$300 Class-D Panasonic SA BX-500 is a BEAST

RutgersFTW

I had great luck driving RTi6 and RTi8 with a XR57 two years ago, and when this dipped below $300 last week (shipped, from a certain electronics retailer across from City Hall Park) I knew I wanted in.

I had high hopes and, sure enough, it delivers with gusto. Everything is clean, powerful, and nuanced - much like the NAD separate system I use for 2CH, but FOR $300 SHIPPED!!!

That's all for now, but one thing has drawn my attention:

I've noticed increased tweeter hiss with this AVR than the H/K 247 it replaced. I think it's a factor of my apartment's setup - the cable jack supplies both internet, wireless router, and cordless phone as well as the home theater. It's not intrusive, but I would like to easily put the kibosh on it. Aside from segregating the two different uses as much as possible (which I'm doing this afternoon) any easy tips to protect AVR from interference? Could I coat the inside of the cabinet with aluminum foil (j/k)?

heiney9

Get a line conditioner that filters. APC H15 is nice as well as a Panamax or Belkin, etc. A good one probably costs a little less than the receiver you just bought. But they do work in many cases. I had a ground loop issue and it's gone now as well as having a completely black background. Cleaned things up nicely.

H9

RutgersFTW

heiney9 wrote: »

Get a line conditioner that filters. APC H15 is nice as well as a Panamax or Belkin, etc. A good one probably costs a little less than the receiver you just bought. But they do work in many cases. I had a ground loop issue and it's gone now as well as having a completely black background. Cleaned things up nicely.

H9

Thanks for the tip. I'm actually running an APC C9 (I think) 10-outlet power filter. I've tried switching to different "filters" - for digital, high current, etc - but no dice. I'm going to try to do some long overdue cable organization, and if that doesn't fix it - ignore it. The receiver really woke up my system, or rather flattened everything out and added coherence where I used to have boomy bass, recessed mids, and brash treble.

Another cool feature - you can still use your cable box, dvd player, etc while the receivers off. It sends the sound to the tv's speakers, which is great for night time if not fidelity.

cnh

Pardon my French...but your receiver as a class D amp weighs less than 12 pounds...the case is similar to a mid-fi Onkyo..not quite as deep. By those criteria..how is that a 'beast'? The whole purpose of class D amplification is to use less power, to use it more efficiently, lose less in heat and produce a 'lighter' amp?

My Denon weighs almost 3 times that, and those over sized Onkyo's and Pioneer Elites start at about 40 lbs and go up from there. Those are beasts.

In any case....sounds like you like the Panasonic class D. As far as I know Panasonic was the first company to tout D-amplification well before Pioneer. So I'm wondering how the amplification in that unit compares with the new Elites....? I have an older second or 3rd generation Panny D-class....that sounds very very very clean at lower volumes with digital sources. About 80 watt/channel at 8 ohms real wattage X 6...this little cheapo Panny REALLY puts out more wattage than a comparable Yamaha or Onkyo in Bench tests.....

In any case...would like to hear a bit more about that newer unit...?

cnh

VR3

cnh wrote: »

Pardon my French...but your receiver as a class D amp weighs less than 12 pounds...the case is similar to a mid-fi Onkyo..not quite as deep. By those criteria..how is that a 'beast'? The whole purpose of class D amplification is to use less power, to use it more efficiently, lose less in heat and produce a 'lighter' amp?

My Denon weighs almost 3 times that, and those over sized Onkyo's and Pioneer Elites start at about 40 lbs and go up from there. Those are beasts.

Shhhhhhh....



I doubt he meant weight or size. Probally just power differences...

Jeeez.

RutgersFTW

It is a beast inasmuch as it puts out crazy clean power... moderately more than the 55/57 and 70 models of yore, but wrapped in a modern HDMI-switching chassis. I understand the virtues of D amps and have long been a fan.

The ICE amps in the Pioneer 05 and 07 use very similar TI chips AFAIK but are of slightly higher quality in addition to having a stiffer chassis, better decoding, etc. That said, the Elites don't cost 3 bills yet.

To compare to the 57 -

Build quality - new model is better. Everything is burnished, all the knobs have smooth motion, the binding posts have been upgraded... remote still sucks, though.

Sound - new model is better. Slightly more powerful plus TrueHD and all that (potentially) better crap.

UI/Features - still atrocious. No GUI, non-intuitive menu trees. At least the manual has a smiling happy next to every page you're inclined to pull your hair out while reading. Comes with a set-up mic but it's a very basic routine, no room EQ AFAICT. Three HDMI inputs isn't too generous but it's generally enough.

Overall - a worthy successor. Not worth the $799 it cost 6 months ago, but again, for the price they're a great deal for anyone interested in the joys of a D amp. It's fast and makes my fronts stage better than they ever have. Sounds like claps and cymbal bell hits sound perfect in a way I haven't heard from a budget mass-market AVR. It's kind of the best damn thing in the price range, period, cNet and other Philistines be damned.

cnh

Point taken Vr...

Maybe you're right. The X57 was rated 100W/at 6ohms, his current Panny 130 at 6ohms.

Just got back from the Doc's office, missed some work because of it...cranky, I guess....giving myself a time out....

cnh

Sherardp

Those Mark Levinson's are just straight up bad ****$. Nice review Rutgers

RutgersFTW

Thanks, SherardP. I shifted all the power connections four feet away from the receiver, elevated the Xbox 360 power brick, and moved my wireless router further away. The noise floor is much more reasonable now. I've NEVER had that much finicky behavior from a budget AVR. My NAD C272 is always touchy to power too - and that thing is all toroid, all the time. The moral? This receiver is either extremely cheaply made or revealing of problems in the signal chain like the finest gear. You decide.

Danny Tse

Any update on the Panny BX500?

And

I am very interested in this thread...for several reasons--and this is my first post.

I own a couple of SD-SG11 Sharp 1bit digital amp/receiver/CD/minidisc combo units...and once again I was reminded last week that these units (which sound very sweet) are very sensitive to the quality of the RCA cables that are used to connect them to other gear...cheap cables lead to a buzzing; using more expensive cables when connecting to other gear quiets the buzz. I also noticed (in the past) that the buzzing issue was worst when the coax cable from cable TV was part of the connection.

I too am very interested in the Panny BX500; in fact it would replace one of my Sharps and work in tandem with a new Viera LCD. Presumably the Panny BX500 and the Panny Viera TV would play nice together.

I'm hoping Rutgers will post again about his BX500 impressions and the noisy interference he observed and later fixed (?).

Finally, I've long been interested in Polk speakers. Check my sig for our gear here at our home...feel free to make suggestions as to which Polks you'all might think I would enjoy.

Thanks.

cnh

Welcome to Club Polk!

Among many items, I have an old Panny SA-XR47 (second generation class D- for Panasonic--I think). This receiver remained pretty similar in the next incarnations except for the fact that it had the smallest profile....less than 3 inches high! 100 X 6 at 80 watts into 8ohms (real power--in bench tests.

I still can't hear the 'so-called' quantization 'errors' these earlier class Ds are 'supposed' to be riddled with before the ICE incarnations? They sound pretty 'sweet' on anything Digital...weakness is with analog sources, mostly. And even there they're not bad. For about 300 they're pretty surprising. Perhaps not quite as good as the ICE Elites...but probably because the Elites are better construction and have BETTER DACs--take the price away...and let's see Pioneer produce a 300 dollar unit as good as these?

The Pannys caused a torrent of 'debate' when they first appeared and they were beaten down by people who poohpoohed class D amplification. Claiming the high end was problematic...but frankly my Panny sounds less harsh than my Onkyo on highs.

I've NEVER had any of the problems described for the new unit with this older guy. It is not finicky with regards to cables or anything else? Moderate priced cables work fine. The unit has been running for years in a secondary system--flawlessly. It's only slightly bigger than a cheap DVD player and weighs less than 10 pounds. Uses 135 watts!

I'd get rid of it if it didn't still sound pretty 'good'.

Back to Rutgers...

cnh

And

Thanks for the update.

...signature now updated.

And

cnh: do you have your Panny XR47 part of a system that is connected to ordinary coax cable TV? As I said in a previous post the high frequency buzzing from my Sharp digital amps was problematic and it was worst when they were connected to (thru VCRs and or TV) cable TV.

Actually the low profile that your XR47 has would be very attractive to me right now...

cnh

Sounds like you could use a set of RTI-As with that if you can afford it. Two A9s, CSi6, and your choice of Rti surrounds. Is the Sony your main receiver...? Might want to upgrade that? Some nice stuff...I use the PS3 as well.

cnh

cnh

And wrote: »

cnh: do you have your Panny XR45 (sorry I got the number wrong above it's not 47) part of a system that is connected to ordinary coax cable TV? As I said in a previous post the high frequency buzzing from my Sharp digital amps was problematic and it was worst when they were connected to (thru VCRs and or TV) cable TV.

Actually the low profile that your XR47 has would be very attractive to me right now...

The Panny is connected via Toslink...no problems. Coax to DVD player and toslink to a Sony CDP. Makes the 150 dollar Sony sound like a 500 dollar unit. Don't know exactly why...

SA-XR 45 (not 47) my mistake.

Old unit no HDMIs, downside there.

cnh

And

The Sony is the main AV receiver...yes. And you have correctly guessed that we could use an upgrade. The trouble is...the darn thing works (no HDMI and all). I too use the PS3 and toslink for surround...but the PS3 is connected directly to our front projector via HDMI (for the video only).

It is part of the Dell XPS 420 cablecard/Epson front projector system...and my family actually for the most part knows how to use it...so I am reluctant to change it out.

But it could sort of go upstairs with the Panny LCD (which currently is driven by the Sharp digital amp/receiver)...but the Panny 500 would play nice with the Panny LCD and solve a remote problem (sort of) since the Viera HDMIs are supposed to talk nice with each other.

I need to do research on the Polks speakers...and need to add to my siggie as well: two real nice mid-sized AVID 80As (with two replacement woofers) are connected to the Marantz 2240B; talk about a nice small music system!

renowilliams

I don't have HDMI with my reciever cnh and it doesn't bother me in the least. Don't really see the downside.


Tim

And

I agree with the notion that HDMI is not essential with some gear...but with other set-ups it simplifies things.

RutgersFTW

Woah! Sorry I didn't check back sooner.

Update: May 27, 2009:

This receiver has found its way into my heart. It combines excellent fidelity with excellent value. I've had zero problems since the hiss disappeared. If you're looking for something at or near this price and are intrigued by Class D it's just about the only game in town.

Let's see... watched Benjamin Button today. The soundtrack's dynamic sweeps during the tugboat war scene or the backwards clock at the beginning sounded effortless through my reasonably efficient Infinity Beta setup, while dialog remained clear and focused regardless.

Listening to Pandora over my Samsung BD player is kind of a win/lose situation; love the selection, but the loss in fidelity between a CD to a 128kbps MP3 stream is very apparent through this system. Still, the soundstage is very wide, pretty deep, and above all else the soundfield is natural and free of fatigue.

This receiver is full of win, and for the price I prefer it over a C325BEE or similar solution for a 2CH rig.

Danny Tse

RutgersFTW wrote: »

This receiver is full of win, and for the price I prefer it over a C325BEE or similar solution for a 2CH rig.

That's quite an endorsement