A Different Take On The Panasonic SA-XR55

 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 780
Registered: May-05
I picked one up at J&R Music in NYC. I planned on giving it to my youngest brother as a Christmas gift. He'll be going away to college next fall, so I figured he'd have time between now and then to save up for a decent pair of speakers and cdp. The plan was to listen to it and return it for a new one if it was half as good as a certain someone here says it is. Even though I don't believe in burning in electronics, I decided to let it play constantly for 2 days while my wife and I went home for Thanksgiving. This was soley to avoid anyone saying that it needs a good 40 hours or so to sound it's best.

My evaluation is strictly in 2 channel music and 2 channel movie audio. The equipment I used was a NAD 523 CD changer, NAD PP2 phono pre-amp, Pro-Ject 1Xpression turntable and PSB Image T55 towers. I also own a NAD C320BEE intergated amp. I must also say state that I'm a sucker for a good deal. The only thing I've paid anywhere near retail for was the turntable - I did get 15% off. The 320BEE, PP2 and PSB's were all bought on closeout from Hippo's. $300 for the 'BEE, $85 for the PP2, and $550 for the PSB's. The CDP was a month old discontinued demo for $200; retail was $500. Not too shabby if you ask me.

Please keep in mind that I'm neither a professional reviewer nor a 'Golden Eared Audiophile." Sometimes I have trouble articulating what I'm hearing, so I'll do the best I can.

So how did the Panny sound? The best answer would have to be a quote from my lovely wife - "Annoying." It was pretty bright. Turning down the treble did help somewhat, but I couldn't get it to be neutral - it was either too bright or too warm. After a little while I settled for what was close enough.

Voices sounded very unrealistic. It seemed like all of the singers drank a gallon of water right before recording. One of my favorite voicing assessment songs is - surprisingly - All I Need (Remix) by Method Man and Mary J. Blige. The rest of the recording quality can leave something to be desired, but the voices and their images on this song are great. On my system, it sounds like they are in my room facing each other and singing. Mary J. Blige didn't sound like her usual seductive self and Method Man was just awful. Sade and Eryka Bahdu (sp?) also lost their seductive appeal. More voicing choices - surprisingly again - the Wu-Tang Clan. The recording quality is absolutely horrible. The voices are actually pretty good, but not great. Why use the Wu-Tang Clan? Their are 9 male voices and most of them are very distinguishible from one another. Most tracks have at least 4 singers. On a good system you can easily tell them apart and place them in different spots. A lot of systems have trouble with this. I had a difficult time differentiating a few too many voices and where they were coming from with the Panny. It sounded like a mess. Voices in other genres sounded equally bad. It wasn't exclusive to hip-hop.

I could go on and on about mids and bass but it would be more of the same, although bass wasn't too bad. It didn't remind me of the car systems my friends had back in high school. It was neither offensive nor outstanding.

Imaging left a little to be desired as well. On my set up, imaging extends beyond the width of the speakers, has good height and depth. I don't listen to complex symphonies or orchestral music so I generally don't get the most out of this department. The only cd I have resembling this is Metallica's S&M (Metallica playing w/ the San Fran Orchestra). That recording shows the most of what my system is capable of imaging wise. In most of my music, the singer is front center (and usually has a guitar), drums are behind and above him/her (concert platform), bass guitar and lead guitar are generally left and right respectively. Through the Panny, their wasn't much depth. The singer/guitar and drums seemed to be coming from the same place. The cymbols came directly out of the speakers every time - both speakers simultaneously. The bass player usually seemed like he was either kneeling or laying on the floor. I've never heard it get placed their before. Lead guitar had a tendency to hang out in the right speaker more often than not. It would come out sometimes, but not often enough. Then their was Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The Panny didn't have me looking for clocks or change and registers in the tracks Money and Time. They could always be found in the speakers. These generally extend out very far on my system.

All of those impressions came from CD. My cdp doesn't have a digital out, so maybe it could have been slightly improved. My cdp is celebrating it's 9th birthday this month (manufacturing date on back), so it could be somewhat at fault. I was going to buy a NAD 542 until the vinyl craze took me by storm.

Speaking of vinyl... I've never heard vinyl sound so bad in my life. The Panny fell flat on it's face and had no chance of ever getting up when vinyl was played through it. It was like all of my dislikes were multiplied 100x over. BTW - for those of you who think cd or any "hi-res" format is better than vinyl, your sadly mistaken. Vinyl has more information in it than any of those can dream of. That's another story...

I do however have a few good things to say about the little Panny. It seemed to have a good supply of power. It had no problem delivering power when music started and stopped fast. Ever hear Chop Suey from System of a Down? The Panny had no problems keeping up with the dynamic demands of this or any other song like it. I didn't try to clip the amp, but it could probably go much louder than I or anyone in my vicinity would care to hear it. Another interesting thing is how even it sounded at lower volumes. By this I mean the following - at lower than 8:00 on the volume, my BEE sounds uneven. Not too bad, but annoying enough. My left speaker sounds louder than the right. I have to play with the balance control to even it out. The Panny didn't have this problem. Also add the fact that it never even got warm to the touch. I haven't heard any other digital amps, so I can't say that they are all garbage. I think it's an interesting technology. The right company could probably make a great digital amp. I don't think this is it.

So how does this $250 receiver compare to other $250 receivers? I have no idea. I haven't really listened to too many $250 receivers. How does it compare to my 320BEE? Not even close. It makes my BEE sound like a McIntosh.

In addition to all of the criticisms of the Panny, it lacks something called musicality. Musicallity can't really be defined. Some gear has it, and some doesn't. Kind of like mojo if you will. This has little to do with price. Some big names that lack musicallity to me are Martin Logan and Krell. They do everything right - lows, mids, highs, imaging, etc - yet are missing something somewhere that just sucks the life out of it. Then their is musical gear that may not be perfect, but is very musical - NAD, Rotel, Paradigm and PSB just to name a few. This Panasonic has absolutely nothing in common with that group.

I know I've just opened a huge can of worms. No offense to anyone who likes it. This isn't a shot at you. It is simply my humble opinion and nothing more. If you like the Panny, why should anything I say have any bearing on you feelings towards it?

BTW - My brother is getting a new 521BEE cdp for Christmas and my old 304 integrated (not as a Christmas gift). Hopefully the returned Panny found someone who can appreciate it more than I did.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2352
Registered: Feb-05
Good job Stu. Your review appears to be fair and balanced.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3165
Registered: Mar-05
Well Stu, I have to give you credit for taking the time to write a detailed review of the Panny even though you ended up disliking it. It looks like you actually spent a good deal of time listening to a range of material on it, and went about this with the right intentions---i.e. you did not simply go looking for reasons to validate deeply ingrained prejudices (read: typical audiophile snobbery and fear) against it.

All of the above is really quite unprecedented on these audio boards, I must say---generally most Panny detractors sound like they are huffing and puffing with a telephone pole stuck up their pompous @sses while foaming at the mouth, LOL!

So many kudos to you for rising above such infantile hysterics, and I respect your sincerity as well as your level-headeness.

That said, there are a couple of points that came to mind:

1. PSB Image T55 speakers. I don't think these were the same PSB towers that I ABed against my Ascend 340s at the local dealer's shop, because the T55 only came out fairly recently unless I'm mistaken. I forget the exact model that I heard but I know they were PSB Image *something*---and I found them pretty awful next to the Ascends. Oh yeah killer punchy bass, but the mids were hopeless congested and the aluminum dome tweeter simply piercing. Imaging lagged behind the Ascends but was not that bad, and the soundstage might've been even a little wider. Overall, to my ears they had a very hollow and tinny sound during high frequency peaks at high volumes. They reminded me of most Polk speakers, which sound pretty good at moderate volumes but crumble when cranked. (Except the PSBs do have much tighter bass than the Polks.)

This was demoed using not a Panny (I didn't have it at the time) but the dealer's Marantz 5500 (which he chose since I used a 5400 at home) which is generally agreed to be a "warm" receiver. Anyways I remember this really well because it was like the first tower that we compared to the Ascend and even the guy had to agree the 340s sounded way better, and I was chortling at the $1100 pricetag he quoted for me earlier on them. (I wouldn't tell them how much mine cost until just before I left...he was REALLY flabberghasted then.)

So I'm not saying your opinion would be much different if you had listened to the Panny through some Ascends. But I am saying that if I were to hear the same PSB towers I heard before on the Panny now, chances are I'd probably even more horrified than I was with the Marantz. If you have followed my Panny postings, I have consistently warned people not to pair the Panny with bright speakers due to its incredible detail across the entire frequency range which, with a speaker that exaggerates the highs and wimps on the mids, is bound to exacerbate that brightness tenfold.

2. Vinyl. I have not touched an LP for maybe 15 years, so if you say vinyl absolutely stinks on the Panny I will have to take your word for it regardless of what speakers are used. Yes, I have heard the "vinyl contains more info" spiel before but not sure if it really holds up scientifically. Peter Aczmel's Biggest Audio Lie #3 (http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Sample_Articles/?id=5) makes a pretty persusasive argument against the vinyl supremacists, but I am personally willing to give vinyl a listen sometime if I could find someone locally with a vinyl recording of the same track that I have on CD and we do an AB test with it.

3. NAD's unevenly balanced output at low volumes...whew, I'm glad to read that my NAD gear is not defective! My left channel has always cut out completely long before the right channel does when I slowly decrease the volume.

4. Musicality. This is probably one of the most infamously indefinable audiophile terms out there, I agree with you there. I also was not at all impressed with the $34K worth of Krell gear I heard at Tweeter a couple of weeks ago running a $4000 pair of Focal towers that also failed to do much for me. I'm not saying that these were BAD speakers, not at all, but far from what I would be willing to pay for $4K. Our tastes might be very different though because I was VERY impressed by the $3400 Martin Logan Aeons they had which sounded great driven by a lousy $500 Yamaha.

PS. Were you using an SPL meter when comparing the two receivers? If so, at around what DB were you listening? I found that my NAD separates especially got hammered by the Panny above 85-90db, especially with classical violin music and especially during the faster tempo passages.
 

Silver Member
Username: Shantao

Homewood, IL USA

Post Number: 132
Registered: Apr-04
Hi Stu;

nice review;

I recently replaced a digital receiver with an analog one, and did audition the panny (as well as an Onkyo digital) in the process. In addition, I have heard music and watched movies on the panny, (a friend has it), and I would tend to concur with your assessment - It seemed to me that it was hard to tame the brightness of it.

I am no stranger to digital amps, I have an HK DPR1001, which was HK's first digital receiver. When it premiered it was $1400, but I ended getting it for a closeout at about $325. The HK had 50wpc x 7 channels and just about every bell and whistle imaginable. It too, like the panny could play intolerably loud. I think it has better mids than the panny, but like the panny (and all digital receivers I have heard since) is just, well, bright. And for what it is worth, I LIKE bright - alot. However that digital HK was just not listenable for music for lengthy periods.

My pal's panny is equally bright and I do personally do not like it for music. We played some Talking heads, YES, Rush, Pearl Jam, Sex Pistols and lots of other stuff. Jon Anderson, who sings soprano-ish in YES sounded so shrill it was painful.

Unlike your assessment, I personally do think the panny sounded good for movies and enjoyed watching "STEALTH" on it the other day at my friend's house. I do think, based on my experience with the Digital HK, that the room acoustics and speakers it is paired with are paramount. If the speakers are bright, or the room has lots of reflections and hard surfaces, that brightness of the digital amps is seemingly impossible to tame. On the other hand, the clarity of the digital is literally stunning, and there are things on the soundtracks that are amazingly clear.

My digital HK was used 95% of the time for movies and gaming on an upstairs system for about a year, but when I replaced the carpet with an oak floor, the brightness was so extreme I thought my head would explode! My 11 year old now has the Digital HK paired with a cheapy pair of KLH towers in a carpeted bedroom and it sounds considerably better. He loves it. I ended up replacing the digital HK recently with a Denon which I absolutely love.

So in closing, I am not sure what I am saying, hahahah. I think the digital amps are incredibly clear but still noticably bright. I think this technology will one day be unbelievable, but I don't think this day has come.

On the other hand, if you are looking for an inexpensive receiver for movies and games, this might do nicely - providing your room is not too hard and reflecting and it is paired with speakers that are very neutral or warm.

But like Ed says, I think the proof is in the pudding, or in the listening as the case is and the only way to know for sure is to try it out, listen to it and see for yourself.

 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3182
Registered: Mar-05
Shan Tao,

Excellent point, I had not considered the role of room accoustics too. Yet another variable to the equation...

The DPR1001 has garnered mixed reviews, I think the DPR2005 has done better but have actually read of people on other forums who directly compared it to the Panny and almost half preferred the Panny.

But yes, speakers are key. A bright speaker is disastrous, though it might make a fuzzy/hissy analog receiver sound more lively. What speakers does your friend with the Panny have?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3183
Registered: Mar-05
> Good job Stu. Your review appears to be fair and balanced.

careful there, Art: don't you know that "fair and balanced" is a trademark of Faux News? They tried to sue Al Franken for using it as the title of one of his books, LOL.

You don't want to get sued over this silly little Panny do you? Maybe Kulisch would come to your rescue...heh!
 

