|
New member Username: RoccoPretoria, Gauteng South Africa Post Number: 2 Registered: Oct-05 | I have been comparing recievers and I am still struggling with my decision. While on this sight I have read quite a few rave report on the panasonic XR55 and XR70. I mainly watch DVD and tv. The onkyo is very impresive so is the Yamaha 1500 but for my purpose would the XR70 not be a better buy? ZiggyZoggy... thanx for your earlier feedback. I am looking at upgrading my projector in the neer future. |
|
Silver Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 162 Registered: Jun-05 | Rocco.. Don't get me wrong, the Optoma you have is a good projector - just be aware that it's the limiting factor in your video resolution. For the receivers, I'd be partial to the Yamaha from that group. I personally do not like the Panasonic digital receivers, but admittedly I have not heard them in a good listening room with good speakers yet, and I've always found the Onkyo's to be underpowered. If you're like me, I like a BIG sound to go with the big screen of my projector, and the recent Onkyo's I've heard don't deliver (no experience with the 703 though). I would also look into the Denon 3805; the 3806 either just came out or is coming out shortly, so you should be able to get a good deal on the older model. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2718 Registered: Mar-05 | certainly not the Onkyo, and if you go Yamaha I'd get the less expensive rx-657 which is $350-400. No need to spend more than that for HT. Better to spend on good speakers and especially a good sub. For power and pure sound quality I'd recommend the Panasonic but the Yamahas do have a much longer feature list---just depends on your priorities. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2067 Registered: Feb-05 | The Panny may have more power but it sure don't sound good, unless you're into nails on a chalkboard. If you don't have an external power amp for the fronts I would look at the HK receivers. You may be able to get a good deal on one online. The HK's are excellent sounding receivers with robust power supplies. The Yamaha's are very neutral but their power supplies are suspect. I have a Yammie with an external amp and it sounds very good for movies and as an XM/FM tuner. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 67 Registered: Oct-05 | You really need to hear that Panny again with some different speakers.I don't like bright sound at all, and can get tired of listening to stuff to too much on the highs. Yet I have no problem at all with my panasonic. It has great detail through the entire freq range, bass, mid's and highs have great clarity. I hear parts of the music on that receiver that I hadn't heard on others. But other than that I would recomend the HK 435, as Art said they have great power supplies. Do real well with dynamics and have a lot of amps to back up the power. Plus the 435 has the Auto room EQ, and 3 component video inputs. that Auto EQ is great, and it has outputs for all channels if you want to use an external amp. Plus you can get them on ebay nearly every day from a great seller, with factory warranty for under 450. or from harmanaudio.com for 500. What projector do you have and what are you looking to upgrade to? also what sort of price range do you have, there are some really nice new projectors just released for great prices. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2725 Registered: Mar-05 | Rocco, Let's just say that Art has very, um, DEMANDING musical tastes (and possibly a strong contrarian nature as well, lol). He is about the only person I've ever come across on any of these audio boards who bought an SVS subwoofer and sent it back in disugust. Now he is the only person who likes to describe the Panny in such comically exaggerated terms. I believe that Art really does believe that he hears what he says he hears, I just wanted to note that his assessment of the Panny is anomalous to say the least. Here are more typical reactions by owners of much more expensive receivers: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...t=591368&page=3 posts #53, 56, and 57 from that link are owners of a Denon 5800, HK7000, HK7200, and Denon 3802. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2069 Registered: Feb-05 | Paul, I heard the PAnny with 3 different brands of speakers and it sounded awful with all of them. Converesly the HK's sounded great with all of the speakers. It was an open and shut case. My first thought with the Panny was...hmm this doesn't sound too bad, just a bit thin. Then came the first vocals and I was horrified. I played with it for quite awhile but nothing helped. When I switched to the HK's it was instant relief. Everything I thought sounded ok on the Panny sounded excellent on the HK and the vocals which were poorly reproduced on the Panny sounded natural and unforced on the HK's. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 68 Registered: Oct-05 | Did you also notice the removal of details and clarity when switching from the Panny to the HK? The HK does sound better on vocals, plus is much warmer. I am having a hard time adjusting totally to the sound of the panasonic. It sounds great when I first start listening to it but after a couple hours my ears feel strange. It's not just the high range clarity, but lows have a great clarity also. Normally if a receiver is too bright I can't listen to it for more than a couple minutes without my ears starting to hurt. I don't know if it's good or bad for my ears, it might just be that I am not used to the details that I am hearing. I don't know looks like I might not be able to keep my XR55 after all. I want the details that I am getting with the XR55, but it would be nice if it was a little smoother. Why can't it just have that clarity, and feel the same as my old receivers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2730 Registered: Mar-05 | Paul, what speakers are you running? I have never had the listening fatigue you describe with my Ascends. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2074 Registered: Feb-05 | "Did you also notice the removal of details and clarity when switching from the Panny to the HK?" In a word "no". The Panny seems to have a lot of detail but those details are so inaccurately reproduced that it renders them moot. Not only are they innacurate but they don't resemble live music. What you are explaining that you hear Paul is similar to what I heard all along. The Panny simply doesn't sound right. Two of the problems with it is that it throws all of the details at you at nearly the same spl. Meaning that you are going to think you hear more detail because they are being thrown at you disproportionate to their original signal. The other problem is that the timbre is way off so you get these "out of whack" details that don't even sound like the original instruments. As I've said before it's an awful piece of audio gear. I was literally shocked at how bad it was when I heard it. |
|
New member Username: RoccoPretoria, Gauteng South Africa Post Number: 3 Registered: Oct-05 | GRIN. Talk about info overload. I have really enjoyed reading all your feedback and bickering. I am going to try the Yamaha 657..... or the XR70.... Will let you know what I think once I have tried them. Paul S I have the optoma H31, it's a great projector but I am a bit of a gadget person and always want more and better. I'd like to get optoma's H79 with the darkchip 3 but it's a little out of my budget at $5900.00, so I'll be patient and wait for technology to improve and prices to drop. I do so enjoy having a J and listing to music. It happens rarely though. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2077 Registered: Feb-05 | Just remember the Yammie is power shy so you may want to try the HK's if you need a good power supply. |
|
Silver Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 163 Registered: Jun-05 | And Paul, if you were saying that I should check out the Panny with different speakers, I really don't need to. I'm quite satisfied with both of my setups. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 69 Registered: Oct-05 | " I'd like to get optoma's H79 with the darkchip 3 but it's a little out of my budget at $5900.00, so I'll be patient and wait for technology to improve and prices to drop. I do so enjoy having a J and listing to music. It happens rarely though." Why not go with the H78DC3, that is there new model and it has darkchip 3. And it's msrp is 3999. I am waiting for something in that quality range to become 2000 or less. "In a word "no". The Panny seems to have a lot of detail but those details are so inaccurately reproduced that it renders them moot. Not only are they innacurate but they don't resemble live music. What you are explaining that you hear Paul is similar to what I heard all along. The Panny simply doesn't sound right. Two of the problems with it is that it throws all of the details at you at nearly the same spl. Meaning that you are going to think you hear more detail because they are being thrown at you disproportionate to their original signal. The other problem is that the timbre is way off so you get these "out of whack" details that don't even sound like the original instruments. As I've said before it's an awful piece of audio gear. I was literally shocked at how bad it was when I heard it." What are you compairing it to when you say the details are out of whack? There are many sounds that with the panny you hear with extra detail, not really exaturated. You hear the sound at the same level as before but hear more things in that sound. It doesn't feel like they smoothed out the sound to make it easy to listen too. It's not just extra exagerated details but more clarity on what you normally hear. I am going to be doing some more testing today. I really wish I could know which receiver is more correct when compaired to the data that is on the CD, or what ever source you are using. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2740 Registered: Mar-05 | Rocco, AB the Panny and the Yammie at home, I doubt you'd prefer the Yammie but this is the only way to be sure. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2082 Registered: Feb-05 | "What are you compairing it to when you say the details are out of whack?" Musical instruments and voices. "There are many sounds that with the panny you hear with extra detail, not really exaturated." Not exaggerated but out of proportion with the original signal (at least as reproduced by all of the other gear I've heard) and very inaccurate by the standard I mentioned above. Rather than AB'ing with inexpensive receivers take your favorite music to a high end store and listen to the expensive gear, then listen to less expensive receivers and see which of the less expensive pieces most reminds you of the high end gear. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2747 Registered: Mar-05 | > Rather than AB'ing with inexpensive receivers take your favorite music to a high end store and listen to the expensive gear, then listen to less expensive receivers hmm, that sounds like you don't have much confidence in the less expensive receivers like the Yammie 657 holding up against the Panny in a direct AB. |
|
Silver Member Username: RsxmanPost Number: 122 Registered: Jul-05 | You would be surprised how your ears make very expensive equipment and mid range equipment sound very close to each other. I think an AB test would be the best way to go, so your ears dont have time to adjust to the sound. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 71 Registered: Oct-05 | Did some more trying today, and listened to it tonight for a long time again. I came to the conclusion that I was listening to it too loud a volume for an extended period of time. I just didn't know it was too loud since it didn't sound any worse that it did at a lower volume. I could listen to it much lower volume that I did last night and everything was still easy to make out. Now I really want an SPL meter to test this stuff out. after using my panny more I am liking it even more. This sound much more realistic and not so compressed like they do with other things I have tried. I really hope to try out my brother Def tech speakers with this soon. As they are some great sounding speakers, plus will give me an idea how much power the panny has. Since they can put out quite a bit of bass given enough power. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2756 Registered: Mar-05 | Yeah, that SPL meter will be one of the best $40 you've ever spent. But you're right, it's very tempting to crank up the volume on the Panny way beyond what you'd normally listen at with an analog receiver simply because the Panny just has zero distortion no matter how loud you turn it up. With analog gear you want to turn it up in order to hear more details but at the same time you are limited by how much distortion pops up at high volumes which drowns out that detail. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2089 Registered: Feb-05 | "With analog gear you want to turn it up in order to hear more details but at the same time you are limited by how much distortion pops up at high volumes which drowns out that detail." Who do you know that turns up their gear to hear more detail? Good Grief. If your refernce is live music you turn it up to get as close to that as you can stand in your home. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2757 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, what makes you think most people have live music as their reference? I'd wager that to be the exception rather than the norm, by a long shot. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2093 Registered: Feb-05 | What a shame! |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 712 Registered: May-05 | Ed - If you (not you personally) have to turn your system up loud to hear details, something is out of wack. Either the amp is under powered for the speakers, the amp and/or speakers are poorly designed, or something needs repair. A system should sound equally detailed at any volume except when the sound is too low to fully hear or when the signal is clipping. While it's most likely impossible for any system to have a completely flat frequency response at every SPL (let alone any single SPL), no "decent" let alone "good" combo should have to be cranked up almost to the point of clipping to hear more details. With proper speakers, I've never had to turn up my C320BEE or 304 loud to hear details that I couldn't hear at normal or even low levels. I've only came across that problem when I used garbage speakers like the White Van speakers or speakers that presented too difficult a load to be driven properly by my amp like low impedence and sensitivity. Just my opinions and experiences though. I'm sure their are plenty who will disagree. One more thing - I think it's impossible for someone to not have any live music reference. Even most elementary schools have music classes and bands. Who has never heard a live unamplified drum, horn, guitar, etc? Who doesn't know what these things sound like? The only ones I can think of are deaf people. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 73 Registered: Oct-05 | I am going to have to agree stu, you should hear all the details at any volume as long as they arn't just too low to hear at a certain volume. A lot of the stuff I hear with my panny I don't hear with analog gear. It's not that the sound shouldn't be there it's that the sound you hear is too smooth to hear the details in it. Like the background noise is about the same DB level, but with my panny I can hear details in that background. Even the bass seems more exact. I am going to have to hook one of my old receivers again and listen to some of this stuff and see how it sounds. Then I should be able to get a better idea of how they compair. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2761 Registered: Mar-05 | Stu, I never said I had to turn my old analog sources up to near-clipping levels to hear details fully. However with the Panny I can clearly hear far more detail at say 65db than I could with either the Marantz or NAD at 75db. Speakers certainly do play a large part, when I got my Ascends I found myself listening to DVDs at lower levels because the 340 center is so good. As for live music references, aural memory of how live instruments sounded decades ago when one was in school is hardly a reliable reference. I'd say that the only people whom I'd REALLY trust for judging what sounds similar or dissimilar to the live instrument would be musicians since they are extremely up close and personal with it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2763 Registered: Mar-05 | > I am going to have to hook one of my old receivers again and listen to some of this stuff and see how it sounds. Then I should be able to get a better idea of how they compair. Then you will REALLY see just how much better the Panny's SQ is. At least that was my experience...after 2-3 days of listening only to the Panny when I went back to my analog gear I was really ecstatic about just how much better the Panny sounded. |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 490 Registered: Mar-04 | wow... i can't believe hates panasonic midrange. that was the very trait that totally blew me away the very first second i turned my SA-XR55 on. even though the treble was a little hard at first (it mellowed ALOT in just a few hours) my panny kicky my onkyo's butt in EVERY WAY. the treble is faster and more detailed yet smoother and more relaxed too. i can't hear a single bit of grain even when my ear is right next to my tweeter. the bass is much deeper and tighter now. my NAD does bass well, but sucks at treble extension and imaging and is why i bought the onjkyo. the panny does dynamics REALLY good. big sounds jump out of the speakers with quick attacks. my little zeros finally can do some scale for once. the imaging is AWESOME. NAD sucks at image specificity, onkyo is better at specificity, but tend to bunch towards the center, but the panny does an image that's wider than the speakers, is very specific and really portrays the "air between instruments" that NAD and onkyo never did but the best trait that floored me right away is the midrange. i've never heard vocals sound so natural in my room before. recordings with vocal ensembles spread across the image are awesome. the panny has allowed my superzeros to bridge 1/2 of the detail and midrange magic gap of the magnepan MG12s i auditioned and that inspired me to buy the panny for MMGs. i couldn't believe it. all the time i was blaming my speakers for lacking treble speed and low level resolution, it was an amp problem. i too woner what kind of speakers (and source) you heard the panny on. mine has done wonders for my speakers in EVERY category between bass and treble. it's so smooth that i barely even know it's there. i love mine. you'll never get me to part with it or ever go back to A/B again. i love it so much that i don't even want MMGs anymore. my zeros have about 85% of the magic of planars on $1000 amps but with tighter imaging. that's good enough for me... for now anyways. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 714 Registered: May-05 | Ed - Maybe I'm missing something here, but these two statements seem contradictory - "With analog gear you want to turn it up in order to hear more details but at the same time you are limited by how much distortion pops up at high volumes which drowns out that detail." "I never said I had to turn my old analog sources up to near-clipping levels to hear details fully." The part I interpreted as near clipping levels was the "...how much distortion pops up at high volumes which drowns out that detail." Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2098 Registered: Feb-05 | "As for live music references, aural memory of how live instruments sounded decades ago when one was in school is hardly a reliable reference. I'd say that the only people whom I'd REALLY trust for judging what sounds similar or dissimilar to the live instrument would be musicians since they are extremely up close and personal with it." Kind of silly. Some of us often listen to live music amplified and unamplified. I agree with the first part, but you are assuming that folks don't often hear live music. I suspect you have ready access to live music whether you listen to it or not is a choice. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2771 Registered: Mar-05 | Stu, no offense whatsoever, no worries. I think that you are having a hard time understanding me because you (as far as I know) haven't yet listened to a good digital receiver like the Panny, because before I did, I was never really aware of just how much distortion (and I don't really mean clipping-type distortion, I mean just sound degradation and noise) my NAD separates start putting out at 85-95db which is far from clipping levels. Maybe the word I should have used instead of "distortion" is "grain"---I simply got spoiled by the Panny's almost total lack of grain/noise/distortion at *all* levels. (Well, I confess that I have not tried to push the Panny to clipping, not sure I would ever want to.) The NAD and Marantz could not match the Panny's clarity at low to moderate levels, and their graininess steadily increased in direct proportion to the volume. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2772 Registered: Mar-05 | > Kind of silly. Some of us often listen to live music amplified and unamplified. And of those who do listen to live music (unless you go exclusively to classical concerts) it's almost all ANALOG-amplified: certainly the vocals are, unless you are talking about opera. So if you are listening to music that is 80% analog-amplified then it would make sense that you come away thinking that this is the way it "should" sound when in fact that's simply the way you have most often heard it sound...just habit. > I agree with the first part, but you are assuming that folks don't often hear live music. I think you'd agree that as our cultural steadily becomes more and more atomistic such that most people's lives consist of home, work, shopping, and sitting in front of the TV/Internet, people do go less and less to public arts events, especially classical and jazz performances where one does get the chance to hear unamplified music in its purest form. A musician on the other hand is regularly onstage in close proximity to the instruments and vocalists and so IMO would be more likely to hear how these things *truly* sound, whehter amplified or not. |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 499 Registered: Mar-04 | the only way my panasonic has ever sounded harsh is on poorly recorded music. it's so revealing, that i can get a little ruthless. freedom from distortion can be a double edged sword. i'd bet that a panny would also highlight a CD or DVD player with harsh D/A converters if fed analogue. personally, i prefer gear that doesn't impose any signature or editorialize. if you make gear forgiving of poor signals, then you obscure some of the magic in well recorded material. i have a 1980's compilation CD in which some of the siblants sound a little harsh and spitty now, but i'm positive it's the recording as well recorded vocals are very natural in the siblants on my reciever. it's just that the panasonic is retrieving alot more treble detail. i like that i'm finally hearing the siblants that were previously obscured on my "badi assad" disc. they really bring her into the room more. i'm hearing ALOT more texture in HF treble events that buzz (eg. synths & distortion boxes) or are white noise now. one track, can't remember which one, features a gourd shaker with beads on the outside. until i heard it on the panasonic, all i ever heard was *ssssss ssssss ssss ssss* but i can finally hear the individual beads and wooden texture that tell me what i'm hearing. for all i knew before, it could have been sandpaper wood blocks or even a synthesizer. on the other hand, on a recording that might sound overly bright on another amp, can be forgiving too. this left me scratching my head. i was expecting it to be unbearable. i was amazed at how much more listenable my super bright "buzzcocks" discs are on the panasonic. the vocals are still bright, but the image is so clear that i can finally hear the warmth of the band behind them. i'd NEVER heard buzzcocks sound anything but overly bright on ANY system i've ever heard them on in over 20 years. it took the bright vocals that used to dominate the tracks and put them into proper perspective and seperate in the image. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2104 Registered: Feb-05 | "And of those who do listen to live music (unless you go exclusively to classical concerts) it's almost all ANALOG-amplified: certainly the vocals are, unless you are talking about opera. So if you are listening to music that is 80% analog-amplified then it would make sense that you come away thinking that this is the way it "should" sound when in fact that's simply the way you have most often heard it sound...just habit." Yeah and.....It sounds like you are arguing my point for me. "I think you'd agree that as our cultural steadily becomes more and more atomistic such that most people's lives consist of home, work, shopping, and sitting in front of the TV/Internet, people do go less and less to public arts events, especially classical and jazz performances where one does get the chance to hear unamplified music in its purest form." Sorry you live in Texas Eddie. I don't know folks who don't enjoy lots of live music here. Whether they are members of their church choir or play with Celtic groups in the evenings, the Willamette and the Northwest (west side of the Cascades) is alive with music. I have friends who play in African drum groups, whose hobbies include repair and performance on church pipe organs, I could go on and on but I think you get my drift. "A musician on the other hand is regularly onstage in close proximity to the instruments and vocalists and so IMO would be more likely to hear how these things *truly* sound, whehter amplified or not." But they aren't the only ones. Many of us are either amateur musicians or attend live music in one form or another frequently. Heck I can go to my local bakery or coffee shop any night of the week and hear live unamplified music. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2777 Registered: Mar-05 | > Yeah and.....It sounds like you are arguing my point for me. No, I'm clarifying your point---you say that analog sounds more "natural" and similar to live music, and I'm saying that's only because live music is usually amplified, and amplified through analog sources. The actual unamplified voice, and actual instrument however might sound very different. Heh, I'm often sorry I live in Texas too! (Not the least because it's knee-deep in Bush supporters...) Anyways my general point is that live music may be a reliable reference for musicians and regular attendees of unamplified live music performances ONLY---which IMO is a tiny segment of the audio-buying public, especially the low- and mid-priced buying public. And that's why in any AB comparison to the far more expensive analog receivers the Panny is certain to please the vast majority of people who hear it. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2110 Registered: Feb-05 | "No, I'm clarifying your point---you say that analog sounds more "natural" and similar to live music, and I'm saying that's only because live music is usually amplified, and amplified through analog sources. The actual unamplified voice, and actual instrument however might sound very different." I agree that the only reliable reference is live unamplified music. Just because folks may be misinformed or may not have opportunities to listen to live unamplified music is no reason to sell them on a product which so grossly misses the mark relative to what we both agree is the best reference. "in any AB comparison to the far more expensive analog receivers the Panny is certain to please the vast majority of people who hear it." This is to say that because they don't know any better we shouldn't inform them. "Anyways my general point is that live music may be a reliable reference for musicians and regular attendees of unamplified live music performances ONLY" And those of us who are in the above mentioned group should provide information to those of us who aren't. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2779 Registered: Mar-05 | > Just because folks may be misinformed or may not have opportunities to listen to live unamplified music is no reason to sell them on a product which so grossly misses the mark relative to what we both agree is the best reference. WHOA! Or, as we say in Texas: "Hold your horses, pardner!" I have never said that unamplified live music is the *BEST* reference, only that it is a far more reliable reference than *amplified* live music. I'd say the best reference is whatever pleases you the most, based on whatever YOU are used to hearing. So for a frequent attendee of live performances like yourself, sure I can see why you'd prefer analog sound over digital. For those who do not partake of live performances though, if a $230 Panasonic can give them equal or greater pleasure than a $800 Denon or HK then why *shouldn't* they buy the Panny? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2111 Registered: Feb-05 | "So for a frequent attendee of live performances like yourself, sure I can see why you'd prefer analog sound over digital." There you have it! "For those who do not partake of live performances though, if a $230 Panasonic can give them equal or greater pleasure than a $800 Denon or HK then why *shouldn't* they buy the Panny?" Very misleading. HK has a receiver that easily bests the Panny for less than $50 more. So my answeer is "buy what you want". Just be aware that when asked my preference that I use live unamplified music as a reference. "I'd say the best reference is whatever pleases you the most, based on whatever YOU are used to hearing." Sounds more like preference than reference..... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2781 Registered: Mar-05 | But will the average listener really prefer the HK135 to the Panny? I highly doubt that, but that's why I always tell people to AB the Panny against analog receivers in the statistically unlikely case that they are of the diehard-analog camp. |
|
New member Username: Crawdad77Omaha, Nebraska Usa Post Number: 9 Registered: Oct-05 | Art help me out here or somebody regarding the onkyo or denon equipment posts. See threads. Your help would be much appreciated regarding components or hi end recievers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2782 Registered: Mar-05 | Richard, if you're choosing between Onkyo and Denon then it's a no-brainer: Denon by a mile. |