pulse width modulation digital amplifiers!!!
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Originally posted by therockman
    Is this Sony reciever one of the new ones with a digital amplifier? I am not sure that I would want to play high rez on one of these because the input signal is converted from analog into PWM (pulse width modulation), and then amplified, and then reconverted into an analog signal. I don't think that this is the ultimate way to enjoy high rez audio.

    I'm not sure, it was the DA1000ES...and I totally understand what you're saying about the Hi Res audio, but do have a couple quick questions:

    What is a 'digital' amplifier? I've seen those 'digital path' receivers by HK as well that use digital amplifiers, but I don't really get the technology behind them. HK tries to explain it that everything is received by the receiver as digital (which is at least true for movies), and that most receivers normally break it down to analog using a D/A converter, but that these digital path receivers don't have to do that becuase they have digital amps, and don't have to convert it to analog first. But unless the way speakers work has changed in the last 36 hours, they still have to convert it to analog before finally sending to the speakers, right after the signal is amplified, right?

    So what's the difference? Why are they trying so hard to push these new receivers?

    When Hi Res audio is received by the receiver (a regular receiver, not one of those digital path receivers) through it's 5.1 inputs, is it EVER converted to digital, or does it just remain an analog signal throughout?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    In a conventional reciever the analog signal from a high rez audio source is never converted into a digital signal, it is passed through the pre/pro circuitry without any undue modification and then simply amplified. This is the ideal method of playing back high rez audio sources. In the new digital amplified recievers, the signal is first converted into a digital stream (pwm) and then amplified in the digital realm. A digital amplifier utilizes the concept of the binary code representing certain functions, not values. Thus, a "0" is off, a "1" is on. Due to this concept of "on" or "off", the transistors in a digital amplifier are either fully on or fully off, there is no in-between. This scheme is said to provide a higher current on-demand characteristic than an analog amp, as well as running cooler and being more energy efficient. But the problem comes in with the "fully on" or "fully off" feature. The transistors are acting more-or-less like switches, which cuts down on their life expectancy tremendously.

    The other little prblem with a digital amp is that even running a digital input from a DVD player into your reciever provides a PCM signal which must go through a D/D (digital to digital) convertor to turn it into a PWM signal. Thus, no matter what you are amplifying, the signal must undergo a conversion from it's native state (either analog or PCM) into a PWM signal and back into an analog signal. Hence the quality of the final signal (and ultimately the music we hear) is now more dependent on the quality of the D/A convertors than it is on the amplifier itself, since the amplifier is not actually amplifying music it is simply switching current.

    Maybe I am just having a philosophical problem with digital amplification, but for right now I am staying away from it. And besides this whole scenario is academic because the Sony 1000 is not a digital amplifier.
    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    The 1000 reciever is the only ES reciever that is not usng a digital amplifier. The 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 ES models are all running digital amplifier sections.

    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Originally posted by therockman
    Maybe I am just having a philosophical problem with digital amplification, but for right now I am staying away from it. And besides this whole scenario is academic because the Sony 1000 is not a digital amplifier.
    Rocky Bennett

    I would agree as well. Doing some research, something about that whole idea doesn't seem right to me...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fireshoes
    fireshoes Posts: 3,167
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Over at AVS, there has been conflicting information, but it seems that Sony is doing a recall on the x000ES receivers. I guess there's a problem with a hissing sound.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dorokusai
    dorokusai Posts: 25,576
    edited March 2004
    Options
    There is/was a "recall" on alot of early Sony x000ES ES models due to a audible "hiss" at varying volumes. This has apparently been corrected. It took a concerted Sony forum effort and many complaints to even get Sony to acknowledge that fact, but at least it is being addressed. The efforts to get it resolved, are however on the owner, not Sony. I think that's a bit unfair.

    As far as "be wary of PWM digital amplification", that's subjective, and opinion. I don't care for the theory or application either, nor do I intend on owning anything in that format. I prefer a more grass roots design for the power portion of my gear. Sony has their own proprietary way of applying DA to their gear, not neccesarily the actual design theory.