Anonymous
 
I don't know why anyone would be surprise that this approach sounds bright and harsh. If you can hear the miniscule notch from crossover distortion in a poorly biased Class B amp, then it stands to reason that the notching from a digital amp would also be audible. And the effect would to some degree be the same, I would guess, a bright, cold sound with the first impression of more detail than a Class A or AB amp.
But most importantly, the cheaper Class B amps simply cannot create the illusion of live music. A first rate Class B amp comes closer because the bias current to the transistors is better controlled in relation to the heat produced in the transistor (which determines how much bias current is needed) and to the wattage demand of the music, thereby reducing the crossover distortion. The Panasonic is supposed to get around this dilemma, but apparently it does not, entirely.
I wonder what sort of bias current Panasonic applies to the transistors? I would assume they would need some, so that the transistors would turn on more readily. But it sounds like the biasing may be minimal, judging from reports of their low heat production.
Now if the frequency of the digital amplifier gets up there with the rate used to produce a SACD, I would assume it would produce a more realistic sound. But the SACD still needs some minimal processing.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2353
Registered: Feb-05
Eddie, the PSB Image T55's are a highly respected design with numerous positive reviews. It was one of the speakers I listened to the Panny with. The PSB's are actually a rather neutral to warm sounding speaker. The Panny sounded better (though still awful) on the PSB's than with the Cabasse speakers I auditioned it with.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3192
Registered: Mar-05
anon,

those are very interesting points, it would be even more interesting if you could do a home demo on the Panny and write your thoughts on it too.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3193
Registered: Mar-05
Art,

well some of the entry-level Onkyo receivers have gotten great reviews too and I really dislike their sound.

I guess it's not beyond the realm of possibility that PSB changed its sound between the older models I heard and this new T55.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 781
Registered: May-05
Thanks everyone for your commments and more importantly not starting a brawl. I'm glad to see it wasn't interpreted as me painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. I wasn't trying to bash the Panny, I was just trying to call as I see it (or hear it).

Ed -

The PSB towers I think you're referring to are the Image T6. They sold for about $1100 around 2 years ago. The T55's retail for $900 and are the current model - along with the T45 T55 and T65. I've heard the T6 and didn't like them much. They had "killer punchy bass" as you said, but I thought it came at the expense of muddy mids. The T4 and T5 didn't have this problem. I think it could have been a problem with the XO (no comments please Bayless). They used 3 drivers instead of 2 and kept it a 2 1/2 way design (I believe). Furthermore, the current models improved the older ones in every way. They are a totally new design. The only common carry over was driver size and count in each respective speaker. They sound similar to the old ones, but every part of the sound was improved on. I still don't care much for the T65's. Regardless of which ones you heard, I've never heard anyone say any PSB's were bright. All I've heard - and agree wholeheartedly with - is they are very neutral and slightly warm. They share a lot of charecteristics with Paradigm. Whenever auditioning gear, if the dealer doesn't carry PSB, I'll look for Paradigm or Boston Acoustics. IMO the Bostons can't compete with either of the two in sound quality or dollar for dollar, but if I need to use them they give me a "worst case scenario" so to speak.

Also, I've always said the room is the probably the most important component in the system. I've learned this first hand because up until February, I moved at least once a year. From home to grad school; 2 different apts while in grad school; and 3 diffenet jobs in the last 5 years - all of which I had to trek all of my stuff for. Everywhere I went, my system sounded different. I bought the new components shortly after I moved here. But moving them from my living room to my loft changed the way they sounded. It took my a very long time (a few months) to get the sound exactly the way I wanted it. Lazy Boys, rugs, curtain (only one window), strategicly (sp?) placed tapestries, etc. I even found a place for my old mattress and box spring to absorb some sound and double as a guest bed when needed. It stands on its side about three feet behind me and I lay it down flat when someone needs it. I've obviously put a little thought into the room. The only way I think it would be better than it is now would be if an acoustics expert came in for a consultation.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3196
Registered: Mar-05
> Regardless of which ones you heard, I've never heard anyone say any PSB's were bright. All I've heard - and agree wholeheartedly with - is they are very neutral and slightly warm.

I don't think my local dealer would agree with you there. When I had the CDP shootout a few months ago, I asked him to put in his "most neutral speakers" and he made a beeline for some Monitor Audio towers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2362
Registered: Feb-05
We all know from your self report how good your local dealers are.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3199
Registered: Mar-05
Actually that applies to the bigger audio picture in Houston as a whole, i.e. very few stores unlike your neck of the woods.

Brian, the dealer I'm talking about, is quite knowledgeable and honest. Certainly way, way beyond Best Buy caliber.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Mark_mcintosh

Gastonia, NC USA

Post Number: 29
Registered: May-05
I have a set of Orb Mod2's that I really love. I would consider them a balanced speaker. I currently have a Yamaha RXV800 (I think) receiver and I am thinking about buying the Panasonic XR55. Does anyone have any experience with this combo?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3200
Registered: Mar-05
if the Orbs are really balanced instead of bright as most small sats are, why not? I have heard all sorts of positive feedback on the Orbs, would love to hear some myself.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3236
Registered: Mar-05
btw, the following is a different opinion on how the xr55 sounds with vinyl: (post #1975)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6648406&&#post6648406

Of course, this was the original response to Stu's comments: (post #1973)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6647101&&#post6647101

 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 782
Registered: May-05
Ed -

I'm not trying to start a personal vandetta here, but I have a few questions and comments -

I really don't care what people on AVS forum, any other forum, or anywhere else for that matter have to say - I heard what I heard. And, who is your buddy at AVS to criticise me? He said I was biased? Everyone is biased in one way or another. He knows absolutely nothing about my beliefs, preferences, etc in audio. Your boy over there tried to quote me but forgot to mention the first half of my sentence. Like I said, I wanted to buy it for my brother. I didn't buy it for the purpose of reviewing it. I have better things to do with my time. If I was biased, it was actually toward the Panny.

Exactly what is it that you are trying to accomplish by finding all of these reviews on the panny from different forums? Are you still trying to justify buying the receiver or are you trying to give yourself more credibility by 'power in numbers' so to speak? Also, why do you want everyone who has bought/auditioned it to give a review? Like I said in the review, you shouldn't need someone else to tell you something sounds good or bad. You should have enough experience with all of this stuff by now to know what you like and dislike.

As Kano mentioned - I'm not trying to side with him or anyone else - Why is it any time someone has heard the receiver and didn't like it, you try to discredit them by saying it was the room, speakers, source, etc. If it's not these things, you say that they are analog snobs, scared of digital, etc. Why is that? Can anyone just not like the sound it produces without you criticising every piece of gear and the room around it, or their ears or preferences?

I never claimed my gear or my room were the pinnicle of anything. I do however believe that they are more than sufficient enough to give the Panny a fair chance. Regardless of what anyone says, I don't like the way it reproduces music. Nothing more and nothing less.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2394
Registered: Feb-05
Well said Stu.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3261
Registered: Mar-05
Stu,

you ought to read what I've written to YOU and YOU ALONE instead of taking Kano's dyslexic and paranoid misrepresentations of my postings.

I have never called you an analog snob, nor have I dismissed your dislike of the Panny as being a result of bright speakers or a bright room.

Yes, I have asked you what you were speakers were based on my own experience with PSB speakers, and when you clarified that they were not the model I listened to and found horrible, I let it stand as that. Ditto with any questions I posed regarding your room. Just questions.

Similarly, when Art first listened to the Panny and said he disliked it, I told him that's ok, at least he's actually heard it before listening to it, and I respect his differing opinion. I have told a number of other people the same thing---if they listen to the Panny and found it wasn't for them, that's totally cool. However, when somebody listens to it and then comes back with all these hysterical and insulting remarks, it's a different story.

What you, Kano, Art, and a couple others fail to realize here is that my postings are primarily QUESTIONS. That is to say, I ASK people to consider ABing the Panny since chances are, they have never even heard of it and are not even aware of the analog vs. digital (in this case, digital switching) difference.

Now whether you or Art or anybody else listens to the Panny and likes or dislikes it, is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I am not here to win you over to the Panny, in fact if you are perfectly happy with your analog receivers I say more power to you. Geez, what on earth makes you think that your OPINIONS matter so much??? LOL this is really comic.

However yes I *AM* here to publicize the Panny and get the word out to as many newbies as possible who post here asking for receiver advice, since very few of them have ever heard of it. Why? Well I ask you, why not? I've heard it, I own it, I love it, and many people who do give it a try have the same experience just as some do not...so what?

And LOL frankly I couldn't give a flying f*ck less what you or anybody else thinks about the Panny nor my consistent publicization of the Panny...ditto for my publicization of Ascend or Athena speakers. If I did I would've started cutting back as soon as a couple of you started getting your panti es in a wad, instead as you can see I'm just keeping full throttle ahead.

I will say this: if you or anybody else here is really such a petty and microscopic excuse for a human being that you cannot deal with me doing this on a public forum like this, LOL that's between you and your therapist or you should get a good therapist if you don't have one yet.

My comments about analog snobs and lousy speakers were simply tit for tat responses to some of the juvenile ad hominem attacks that have been coming my way recently---attacks that have only increased as more and more people on THIS forum hear the Panny and decide they like it. The fact that such ad hominem attacks increase in direct proportion to the number of newbies who try the Panny and find that they like it, is a very interesting correlation---it strongly suggests that FEAR is the primary motivator.

As such, I will only continue to laugh my @ss off at whatever puerile insults continue to be thrown my way, reply in kind, and happily continue doing EXACTLY what I'm doing right now.

If you have a problem with that, well...tough sh*t, honey.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3262
Registered: Mar-05
> I really don't care what people on AVS forum, any other forum, or anywhere else for that matter have to say - I heard what I heard. And, who is your buddy at AVS to criticise me? He said I was biased? Everyone is biased in one way or another. He knows absolutely nothing about my beliefs, preferences, etc in audio. Your boy over there tried to quote me but forgot to mention the first half of my sentence. Like I said, I wanted to buy it for my brother. I didn't buy it for the purpose of reviewing it. I have better things to do with my time. If I was biased, it was actually toward the Panny.

Geez, if you really don't care what these AVS people have to say, why spend a whole long paragraph defending yourself against one person who's never even directed communicated with you?

> Exactly what is it that you are trying to accomplish by finding all of these reviews on the panny from different forums? Are you still trying to justify buying the receiver or are you trying to give yourself more credibility by 'power in numbers' so to speak? Also, why do you want everyone who has bought/auditioned it to give a review? Like I said in the review, you shouldn't need someone else to tell you something sounds good or bad. You should have enough experience with all of this stuff by now to know what you like and dislike.

LOL, you totally miss the point: it's not about MY opinion or YOUR opinion or ART'S opinion of the Panny. Taken in isolation, every INDIVIDUAL opinion is equally worthless. It's about the BIG PICTURE question of, what do most people who listen to the Panny think about it? If even 50% of them find that it equals or surpasses their own much more expensive analog gear, THAT is really quite remarkable by itself and worthy of discussion.

Imagine if somebody came out with a sports car XY that cost $10,000 and half of Porsche and Ferrari owners who test drove it found that it was equal or better than their current cars, would that NOT merit examination? Would it NOT be good to recommend that anybody looking to buy a sports car ALSO go check out this sports car XY? Who cares if the other 50% of Porsche and Ferrari owners pooh-pooh it?
 

Silver Member
Username: Kano

Post Number: 775
Registered: Oct-04
Audio gear is full of trade-offs. As Jan has stated to gain one thing usually 5 are taken away. There are far too many products each offering their own list of pros and cons for you to continually recommend the same products to each and every individual asking for advice.

I'm certain many people like the Panny, and anyone doing research for receivers on the internet will easily find enough reviews on the Panny without having a large percentage of threads on this board dedicated to the Panny. It is unneccessary and just plain annoys me.

I'm not entitled to my opinion?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3268
Registered: Mar-05
Of course you're entitled to your opinion---just don't go insulting other people's opinions, nor their right to voice their opinions any time they wish to whomever they wish. Unless you want those insults to be thrown back in your face, which I'm perfectly happy to continue doing.

> There are far too many products each offering their own list of pros and cons for you to continually recommend the same products to each and every individual asking for advice.

> I'm certain many people like the Panny, and anyone doing research for receivers on the internet will easily find enough reviews on the Panny without having a large percentage of threads on this board dedicated to the Panny.

Those are your OPINIONS, and I happen to disagree with them. I don't necessarily think that the Panny is for EVERY person or EVERY situation but if there's a 50/50 chance it might work, I see no harm in informing them especially since most newbies don't even provide that much detailed information about their own needs/situation to begin with. Further it is obvious from reading their posts that many newbies do not bother to browse through a forum first before posting.

> It is unneccessary and just plain annoys me.

That is your opinion, and your reaction to your opinion...neither of which particularly concerns me, to be perfectly frank. Especially when I consider that absolutely nothing is stopping you from simply scrolling down past my Panny posts or skipping to another thread.
 

Bronze Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 39
Registered: Nov-05
The problem is Edster your panny posts pervade almost every thread.

 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3270
Registered: Mar-05
Only seems that way because this Receivers section is pretty dead, other than the occasional newbies who pop up asking for advice.

Believe me, I'm not still trying to convert you regulars after all this time...maybe during my first month or two after getting the Panny, but not any more! Like I said, I just want to get it on the table for consideration by anybody who comes here looking for advice.



PS. btw Rantz, I thought you had foresworn this place due to your stated desire to spend more time with your family and other pursuits? Now I see you've even re-registered...welcome back!
 

Bronze Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 41
Registered: Nov-05
Thank Ed, after a minor but debilitating op on the back of my leg, I have time on my hands for music, movies, forums and not much else for a while.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 196
Registered: Jul-05
Stu- Thanks for the review. I thought your wife's description as annoying was interesting. As we all know females hearing is a little different than males. Anyway, this is about harmonics, and thats why she is reporting things as annoying. She is accurate and more sensitive to harmonics in all liklihood. The total Harmonic distortion on the Panny is about .09%, a tad higher than most.

The THD figure alone is truely meaningless. Anything below 5% may not affect sound quality. The importance comes when looking at the order of harmonics that make up that percentage. This means second order harmonics vs higher order or a combination. Rather than go into detail- what I can say is if we take a simple oscilloscope and look at the sine wave curve as the sound signal occurs, you can instantly see what a receiver is doing. No math necessary- its visible. And audible too!

Now, some people are more sensitive to harmonics than others. This is, I believe, the reason why several posters have tried at the Panny and reported" I didnt like the sound."

Women are more sensitive to harmonics than men in general. In any case, this isnt a slam on digital receivers. A well done digitial receiver can really do the job fine, but technically it is very difficult to design a digital receiver to avoid higher order harmonics, which are disturbing to some people.

The relation of the input/ouput power cycles and switching creates a significant opportunity for higher order distortion; this is particularly evident at lower volumes. My guess is that the Panny sounds better loud than soft. This is opposite of a class A amplifier, where there is no higher order harmonic distortion at lower volumes ( if it truely runs as pure class A).

Anyway, I thought it was reasonable to through this in.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2396
Registered: Feb-05
What the Panny dogma does is keep truly informative and experienced posters from even bothering. Everything one says leads to debate. All Stu and I (and others) have said is what we heard. I just reread Stu's review. His assessment of the sound of voices is the same as mine. Bottom line the Panasonic receiver stinks. It's a free country and more power to those who like it but it does not change the fact that it sounds awful. Just as an aside I went out and listened to the new Sony STR-DA7100ES and it sounds fabulous. It's not the digital switching technology that sounds bad it's Panasonic's application of it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 6833
Registered: May-04


"As Jan has stated to gain one thing usually 5 are taken away."


Just for the record; I normally restrain my greed for taking things away to no more than two. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule.


"I see no harm in informing them especially since most newbies don't even provide that much detailed information about their own needs/situation to begin with."


This is a problem that any forum will suffer although eCoustics as a whole seems not to be interested in finding out the details before we launch into recommending the products which we personally like. A few on this thread were involved over the weekend in another instance where a vastly inadequate amount of information was supplied in the original question. That thread occupied most of its time arguing over whether it was rude to suggest the question was incomplete (or, as I put it, just plain silly as posted) instead of going about gathering the information that would have made any recommendation more meaningful to the newbie.



Since my background is is sales, my first inclination is to "qualify" the needs and desires of anyone coming to me for assistance. This is no more than a step in the process of assessing what the person says they want and then determining what is likely to fulfill those needs. My feeling is the forum would be far more helpful to anyone, but most particularly to new comers, if there was a bit of qualification involved before products were recommended merely by reason of personal ownership. If, in the end, what you own happens to fit the needs of the question, then that product should be first on your list due to your personal experience. If it does not suit the request, then other products should be included in the recommendation.


 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3273
Registered: Mar-05
> What the Panny dogma does is keep truly informative and experienced posters from even bothering. Everything one says leads to debate.

LOL! Stu's original review was quite civil and balanced...YOUR posts on the other hand have lately only become more and more strident and hyperbolic as more and more people try the Panny and decide they like it.

"truly informative and experienced posters"---my my, why don't you put yourself on an even higher pedestal, Art? LOL

> All Stu and I (and others) have said is what we heard. I just reread Stu's review. His assessment of the sound of voices is the same as mine. Bottom line the Panasonic receiver stinks

No Art, the only "bottom line" here is that you are unable to accept the excruciatingly SIMPLE FACT that other people might have very different OPINIONS of the Panny. THIS is what I find really hilarious...audio bigotry.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3275
Registered: Mar-05
> Since my background is is sales, my first inclination is to "qualify" the needs and desires of anyone coming to me for assistance. This is no more than a step in the process of assessing what the person says they want and then determining what is likely to fulfill those needs. My feeling is the forum would be far more helpful to anyone, but most particularly to new comers, if there was a bit of qualification involved before products were recommended merely by reason of personal ownership. If, in the end, what you own happens to fit the needs of the question, then that product should be first on your list due to your personal experience. If it does not suit the request, then other products should be included in the recommendation

Whole-heartedly agree. Which is why I have started to just copy and paste a series of qualifying questions as I did here:

http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/180726.html
 

Bronze Member
Username: Bill984

Post Number: 78
Registered: Oct-05
does this reciever get all this attention because it is $300?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3281
Registered: Mar-05
price is half of the story...it's $230 AND many people find that it equals or outperforms analog receivers costing several times more.

format is post# Model# Link

HK
#325 ?? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...2&&#post5917842 (-)
#353 AVR7200 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...3&&#post5947823
#415 AVR635 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...3&&#post5979763
#1050 AVR65 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...5&&#post6303005
#1064 AVR130 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...3&&#post6309053
#1294 AVR535 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...4&&#post6396784


Denon
#423 AVR1604 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...7&&#post5985687
#425 AVR3300 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...2&&#post5986092
#844 AVR3300 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...1&&#post6194321
#916 AVR2805 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...8&&#post6237298
#1168 AVR3802 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...5&&#post6352685
#1282 AVR1602 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...8&&#post6395328
#1307 AVR2700 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...9&&#post6397489 (+-)

Yamaha
#912 RX-V750 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...9&&#post6236209
#916 RX-V650 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...8&&#post6237298

Pioneer
#916 E54TX http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...8&&#post6237298

NAD
#298 T763 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...2&&#post5907972

Marantz
#423 SR-19 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...7&&#post5985687
#1140 SR5400 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...9&&#post6341969

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=591368
...posts #53, 56, and 57 are owners of a Denon 5800, HK7000, HK7200, and Denon 3802.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2397
Registered: Feb-05
Edster, right after I listened to the Panasonic I posted my findings. But just as Stu and Kano have stated you just couldn't accept it. I have not said anything related to it that I regret.
 

Silver Member
Username: Paul98

Post Number: 105
Registered: Oct-05
Any of you done a freq sweep with the XR55, vs one of those other receivers? I did and I am not sure if I am just crazy but they sounded very different, even though my SPL meter was giving me about the same readings. It sounded like with the analog receiver I tried that there were lower harmonics. Where the xr55 didn't sound like it had those lower harmonics when getting higher and higher. I don't think that is the right way to explain it. Hopefully someone else can try and tell me.

Also I had been noticing some harshness with the xr55, and tried a few things with no real change. The room wasn't creating the problem, or atleast all of the problem( I need to do some room treatments). Then I though it might be the speaker wire since I had listened through different sources.

I had some extra speaker wire sitting around and tried using 2 wires to connect the speaker instead of one. It was much easier to listen to. With just the 1 wire there were parts of the music that would jump out at me that wern't supposed to. With the two wires it got rid of that and it sounded much smoother.

looks like I am going to have to pick up some larger wire. Now I just hope that the difference wasn't just in my head and was actually real. I will be able to tell soon.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 200
Registered: Jul-05
Art- Where did you post? I would like to read up on what you have to say.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2399
Registered: Feb-05
Sorry Marc I don't keep track of all of my posts and there location, Edster might know. My conclusions were similar to Stu's. I believe I concluded that it was honestly the worst sounding receiver I've ever heard, which was not an overstatement. I might see if I can find where I posted it this weekend. Glad to be back up again here at ecoustics.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rsxman

Post Number: 153
Registered: Jul-05
Maybe it was the combination of speakers, cd player, wires etc with the panny that made it sound "bad" to you?

Just a thought, there has got to be something different that people who have liked it, have done, compared to the people who hated it?

 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
> Just a thought, there has got to be something
> different that people who have liked it, have
> done, compared to the people who hated it?

Sure... taste, preference, etc.

This is an intrinsically subjective field.

Look at it this way... everyone will agree there is some crap stuff out there even if they do not agree on which ones. If everyone thought a component was crap, would it stay in the market? So there must be people who like even crap stuff.

What amazes me is that components that have grown over time to have a good reputation do not typically have the kind of fanaticism that the Panny seems to inspire. The Panny may have a lot more serious adapters if it was any good if the cult didn't actually try to push it so hard and get into these endless debates.

Audio business is a very viral one. Good reputation gets around without anyone having to keep repeating it a million times even if some people don't like it. Price has nothing to do with it.

I just don't get this cult aspect.
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
PS: Would this Panny have the same cult following if it sounded exactly the same as it does now but it wasn't advertised as digital and no one knew about the digital switching?

I am not sure I know the answer for sure.

Falls in the same category as the claim that the Panny hidden inside an exepensive enclosure would have sounded better to some.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 201
Registered: Jul-05
There really isnt any magic here. Some people are simply more sensitive to higher order harmonic distortion than others.

A simple oscilloscope will show differences between receivers which can be paired with " I dont like this or I do like this better"

That would make for the best review. Objective and subjective together. And are the results consistent? ( ie do the receivers with certain types of distortion consistently rate lower than those that dont have this?) or reverse, do people who cant hear harmonic differences rate, in this case the Panny higher? Either result is valid.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3282
Registered: Mar-05
Art,

> Edster, right after I listened to the Panasonic I posted my findings.

Yes you did, and you did so in a very civil and mature tone---which I had zero problems with...I even told you that I respected the fact that you actually took the time to listen to it before lazily dismissing it like some have.

However sad to say, you have not managed to retain this "civil and mature tone" of late---instead you have steadily gone in the opposite direction as more and more newbies (not oldtime regulars) have come to this board, taken my advice to try the Panny, and found that they liked it.

> But just as Stu and Kano have stated you just couldn't accept it.

LOL you fail to see the difference between saying "I dislike it" vs. "It sounds like crap unless you're hearing impaired." Your anti-Panny rantings began as the former and have since degenerated into the latter.

Stating your own opinion is fine by me, but when you seek to shove your opinion down other people's throats simply by putting yourself on the lofty pedestal of "Art The Uber-Experienced Audiophile Who Knows The FACTS" and belittling others who don't share the same belief in those "facts" then I'm sorry but that's just one big steaming load of HORSESH*T.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3283
Registered: Mar-05
> This is an intrinsically subjective field.

yes, yes, and YES.

Are you paying attention here, Art?

> What amazes me is that components that have grown over time to have a good reputation do not typically have the kind of fanaticism that the Panny seems to inspire. The Panny may have a lot more serious adapters if it was any good if the cult didn't actually try to push it so hard and get into these endless debates.

What amazes ME, Gvenk is that people like yourself are so often in the habit of PRESUMING that Panny fans like me are trying to win *YOU* over to it when in fact we're not---we're just trying to make sure that any newbies who come to forums like this asking for advice are made aware of its existence as a very inexpensive receiver that can, to many people's ears, equal or outperform receivers costing several times more.

I never would have heard of the Panny if it weren't for the AVS Forum, and had I never listened to it for myself, I would have never known that I could be happier with one tiny little 10lb. box instead of a big clunky AVR running with another big clunky analog amp and pre-amp. As gratitude for the kindness that I enjoyed for this information, I personally elect to pass on this opportunity to others. Some may try the Panny and dislike it, but others may have a similar experience as I did.

What puzzles me is, why is the simple invitation to CONSIDER/COMPARE/AUDITION the Panny to other receivers so threatening???

Moreover, the sheer narcissism and self-importance reflected in someone reading a post directed at a newbie and then interpreting it as an attempt to win THEM over instead of the newbie over, is not only appalling but sad.

> Falls in the same category as the claim that the Panny hidden inside an exepensive enclosure would have sounded better to some.

If you truly believe that the well-documented "placebo effect" is absent from the audio world then LOL that's pretty hilarious in and of itself.

> PS: Would this Panny have the same cult following if it sounded exactly the same as it does now but it wasn't advertised as digital and no one knew about the digital switching?

That's a good question. However, I think price does play an equal if not bigger factor in its high profile than the nature of its technology...yet that is not the whole picture.

When was the last time you heard of someone giving up an HK7200 for a $200 Pioneer 515?

It'd be stupid to deny that some people listen to the Panny and dislike it...and EQUALLY stupid to deny that many have given up much more expensive gear because they loved it.
 

Anonymous
 
The URL below links to an article discussing "buzz marketing campaigns", "stealth advertising", and "viral marketing" techniques that are being utilized more often in reaction to the declining effectiveness of advertising in print and television media. This started with the observation of youth markets where a "hit" product often seems to come out of nowhere; the word of mouth "buzz" generating demand greatly disproportionate to the money and effort spent on traditional marketing techniques. Advertisers now hope to manufacture marketing "hits" by leveraging the "buzz" within youth markets, or any market where word of mount might be effective. The article talks about "connectors," "thought leaders" or "influencers" who's goal it is to infiltrate, either physically or electronically, become an insider, and manipulate the "buzz" within a group. With the pervasiveness of the Internet, this type of marketing is only going to increase, especially in markets where there are products that have the potential for getting a passionate following. This kind of marketing pushes the ethical limits of advertising. When you are watching television, or reading a magazine it's clear that someone is trying to sell you something. Beware, forums like this are fertile grounds for these marketers.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?s lug=viral20&date=20041120&query=teen+market
 

Silver Member
Username: Rsxman

Post Number: 155
Registered: Jul-05
you mean like you for that website anon?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2401
Registered: Feb-05
"Are you paying attention here, Art?"

Not really Edster. This ranks very low on my priority list.

Eric, I listened to it twice and with various speakers and sources.

Edster your constant insults are a source of nothing more than pity from me. I hope you are enjoying yourself. My opinion of the Panasonic and the all of the other statements I have made around it remain unchanged.
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
> What amazes ME, Gvenk is that people like
> yourself are so often in the habit of PRESUMING
> that Panny fans like me are trying to win *YOU*
> over to it when in fact we're not---we're just
> trying to make sure that any newbies who come to
> forums like this asking for advice are made
> aware of its existence as a very inexpensive
> receiver that can, to many people's ears, equal
> or outperform receivers costing several times
> more.

You are putting words in my mouth. Did I say you were trying to win anyone over. I said push it which is not inconsistent with what you have said above as what you do. Is it pushing hard? Just compare the number of times and threads it is mentioned and the negative reaction because of it.. perhaps you don't realize it but to most people it comes as pushing hard and some of the negative reactions are to you and the like NOT the Panny itself.

> What puzzles me is, why is the simple invitation
> to CONSIDER/COMPARE/AUDITION the Panny to other
> receivers so threatening???

Don't confuse being annoying with being threatened. If some one was providing "simple invitations" with such regularity for ANY brand/component (no exceptions), you would have equal amount of reaction to it. You have interpreted these reactions as arising from being threatened. You don't seem to realize that they come from sheer annoyance which has nothing to do with the Panny.

> Moreover, the sheer narcissism and
> self-importance reflected in someone reading a
> post directed at a newbie and then interpreting
> it as an attempt to win THEM over instead of the
> newbie over, is not only appalling but sad.

Actually suggesting others think you are WINNING anyone over is entirely narcissistic and grandiose. If you read many of the reactions to you, it is reactiosn to YOU not the Panny. Of course, Panny is the subject of that reaction in some way to balance your "push". In fact, my post above suggested just the opposite. That the Panny would probably have more serious reception if there wasn't a cultish push from its devotees. No one likes hard-sell. And whether you intend it as such or not, you are coming out like a greasy salesman pushing a product from the amount of volume. And it isn't because you are trying to balance others. Cut your volume to be consistent with other recommendations and all of these endless debates and name-calling will die. It is a "simple invitation" for you to try.

> If you truly believe that the well-documented
> "placebo effect" is absent from the audio world
> then LOL that's pretty hilarious in and of
> itself.

Why don't you read it properly before you put words in my mouth? You might want to wonder if this is why the annoying part is you not the Panny.

Did I ever say that such an effect was absent? I equated that effect to the phoenomena of people getting influenced by a new buzz word/technology which is equally present. You have suggested several times that if the Panny was placed in a more expensive chassis, people would be more receptive. I am suggesting in a similar vein that if it didn't have the "digital" hook to hang one's coat on, it might not have the same cult following. Either you allow for both effects or allow for neither. Your choice.

> That's a good question. However, I think price
> does play an equal if not bigger factor in its
> high profile than the nature of its
> technology...yet that is not the whole picture.

You could think that (even if there is no objective proof with any studies) but it doesn't negate the possibility YOU might be susceptible to the nature of the technology, however few of you there are. If you are going to accuse others of being price-blinded, you should be prepared for people calling you technology-blinded.

Seems to me you take more pleasure in rubbing people's faces on having found a "cheap" alternative to "expensive" equipment than in an intent to share a good piece of equipment. Whatever turns you on. That is exactly the aspect of this cult behavior that is a disservice to Panny itself.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ziggyzoggyoioi

Outside Philadelphia, PA

Post Number: 193
Registered: Jun-05
Bravo, Gvenk. Very well said.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kano

Post Number: 779
Registered: Oct-04
It's like a never ending infomercial.

"Now look at what this guy said when he traded in his expensive HK 7300 for the Panny..."

Why are you selling?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3292
Registered: Mar-05
Gvenk,

> That the Panny would probably have more serious reception if there wasn't a cultish push from its devotees. No one likes hard-sell. And whether you intend it as such or not, you are coming out like a greasy salesman pushing a product from the amount of volume.

LOL you still don't get it: if I copy and paste links and info on the Panny to ONE THOUSAND *DIFFERENT* NEWBIES, it would *NEVER* be a "hard sell" nor even a "push" since for EACH NEWBIE that would be the first and only time they would hear my recommendation.

A "hard sell" = a salesperson repeatedly hitting YOU, i.e. THE SAME consumer, with various sales pitches for the same product over and over again. If I approach each person with the same blurb ONCE, that by definition cannot be a "hard sell."

You still haven't gotten it through your head that each of my Panny postings are directed at different INDIVIDUAL newbies, have you?

Now for regulars who are so utterly moronic as to actually sit and READ my copy-and-paste Panny blurb one thousand times over instead of simply skipping over them after a 1-second visual scan, LOL, as far as I'm concerned if they're really that stupid then they DESERVE to be as annoyed as they want.

But you see, I give the regulars (most of them at least) more credit than that. I know that they cannot possibly have learned how to use a computer and be THAT brain dead. I know (or at least hope) that they in fact DO NOT automatically read and re-read the same Panny blurb over and over agin, but are just being cranky and a nal about (gasp!) the HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE TRAUMA I must be putting them through by

1. not directing my post at them but at (gasp!) somebody totally else, and

2. forcing them to (gasp!) make a simple adult decision to skip over my regular Panny postings with a flick of their mouse.

> Seems to me you take more pleasure in rubbing people's faces on having found a "cheap" alternative to "expensive" equipment than in an intent to share a good piece of equipment.

It's obvious that you've only read my postings in response to the Panny-phobes...since they often begin by chortling at its pricetag and regurgitating the "you get what you pay for" mantra, yes I totally admit I do like to respond as you have described.

When I reply to newbies, they do not start off by revealing that they already own some very expensive receiver (duh, since they're asking for what receiver to buy), so I wouldn't be able to "rub their faces" even if I *wanted* to...again, you're coming straight out of left field.

For the tenth time: my Panny postings are directed at NEWBIES, ok? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why on earth do you always think YOU are being addressed, when it is so painfully obvious that I'm only responding to a newbie?

Are you completely incapable of distinguishing between verbal jousting with regular Pannyphobes and simple copy-and-paste responses to newbies?

helloooooo, these are TWO DIFFERENT conversations!
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3293
Registered: Mar-05
> Edster your constant insults are a source of nothing more than pity from me.

well Art, since you dish it out so much, it's nice to see that you can take it too when it's thrown right back at you. This does set you apart from some hilariously thin-skinned Pannyphobes around here.

> I hope you are enjoying yourself.

heh, well yes, I am being greatly entertained. LOL! And thank you all, thank you all...

> My opinion of the Panasonic and the all of the other statements I have made around it remain unchanged.

That's of little concern to me, but thank you for sharing the information anyhow. ; )
 

Bronze Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 45
Registered: Nov-05
Since we are not going to stop Edster raving about the 'virtues?' of his panny, why don't we all ignore such posts and cease all this childishness. You/we are all just feeding each other with this rubbish. We know what we like and if any newbie wants to take Edster's advice and give the panny a try then so be it.

There are those who'll listen to anything and the rest of us who like at least some quality in our audio.

:-)

Hey trust me - I'm kidding.


Really!


Honest!


Well - almost.

 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 638
Registered: Dec-04
Simply regurgitating the same mantra over and over to neophites sounds like rather a recognized polical ploy during an election as well, I suppose.

And I hope you realize, Edster, that some other posts are trying, desperately and in good faith to tell these folks that a good listen to some decent analog equipment will save them from shallow, watery, thin and shrill noise from which there could be no turning back.

These would be the posts usually following your Panny Propaganda, which you so quickly respond to personally towards other members, drawing attention away from origial posters, the ones you want to save from buying Nad and others which may please customers with listening values far from your own. Whew!

Now, the next noob looking for ear splitting treble at high speed with thin to non existant fullness, jump on in.

As if any of that matters to you at the moment.

And i think Art was spot on.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2402
Registered: Feb-05
I agree...with all but the last four lines.

No not really..I agree with the last line too!

Really... :-)

(This was a response to MR..Nucks post came in while I was posting this)
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2403
Registered: Feb-05
Thanks Nuck.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3297
Registered: Mar-05
> Simply regurgitating the same mantra over and over to neophites sounds like rather a recognized polical ploy during an election as well, I suppose.

That's because it works...the neophytes may or may not end up actually voting for the candidate being promoted, but many will actually have enough natural curiousity to look into that candidate.

Anyways Nuck, I confess to always responding to personal attacks with personal counterattacks. Why? Just sh*ts and giggles.

So for those fiercely protecting the dominance of now-overpriced and soon-to-be-obsolete clunky/hissy/fuzzy analog receivers...(trumpets) let the games continue!!!

LOL
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
Ed, you presume too much about people. That is definitely a problem.

The issue isn't that there are two different conversations, or that one isn't able to distinguish between the two. The problem is that they always merge into one very quickly and not because you are the victim. Your position is that you suggest the Panny and nothing more would happen if no one said anything else.

I have first hand information in one of the threads about the quality of your recommendations where I gave the NAD L53 a bad review. When I mentioned the Maggies, you piped up and said some people have had good success with the Maggies. This is the type of advice that is dangerous to newbies. I had already gone through this with another person that had dug up some references to people talking about the Panny in the context of the Maggies. Very vague stuff. Second, all Maggies are not alike. In particular, the MMG-Ws are very different from the rest of the line. But this doesn't bother you and you blindly suggest it without knowing much about it other than some anonymous people had talked about it. Clearly it isn't something that you had personal experience with. I, personally, would not make such recommendations from hearsay and that is the kind of thing where your credibility suffers because you come out looking like trying to place a square peg in every round hole. You cannot explain it away by simply saying all you are saying is just go and listen to it (when you haven't listened it yourself). People come here looking for recommendations that have some validity. They don't have the time to go look up every name people come up with.

You clearly have listened to at least one combination with the Panny and you are certainly within your rights to suggest it except for the credibility problem of stretching it to cases where it may not be the right thing and rationalizing it as simply a suggestion to go and listen.

If I just picked a component that I had never heard of and suggested it to everyone, I wouldn't be any more justified if I simply said, it is just a suggestion and people can form their own opinions. Unlike any other component except perhaps Bose, the Panny seems to have a cult following where people tend to over-recommend it in this fashion. I have a suspicion as to why.

Whether you like it or not, there are some who don't like the Panny after having heard it. There are some here who feel that when you do the comparisons to others, you are not doing the others proper justice. Which causes them to try to balance it.

And then you go off your handle labeling people as analogs, attributing motivations, accusing them of price blindness, etc. Initially, the reactions to your posts were gentle but there is only so much of your rants and labeling people can take. And now it degenerates as soon as you start.

I suspect if I went to the Speakers forum and started suggesting Bose speakers to every newbie request for speaker suggestions, there would be similar reactions because people would feel I am misleading newbies. If I went off my handle and accused them of being snobs, deaf, brand-conscious, etc., I expect I would get the same treatment you are getting. Of course, I could play the victim and claim that people are phobics that cannot take the truth or it could be that there is a problem with the Bose speakers that I don't know about.

I have never expressed an opinion on the Panny one way or the other but would love to see some credible reviews somewhere published not from anonymous people here (the same thing I would expect for any component not just the Panny). Your explanations of a conspiracy that the audio establishment doesn't care about the Panny because of the price or the technology rings very hollow to most people.

So enjoy it as much as you seem to in antagonizing people.... but you are not doing anyone favors. You only succeed in converting many threads into pissing contests and you aren't the innocent victim.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3298
Registered: Mar-05
My Rantz,

Even though we are on opposite sides of this discussion, I do appreciate the general good humor and light-heartedness of your post.

Ahhhhh...what a nice break from all these glum, comically constipated Pannyphobe postings!
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 640
Registered: Dec-04
I thought the thread was 'a different take on the panasonic'?

Just the same old Ed stuff spewed back up to beak feed noobs in the nest, and keep the fire burning here.

If the thing was so hot, it would have been reviewed by someone affiliated with a better publication than Mechanic's Illustrated.

Shameful...
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2404
Registered: Feb-05
"So for those fiercely protecting the dominance of now-overpriced and soon-to-be-obsolete clunky/hissy/fuzzy analog receivers...(trumpets) let the games continue!!!"

Sounds like the "wine and cheese" speaker comments from days gone by. I think you all know who I'm talking about.
 

Bronze Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 47
Registered: Nov-05
Ed, I hope the newbies have a good look at your profile before acting upon your recommendations. They'd at least know then not to take you seriously.

We'll I just came home with the new Buddy Guy CD and I'm going to listen to it on my sublime, supreme, stupendous, brilliant, uncomparable, warm but detailed, analog equipment. To be fair I haven't seen or heard this panny thing, but descriptions offered by those whom I believe know what they are talking about, tell me all I need to know.

I guess that's so much for my general good humor and light-heartedness.

 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3299
Registered: Mar-05
> Ed, you presume too much about people. That is definitely a problem.

ROTFL...if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black! What on earth makes you think I consider myself an "innocent victim" in any way shape or form? Who is putting words into other people's mouths?

> When I mentioned the Maggies, you piped up and said some people have had good success with the Maggies. This is the type of advice that is dangerous to newbies. You cannot explain it away by simply saying all you are saying is just go and listen to it (when you haven't listened it yourself).

ah, now we see Gvenk The Concerned/Benevolent Audio Patriarch/Guardian...lol! What an absurd paragraph. The gist of all my Panny blurbs is simple: give it a try and decide for yourself, because this is a $230 product that many people have found to equal or surpass their own gear that cost several times more.

What is so hard to understand about that? As I have said repeatedly, show me another product that cheap that has garnered the same shocking results...show me someone who's given up a Rotel for a $250 Onkyo.

What is your PROBLEM with simply including the Panny on one's "must-try" list due to the simple fact that no other budget receiver ever discussed on these audio boards has ever enjoyed these kinds of results?