    I have demo'd the new line, including SACD, and found nothing that would steer me away from them. Performance wise, they did everything just fine.
    CTC BBQ Amplifier, Sonic Frontiers Line3 Pre-Amplifier and Wadia 581 SACD player. Speakers? Always changing but for now, Mission Argonauts I picked up for $50 bucks, mint.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Originally posted by dorokusai
    There is/was a "recall" on alot of early Sony x000ES ES models due to a audible "hiss" at varying volumes. This has apparently been corrected. It took a concerted Sony forum effort and many complaints to even get Sony to acknowledge that fact, but at least it is being addressed. The efforts to get it resolved, are however on the owner, not Sony. I think that's a bit unfair.

    As far as "be wary of PWM digital amplification", that's subjective, and opinion. I don't care for the theory or application either, nor do I intend on owning anything in that format. I prefer a more grass roots design for the power portion of my gear. Sony has their own proprietary way of applying DA to their gear, not neccesarily the actual design theory.

    I have demo'd the new line, including SACD, and found nothing that would steer me away from them. Performance wise, they did everything just fine.

    Doro, sent you a PM...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    "Due to this concept of "on" or "off", the transistors in a digital amplifier are either fully on or fully off, there is no in-between."

    If that's the case, wouldn't the output be at max whenever it's turned on? The output of a transistor is determined by the input voltage at the collector (Vc) which can be varied. If it's fully on all the time, you won't be able to change the volume. Or are they using Pulse Amplitude Modulation to control the volume?

    "The transistors are acting more-or-less like switches, which cuts down on their life expectancy tremendously"

    Transistors are pretty much switches anyways. Even in an analog amp, the transistors are constantly switching on/off. The transistor turns off whenever the base voltage (Vb) is under 0.7V in a sin wave. The amount of time the transistor is turned on or off depends on the frequency of the signal.

    Constant swtching will not hurt the transistor at all. There are no moving parts in a transistor. There's only a semi-conductor material sandwitched between two conductive materials. All you need is 0.7V in the base to make them conduct electricity from the collecter and out through the emitter. The only way to damage a transistor is to pump voltage that is over their rating and not providing a heat sink for them.

    Are digital amps using some new type of transistor we're not aware of?

    Maurice
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    oops double post
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    I'm just a security guard, I am not an electronics engineer (and I don't play one on TV), but my understanding of the subject is that the whole thing with "gain" is controlled because of the fact that it is PWM instead of PCM. The musical signal is represented by a stream of "0's" and "1's" of varying length. The longer the pulses the higher the signal amplitude. In other words, the transistors are switched on and off very quickly by the PWM data; the longer the transistors are turned on, the greater the signal amplitude.

    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Oh, now I get it. You had PWM mixed up. It's using both PAM and PWM. PWM determines how long the transistor is turned on for and PAM determines the amplitude of the signal by raising or lowering the 0V reference line. Took me months to figure out how an amp can be 'digital'. I feel much better now:).

    Maurice
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Maurice, I am so glad that this subject is becoming clearer to you because I still don't understand it at all. But anyway, I do understand what you are saying about the life expectancy of a transistor, and how it should not be effected by the "on" "off" feature of a digital amplifier. But like I said earlier, maybe it's just my old age that is makeing me wary of digital amplifiers.

    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Rocky,
    If I can find my power point presentations about PAM and PWM from school, I'll e-mail it to you. Very easy to understand once you see the pics.

    Maurice
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dorokusai
    dorokusai Posts: 25,576
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Organ - If you could make them available to the forum, that would be fantastic. I would like to at least know the basic theory behind it all, even if I don't like it :)
    CTC BBQ Amplifier, Sonic Frontiers Line3 Pre-Amplifier and Wadia 581 SACD player. Speakers? Always changing but for now, Mission Argonauts I picked up for $50 bucks, mint.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    Great, that would be interesting. I am very interested in the technical side of our audio hobby.