What is your PROBLEM with a newbie with whatever model Maggies trying out the Panny for himself, and either sending it back in disappointment or keeping it in elation? Why do you try so HARD to prevent that newbie from even considering the possibility?

> People come here looking for recommendations that have some validity. They don't have the time to go look up every name people come up with.

ah...there you go *PRESUMING* to know: 1. what people come here looking for, 2. what is "valid" and 3. what "people have time" to do or not.

CONGRATS...a whopping 3 presumptions in 2 sentences! You're batting 1.5!!!

> Your explanations of a conspiracy that the audio establishment doesn't care about the Panny because of the price or the technology rings very hollow to most people.

ah, you fault my using "most people" or "some people" type statements in favor of the Panny but here you go yourself, using the exact same device.

LOL Gvenk, are you at all aware of your hypocrisy, or is that just part of your pathologically dogmatic personality?

> Whether you like it or not, there are some who don't like the Panny after having heard it. There are some here who feel that when you do the comparisons to others, you are not doing the others proper justice. Which causes them to try to balance it.

As I have said about ten times before, I have no problem with some people following me around to "balance out" my Panny postings. More power to them! However when they do so using personal attacks, I will continue to enjoy lobbing personal attacks right back at them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

> I suspect if I went to the Speakers forum and started suggesting Bose speakers to every newbie request for speaker suggestions, there would be similar reactions because people would feel I am misleading newbies.

That's a completely INVALID analogy. Firstly, Bose speakers are almost universally reviled on all independent audio boards. Secondly, Bose falls at the opposite end of the price scale compared to the Panny. Third, there is no comparable phenomenon of droves of people reporting on audio boards like this that they are giving up say, their Vandersteens or Magnepans after hearing Bose.

> I have never expressed an opinion on the Panny one way or the other but would love to see some credible reviews somewhere published not from anonymous people here (the same thing I would expect for any component not just the Panny).

"Credible reviews" do not really exist in audioworld because it's a commonly accepted fact that the vast majority of audio magazines are w hores to their advertisers and tend to rave about those advertisers' products. If "audio magazines" are to be treated as the Gospel on "audio reality" then why even bother having audio forums like this? Why not simply send newbies to links from audio magazines exclusively, instead of offering anonymous individual opinions and experiences?

Sorry, but your complete ignorance of the simple nature and function of an audio board (mainly to traffick in ultimately unverifiable opinions and experiences) is quite amusing.

> You only succeed in converting many threads into pissing contests

LOL you are hilarious. Newbie posts question, Edster posts Panny blurb without dissing on anyone, various Pannyphobes hysterically diss on Panny and/or Edster, Edster responds by dissing on Pannyphobes...yeah right, and *I* am the cause of the pissing contest?

heh, Gvenk you would make a most delightful magistrate.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3300
Registered: Mar-05
> Ed, I hope the newbies have a good look at your profile before acting upon your recommendations. They'd at least know then not to take you seriously.

Well that's entirely their free choice, just like it was my free choice to write exactly what I wrote in my profile. You see, unlike some people I tend to value "free choice" far above conforming to other people's expectations and prejudices.

> We'll I just came home with the new Buddy Guy CD and I'm going to listen to it on my sublime, supreme, stupendous, brilliant, uncomparable, warm but detailed, analog equipment.

(giggles) if you're happy with it, enjoy!

> To be fair I haven't seen or heard this panny thing, but descriptions offered by those whom I believe know what they are talking about, tell me all I need to know.

That's perfectly fine by me, LOL I hope you didn't seriously think I actually CARED what the mighty MyRantz decided, did you?

> I guess that's so much for my general good humor and light-heartedness.

Oh but don't worry, you're still way ahead in the "General Good Humor And Light-Heartedness" department here after that fella Edster from Abubula...
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 643
Registered: Dec-04
I didn't catch that, Ed, which mag reviewed the xr55 against similarly priced receivers?

Also, when you say'forums like this' when referring to consumers hawking their Rotel's in favor of the xr55, well, gee, I havn't seen a lot here. Or elsewhere, for that matter.
I did follow the 1 link you sent, thanks.
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 644
Registered: Dec-04
By the way, Ed, have 5 panny's on order, please tell all your friend to send me their fuzzy Rotel's, I will replace with brand new panny's.

Thanks in advance
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3302
Registered: Mar-05
Nuck,

10-4, the 5 Rotels are in the mail...LOL
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2405
Registered: Feb-05
"By the way, Ed, have 5 panny's on order, please tell all your friend to send me their fuzzy Rotel's, I will replace with brand new panny's.

Thanks in advance"

ROTFL!!!!! I'll order a few too if I can get some of those Rotels.

Thanks Nuck for the best laugh I've had in days!
 

Bronze Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 48
Registered: Nov-05
Guys, if nothing else this is entertaining to say the least. Shame Ed doesn't say the least though.

"The mighty Rantz"

Wow!

Hey Art, Nuck, Gvenk - now don't y'all get jealous now!

:-)


 

valvaholic
Unregistered guest
You guys really oughta go a little easier on poor Edster! He obviously likes what he hears, as do many others, as opposed to several others who vehemently detest the sound of the Pannie.

These markedly bipolar opinions may be due to two reasons: 1. relatively inexperienced users being wowed at the hyper-clarity and detail they initially hear, or 2. due to the lack of uniform frequency response with differing speaker loads that is inherent in the Panny topology, perhaps the Panny simply sounds better with speakers that offer a more benign load.

I suspect the latter may indicate why opinions are so over the map, what with everyone using different gear in different rooms. Perhaps the Panny simply favours, say, speakers with flatter impedance curves...

Or maybe it really does just suck, as it does with my B&W Signature 805s!

So, uhhh, can anyone recommend a decent sounding unit with main pre-outs for under a grand?? Denon 3806? Yamaha xxx?

My Panny's going back.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kano

Post Number: 780
Registered: Oct-04
"I suspect if I went to the Speakers forum and started suggesting Bose speakers to every newbie request for speaker suggestions, there would be similar reactions because people would feel I am misleading newbies."

-----------------------------------

"That's a completely INVALID analogy. Firstly, Bose speakers are almost universally reviled on all independent audio boards. Secondly, Bose falls at the opposite end of the price scale compared to the Panny. Third, there is no comparable phenomenon of droves of people reporting on audio boards like this that they are giving up say, their Vandersteens or Magnepans after hearing Bose."


I think it's a valid comparison. Both the Panny and Bose speakers offered a colored playback which many users obviously enjoy.

 

New member
Username: Munners

Post Number: 9
Registered: Nov-05
I have been following threads on the Panny all over the net now for almost a month, and after comming across edsters posts i decided to look into it further and decided on purchasing one.
Yes i am a noob,and yes i listened to several other receivers before i made my decision.All ED has ever done is suggest trying it before you go and drop
$$ on somthing else,has offered good insight to what type of speakers might suit,if everything doesnt go to plan you can simply return it,if peeps are stuck with bright speakers he has mearly suggested other av recievers that he thinks may suit better,as he has swapped out a few in his time and obviously listened to alot of speakers,because this is his favorite past time,as far as im concerned that makes him a nerd,but after reading him kick some butt on these boards with smart intelligent banter,i often wonder why you guys attack him so,keep up the good work Panny bashes it makes good humour as far as i see it.
My conclusions whether anyone gives a fat rats clacker are.
Panny pro = Happy People who seem to have to justify themselves over and over.

Panny anti = seem angry,aggressive, want this thing to dissapear,when it is blatenly obvious the best value for $$ receiver out on the market today.
Im sure alot of noobs have respect for the likes of Art and Kano for there input on alot of subjects over the years but this time i think you are going about it the wrong way ,nobody has anything to lose here? So when replying to a noobs request whats wrong with with just offering your advice ,even if its different to Edster,and take the $$ aspect into it as well.or does it peeve you off because Edster sounds to convinsing in his replies ? Because its starting to look like.
Art = Sherrif
ED = Robin Hood


ps. Oh what ever happened to that Paul character? bring him back,made for some great humour reading you guys getting stuck into him,would certainly keep you off each other,you would have to of missed him this past month?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2407
Registered: Feb-05
Munners = Uninformed

Edster doesn't sound too convincing, he's simply morphed into that Paul character you so miss.

Apparently you've bought into the angry pannyphobe BS that Eddie's selling. Before you get your scivies in a knot just remember that those of us who have auditioned the Panasonic and found it lacking in everyway just reported that. That's all. Eddie simply couldn't accept that and has turned those reports into these arguments (1)analog vs digital (2)audio snobs vs pragmatists (3)soon to be obsolete old timers vs the next generation, and on and on. None of the above is true but folks like you have bought it. Simply put, my audition of the Panasonic receiver clearly showed it was a horrible audio component, nothing more and nothing less. I'm not against digital switching technology. In fact I just auditioned the latest greatest Sony high end receiver after reading good things about it in several reputable publications. It is a wonderful product.

BTW - Edster has not provided good insight into what speakers go with the Panasonic. Read the above posts again.

"These markedly bipolar opinions may be due to two reasons: 1. relatively inexperienced users being wowed at the hyper-clarity and detail they initially hear"

Bullseye Valvaholic, reason #1 accounts for most of the converts. This is what I tried to warn newbies about but Edster turned it around to say that I was trying to keep folks from auditioning it. No, I was informing of them of what they may hear and that there are other elements of the presentation to pay attention to.

"Or maybe it really does just suck, as it does with my B&W Signature 805s!"

That is the end result.

I've had my say about this piece of junk and won't be wasting another post on it. I reserve the right to respond to personal BS.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2408
Registered: Feb-05
I'm sorry Valvaholic I didn't answer your question. If you can find the Yamaha RX-V2600 for the right price I think it may fit your needs. It has a feature set and SQ that is second to none in that price range. It, like ALL other receivers is not in the same league with your B&W's but it meets your stated criteria. Like most good receivers it sounds best paired with a good power amp. Good luck on your search.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3309
Registered: Mar-05
> Panny pro = Happy People who seem to have to justify themselves over and over.

Partially correct: happy yes, not sure about the "have to justify" bit---personally I simply ennjoy verbal jousting even if it seems a bit lopsided here since my opponents are bending over backwards to be shrill and pompous, straining to impose their petty little OPINIONS on others as "fact."

> Panny anti = seem angry,aggressive, want this thing to dissapear,when it is blatenly obvious the best value for $$ receiver out on the market today.

Exactly...they want this thing to disappear! Which is a very clear expression of fear.

Next to this foaming-at-the-mouth Pannyphobe lot, Paul was indeed a mental giant! LOL
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3310
Registered: Mar-05
> You guys really oughta go a little easier on poor Edster! He obviously likes what he hears, as do many others, as opposed to several others who vehemently detest the sound of the Pannie.

They shouldn't go easy on ME, I'm having a ball at their expense! LOL

> These markedly bipolar opinions may be due to two reasons: 1. relatively inexperienced users being wowed at the hyper-clarity and detail they initially hear, or 2. due to the lack of uniform frequency response with differing speaker loads that is inherent in the Panny topology, perhaps the Panny simply sounds better with speakers that offer a more benign load.

Partially correct: "hyper clarity and detail" is absolutely true, however there is no lack of uniform FREQ-RESPONSE. In fact, the Panny's double-edged sword is its amazingly UNIFORM frequency response which is why it sounds great with *speakers* that have a flat frequency response but will not sound good with colored speakers that already favor specific portions of the frequency spectrum---hence I have always warned people against pairing it with "bright" speakers.

> I suspect the latter may indicate why opinions are so over the map, what with everyone using different gear in different rooms. Perhaps the Panny simply favours, say, speakers with flatter impedance curves...

flatter FREQUENCY RESPONSE curves.

> Or maybe it really does just suck, as it does with my B&W Signature 805s!

Dunno about those, but to be honest from what I've read it seems like B&W speakers also have mixed responses, some people love them and some people don't.

> So, uhhh, can anyone recommend a decent sounding unit with main pre-outs for under a grand?? Denon 3806? Yamaha xxx?

Among the analogs, HK 635 is what I'd get if music performance is important to you.

> My Panny's going back.

Well I commend you for hearing it first.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3311
Registered: Mar-05
> Both the Panny and Bose speakers offered a colored playback which many users obviously enjoy.

You have it backwards, Kano. Bose is very colored, the Panny is not colored in any way...it's just magnificently luminous and sublime, IF your speakers/room/ears are up to it!

If they're not, hey just stick to some clunky analog...

(to all other posters: giggle, giggle, giggle.)
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3312
Registered: Mar-05
> Simply put, my audition of the Panasonic receiver clearly showed it was a horrible audio component, nothing more and nothing less.

Oh but Art, you have consistently turned your "audition" into something MUCH MORE...you've turned into the UNIVERSAL TRUTH for everybody else, where you assume that everyone else will have the same experience as you did so you go around trying to blackball the Panny and prevent newbies from auditioning it first for themselves.

Again, like I said, in the beginning you were mature and civil in expressing your dislike of the Panny, which I fully accepted.

However as more and more people tried it and liked it, your rhetoric has steadily degenerated into Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry level.

alas, how far the mighty have fallen...
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2409
Registered: Feb-05
You were never mighty but indeed you have fallen!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 6856
Registered: May-04


This, "due to the lack of uniform frequency response with differing speaker loads that is inherent in the Panny topology", was interpreted to get this response, "it sounds great with *speakers* that have a flat frequency response".



If you remember back when ed first starting this cost cutting campaign, I posted a few comments which I thought reflected some possibilities for what ed was hearing with the Panasonic in his system. One of the first comments was in regard to the Panasonic's nature when paired not with speakers whose frequency balance varied but with speakers whose overall impedance load shifted away from the nominal design point of the Panasonic. I believe we somehow established the Panasonic to be designed for a nominal 6 Ohm load. (Though I don't remember how that was decided and could easily have been just a supposition that was inserted to cover as much of the Panasonic's rear as possible.) I posted a technical comment on the overall nature of "digital" amplifiers which indicated a sensitivity to impedance loading in these designs (a flaw that can be designed around at higher price points) which can shift the frequency repsonse of the amplifier in a manner similar to that of an amplifier lacking a feedback loop. In other words, a low impedance load will roll the high frequency response of the amplifier while a rising frequency output would indicate a higher impedance load. This is the opposite of a "well designed" solid state amplifier where we assume a low impedance load will allow more wattage to be presented and, thus, a low impedance through the upper frequencies would result in a "bright" to even "tizzy" sound with most solid state amplifiers.


All this amounts to saying it is not at all the inherent frequency repsonse of the speaker but, instead, it is the inherent impedance load (benign or not) of the speaker and its quite radical (by today's standards) shift in the amplifier's frequency response we will hear with speakers not well suited to the Panasonic's output stages. This would indicate a "sound" from the Panasonic that will be dictated by the speakers being paired with the amplifier. Since most employees at the stores selling the Panasonic probably could not accurately define "impedance" and (an even better bet is they) are blissfully unaware of the reactance of the amplifier/speaker load, the "character" of the Panasonic will change somewhat as the speaker load is changed. Unfortunately, in a store display the typical speaker switching devices will tend to load the Panasonic to a constant level (probably 8 Ohms or slightly higher) and the true nature of the amplifier will never be heard on a casual audition in a bog box store. This is unfortunate since these same salespeople can easily sell the Panasonic to a customer with poorly matched speakers and even less knowledge than the sales staff.


None the less, it is the shifting impedance load of the speaker which would appear to be what establishes the "sound" of the amplifier and not the frequency reponse of the speaker itself. A "flat frequency reponse" speaker could still sound quite uneven with the Panasonic as the driving amplifier.


(Note: Check the impedance swing on the "typical" speaker that might be paired with the Panasonic.)




 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 1072
Registered: Sep-04
Jan is spot on about the impedance load issue. I've read quite a few things about the panny (elsewhere too) and many people (pro or against) seem to indicate that the Panny is inherently bright sounding.

I wonder if this is a similar scenario to the Pioneer A-400 years ago. The A-400 was glowingly reviewed everywhere and the hands-down amp to beat for about a year or two. It built a cult following for what was perceived as the best performance for the money. However, the Pioneer was guilty of being really quite bright. Is it possible that those who buy inexpensive bright gear are after the perceived enhanced detail? I don't know. I just wonder.

Regards,
Frank (incredibly busy at work having just dodged another redundancy bullet...)

 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 646
Registered: Dec-04
Keep beating the drum, Edster, and you will keep getting the same response from people here and everywhere who know better.

I REALLY am glad you enjoy this, because it is fun kicking your silly singleboneheaddedness around.

TeeHee

BTW, I never did see that glowing review posted in a magazine.
I saw the one in Mechanics Illustrated, or maybe Ladies Home Journal.
Both highly respected, I must say.
 

valvaholic
Unregistered guest
Art:
Thanks for the RX-V2600 suggestion... how would it compare to a NAD T773 or Marantz SR8500?? Who's got the best sounding pre-amp for the money?

Jan:
I don't think the Panny is specifically spec'ed for 6 ohms... I think that's a blatant marketing ploy to advertise the magic ""100"" watts/ch.

And yes, speaker impedance (and reactance) will have a far greater impact on perceived sound quality of the amp/rcvr driving it, which is probably why opinion is so divided here.

Edster:
Certainly can't argue against the Panny being a killer VALUE... but it is indeed a far cry from the "be-all-end-all" of receivers!
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3317
Registered: Mar-05
Jan,

you've made an interesting point. I looked at the spec sheet on page 25 of the Panny manual and the "load impedance" is claimed to be "6-8 ohms." To be honest I have no idea what that means---whether it's supposed to perform the same with both a 6 or 8 ohm speaker. Just going on completely unscientific hearsay on the AVS forum, it appears that about half of users who tried to run 4 ohm speakers with the Panny reported problems, and the other half said it did fine.

All I can say is that when I was ABing the Panny against my NAD components, the Panny clearly evidenced more power---or at least that was my interpretation when I turned the volume above 90-95db on the NAD and started to hear degradation while the Panny's clarity and control never wavered.

Also I will confess that my theory about flat frequency response in speakers is mainly based on extrapolation of how well my Ascends (which are famously flat-response speakers) handle the Panny, which has been corroborated by other Ascend owners who also use the Panny. In contrast most owners of conventionally "bright" speakers like JBLs and Athenas report negative results at a much higher rate.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3319
Registered: Mar-05
Nuck,

well I do have to congratulate you for so proudly/doggedly staying on a sinking ship, LOL!

You keep asking about a magazine review. Aside from being deluded, it appears that you are prone to hallucinate as well...I never claimed the xr55 was ever reviewed by ANY audio magazine. The xr70 was reviewed by Sound and Vision and that's about it, AFAIK. I have already provided my appraisal of the generally corrupt and disreputable state of most of the audio press, so why would I seek to find confirmation/validation from THAT source?

Nuck, you occasionally manage to come up with a funny line here and there but I'm afraid you suffer from the same dyslexia as most of your PEC/UOC comrades: I have always posted links not to any magazine reviews, but to threads from other audio forums by equally happy owners of the Panny.

My recommendation to newbies to give the Panny a listen has never been rooted in any claim that the self-anointed "audio authorities" or "audio establishment" have blessed it...LOL! It has always been more along the lines of: "hey all these people have had very surprising experiences with it, so why not give it a try too?"
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3320
Registered: Mar-05
Valvaholic,

> Edster: Certainly can't argue against the Panny being a killer VALUE... but it is indeed a far cry from the "be-all-end-all" of receivers!

I wouldn't call it the "be-all-end-all" of receivers either. In fact I often mention its low user-friendliness, quirks and specific limitations:

"A few caveats---very minor IMHO at this pricepoint: no pre-outs (would negate the whole point of a digital amp after all), subwoofer crossover only down to 80Hz, no room speaker EQ, primitive remote, no digital outputs, no OSD (onscreen display). Also may not be the best choice if you have lousy, overly bright speakers."

However, with non-bright 8 ohm speakers I would confidently put up against most analog receivers under say, $800, in terms of sound quality---based on my own experience and that of many users I have read about on various audio boards.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 6864
Registered: May-04


Certainly if the speaker has a wandering frequency response combined with electrical phase irregularities, any other dips and peaks engendered by the response of the amplifier will simply make matters worse. That would probably be true even for those people who prefer a rather bright sound to begin with. However, there needs to be a bit more of an explanation of exactly what "negative results" have been encountered to possibly prove beneficial to those of us not familiar with the Panasonic.


" ... it appears that about half of users who tried to run 4 ohm speakers with the Panny reported problems, and the other half said it did fine."


Once again that doesn't tell us anything that we wouldn't expect with any $200 receiver. I think by now most of us understand that a four Ohm speaker is seldom just four Ohms. What "problems" have been experienced would be helpful to anyone considering the Panasonic. Are these people on the forums hearing poor frequency response or is the amplifier having problems driving the speakers? Or, both? (For some unexplained reason, people who buy $200 receivers seem to have an unusually high expectation of just what they have purchased.)






Frank - Have you read or heard any explanation for why the Panasonic reacts so drastically to impedance loads? It surely has a feedback loop and the output impedance is fairly low. Any idea what makes it behave in a fashion more like a 1990's SET? As with the recent "discovery" of old fashioned SET sound, the Panasonic seems to be acting as a "tone control" for the various speakers it is paired with. And, as with the SET's from the 1990's, there would appear to be drastically different listener response when hearing the Panasonic mated with different speakers. Some people might easily like the sound they hear though it is unlikely to be "nuetral" response. Other people hear just the bad things the Panasonic does and those problems are exacerbated by an impedance mismatch. I would suspect that should Panasonic continue to pursue this amplifier topology the results will, like SET amplifiers, finally find some common ground with the technical merits of contemporary amplifiers. This would, of course, render the XR-55 the "dinosaur" of the breed.


Oh well, someone has to be the first to push the pig aside and taste the glob of moldy fungus attached the the roots of the tree.




 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 655
Registered: Dec-04
A glowing revival of the SET, accompanied by a picture that made me choke up beer!
Whats next Jan, chanting around the pig's head on a stick, awaiting Piggie's resurrection?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3326
Registered: Mar-05
> Are these people on the forums hearing poor frequency response or is the amplifier having problems driving the speakers? Or, both?

If memory serves, the half that were having problems driving 4 ohm loads with the Panny usually reported the amp having issues, i.e. shutting itself off.

So Jan, are there any specs to look for, which might indicate that a particular speaker has a higher propensity to have these electrical phase irregularities than other speakers?

> Oh well, someone has to be the first to push the pig aside and taste the glob of moldy fungus attached the the roots of the tree.

Moldy fungus...hmmm, sounds like some really good cheese. LOL
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
From the Sound and Vision review of the XR70 refered to above:

"Although it met the manufacturer's 6-
ohm power spec in my tests, it didn't perform
to spec into 4 ohms and shouldn't be used
with low-impedance speakers."
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3328
Registered: Mar-05
This is the original review of the xr70:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=806

Gvenk is quoting the "In the Lab" PDF which is linked to on page 2 of the review.

I should also add that the sentence immediately following that warning about low-impedance speakers:

"...frequency response was essentially ruler-flat, and there was no penalty in terms of distortion or noise."

Also note that the S&V reviewer used M&K speakers, which like the Ascends are known for their flat frequency response. (The owner and designer of Ascend is a former M&K employee, btw.)
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3329
Registered: Mar-05
Stu,

In light of the findings above, I went to the PSB website and looked up your speakers, the T55:

http://www.psbspeakers.com/product.php?pId=13&sId=3

Unfortunately, the "specifications" link did not include any frequency response graphs, unlike the Ascend website. I did notice that the tweeters are "aluminum dome" and the woofers are "metalized polypropolene." On Monday I will email PSB and ask for FR graphs, just out of curiousity. I have been told that while very few speaker companies will publish their FR graphs on their sites, they supposedly will provide them if you call or email a request.

If I get a chance I'll go back to my local Marantz dealer over the weekend and ask if he has the T55 n stock for me to listen to.

Now this is really getting interesting!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2414
Registered: Feb-05
Valvaholic, the RX-V2600 isn't quite as powerful as the NAD or Marantz that you mention. There was a time that I would have laughed at the possibility of recommending the Yamaha over either the NAD or Marantz. After I owned the T763 for several months and presently have a Marantz in my second system my experience leads me to the conclusion that the Yamaha provides a better overall buy.

The NAD will have the best 2 channel sound if you can ignore the hiss and hum that is inherent with the NAD receivers. I couldn't ignore it. The feature set with NAD is the weakest of the bunch and the multichannel sound suffers from that.

The Marantz both sounds good and offers a decent feature set. The Marantz trades in neutrality and detail for a warmer presentation. A good sounding receiver but IMO not quite as good as the Yamaha.

The Yamaha has class leading features with a neutral presentation both for 2 channel and multichannel applications. IMO this Yamaha receiver represents the best value in multichannel audio today (tomorrow is a different day). The Pure direct mode offers very good 2 channel performance, and I happen to enjoy the XM satellite radio.

Sorry I couldn't give you more info. It's early and I haven't had my first cup yet. Au revoir.
 

Gvenk
Unregistered guest
> I should also add that the sentence immediately
> following that warning about low-impedance
> speakers:

> "...frequency response was essentially
> ruler-flat, and there was no penalty in terms of
> distortion or noise."

Right, but so as not to confuse, the above is not in reference to 4 ohms speakers which were dismissed as not appropriate.

Also it should be noted that the lab tests for frequency response provide a constant impedence to the amp, so this meshes with the claim that the Panny has a flat frequency response if presented with a steady impedence (of course, this does not necessarily have a correlation with how it sounds ... for any receiver not just this one) and it would appear that constant impedence should be 6ohms or above.

At the least, the above constraints should be used in evaluation of this receiver.

I have no idea how many or which speakers fit the above profile.

It would make a lot more sense if this receiver was recommended as speaker/receiver pairs known to be liked by at least some.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3335
Registered: Mar-05
> It would make a lot more sense if this receiver was recommended as speaker/receiver pairs known to be liked by at least some.

Very valid point. I would unhesitatingly recommend it paired with my neutral Ascends. Will try my friend's warmish Wharfedale 8.2s with it this weekend.

What still puzzles me is how to tell from a spec sheet if a speaker listed at 8 ohms is or is not prone to dip below 6 ohms in actual use. Any ideas?
 

valvaholic
Unregistered guest
Thanks Art:
I think I'm going to go with the model you have (657?) since I'll be running a separate main amp and I don't need video upscaling.

Or does the 2600 have a significantly better pre-amp over the 657?? decisions, decisions...
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2417
Registered: Feb-05
Valvaholic - it does have a better pre amp than the 657. Remember that the only 2 channel music I listen to with the 657 is the FM/XM radio which has a surprisingly clean sound. My system works like this:

"I use the AVR as yet another source component hooked up to the video or aux on your pre and to power the center and rears. Leave the AVR off completely when listening to 2 channel. I go from the L/R front pre outs on the AVR to the video in on my NAD C162 pre. The C162 pre has 2 sets of pre outs. I use 1 set to go to the power amp and the other to go to the sub that I use for 2 channel and another sub connected to the LFE of the AVR. I have to set the pre amp volume control to a set mark when I calibrate the home theater and return it to that setting every time I listen to it. It's key to remember to turn it back down before returning to 2 channel use or you can blow your fronts. It's a bit of pain but well worth it to me for better 2 channel and multichannel performance."

The 657 is an excellent budget receiver but the 2600 is significantly better. Perhaps you can buy the 657 and if it does not meet your needs you can upgrade to the 2600 without financial penalty. Any good dealer will let you do that. I would be interested in hearing how the 657 sounds with a seperate amp hooked up directly to it as opposed to how I have done it. To me that is really all the 657 lacks is power. It may work very nicely for you. Keep me posted please.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 794
Registered: May-05
Ed -
I haven't been able to find any graphs for the T55's. It would be interesting to see how they measure scientifically. I know all of their measurements and R&D are done at the NRC in Canada, so it should be very reliable.

Also, in light of what has been said about the Panny and 4 ohm loads, this could be a viable source of some of the problems I found with it. My speakers are 6 ohm nominal and 4 ohm minimum. I have no idea what the impedence swings of the speaker are or exactly how that works - ie what spl's and frequencies cause impedence to drop or rise. I don't think this is the only reason why it sounded bad though.

I don't pay too much attention to charts and graphs though. I think they are interesting to look at and give somewhat of a sense of what the speaker or gear may do, but the most important thing is how it sounds to me. Specs definately have their place but, but I look at them as more of background information than anything else. If you take a look at on axis +- 3 dB frequency response of Image, Stratus, and Platinum series towers, their is very little difference. Certanly not enough to justify paying $6100 more for the Platinum T8 for 7 Hz lower bass that the T55. If you hear and see them side by side, you know exactly why they are $6100 more.

Furthermore, the T55's are somewhat misleading on paper. Most people think that aluminum tweeters are always harsh and bright and can never be as smooth as silk or other soft tweeters. Any one with real world experience knows that their are good and bad designs with any material. Same goes for drivers. Just because they are 'metallized' doesn't mean they aren't as good or can never be better than other materials.

Had I been hung up on specs and tweeter and driver materials I would have never given my PSB's a listen. Their are many speakers out their that have a better frequency range and use theoretically 'better sounding' drivers and tweeters, but I haven't found anything at the same retail price that sounds better to my ears with my gear in my room that my PSB's. Just like almost everything else, it isn't what you use, but how you use it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3341
Registered: Mar-05
Good points, Stu. I already sent PSB the request, so will post the graphs if they send it.
 

Anonymous
 
All of the above is really quite unprecedented on these audio boards

We're not in the AVS Forum. ;-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 6870
Registered: May-04


Without a specific measurement from the manufacturer (which seldom is provided) or a testing service such as Stereophile, you will have to ask the manufacturer about the impedance and electrical phase angle the speaker will present to an amplifier. This is a specification that determines the success of any speaker/amplifier combination, yet is seldom mentioned in more than the briefest, most obscure fashion by manufacturers. Most people have no idea such a situation exists in a speaker and incorrectly assume a speaker is always 8 Ohms if that is how "impedance" is stated on the spec sheet. The electrical phase angle is an indication of the difficulty an amplifier will have driving a speaker and the problems it presents will only be compounded by a broad swing in the impedance of the speaker system. Combining a difficult phase angle and a very low to very high impedance trough will be hard on most amplifiers but the impedance will usually not have an effect on frequency response to the degree the Panasonic seems to react. Why this is I don't know. It would appear to be an inherent problem with "digital" amplifiers but is not as severe in the higher priced products such as the Channel Island. Of course, the Channel Island is almost entirely power supply while the Panasonic, judging by its cost, weight and size, has far less power supply to rely on.






 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3344
Registered: Mar-05
OK, if PSB answers my request for a FR graph I'll ask them for "the impedance and electrical phase angle" too.

I'll also ask David Fabrikant of Ascend to provide the same spec.
 

New member
Username: Dzjang

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-05
gentleman (sometimes),

for those who think the panny is not reviewed worldwide
for those who can read german

http://www.asbyon.com/screen/rubriken/testberichte/testberichte_saxr55.asp

http://www.av-magazin.de/Einleitung_Panasonic_SA-XR55.243.0.html

http://www.stereoplay.de/d/67566
actually the PDF with the review can be found at
http://www.produkte.panasonic.de/product/product.asp?sStr=4@-@1@16@73@@@@@@SA-XR55EG-S@Receiver@&altMod=N&prop=TEST
(copy-paste link)

dzjang
 

Bronze Member
Username: Bill984

Post Number: 82
Registered: Oct-05
must be the most talked about cheap reciever on the planet!
 

not-anony
Unregistered guest
Here is an excerpt of one of the above reviews, taken from Google-Translate, on the audio prowess of the xr-55:

"Volume alone is reliably no qualitative characteristic. Thus flux Diana Krall from the cabinet is gotten. With "Live in Paris" it depends much on the atmospheric representation. It applies nevertheless for piano to bring voice and the Begleitorchester under a hat. Now we have no more doubt, the digital output stages of the Sa-xr55 function on high level. Piano wires very finely decay, over the centers come Mrs. Kralls voice outlined and with warm Timbre. Wow, for this preisklasse is an outrageous conception. Since it plays already in such a way prima, Audiophiles may not be missing ala to Sarah K.. Here there is not only the refinement of both acoustic guitars, but above all the very close recording of the Live concert, which one very material in the happening let participate. With these DVD can one also again the difference between Bi-Amping and conventional reinforcement plumb. One selects on the DVD the 48-kHz-Spur is possible for Bi-Amping. Our test loudspeakers react to the parallel reinforcement with clearly more air between voice and instruments. Knocking noises on the korpus are shown more plastic and with noticeably larger dynamics."
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 795
Registered: May-05
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Bill984

Post Number: 85
Registered: Oct-05
i was wondering the same thing, i thought it was just me.
 

Silver Member
Username: Chitown

Post Number: 538
Registered: Apr-05
Must be the German translator.


 

Silver Member
Username: Chitown

Post Number: 539
Registered: Apr-05
You'll just have to read it in the original Klingon

 

not-anony
Unregistered guest
Oh! sorry, someone posted some links of XR55 reviews done by some German peress. I thought I'd grab a sample of one of the reviews that was discussing the audio/musical qualities of the XR55. I basically used Google translate and what came out was as confusing while at the same time very enlightning.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 796
Registered: May-05
Real enlightening...
 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 232
Registered: Jul-05
hehe. Luv this.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3367
Registered: Mar-05
LOL, a very imperfect translation to say the least.

However, note that nowhere does the German reviewer make absurdly hyperbolic statements to the effect of "this receiver sounds like total crap, I've heard Yorx minisystems that were more musical" as a few of the Pannyphobes around here have claimed.

Even in this butchered English, it's pretty clear that the reviewer was impressed:

"Now we have no more doubt, the digital output stages of the Sa-xr55 function on high level. Piano wires very finely decay, over the centers come Mrs. Kralls voice outlined and with warm Timbre."

WARM timbre...wow, now even I would not have thought to claim that the Panny was *warm.*
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2435
Registered: Feb-05
"WARM timbre...wow, now even I would not have thought to claim that the Panny was *warm."

Perhaps that's because it's absolute BS.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Bill984

Post Number: 87
Registered: Oct-05
my take on it, after reading the reviews here, is that there must be no other reciever out there worth owning. save all the money from buying this and not the 1500 dollar mega av reciever and put it towards the accoustamass system.
 

New member
Username: Dzjangagain

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-05
Art,

I posted the german (ok, so what...) reviews to eventually help people.

If you ain't any idee what's in the reviews don't say it's BS. There are about ten or more sa-xr55 reviews in german AV-magazines. In general the reviews are from positive to very positive (especially about the bi-amping thing and of course also if you consider the panny price...). Pitty I don't have the time to translate them for you :-)

Dzjang
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3372
Registered: Mar-05
bill,

oh no, the Acoustimass system no good is.

Of course there are other good receivers out there too, but to spend $1500 on a receiver these days (especially for HT) you have to be a complete moron.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3373
Registered: Mar-05
dzjang,

Sad to say, even if the review you posted had been translated into perfect English, it might as well be in the original German as far as SOME of the religious Pannyphobes around here are concerned.

LOL
 

Bronze Member
Username: Darth

Post Number: 27
Registered: Aug-05
This is too much fun ! :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3380
Registered: Mar-05
Well, it's official...PSB will not provide any frequency response graphs of its speakers to the public. I wonder why...maybe their speakers really are NOT as "neutral" as some have claimed?

Anyways, here's the response I got to my email:

========

Thank you for your recent request via the PSB Speakers web-site.

Unfortunately, we do not have these graphs available for the public.
However, we do have a review that you can read on the T55's as found
at:

http://www.psbspeakers.com/review.php?rId=49&pId=13&sId=3


Best regards,

Karen Pritchard
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3385
Registered: Mar-05
btw Vader, if you really knew anything about "fun" you'd know that there's no such thing as TOO much fun! LOL

 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2442
Registered: Feb-05
Big whoopy! PSB won't provide Edster with graphs. Good grief!
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3388
Registered: Mar-05
geez Art, do you have to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion? LOL

For the record I didn't expect them to provide FR graphs, in fact very few speaker companies will for some funny reason.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kano

BC Canada

Post Number: 798
Registered: Oct-04
It's because the general public shops for speakers by looking at their numbers, and would be easily convinced one speaker is better than the other based solely upon how flat the frequency response is.

 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 808
Registered: May-05
"Well, it's official...PSB will not provide any frequency response graphs of its speakers to the public. I wonder why...maybe their speakers really are NOT as "neutral" as some have claimed?"

"For the record I didn't expect them to provide FR graphs, in fact very few speaker companies will for some funny reason."

So why bash them for it?

As I've previously stated, I don't need graphs or specs to tell me what sounds good. Show me a spec on soundstage width, depth, or height. Show me a graph on imaging accuracy. Can a graph tell you how boomy or tight the bass will be? Can a graph show how harsh or clear highs will sound?

Maybe I'm missing something...

Have you heard the Image T55's Ed? You don't like it too much when someone talks negatively about a product they haven't heard before. Are you an ImageT55phobe? Are you afraid that your Ascends will become obsolete when these speakers trounce on everything in their path and take the world by storm with their jaw dropping clarity and neutrality? Ruler flat and zero distortion at ANY spl...
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 712
Registered: Dec-04
I'll call Ahmed, the tech guy there, and get some rough numbers.

Just the T55 or anything else?

Ill get impedance curves by next weekend.

Hopefully.

He said the stratus silver fronts(mine) dip to 3.1ohm at 37hz, max power.

(not a hint of that from mine, BTW)

 

New member
Username: Tommy_jenkins

Tallahasse, FL

Post Number: 2
Registered: Dec-05
sad fact is that most speaker companies don't give FR graphs, for whatever reason.

PSBs are not bad speakers. not quite my taste, they do remind me of Athenas with their treble.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 1344
Registered: Jun-05
Tommy,dont even mention PSB in the same sentence as Athena,thats giving PSB a huge injustice.If you wanna compare something thats sounds like the Athenas,I would point at the Paradigm Monitor line,but they are still not as bright as the Athenas.However the Athenas are way less boxy than the Monitor series.See Tommy you have to be specific,PSB makes speakers that go all the way up to $7,000,the Athenas are just a budget speaker under $700 everything PSB makes is better than the Athenas Alpha and the Image series,and they dont anything special outside of that price either.
 

New member
Username: Tommy_jenkins

Tallahasse, FL

Post Number: 3
Registered: Dec-05
I have not heard the truly top tier PSBs but their $800-1500 range models were really disappointing for that price range.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3397
Registered: Mar-05
> So why bash them for it?

Good God, if you interpret my writing, "I wonder why...maybe their speakers really are NOT as "neutral" as some have claimed?" as "bashing"---then that's pretty funny in and of itself.

> Show me a spec on soundstage width, depth, or height. Show me a graph on imaging accuracy. Can a graph tell you how boomy or tight the bass will be? Can a graph show how harsh or clear highs will sound?

I agree that there are no graphs for all those OTHER subjective sound characteristics that you describe. However, a FR graph is a fairly clear indicator of what is "bright" vs. "warm" vs. "neutral" and it is therefore highly pertinent to the discussion at hand, about whether your T55s were a good match to the Panny or not based on whether it is a "bright" speaker or not. Just because a speaker may or may not be "bright" does not necessarily affect its other subjective qualities such as soundstage, imaging, etc.

> Are you an ImageT55phobe? Are you afraid that your Ascends will become obsolete when these speakers trounce on everything in their path and take the world by storm with their jaw dropping clarity and neutrality? Ruler flat and zero distortion at ANY spl.

LOL if the T55s were truly "ruler flat" then I'd highly doubt that PSB would be keeping their FR graphs to themselves... Good try though.
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 742
Registered: Dec-04
Tommy, my Silver Stratus fronts are not bad for what I paid for them(1k) 7 yrs ago.
I recently got delivered(for a nominal fee) soft dome tweeters to try i place of the metal domes, just for a change of pace.
The engineering dept. spec'd these for me and the parts were at my door 2 days later.

These are exceptional units backed by quality people.

The speakers are not for everyone, no doubt. The speakers are not meant to fill a room with bass, that is what subs do.

These units DO, however, fill a medium to large room with quality sound rolling off to good subs.

I know these are not the T55's you are refferring to, but I think you are way, way of base with this call.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 6925
Registered: May-04


Well, actually, if a speaker were considered "bright", it would affect the soundstage presentation which, of course, is related to the "imaging" of the music. And there are certainly measurements which will suggest whether the speaker will have "tight" or "boomy" bass and lower midrange. (Those terms, however, always seem to have different meaning to different listeners.) And, when listening in stereo, there is no height information encoded in the two channel format. Some speakers present a "bigger" picture than other speakers, but that is not related to the height of, say, an auditorium where the music was performed. (A Magnepan has inherently more height to the presentation than most mid sized floor standing speakers.) Retrieving that bit of height information has more to do with how tightly matched the speaker components are to one another and, bless PB's pointed little head, how the Xo's are configured. Component matching is a measurement you hardly ever see.


Multichannel recordings can provide a better sense of height than stereo versions, if the information is put in place in the recording process. Reproducing that information is not then a function of the speaker, per se, but of the speaker's ability to not mess with the signal it is presented. That assumes the system can deliver an accurate signal. And, so it goes.








 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3407
Registered: Mar-05
> Tommy, my Silver Stratus fronts are not bad for what I paid for them(1k) 7 yrs ago.
I recently got delivered(for a nominal fee) soft dome tweeters to try i place of the metal domes, just for a change of pace.

"A change of pace" yeah RIGHT.

C'mon Nucko, just admit it: they were probably bright as all bl oody hell and needed to be toned down. Then you ran the Panny on them and blamed the Panny for all their defects, LMAO!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2457
Registered: Feb-05
Everyones tastes differ. I very much enjoy the PSB Image series. They are a better value than the Paradigm Monitor Series IMO. Not in the same league as the Reference Seiries Paradigms but then again they weren't meant to be. The Image T55 is a particularly good buy. It has nearly full frequency performance with few of the problems you often see in budget floorstanders like prodigious cabinet resonance. Certainly bests the Paradigm Monitor 7 and is competitive with the B&W 600 series floorstanders.
 

New member
Username: Lironanav1

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-05
helo i am liron from israel and i have a problem
how cen i shipping a reciever to israel if all the reciever in us work in 110w and un israel it work in 220w
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 812
Registered: May-05
"Are you an ImageT55phobe? Are you afraid that your Ascends will become obsolete when these speakers trounce on everything in their path and take the world by storm with their jaw dropping clarity and neutrality? Ruler flat and zero distortion at ANY spl."

This one obviously went way over your head Eddie. Just trying to make a few outragoeus claims that may sound a little too familiar to some people here.

Riddle me this one, dear ImageT55phobe - Have you heard them yet? If not, why are you so afraid of them?
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3418
Registered: Mar-05
Stu, Stu, Stu...

Glib oversimplifications do not suit you. Leave that to the likes of Vader, et. al.

Here's the difference between me regarding your T55s and the Pannyphobes regarding the xr55:

1. I have never actually dissed your T55...just asked a few speculative questions as to why PSB refuses to release FR charts. However you seem exceedingly thin-skinned in your reaction.

2. The T55 represents no breakthroughs in price whatsoever...tons of $800-1200 speakers out there.

In contrast the xr55 is the only $230 receiver that's garnered such massive raves and cult following on other boards.

3. The T55 represents no breakthrough in technology or form factor whatsoever. Plenty of big floorstanders out there. Only a handful of tiny digital switching receivers (Onkyo 522, JVC 202/402, HK 2005).

4. I have not made up my mind about your T55, since I have not heard it. However I see nothing wrong with asking a few questions...you sure seem a bit jumpy though.

 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 814
Registered: May-05
My view of everything has been a little off the past week. I'll find out tomorrow if I still have a job. Something about re-evaluating their priorities and whether or not my position is a good investment. I've been re-assured it's the position and not me personally under review, for whatever that's worth. Kind of like "it's not you, it's us."

Gotta love it... Finding out if your're getting laid off or not on December 20th... What's this world coming to?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2470
Registered: Feb-05
You and I are in the same boat Stu. Good luck, I know how it feels.
 

Bronze Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 91
Registered: Nov-05
People are merely numbers. It's sad.

Good Luck Stu.

Et tu Art?

 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 242
Registered: Jul-05
The lead singer in our band told me HP is laying off 14,000 people and closing 80 plants ( he works for HP).

What kind of work do you do Stu?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Darth

Post Number: 37
Registered: Aug-05
Stu,
Sorry to hear that, I am kind of new to the forum but have followed your posts with much insterest.
Wish you luck.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3419
Registered: Mar-05
Stu & Art,

That's gotta suck, yikes.

Panny disagreements aside, I think we will all keep our fingers crossed for both of you.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2472
Registered: Feb-05
I used to work for HP now I work for the State of Oregon Department of Human Services. Our HP site had almost 5000 people at one time and according to my next door neighbor, who was a maintenance tech there until he took the VSI package recently, the site will bw all but abandoned by sometime in 2007.
 

Silver Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 762
Registered: Dec-04
I'm hoping for the best for you both.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 815
Registered: May-05
Thanks for the support everyone. They informed me this morning that they may need another week or two make their final decision.

I'm an Athletic Trainer (Sports Medicine, not a personal trainer) and Instructor at a college. I think they figure that because the sports here aren't that competitive (not NCAA affiliated) they don't need someone to take care of first aid and injury rehab. They also think that they'll split up my teaching load between the others in the Physical Education and Biology departments. Between salary, benefits, and professional development costs to maintain my certification, they're figuring they'll save about $60,000 per year. If it was a situation where a lot of people were getting laid off, that would be one thing - not that that would make it ok by any stretch - but I'm one of about 4 or 5 people in the entire school facing this. How am I not supposed to take that one personally? As Rantz said, "People are merely numbers."

Art - I guess we'll figure something out if the worst case scenario happens. Hopefully I'll get a decent severence package and proclaim it the "Winter of Stu." With the way my luck has been of late, that's not very likely...

This is going to be the best Festivus ever. I'm really looking forward to the airing of grievences and feats of strength. Maybe I'll celebrate it a few days early this year... The employee holiday party is tonight. It should be a blast...
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 1087
Registered: Sep-04
Jan,

In response to your question:

Have you read or heard any explanation for why the Panasonic reacts so drastically to impedance loads?

This is not unique to the Panasonic. It's a factor of all switching amplifiers and one reason why it was considered, until a few years ago, impossible to get a quality sound out of them.

The load tolerance of the output devices has improved significantly in the last 5 years so the power delivery has become far more stable, stable enough to be useable in a HiFi sense.

I've seen a lot of talk about speakers being bright or having odd impedance loads. The fact is that most speakers have weird impedance loads. It's very few which don't. The definition of an 8 ohm speaker is one whose impedance doesn't go below 4 ohms for a significant proportion of the frequency range. The definiton of a 4 ohm speaker is one that doesn't go below 2 ohms for a significant proportion of the frequency range. But if you look at the impedance characteristics of any speaker you will note that the impedance varies between (say) 4 ohms and 30 ohms with typically one or two sharp peaks in the curve. This is hardly linear. It's what makes things like slew rate and damping factor so important and these are such a problem with switching amplifiers. People are developing new techniques to get around these problems but they're usually quite expensive.

Regards,
Frank.
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 1088
Registered: Sep-04
Stu,

I've just dodged the redundancy bullet myself last week. I know how you feel. And it may very well be that they say it's not you but them, but in the end it's not them who get laid off....

All the best,
Frank.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 2475
Registered: Feb-05
Our lay off process will be complete 1/17/06. That is all of the lay offs and subsequent bumping will be complete and those who no longer have jobs will be will be unemployed as of 1/18/06. Those who have bumped someone else and still have jobs but have been demoted will assume there new duties as of 1/18/06. I am in the latter group. Since I only make a little over half of what Stu makes the State won't be saving much money. I will not actually see a loss of pay until 7/1/08 by which time I hope to have an opportunity to use my layoff recall rights. I have 2 years to be automatically placed in my old position if one becomes available. I have the most seniority of anyone in my district to get the layoff notice so there is a chance I could go back to my old job sometime in the next 2 yrs. Problem is that there will be a position open in a location where there is rampant racism very soon and I will be asked to go there first. My choices at this point are to work in an office I hate but do the job I love or work in an office I love and do a job I hate. Tough choice. I do still have my poor paying job (fully paid health care and retirement so I ain't griping)so I feel grateful. Good luck Stu.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 243
Registered: Jul-05
Hey Stu, feel free to keep us posted if you'd like. I am wondering if you are mobile or not. Also, I was wondering if you ever thought about physical therapy school or not. I find that highly competent certified athletic trainers take a bit of a back seat in many job venues to physical therapists with the same area of interest becuase the PTs can bill and the CATs can't. Just a thought.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 6965
Registered: May-04


Frank - Yes, I was aware of the problems with the switching technology. I have read reports that there are more promising designs available (I've also read reports of other modern marvels in most of the same publications) with significantly higher power levels that are not just suited for use as a plate amp on a subwoofer. The Channel Island amp seems to fit that category. It, however, has a very large transformer and supposedly a stout power supply. In fact, it reminds me a bit of some of the budget amps from the 1970-80's that were not much more than a power supply tied to a pair of output transistors. Most of those amps made a splash for a moment and then disappeared.


So, in the case of an amplifier such as the one incorporated into the Panasonic receiver, what's your take? Are they using better output transistors but a power supply that still matches its selling price? It weighs next to nothing but that's supposed to be the "marvel" of switching amplifiers. Of course, so far, long term reliability has not been synonymous with switching amps. Budget power supplies do not bode well for any piece of audio gear but, in my experience, most particularly when used with switching technology. Or, are they not doing much of anything new and just depending on the fact that many people can't hear the problems of switching amps?



 

Silver Member
Username: Chitown

Post Number: 576
Registered: Apr-05
"Hey Stu, feel free to keep us posted if you'd like. I am wondering if you are mobile or not. Also, I was wondering if you ever thought about physical therapy school or not."

I'm not in this field, but to Marc point, I am seeing a lot of store front Physical Therapy places opening up in downtown Chicago. So there is got to be a market for similar skill set.


 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 248
Registered: Jul-05
The whole PT/Athletic trainer thing is a discussion- my main deal is to make sure Stu knows we are interested and care about folks dealin with uncool stressful stuff like this.
 

Silver Member
Username: Stu_pitt

NYC, NY

Post Number: 820
Registered: May-05
Thanks again everyone for your support. My employer has decided to wait until April to make a final decision. My boss has been a very vocal supporter of me. She's probably the only reason why I'm still around. My stress level has gone down a lot now that I have more time for a contingency plan. If I don't get laid off, I'll probably leave after the academic year unless they do a great job of reassuring me that this won't happen again. I've got a friend/professional contact in the NFL that'll help me get my foot in the door out if I decide to persue that route.

Marc -
I'm assuming you've been around an ATC or two. PT school would be financially and logistically almost impossible right now. I've contemplated it a few times in the past. On top of that, my wife is halfway through grad school now persuing a career change. We should probably only have one career change in the house at a time. Their are a lot of places in the area, but if we need to relocate, we'll do it. It'll be tough finding a job that has a combination of pay, hours, benefits, etc. that I've got now, but I'm sure theirs one out there if I look hard enough. It's pretty rare to find that in my field.

Art -
I hope things work out for you. You've got a tough choice in job you like vs place you like. I've always thought the best job is the best balance of all factors. While pay is important, it's not the only thing. My highest priority has always been the work environment. I'd rather make a few less dollars and be happy at work rather than make a few more and hate my co-workers. Also, I don't bring home anywhere near the $60,000 that my employer will save. They include a statement of how much it costs them to employ us in our last check of the year. They add salary, insurance, retirement contribution, etc. I pay $25 per month for health and dental insurance. They pay the rest. Add to this the cost of maintaining my certification - annual convention including flight, hotel, and meals; liscensing and certification fees. It adds up quickly. If they got rid of me, they'd hire someone on a per diem basis and wouldn't have to pay any benefits or professional development.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rysa4

Post Number: 249
Registered: Jul-05
Glad things are working out a little better!
 

New member
Username: Jumbojim

Bethel, CT USA

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-05
I know I'm getting to the party late but I've have a Panny SA-XR25 (older version of the 55)for years now and it does take a few weeks to burn-in. I was dissapointed at first but as I listened, it did get a lot better. It's now 3 years old and it sounds amazing connected to the Infinity Primus 360s it plays through. Not what I'd call bright at all. The highs were more pronounced when it had the Infinity Alpha 20s that were the main speakers before the 360s.

If anyone reading this does get a Digi Panny, just leave it on 24/7 for a few weeks and you'll hear a nice difference. I plan on getting a 55 or 70 for another room system soon.
 

Gold Member
Username: Edster922

Abubala, Ababala The Occupation

Post Number: 3508
Registered: Mar-05
a few WEEKS??? wow. Mine sounded great after about three days of 24/7.
 

Anonymous
 
Im beginning to think that eddie should just buy a pair of bose 901's to hook up to his panny.

a pair of speakers that blow the image out of proportion for a reciever that can't image to save its live! a match made in heaven!
 

Anonymous
 
of course if eddie would stop listening to speakers at fry's he might figure out what "imaging" even is.

 

Ulle Ho
Unregistered guest
I am a newbie and I gooled this page to know about xr55. Enjoyed the discussion but hardly got any technical advice on this item. The discussion here seemed like a war aginst Bin Laden(the xr55)..:-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Parkhill, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 1179
Registered: Dec-04
It's a piece of crap, Ulle.
The thread is dead, like Ed's Panasonic sales career.
Jump to: Home Audio Forum | Home Video Forum | Home Theater Forum | Car Audio Forum