    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    He took down the PP presentation from the site. I'll have to check and see if I saved it on disk somewhere at home. Anyways, I'm on my spare right now, don't have class for another hour and I'm very bored. Here are some easy explanation.

    You can see that with PAM, the 0V reference line can be moved up or down to control the volume. In this pic, the voltage is less than 10V because the reference line was slightly raised.
    pam.jpg 10.5K
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    With PWM, the amount of time the transistor is on can also be controlled. So with a combination of PAM and PWM, the volume and the amount of time the transistor is on can be controlled.
    pwm.jpg 10.6K
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    I think that I am beginning to understand. By encodeing a musical signal into a combination of pulse amplitude modulation and pulse width modulation, the time factor becomes the most significant factor in the equation. I guess that Einstein would just love digital amplification. Because you can alter the volume in space (represented by "m") by altering the digital signal in time, (represented by "c")??? Thus e+mc2...Or something like that.

    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • organ
    organ Posts: 4,969
    edited March 2004
    Options
    What you said there is very interesting. I guess the time factor will become as important as D/A converters or sampling rate on digital sources. This could be something we'll be looking for in the future when purchasing digital amps.

    On more thing I've been thinking about is where the digital signal is converted to analog after amplification.

    Maurice
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • therockman
    therockman Posts: 349
    edited March 2004
    Options
    I know what you mean Maurice, it would be interesting to see a schematic diagram, or at the very least a block diagram of components and functions, of a digital amplifier.

    Rocky Bennett
    Rocky Bennett
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,722
    edited March 2004
    Options
    So I went back and did some more listening last night...

    I had the guy leave me alone with everything for about an hour and a half...took me about 15 minutes to get all the DSP modes on the receivers turned off and everything set the same on each unit...

    I listened to several units, but ended up narrowing it down to three to get a good comparison:

    Yamaha RX-V740
    Denon AVR 2803
    Sony STR-DA1000ES - I know the 2000ES would be more comparable here, but it was unavailable for demo

    I used a pair of the big Bostons (don't remember the model) for the demo. They of course didn't carry Polk, and these were the closest thing to my 150s, though still not as big.

    I listened to several sources. In HT, I wasn't really impressed with one over the others, they all did a great job. I felt like the Denon lacked a little in the dynamic stuff - explosions, glass breaking, stuf like that - but I think they have a feature that does that. Overall, all three were great...

    So now for some music:

    Two channel - I listened to Crash by Dave Matthews (I find that to be an all around good test). Keeping a more objective vewi this time, and not halfway in shock, I listened to all three. I have to admit that I liked the Sony the best out of all three. I still thought the Denon was a little harsh, although I do like alot of highs. I can't really pinpoint what it was with the Yammi, I just didn't like it. I thought that the imaging was good, but I really didn't like the soundstage, wasn't very deep. The Sony just flat outperformed the other two. It had a very good soundstage, while still not sacrificing imaging and instrument placement.

    Multi-Channel - They didn't have any SACD or 5.1, but they did have the Diana krall Live in Paris DVD. It sounded beautiful on all three, but I again liked the Sony the best. Obviously the basic sound characteristics of each receiver still applied here, and again I liked the Sony the best...but all thats just user preference as far as I'm concerned.

    So through all the tests, it's not that one receiver was more or less accurate, they just each had their own sound, but none actually 'better' than the other...until........

    I got to 'Under My Skin' on the Diana krall DVD. There is alot of detail on this track, and IMO it's one of the best tracks to audition something on becuase it has a very good range of sound...The Sony separated itself from the others somewhat on this track. i can hear little things on this track with the Sony that I can't hear on others as well...mostly just little stuff like breathing, keys on the clarinets hitting the pads, stuff like that. I can hear it on the others, but not as clearly...

    Anywa, the Sony gets my vote. I saw some article on here about real power ratings where someone took a bumch of receivers and rated their power with all channels driven, don't think Sony did so hot on that list. I don't care though, cause I like 'em. Who knows, maybe I'm going deaf, maybe it's all in my head. Or maybe it's time to admit that Sony really does make a good product...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter