Panny xr55 = $2500 Rotel 1095, on $12K speakers!
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2830 Registered: Mar-05 | Just one man's opinion of course, but very very remarkable nonetheless: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6492921#post6492921 "I won't go into long drawn out discussions about sonic characteristics of amplifiers. All I can say is that there is no clear audible difference between this $230 unit and my prior $2500 amp+d/a . What is clear is that without a signal this unit is dead quiet as all class D units are. The sound quality is simply excellent and if there were any deficiencies the 802 Diamonds should have made them obvious. "Every song I know and listen to all the time, I tried on this amp... and they all sound superb. I'm not so sure with 100% certainty that this is better than my old setup and I don't want to make sensational comments that it is.... but it certainly might be. I am not setup to do a proper a/b comparison to prove this to myself. "High end clarity, bass response.... pretty much fantastic. "I popped Star Wars episode III that I have seen on my prior setuo several times this week. Again I could hear no difference between this setup and DD 5.1 decoded by windvd and the m-audio d/a.. Again reproduction was fantastic. "Guys I don't know what to tell you.... Class AB has seen it's last days on this Earth when a ridiculous company like Panasonic can implement a third party chip (in this case TI Equibit) and come out with results this good." YEEEEE-WACK!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2174 Registered: Feb-05 | There's one born every day. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2832 Registered: Mar-05 | Yes, we are blessed to have so many sensible people among us! lol |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2178 Registered: Feb-05 | Goober!!!lol |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2841 Registered: Mar-05 | "Goober?" ...now that's one expression I haven't heard in a very long time! And all this time I thought you were the young 'un, heh. |
|
Silver Member Username: RsxmanPost Number: 132 Registered: Jul-05 | You guys are both pansies! lol i really would like to test out that panasonic. Art you cant come over.....you dont know the password. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2179 Registered: Feb-05 | Guess what Eddie...right now I'm listening to a record...that's right vinyl, man does it sound good! Analog rules!!!!! Tubes for everyman!!!!!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: RsxmanPost Number: 133 Registered: Jul-05 | lol ill get your model T ready for your trip to the worlds fair. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2180 Registered: Feb-05 | Thanks Eric I don't think that's a password I want! lol |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2846 Registered: Mar-05 | wait a sec there Art, you don't have a tube amp...or is there something Mrs. Kyle doesn't need to know? Lawdy! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2181 Registered: Feb-05 | Naw, I don't have a tube amp....yet. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2860 Registered: Mar-05 | The OP has since written: "After my initial experience with this unit, I have just finished selling my rotel rmb 1095 and my m-audio dac and should have money for another xr55 to power another setup of speakers in a different room." http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=530504&page=58&p p=30 (go to post #1713) |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2195 Registered: Feb-05 | That forum appears to have a bunch of folks living in the world of make believe. Too bad. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2861 Registered: Mar-05 | heh heh! |
|
Silver Member Username: SmittyPost Number: 249 Registered: Dec-03 | I hear Peter Panasonic lives there. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2875 Registered: Mar-05 | check out post #27 here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176835&perpag e=30&display=&pagenumber=1 LOL, the audiophile pantheon has been flipped on its big fat @ss! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2881 Registered: Mar-05 | Also from the same thread above, post #18: "Some people will make a negative decision on a component, based only on preconceived ideas or lack of some niche feature few people want, and then go around proclaiming the product TOTALLY sucks (& this doesn't only apply to this particular receiver or manufacturer either): Things like: * It doesn't cost enough. >>> Much of the cost of "better" equipment is extra foo-foo features that few people care about but that don't actually improve the sound itself. And solid-metal cabinets using die-cast or shaped aluminum are very expensive to manufacture. They do last longer--a good thing--but contribute nothing to audible sonic improvements (I personally have yet to see proof of the microphonics effect significantly impacting a solid-state component's performance. Tubes are a different story though). And unlike a tiny hi-end manufacturer, Panasonic, Pioneer, Yamaha, etc are enormous corporations that enjoy the benefits of the economy of scale concept--so of course they can sell quality equipment for much less $$$. * It doesn't weigh enough. >>> Huh? This receiver uses a digital amp and as has been explained SEVERAL times by myself and others, they are nearly 95% efficient so they don't need a huge & heavy power supply (those power transformers in "normal" amps constitute the largest part of a receiver's weight). * It's too small. >>> Again, the use of digital amps drastically alters design choices. * Digital amp technology is too new to spend money on right now. >>> This is the only point I believe has any kind of merit. I'm not worried so much about the sound of digital amps but rather about their reliability. But IMO even this is not a big deal--digital amps have been used for years now in many, many subwoofers and I haven't heard of any problems with them. If anything, digital amps should be more reliable than traditional amps because they run at much lower temperatures. * It doesn't have 15 S-video inputs, 10 component inputs, 7 coaxial digital inputs, speaker terminals that are built heavily enough to hang a Hummer on or a DSP system capable of 763 different sonic configurations. >>> Not everyone needs all this stuff and to downgrade a receiver to "crap" status is ignorant of the HT majority's actual wants/needs. And this obsession with enormous speaker terminals is getting weird--I'm not an electrical engineer but I am 99.9% sure that as far as the power levels that are being dealt with on receivers in the $200 to $500 range, one does not NEED any sort of heavy terminals like binding posts. This is where the audio voodoo marketing people have really polluted this hobby: how many people have blown off a nice system only because it lacked some useless pseudo-science "feature" and they ended up either buying some overpriced component (using up money that could have been put towards more movie or music software), or much worse, if they couldn't afford that pseaudo-science equipment, went downwards to some cheap $300 plastic HTiB piece of crap?? Is this why I see fewer and fewer people in the separates audio departments of the major mid-fi retailers like Best Buy or Circuit City? Think I was a little pissed off while writing this? You bet. Because of the scary fact that more and more people are thinking a 128kbps MP3 track sounds great on their $30 computer speakers, I am definitely becoming worried about the state of mid-fi audio. If you can afford a pair of B&W Nautilus 801s or a Krell amp, more power to you--it truly is nice to own a piece of equipment that was designed & built with care and has nice aesthetics. But not everyone believes this level of equipment is needed to produce quality sound and fewer still can afford it. Maybe this $300 Panny won't last for twenty years or withstand being dropped from a ten story building but it looks like it has the right parts to reproduce music and movies in a believable fashion, and with a minimum of fuss. This overall concentration these days on expensive material things that have little real value definitely worries me. If that sounds like reverse snobbery then so be it. I know it won't make me popular on an audio equipment forum, but as regular readers of my posts know I'm not into popularity contests." |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3242 Registered: Mar-05 | More developments on this thread, now focused on the primacy of room treatments: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6584834&&#post6584834 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6586999&&#post6586999 |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3243 Registered: Mar-05 | After reading up on this and thinking about, maybe the optimal budget allocation for a system should look something like this: 50% speakers 10% receiver 30% room treatments 10% source player I need to research room treatments...not that my wife would ever let me do this to our living room of course, lol. |
|
Anonymous | Yeah, the AVS Forum is famous for having a bunch of guys who think "digital" is necessarily better -- or at least a bunch of guys want to believe their that new cheap plastic receiver is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Not realizing, of course, that sound (and the electrical current that goes to your speakers, for that matter) is in fact "analog" in waveform, and that digital amplifiers are basically powered digital-to-analog converters. Still others believe that the "digital signal remains intact throughout the entire chain," which also isn't true. It's not like you can send a PCM bitstream to your speaker. The term "digital" has come to have many positive connotations from various optical and storage media (e.g., CDs and DVDs), though this has absolutely nothing to do with the advantages or disadvantages of digital switching amplifiers. Moreover, this is not new technology, and subwoofers, inexpensive radios, and TV sound systems have used them for years because they are small and inexpensive (e.g., since they operate more efficiently so smaller power supplies and heat sinks are required). However, there have been a lot of performance limitations with digital amplifiers, which is why they have been relegated to bass amps and inexpensive electronics in the past. Only recently has the technology evolved enough to find its way into multi-channel AV receivers. (And most still can't power lower impedance speakers with any stability.) Nevertheless, manufacturers like Panasonic don't make digital receivers because they sound better, they make them because they are smaller (a big selling point for a lot of people)and less expensive to make (another selling point for a lot of people). There isn't anything wrong with this, and it certainly appeals to a large market in a world of flat-screen televisions and inexpensive home-theater-in-a-box micro-speakers. But a lot of these guys seem hell-bent on convincing everyone else that they're buying $200 "Krell Killers." |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3331 Registered: Mar-05 | anon, thanks for your technology clarification, but that's fairly old hat. People just like to call the Panny "digital" in order to distinguish it from your typical huge clunky boat-anchor analog receiver especially for newbies who are not aware of the difference and might judge a receiver merely by its weight. Here's some more on the technology: http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tas5076.html And TI's original news release on it from 3 years ago: http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/tex/tex283.html I personally wouldn't call the Panny a "Krell Killer" since I have never ABed it against a Krell. I have however found that it easily surpasses my $600 Marantz 5400 and $1500 NAD separates...which, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty darn remarkable for a $230 receiver. |
|
Anonymous | I have however found that it easily surpasses my $600 Marantz 5400 and $1500 NAD separates...which, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty darn remarkable for a $230 receiver. Oddly enough, my uncle's Panasonic doesn't come close to surpassing my $600 NAD 743 -- in terms of features, build quality, remote, warranty, or performance. I wonder what NAD separates you were listenting to then? If you're listening to these receivers at a relatively low volume on efficient speakers (if you crank the Panasonic up, you will get distortion regardless of the Digital Fantasy Land you may or may not be living in), it may be a tough call. But under more demanding conditions, higher volume levels, or less efficient speakers, your Panasonic would have to defy the laws of physics to sound better than a decent high-powered amplifier. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 657 Registered: Dec-04 | But Edster never studied law. After my initial experience with this unit, I have just finished selling my rotel rmb 1095 and my m-audio dac and should have money for another xr55 to power another setup of speakers in a different room." And should have enough money for another xr55. Ya think? Im tellin ya Ed, send these schmucks my way m'boy! I got Panny's out my fanny for these folks! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 22 Registered: Aug-05 | This is getting old. Some people like it some hate it. To me it is a very inefficient piece of junk but edster differs, he really thinks he strucked gold  Panny + ascends make a killer combo for folks with a very tight budget and less than a basic trained ear for music. edster you are entitled to your opinion but...... No, it is just not good for music. "At the beginning it sounds harsh but once you adjust the treble it sounds very good" what a joke! Lol No need to make adjustments with true quality gear My BOSE 301's kill any speakers under $2000.00.... See ! No, I do not own BOSE, just a proportional statement. |
|
Anonymous | turn that chair over eddie! that way you can have 3 more of those panny junkies join ya! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 663 Registered: Dec-04 | Poor call Anon. If anybody is sitting on it, it's the tried and true, stick in the mud, stay the course folks like us. Thank goodness. BTW, forward thinking nerds put us on the moon. FFT |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 664 Registered: Dec-04 | I'm sorry, but I missed the $12k speakers with 8ohm impedance |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3342 Registered: Mar-05 | Anon, > I wonder what NAD separates you were listenting to then? vintage 100wpc NAD 2200 PE amp, 1240 pre-amp. > If you're listening to these receivers at a relatively low volume on efficient speakers (if you crank the Panasonic up, you will get distortion regardless of the Digital Fantasy Land you may or may not be living in), it may be a tough call. But under more demanding conditions, higher volume levels, or less efficient speakers, your Panasonic would have to defy the laws of physics to sound better than a decent high-powered amplifier. LOL Anon, you actually have it BACKWARDS: at moderate volumes the NAD and Marantz don't do that badly, it's at 90db and up where the Panny buries them...not a hint of distortion or degradation, exact same flawless clarity and control as at 70db. What speakers does your uncle use with his T743? I don't doubt that in "features, build quality, remote, and warranty" the NAD is much better (at its price range it darn better be, LOL) but for simple sound quality and power? Only with bright speakers would the 743 have a chance...sorry to break it to you honey, but there it is. ta-ta! LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3343 Registered: Mar-05 | > This is getting old. Some people like it some hate it. To me it is a very inefficient piece of junk but edster differs, he really thinks he strucked gold :-) Panny + ascends make a killer combo for folks with a very tight budget and less than a basic trained ear for music. LOL Vader, welcome aboard the PEC/UOC short bus. I'm sure Nuck will make space for you, he needs all the backup he can get, LOL. Yanking the chain of you audio dogmatists never gets old, dear boy...LOL! |
|
Anonymous | LOL Anon, you actually have it BACKWARDS: at moderate volumes the NAD and Marantz don't do that badly, it's at 90db and up where the Panny buries them...not a hint of distortion or degradation Okay, now that I officially now your full of BS (since even Panasonic's rather generous technical specs for their XR-55 couldn't support that kind of performance unless you're driving a 96 dB horn speaker or something), I can surmise that many of you Panasonic fanboys are indeed whackos. Though your other posts made that pretty clear already. Clearly, you are just making crap up on-the-fly to rationalize your purchase, and understand very little about the performance limitations of digital switching amplifiers. As for the NAD 743, it is my 743, not my Uncle's. He had the Panasonic. And I use Polks, which aren't bright at all. As for the performance of the NAD, I seriously doubt that you've ever heard one (or half the other receivers you routinely pitch the Panasonic against). |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3348 Registered: Mar-05 | Anon, believe whatever you want...as for Polks, the only ones which are NOT bright are the LSi series. That's all right, we all forgive you for being hearing impaired as well as brain damaged and obnoxious. ROTFL!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 674 Registered: Dec-04 | Anon, you may not have noticed that Ed owns NAD seperates and has direct comparisons, as misguided as I find them, so ,no, he is not inexperienced. |
|
Anonymous | No no no, Nuck I simply cannot believe it, he's making all this up. That's just what these Panasonic whackos do. And just so you know Edster, I am a PhD. in Advanced Fecalogy so I am not the pompous @ss everybody around here thinks I am even if I spend all day looking at what comes out of people's @sses, therefore I just know for a fact that I am absolutely right as a matter of fact! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 675 Registered: Dec-04 | Anon, ok, ok I get the point! But once again opinions are like solid waste discharge orifices, but some have hemorrhoids, nobody's perfect! But you are saying that Ed is posting out of ignorance, and that would be incorrect. Again, although I vociferously disagree with Ed most of the time, that does not change the fact that his NAD comments come from direct exposure. He may also have been exposed to gamma rays, nuclear waste or mercury infected fish, but I do not doubt his experience, mostly. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 676 Registered: Dec-04 | BTW, Ed, 1 what were the 12k$ 8 or 6 ohm speakers that comparo was done on 2 still waiting for publication names with comparos 3 Where are all the folks dying to trade Rotel and other old analogs for the 55's I have in storage? |
|
Anonymous | No Nuck, you obviously do not get the point. I am saying that Edster has obviously made all of this up. I don't think he owns a Marantz or any NAD separates, obviously. He is just pulling it out of his @ss because he is obviously on the Panasonic payroll. That is the point. Get it now? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 678 Registered: Dec-04 | How could I have been so blind? Of course, Edster is a Panasonic employee, paid to sit at the pc and post on various websites, extolling the virtues of a product which is largely ignored, is incredibly cheap and vilified by analog purists everywhere! Devilishly clever! Does the world know about this? If Ed were so inclined, he could write a ghost reviews, and post it to audio sites worldwide! And bloggers could pick it up and spread the word via blogsites, to create an audio revolution not seen since the Quad! Madness, I tell you madness! Or, there is always the old conspiracy theory. Or maybe Ed just has too much time and energy on his hands. Or an Audio Messiah complex. |
|
Anonymous | Yes! He must be exposed. He must be stopped. Now. Yes! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 682 Registered: Dec-04 | y'all REALLY gotta get another hobby. |
|
Anonymous | you don't understand, Nuck. People like Edster are dangerous. It's up to people like you and me to stop them. Isn't it obvious? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 686 Registered: Dec-04 | It is obvious that you have a mild-to-disconcerting obsession with most things beyond your control or ken. I might suggest a visit to your family physician and ask for a referral to a qualified analyst. If unable to afford such yourself, public access is available to you in some fashion. I hope, for your families' sake that you do not own weapons. If so, please, please seek professional help as soon as possible. If you are currently under a physicians care, report immediately to him/her, and report these and any other situations and/or apparitions you may observe. Quality care is available, and there are people who love and care about you. Do it for them. And I dont care who is writing this one, really seek help. |
|
Anonymous | now it is obvious that you and Edster are in this together, aren't you? Good cop and bad cop, but just birds of a feather. Shame on you! Now that I know who you are Nuck, you better watch your back, obviously. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 687 Registered: Dec-04 | Anonymous, Edster, I dont care. Send me an email stupid. I get around. Should you warn me to watch my back, send me a contact. Coming soon to a town near you. Unveiled threats are funny till I come and visit. Please mail me so I can determine your location. Please, please,do |
|
Anonymous | Don't worry Nuck, I have some friends in Parkhill and they'll be calling on you soon. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3352 Registered: Mar-05 | Geez, this thread sure went south in a hurry. Nuck you should direct all questions regarding the $12K speakers to the actual owner...click on the link I originally supplied. Anon, you are one sick puppy. Amusingly sick, but still sick. I would second Nuck's advice regarding medical care. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 689 Registered: Dec-04 | Good enough. I have been emailed all I need to know on each. I am finished with both. Thank you for your time. I have no time for neither Pansies, nor pretenders. |
|
Anonymous | you people are crazy! |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 150 Registered: Dec-03 | Edster: I'm not sure which Internet forum's pseudo-scientific manual of audio performance buzz words led you to believe that Polks are bright, but you are certainly entitled to your opinions, however misguided. I own RT 800s, and they are rather neutral; if anything, the highs are more laid back than I'd normally prefer. However, this is the Internet, which -- after ARPA dumped it -- was practically founded on the notion that guys like you can make up stuff with only minimal fear of legal reprisal, so keep pimping the Panny. And thank you for making the 'Net the wealth of useless information that it is today. ;-) Nuck: Regarding Edster's "NAD separates," keep in mind that the units he is describing haven't been made in 20 years and certainly wouldn't be representative of contemporary NAD products, even in the unlikely event that they did still work perfectly. Anonymous Number 2: If you can afford decent audio gear, sell it, buy yourself your own computer, and move out of your mom's basement. (Or save up until they have finally made personality transplants available.) |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 694 Registered: Dec-04 | Understood, Darryl, and thanks. i have the lowdown on both posters emailed to me now, and shall endeavvour to forget both. Forget who? I forgot. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummNew York USA Post Number: 404 Registered: Feb-05 | isnt there a way that the anon posts can be stopped alltogether? |
|
Anonymous | I would be all for it |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3356 Registered: Mar-05 | ooh, Darryl baby, you get SOOOOO upset when somebody rags on your speakers don't you? ROTFL... FYI, the RTi800s are also vintage/discontinued Polks just as my NAD separates are, so I will take your word on their neutrality. Who knows, maybe Polk's SQ went to hell in the past 10 years with the current models. Or NAD's sound quality has also declined. But darling, please try not to get your garters in such a knot! Or don't try...you're worth almost as many sh*ts and giggles as Nuck over here, except that unlike you Nuck has on occasion posted good stuff whereas you've come out of nowhere with a serious case of audio PMS. Cranky, cranky, cranky... now take your Midol and let it pass, ok? lol |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 151 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't really consider 4-year-old speakers "vintage," not that Polk has changed their traditional speaker line much in the past 4 years anyway. But after reading your other posts, I am not surprised at all that you can't see a distinction between comparing 4-year-old speakers (which consist of little more than a driver and a cross-over) versus comparing a 20-year-old stereo preamp to a new multichannel AV receiver. Maybe you should A/B an 8-Track deck to an SACD player next time. ;-) And, frankly, it doesn't bother me at all when a guy who paid $200 for a plastic digital receiver rags on my speakers. ;-) Not that calling these speakers "bright" is "ragging" on them. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3365 Registered: Mar-05 | well you certainly sounded very hot and bothered, Darryl dear. Not to mention dogmatic and pompous and with-stick-up-the-@ss about your holy audio opinions...but you have plenty of comrades here in that department! lol speaking of 8-track tapes, yep you currently own what will soon be the 8-track tape of receivers...enjoy! |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 153 Registered: Dec-03 | Edster, I wish you the best of luck on your quest for better audio -- whether real or imagined. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 23 Registered: Aug-05 | Oh my, oh m,y oh my, this edster boy is quite a character, let's review his resume 1) He says that the Panny beats hands down his $1500.00 NAD separates but he only paid $400 on e-bay! lol, and how old are they? I remember how bad he criticized Paul for having Antique CV's saying that they could not compete with today's technology. Go figure. 2) He gives his expert opinion on how bright the Polk speakers sound based on an audition that took place at Fry's Electronics OH MY GOD ! ROTFLMAO. I have heard the RTi12's at my friend's house and they sound anything but bright! Believe me they sound rather impressive, of course driven by pretty good components not a "Flagship" receiver, LMAO one more time. It is funny how he assures that they are bright! Astonishing! Does the man has an ear for music? 3) Got to give him credit, as he was willing to "Risk" $15.00 (wow!) for shipping in case he did not like his new $235.00 masterpiece. Bottom line, the guy is a phony, has no clue as to how good a HiFi systems sounds like but he has the nerve to give advice to others...ha ha ha. Newcomers to the forum might be amazed by the knowledge of our little eddie but he surely does not impress those with more experience in the Audio world yes, myself included. Just like Darryl said good luck my little edster in your imaginary journey to the never never audio land. Sad very sad Talking about someone needed medication! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3368 Registered: Mar-05 | Vader, your continued pomposity is very entertaining...keep it up, will ya? Bottom line is that more and more people are trying the Panny and being won over every day, despite all the efforts of analog trogolodytes like yourself to dissuade them from even AUDITIONING the Panny. They can see through your pathetic fear masquerading as snobbery. If you had any intellectual honesty or integrity whatsoever, you would also encourage newbies to hear the Panny for themselves IF you truly were so convinced that it's so bad. However, you simply don't have the gonads to ask them to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES, do you? poor little Vader boy, run along now... ROTFL |
|
marogus Unregistered guest | Edster, you are wacked. All these people hate you now because of your little Panasonic. Is it really worth it? |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoBC Canada Post Number: 795 Registered: Oct-04 | The Panasonic is great if cost is the major issue in your selection. Face it, a receiver with this amount of power has always cost more. "Newbies" like Edster will be star struck by the amount of power at such a low cost. Cost isn't everything, recommending the XR-55 to power Magnepan speakers, or equals a $2500 Rotel is stretching it considerably. Whoever posted such claims doesn't know what to look for in a system. While the Panasonic sound may be attractive as all new things are, I seriously doubt such claims that it can match such proven products where it counts. I want my sound system to sound as close to the real thing as possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2434 Registered: Feb-05 | "analog trogolodytes" Is that you Paul? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3374 Registered: Mar-05 | margous, oh yes, it's absolutely worth it...LOL to cut through this swamp of analog dogmatism, what's a few petty flies? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3375 Registered: Mar-05 | > Cost isn't everything, recommending the XR-55 to power Magnepan speakers, or equals a $2500 Rotel is stretching it considerably. Whoever posted such claims doesn't know what to look for in a system. While the Panasonic sound may be attractive as all new things are, I seriously doubt such claims that it can match such proven products where it counts. How would you know, if you yourself have never tried these combinations? What do you have against other people simply testifying about their own experience, like the Rotel owner linked to in this thread's original post? "Seriously doubt" is a fair statement, that expresses your feelings and opinion...totally legit. Grandiose and comically arrogant drivel like "whoever posted such claims doesn't know what to look for in a system" however only make you look like an audio B IGOT. > I want my sound system to sound as close to the real thing as possible. A laudable sentiment, as long as you keep in mind that YOUR perception of "the real thing" is just that---YOUR *perception.* |
|
Anonymous | edster now you've really gone and pi$$ed off Melissa. dont say I didn't warn you! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2440 Registered: Feb-05 | The real thing is live music. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 25 Registered: Aug-05 | If you had any intellectual honesty or integrity whatsoever, you would also encourage newbies to hear the Panny for themselves IF you truly were so convinced that it's so bad. However, you simply don't have the gonads to ask them to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES, do you? Oh edster you little scalawag if I were you I wouldn't talk about integrity, now that is something you really have a very small amount of, you have mislead so many good souls in this forum it makes me weep. lol No, I wouldn't dare nor I would have the heart to recommend anyone to purchase this "gem" now, if anyone decides to go ahead and buy it, hey it is a free world isn't it? Bottom line is that more and more people are trying the Panny and being won over every day, despite all the efforts of analog trogolodytes like yourself to dissuade them from even AUDITIONING the Panny So is this your way to convince everyone that the panny is so good just because more and more people are buying it? Oh My God ! Oh but I did purchase one just to hear for myself what this propaganda was all about. Did an A-B alongside other receivers and separates using diverse speakers (edster, big difference over your audition ) No, it is just not for me I am too spoiled to start listening to my music through this inefficient piece and believe me I did try big time to adjust the treble, no success. Unbearable sound! The panny went back to CC in no time. Then again what do I know? Fire away my little one! |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 154 Registered: Dec-03 | "analog trogolodytes" It was just another example of an audio newbie who doesn't understand that even digital amplifiers must produce analog signals. As a matter of fact, the big issue plaguing these amplifiers in the past was their inability to do just that with enough accuracy. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3381 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL Vader you are a sneaky little boy aren't you? You've been posting as "anonymous" for ages around here and now that you've finally mustered the gonads to register yourself you sure love your high horse, LOL! In fact if I remember correctly, you were the anonymous poster who resorted to posting color closeups of leprous wangers before the admin finally got around to deleting them. Oh boy, what a treasure you are... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3382 Registered: Mar-05 | > It was just another example of an audio newbie who doesn't understand that even digital amplifiers must produce analog signals. As a matter of fact, the big issue plaguing these amplifiers in the past was their inability to do just that with enough accuracy. You poor dyslexic sap, obviously you have managed not to read the dozens of times when I've said that I call the Panny "digital" only to separate it from the massive, clunky, overweight and overpriced traditional analog receivers that yes, TROGLODYTES like you have obviously have so much invested in dollarwise and ego-wise. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 155 Registered: Dec-03 | Edster, I appreciate your childish insults, like "pomposity" and "dyslexic sap," as much as the next guy, but I was actually addressing the adults in this thread. But, to your point, I would much rather own a solid and well-built piece of gear than a cheap, small, piece of plastic. But I am old-fashioned in that way. Still, your comment of "function should follow form" nicely reflects your opinions of digital audio performance. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 156 Registered: Dec-03 | post-scriptum like you have obviously have so much invested in dollarwise... Oh, and for future reference, insulting me because I have the money to buy the kind of gear I am happy with really isn't an insult. If you bought your Panasonic because it was the receiver you wanted, I am very happy for you. But if you bought it because it was the best thing you could afford, and now feel like spending your time convincing everyone else that they should buy the same as a result, that's another story. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3386 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL Darryl, you never cease to amaze...firstly your pitiful dyslexia, and secondly your sheer stupidity i.e. mathematical dysfunction. If I already had a $600 receiver, I obviously did not buy a $230 one because I couldn't afford a more expensive receiver. DOH!!! Lordy, what a 'TARD. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1338 Registered: Jun-05 | Wow! what a boxing match,im really enjoying this,please continue,Eddie it looks like the deck is stacked against you,it aint looking so good. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3389 Registered: Mar-05 | > Wow! what a boxing match,im really enjoying this,please continue,Eddie it looks like the deck is stacked against you,it aint looking so good. well you know TW, that's what they always said about Jack Johnson too. The Panny is the Jack Johnson of receivers...LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3392 Registered: Mar-05 | ('cause the Panny is just so *unforgivably* GOOOOOOOOOOOD!) |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1340 Registered: Jun-05 | I still havent listened to it yet,but you can best beleive when I do,with all the raving you have been doing,it better perform,if it doesent Panny people on all forums are going to hate my review of it.But I will review it objectively,you can count on that. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3394 Registered: Mar-05 | TW, I appreciate your intellectual integrity, it's very refreshing after all this knee-jerk Pannyphobia around here. Whether you end up liking it or not is entirely up to you---it's just nice to come across someone with an open mind. BTW are you going to be auditioning the Ascends too? I thought David K. or someone was offering to send you theirs...maybe it was Quinn? The Ascends would be ideal for a Panny audition due to their proven neutrality. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1342 Registered: Jun-05 | Yeah I do wanna review the Ascends Eddie David has backed out,I dont know if he is reconsidering,since the reiviews on the Emma is coming,he seems very focused on that.Quin hasnt posted enough for me to consider giving up my 8.1s to him,David I trust,nothing personal against the Quin,I feel more comftable with our usual suspects.Eddie you have to remeber something when you are evaluating a audio piece,something in the system must something you are familiar with,so the Ascends wont help me with the review,if I dont have their characteristics pinned down.So i will use my trusty legendardy devices the Diamonds more so than M12.2s because of prices.See I dont have astronomical expectations for the Panny,my theory has always been if a product performs with stuff that costs twice as much then thats a very good buy.The competition for the Panny will be my Nad 320bee and my old 8 year old Onkyo TX-DS 575,back when Onkyo built musical gear,so considering the Panny costs $230 if it competes with or out does them that is comendable,but I will not match it up with the Musical Fidelity,because I already know that it wont compete with it or compare in any way,and theorecticly it shouldnt,if its out performing stuff that costs twice as much,then its performance has nothing to appologize for. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 157 Registered: Dec-03 | Edster, I could continue this ridiculous conversation with you, which I'm sure is exactly what you're hoping for as you write these asinine posts from your mom's basement, but why waste my valuable time on a childish troll? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3395 Registered: Mar-05 | TW, I currently have my friend's Diamond 8.2s hooked up to the Panny and they sound pretty good so that would be a fair combo. It's too bad about the Ascends though, why not order a pair and blow $15 return shipping just to hear them for yourself for 30 days? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3396 Registered: Mar-05 | Darryl, Sheryl, or whatever/whoever you are...yes I confess, your self-important idiocy is always good for a laugh, so please please keep it up! Rodney Dangerfield is dead but you'll do for now, LOL. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1343 Registered: Jun-05 | I may one day,Eddie they are internet dirrect so their is no way i could sell any,and I very much doubt that I would want them for myself,they would have to upend the M12.2s and im sure that wont happen,but I'll try to get a someones on our forum to give them a test run. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 28 Registered: Aug-05 | LOL Vader you are a sneaky little boy aren't you? You've been posting as "anonymous" for ages around here and now that you've finally mustered the gonads to register yourself you sure love your high horse, LOL! In fact if I remember correctly, you were the anonymous poster who resorted to posting color closeups of leprous wangers before the admin finally got around to deleting them. Oh boy, what a treasure you are... Tsk tsk tsk oh my, oh my! You are indeed quite a character as I said before. I got to admit; I am quite impressed with your imagination, you sure make things up as you go along, how comic! It amazes me that you assure, as if it was really true, that I am that "anonymous" person and by God what amazes me most is that you believe in your lies so strongly when you sit at the desk and type! ROTFLMAO (Sq) Are you not embarrassed for lying so much? Guess not. How do you come up with all these fantasies is beyond believe! No, I am not that person you refer to, I am sorry I just cannot stop laughing! On the other hand, you show very well your limitations and lack of experience in audio. Yes, I have tried to put you on the spot and I have succeeded. Now more folks here know what you are truly made of. You posts not only you confirm that your audio knowledge is extremely limited but also demonstrate how poor of an individual you are, your only resource to a debate is to come up with childish insults (or at least you think they are ) instead of getting your facts correct and believe me nothing you say bothers me at all. I still give you the benefit of the doubt because judging for your style, it seems to me that you went through puberty not too long ago. Just like the current President said on one of the debates "those are the exaggerations I am talking about" by god I did not know he was talking about you! No need to discuss audio with you anymore, you are not worth it. ========================================================================= LOL Darryl, you never cease to amaze...firstly your pitiful dyslexia, and secondly your sheer stupidity i.e. mathematical dysfunction. If I already had a $600 receiver, I obviously did not buy a $230 one because I couldn't afford a more expensive receiver. DOH!!! Lordy, what a 'TARD. Man! edster spent $600.00 on a receiver! Wow! I did not know he had that much money to burn! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 719 Registered: Dec-04 | Ed, I am STILL looking for a reputable review of the Panasonic outside of Mechanics Illustrated. I have yet to find a taker for a new Panny for the old analog junk. I have yet to find a reliable advocate of the 6lb fiece of plastic, and trading off any analog unit of note. Of course, you will answer to the latter, but not the first items of the post, I will give 2(two) pieces of Panasonic junk for every 1(one) piece of analog trade in. And I never saw the retort about the guy who was 'hoping' to get enough for his Rotel to buy another 250$ item. Hmmm... Let it stand..I Nuck, will buy a new panasonic xr55 for anyone willing to trade a known, working receiver, integrated amp or amplifier, upon receipt of such unit and the unit is deemed to be in working order, provided that the unit sent is deemed to be of value of 300 or more on the open market. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 724 Registered: Dec-04 | I also never saw a retort on the 12,000$ 8 ohm speakers this schmuck was supposed to have heard |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3399 Registered: Mar-05 | Vadergirl, keep playing stupid, you are so good at it! But at least you no longer post as "anonymous"---looks like you might have actually sprouted half of a tessticle, LOL. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3400 Registered: Mar-05 | Nuckster, my you are very persistent too of late aren't you? Too bad it's just persistently DENSE. I already told you on another thread that only the xr70 has been reviewed by a major magazine, Sound & Vision and I even posted a link to that article. Yet you continually ask the same dingbat question over and over...must've bumped your head recently haven't you? Anyways, regarding the $12K speakers that Blazar owns, you need to contact him directly through the AVS Forum. DOH!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 740 Registered: Dec-04 | Convenient excuse and exit from a losing proposition, Edster. You are a malevolent child, living in a basement or attic, much as a mad Auntie might be. Hidden away from the public so as not to embarass the family in some way which might unveil a long forgotten family secret, which only you, hold promise of importance. OK a little overdone, but you get the point? And I have panny's out the fanny, and NO takers? Poor lame little Ed, under the stairs. BTW, I am glad this gives you pleasure, It warms my heart to give anyone a smile at any time. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3404 Registered: Mar-05 | ah then you are a real heartwarmer Nuck, since you continually give me rolling-on-the-floor belly-laughs. keep it coming, babe! LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 743 Registered: Dec-04 | I got lots, Ed. I enjoy running down your ridiculous garbage as much as you enjoy sending it from your imagination. And if you keep up with the same-sex salutations and inferences, I will not type to you any more. Your worst nightmare...nobody will type to you anymore..you are all alone... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3408 Registered: Mar-05 | > And if you keep up with the same-sex salutations and inferences, I will not type to you any more. oh baby baby, I love it when you threaten me so, you manly man! ROTFL |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 747 Registered: Dec-04 | I really have seen enough of this 22 yr old kid. Ed, your only experience with audio is with decades old NAD gear and your newfound poorboy toy. you do not even warrant a proper sublimation. you will be so lonely without us. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3409 Registered: Mar-05 | > And if you keep up with the same-sex salutations and inferences, I will not type to you any more. geez Nuck, I'm keeping up with the "same-sex salutations and inferences" yet you continue typing to me as faithfully as ever. Which means that you actually ENJOY it, don't you my little pretty darling baby buttercup? LOL! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 31 Registered: Aug-05 | edster, Just admit it, you are worthless! You still insist about that anonymous stuff, how hilarious! I cannot believe you are so dim-witted to insist in the same crap! Hahahaha you are so full of it. You just don't no have valid arguments to defend your point so you take the easy way out, how laughable. Bottom line you are a big liar, end of story. And your "insults" are so entertaining I cannot stop laughing. Do you really have anything positive (other than lies) to share on this forum? Care to talk about your $1500.00 seps that you actually got for $400.00. I have stated some facts about how you exaggerate many things and you just cannot prove otherwise. Come on eddie, tell us about your great experience in audio, amaze me! I know I know You are like: huh? Audio? What exactly that is? Try to act as a grown up for once, answer with personality, I am really disappointed in you, do you have any refinement? Why do I bother asking, you low class scalawag! LOL. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3414 Registered: Mar-05 | Vader, LOL not only are you a lousy liar and predictable polemicist, but like your previous "anonymous" incarnations, you have a distinctively petty and malicious personality, which your interaction with Andy Summers showed up perfectly. When you were giving Andy all that homophobic abuse, I called you on it and you immediately backed down with your tail between your legs. Right now you are indulging in all these shrill insults just because you see a handful of others like Nuck and Kano doing it. In fact, I looked at your posting history and see that you basically registered right after the Pannys Envy Club had gotten established around here..LOL! You are like some pathetic little schoolyard coward who puffs himself up into a bully only when he thinks that he's got plenty of backup from the herd, aren't you? The only thing worse than a lowlife like you is a CONFORMIST lowlife like you, heh now that's just plain sad. Sorry Vader, you DO need some serious medication and psychotherapy. You have consistently shown yourself to be a pitifully miserable excuse for a human being, in all of your guises. You'd be so much better off if you could just come out of the closet and be who you really are, instead of desperately trying to project all your repressed self-loathing onto others. As for my NAD separates, I never said I PAID $1500 for them, in fact I had a very detailed thread about them when I first got them and was very open about paying $400 for them. I call them $1500 separates because that's how much a 100wpc amp and pre-amp would cost from NAD these days, and NAD has never announced any startling changes in its 2-channel technology in the past 20 years. In fact, on other audio boards there are some old-timers who will even claim that the "new" NAD sound is not quite as musical as that of 10 years ago; since these are the same folks who claim to hear huge differences with special cables I tend not to put much stock into it. According to the guy I bought them from, they are about 14 years old, and they do indeed seem very well cared for, almost zero scratches or nicks, and sonically they sounded great...until the Panny came along, of course! LOL but that's not what you want to hear Vader, it wouldn't fit the schoolyard script you think you are participating in. Carry on, carry on...maybe you'll finally score enough brownie points to make a few friends if you keep this up long enough, LOL. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 159 Registered: Dec-03 | I call them $1500 separates because that's how much a 100wpc amp and pre-amp would cost from NAD these days So, if my cousin drives around a beat-up 1979 Chevy pick-up truck, according to Edster Theory he could say that he actually owns a $23,000 automobile -- because that's what a new one would cost today? Not to mention the fact that you're comparing a 2-channel 100 Watt amplifier to a 7-channel 100 Watt amplifier, which in theory (if your Panny puts out anything close to this stated power) should deliver 3 1/2 times more power output. Maybe you should A/B it to something like the NAD 773, which you can pick up for around $1,500. NAD has never announced any startling changes in its 2-channel technology in the past 20 years. Do you know this because you've been collecting NAD press releases for the past 20 years? For that matter, can you think of any consumer electronic components that haven't been improved at least some over the past 20 years? Nevertheless, I guess that's the beauty of accurate sound reproduction. If you can already do it right in the first place, there isn't really too much you can improve upon. Unlike digital amplification technology, which even digital amp manufacturers constantly advertise as "significantly better" than previous generations. According to the guy I bought them from, they are about 14 years old I don't think those particular models have been made since 1986. But maybe the guy you bought them from also subscribed to Edster Theory. ;-) |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2471 Registered: Feb-05 | Ouch! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DarthPost Number: 36 Registered: Aug-05 | Again, the "you need your medication" and the "anonymous" stuff, can you think of anything else! How boring and incompetent you are! And you talk about being creative. lol I know you are very slow but let me clarify ONE MORE AND LAST TIME. No former anonymous here, I am still amazed how you come up with all that stuff, I have told you like ten times only! I know you are mentally handicapped but you sure can make sh!t up when you are against the wall. I'll tell you what, we'll just leave it right there. No need to keep going back and forth with you, the reality is that you are a very mediocre guy, you dare to call me conformist when is you who is living a mediocre life (less than middle class, I assume) working a mediocre job and who listens to music through a very mediocre system. Your last post proves so much about you, man I would be embarrassed! Really. Keep listening to the Panasonic; it fits right with your personality. Answer don't answer, who cares, any insult coming from you does not bother me at all and it does not change the fact that you are very ignorant either. Do you think it is a coincidence that the people in this forum with more experience disagree with you? Listen, learn, then give your opinion. Please do not speak with your foot in your mouth again I am starting to feel pity for you. Eeeeeeediiiieeeee eeeeeeeddddiiiiieeeeeee eeeeeeeedddiieeeeeee Btw who did you buy the NADs from, Paul? heh |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3420 Registered: Mar-05 | Darryl, > So, if my cousin drives around a beat-up 1979 Chevy pick-up truck, according to Edster Theory he could say that he actually owns a $23,000 automobile -- because that's what a new one would cost today? LOL are you really that HOPELESSLY STUPID, or are you just that DESPERATELY grasping for a few straws? 1. Bottom line is that a new Chevy truck would cost $23K in *replacement value*. RESALE value of course is a whole different issue. 2. A 14 year old car that has say, 150K miles in it versus a 14 year old quality solid-state amp that appears to be well taken care of will NOT show anywhere near the same degradation in qualitative performance. This is a very well-known fact especially in the lofty "audiophile" circles that you Pannyphobes claim to hail from, and that's why 15 year old McIntosh amps (not that NAD is anywhere near the same clas as McIntosh of course) still fetch decent prices and much respect. > Not to mention the fact that you're comparing a 2-channel 100 Watt amplifier to a 7-channel 100 Watt amplifier, which in theory (if your Panny puts out anything close to this stated power) should deliver 3 1/2 times more power output. ROTFL!!! Lordy, how did you ever graduate from your Special Ed elementary school??? If I am using only 2 out of the Panasonic's amps to run a pair of speakers, how in the world would those speakers be receiving 3.5 times more power than a 2-channel amp with the same RMS numbers? Especially given that NAD has a documented history of UNDER-rating its amps, while Panasonic like most Japanese mass-market brands typically plays fast and loose (the xr70 was tested by Sound & Vision to put out roughly 80wpc, if memory serves). And *even if* your preposterous "3.5x more power" claim were true, why would that make the xr55 any less remarkable? It's still a $230 receiver that easily outpowers separates that would cost $1500 today---separates that easily outpower multichannel receivers costing a whole lot more than $230 like my Marantz 5400 which has an independently confirmed 103wpc. > Maybe you should A/B it to something like the NAD 773, which you can pick up for around $1,500. I'd do so with absolute confidence, given the opportunity. > Do you know this because you've been collecting NAD press releases for the past 20 years? For that matter, can you think of any consumer electronic components that haven't been improved at least some over the past 20 years? Puh-leez, as if "press releases" have anything other than marketing propaganda behind them. Analog amplification has not significantly changed AT ALL in the past 20 years, beyond stuff like DSP modes and HT-related bells and whistles. In fact, a lot of old-timers on these boards will swear by the old saw that "they just don't make them as well anymore." Well my boy, I have to pat you on the head for bending over backwards trying so hard to pull an argument out of your @ss...a mixture of comic admiration and pity. : ) |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3421 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL Vader, you're straining, my boy...wipe all that sweat off your forehead, will ya? I'm glad you've finally stopped following Jan around like you used to as an "anonymous" pest. It's ok dear, one of these days you'll learn to live with yourself and you won't have to be such a nasty little twit with everyone else. ONE of these days... ; ) |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 161 Registered: Dec-03 | Bottom line is that a new Chevy truck would cost $23K in *replacement value*. No, the bottom line is that a 1979 Chevy truck is not a $23,000 automobile, which was your original assertion concerning the NAD. a 14 year old quality solid-state amp that appears to be well taken care of will NOT show anywhere near the same degradation in qualitative performance. For a guy who was completely unimpressed with the sound of this setup, you sure seem certain that it sounds just as good today as it did when it was made 20 years ago. If I am using only 2 out of the Panasonic's amps to run a pair of speakers, how in the world would those speakers be receiving 3.5 times more power than a 2-channel amp with the same RMS numbers? You really don't know anything about audio components, do you? Even if you were running only two channels, which I find highly doubtful, your 7-channel receiver will still have more power reserves and dynamic headroom available for those two channels. Which is why performance ratings in stereo for a multichannel receiver are almost always better than 5- or 7-channel performance. And *even if* your preposterous "3.5x more power" My claim? Edster, it's simple math. Follow along now: 100 x 2 = 200 Watt. 100 x 7 = 700 Watt. 700 / 200 = 3.5. Now, if you were only running stereo, it would obviously be less -- yet still significantly more per channel at the same level of distortion. the xr70 was tested by Sound & Vision to put out roughly 80wpc, if memory serves) Seems as though they like to exaggerate as much as you do. Analog amplification has not significantly changed AT ALL in the past 20 years Well, that's because sound hasn't changed much in 20 years. As for your infantile insults, which don't for a second obscure the fact from anyone that you have no real point to make here, bantering back and forth with you would be not entirely unlike getting into a "I know you are but what am I" battle with a 4-year-old. Now, that knock on your door is your mom calling you to go back to bed. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow for more of your childish Internet shenanigans. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3426 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL are you having an identity crisis now, changing your user name? I guess that's typical of 16 year olds... > No, the bottom line is that a 1979 Chevy truck is not a $23,000 automobile, which was your original assertion concerning the NAD. No it wasn't, you silly boy. This is the exact text from my usual Panny blurb: "I was shocked to discover that it effortlessly outperformed AND outpowered my beloved NAD separates which would cost about 6 times as much brand new!" > For a guy who was completely unimpressed with the sound of this setup, you sure seem certain that it sounds just as good today as it did when it was made 20 years ago. Again your dyslexia is quite sad. I used to rave about my NAD separates compared to the Marantz...until the Panny came along. As for how it sounded when it was brand news, yes I stand by my assertion that quality solid state amplifiers that are not abused do not suffer any significant deterioration in sound quality in 14 years. My oh my, o Dorkmeister, you are REALLY stretching here aren't you? First you come up with some retarded analogy that simply shows your stunning IGNORANCE and failure to distinguish between mechanical degradation of a car vs. an amp, then you turn yourself into a retro-psychic who knows the past better than the present! LOL you're better than the Comedy Channel! > You really don't know anything about audio components, do you? Even if you were running only two channels, which I find highly doubtful, your 7-channel receiver will still have more power reserves and dynamic headroom available for those two channels. Which is why performance ratings in stereo for a multichannel receiver are almost always better than 5- or 7-channel performance. Edster, it's simple math. Follow along now: 100 x 2 = 200 Watt. 100 x 7 = 700 Watt. 700 / 200 = 3.5. Now, if you were only running stereo, it would obviously be less -- yet still significantly more per channel at the same level of distortion. Sheesh, your terminal stupidity truly amazes. Why do you think that 2-channel amps/receivers are generally acknowledged as being better sounding and/or more powerful doing 2-channel music than multichannel amps/receivers? You think a 7 channel amp is using all 7 amps whenever you are listening to 2-channel stereo? DOH!!! >> the xr70 was tested by Sound & Vision to put out roughly 80wpc, if memory serves) > > Seems as though they like to exaggerate as much as you do. LOL, seems you are so desperate for any straw to hang on to that now you are picking and choosing whatever specs and sources you want to believe, poor boy. Congrats dear, you have now officially earned the title of DORK-meister! |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 163 Registered: Dec-03 | Again your dyslexia is quite sad Most of your post is obviously stupid, asinine, and otherwise childish, and we have certainly come to love and admire you for that to be sure, but I do have to know one thing... Do you know what dyslexia means? You think a 7 channel amp is using all 7 amps whenever you are listening to 2-channel stereo? DOH!!! Since I doubt you'll ever take the time to learn anything about audio components, aside from which shade of plastic best matches your new receiver, so let me share with you a little knowledge. Pick up any bench test report from your favorite audio magazine. (This assumes, of course, that you can both read and afford an audio magazine.) I'll use Sound and Vision's recent review of Onkyo's 503 digital receiver as an example. Now, read the part in the report where it states that the 503 measures 116 Watts with only 1 channel driven. Then read the part where it states that the 503 measures only 71 Watts with all 7 channels driven. Finally, note that 1-channel rating represents a 63% difference increase in power output from the all-channels rating. Repeat this a few times, with any reciever evaluation of your choosing, until you have finally convinced yourself that a multi-channel receiver performs better with fewer channels driven. Heck, look up that Sound and Vision report in the Panasonic XR-70 that you were happy to cite earlier, and see if it doesn't also show better power output with fewer channels driven. Then, call all of your friends and family "dyslexic" one last time, sell your computer, and save up for a new brain transplant. I'm sure they'll be possible sooner or later. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3428 Registered: Mar-05 | > and we have certainly come to love and admire you for that to be sure, ah, the Royal "We"---another dead giveaway of a desperate loser! What's the matter baby, feeling a little lonely already? Awwwwwwwwww! My boy, you have to stop giving me so many obvious targets to whack you with...don't you ever learn? > Pick up any bench test report from your favorite audio magazine. (This assumes, of course, that you can both read and afford an audio magazine.) I'll use Sound and Vision's recent review of Onkyo's 503 digital receiver as an example. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1083&page_n umber=1 ROTFL, that review has the 503 doing 83wpc into 2 channels...DOH! In the same magazine's review of the Panny xr70 (identical amp section to the xr55) is rated at 88wpc with 2 channels driven, you poor pitiful dyslexic ignoramus of a DORKmeister. Ye gods, putting you in your place is like shooting fish in a barrel... LOL! |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 164 Registered: Dec-03 | ROTFL, that review has the 503 doing 83wpc into 2 channels...DOH! Genius, you do realize that 83 Watts (for 2 channels) is still significantly less than its 1 channel performance and still significantly more than its 7 channel performance, which was exactly the point? In the same magazine's review of the Panny xr70 (identical amp section to the xr55) is rated at 88wpc with 2 channels driven Again, for the mentally-impaired (that's you, Edster), here are the Sound & Vision's test results for the Panasonic XR-70. 1-Channel = 91.2 Watts 2-Channel = 87.8 Watts 6-Channel = 77.4 Watts Now, do you see a trend? Or do you need me to draw a graph or something for you? I guess we finally know now why you talk about dyslexia so much. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 165 Registered: Dec-03 | DOH! |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 166 Registered: Dec-03 | And, while you're looking at those bench test specs, perhaps you could explain to us the magic behind how the Panasonic manages to "bury" NAD "at 90db" without a "hint of distortion or degradation," though its measured output at clipping is considerably less than even NAD's smallest 6-channel receiver. And, while you're at it, you can explain how the Panasonic delivers what you refer to as "quality current," when you're warned against using it for low impedance speakers in that very same review. NAD, on the other hand, is one of the few manufacturers who offer 4-ohm stable, high-current power output in all of their models. "DOH!" "Dyslexia!" |
|
Silver Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 119 Registered: Oct-05 | "1-Channel = 91.2 Watts 2-Channel = 87.8 Watts 6-Channel = 77.4 Watts " that is hardly the huge boost in power that was claimed earlier. As the power numbers we get total would be. 6-Channel = 464.4 watts 2-Channel = 175.6 watts 1-Channel = 91.2 watts You arn't getting much more power at all on 1 channel vs 6. I would like to find the numbers on the XR55 somewhere, as I don't think the XR70 has dual-amp mode. With that being said the NAD should have a good bit more power too it. These threads are giving me a good laugh. It would be really interesting if we had those who really like the panny and those that really didn't went over to the other persons house and tried out there equipment. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 167 Registered: Dec-03 | that is hardly the huge boost in power that was claimed earlier. It not necessarily as significant as the difference for many other receivers, including the all-digital Onkyo 503 -- which showed an incurease in power output of 63%. Nevertheless, as a rule (and the XR-70 is no exception), fewer active channels means better performance since the power supply and capacitors have more juice to spread around. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3430 Registered: Mar-05 | > Again, for the mentally-impaired (that's you, Edster), here are the Sound & Vision's test results for the Panasonic XR-70. 1-Channel = 91.2 Watts 2-Channel = 87.8 Watts 6-Channel = 77.4 Watts LOL, Dorkmeister you keep digging yourself a deeper hole with every new moronic post. You're telling me that a *** 3.4 watts *** difference (going between 1 and 2 channel) and *** 10.4 watts *** difference is in ANY WAY significant? Do you realize that a 50wpc difference translates to only about 2-4db of increased SPL? I must *again* christen you DORK-meister!!! ROTFLMAO... PS. Note that Art Kyle, one of the most vocal and hyperbolic critics of the Panny around here, even conceded that it "seems to have bottomless reserves of power." |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 169 Registered: Dec-03 | Do you realize that a 50wpc difference translates to only about 2-4db of increased SPL Not that your comment has anything to do with my statement that you get more power with less channels driven, unless you now plan to argue that there's no point in buying a 100 Watt Panasonic receiver when you can get just as much performance from a 20 Watt clock radio, but do you realize that 1 dB represents a difference in sound intensity of over 25%? Not to mention the fact that these power ratings become important as a measure of accurate sound reproduction (i.e., lack of distortion) at high volume levels. But, as you've already stated, you are more concerned about getting a small plastic receiver than you are about accurate sound reproduction. "ROFLMAO" "DOH!" "Dyslexia!" Forget the brain transplant; get yourself a college education first, if you ever manage to make it through high school. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 170 Registered: Dec-03 | PS even conceded that it "seems to have bottomless reserves of power. Then he should be really impressed by a receiver that actually comes even remotely close to its stated power specs. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2477 Registered: Feb-05 | Edster, the power on the Panny is near the front end of the pedal if you get my meaning. It reaches volume easily. I don't listen extra loud so I never tested it's full throttle output. My ears couldn't take the sound coming out of it at medium volume why would I make my ears bleed by turning it up further. dmeister, I have a Hafler 9505 power amp (250 watts per channel) and yep I'm impressed. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3431 Registered: Mar-05 | > but do you realize that 1 dB represents a difference in sound intensity of over 25%? Wow, this is not just the Twilight Zone, it's the DORKmeister Zone! LOL You doofus, if I listen to music at 80db then how does an increase of 1db create a "25% increase in 'sound intensity'"? I suspect you must have alreaddy had your sphincter removed, since you are constantly pulling so many things out of your @ss... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3432 Registered: Mar-05 | OK Art, I believe you never tested its full throttle output. I haven't either, since 95db is really the upper limit of my own listening volumes and at this level the Panny's volume display read -35 (max is 0). However at 95db I found that the NAD displayed noticeably more distortion than the Panny which was just as immaculately clear as it was at 75db. This is what led me to say that the Panny easily outpowered it. I had a similar experience when I was ABing all those different CDPs at the local shop a few months ago, they had a NAD c372 running a pair of Monitor Audio towers and I also heard some distortion when I cranked it up...though the speakers might've had something to do with it too. I didn't have the Panny at the time so no chance to do a direct AB there. |
|
Silver Member Username: Paul98Post Number: 121 Registered: Oct-05 | 3db is doubling which is why he said that 1db is over 25%. also 50w increase does not represent a 2-4 db increase. 50w increase means nothing with out knowing how much you started with. as if you double the power you add 3db. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 171 Registered: Dec-03 | You doofus, if I listen to music at 80db then how does an increase of 1db create a "25% increase in 'sound intensity'"? Edster, I could tell you that a Decibel is mathematically defined as 10 * log(i2 / i1), which means that if you solve for 1 dB you will see that the ratio of sound intensities i2 / i1 is 1.26 (or 26% greater intensity). I could also tell you that the "Reference Intensity" (i1) used is generally the threshold of hearing, which is the faintest sound a typical observer can discriminate, while 80 dB is loud enough to actually damage your hearing after 8 hours (160 dB, or twice this level, is actually equivalent to a rocket engine, and causes interolable pain and hearing damage). Yes, I could tell you all of this. But, instead, I'd rather tell you to go to college to learn it yourself. Maybe then you won't come across as such an idiot in these threads. "DOH!" "Dyslexia!" "ROFLMAO" It's just too bad that there isn't a petition people can sign to have immature cretins like you banned from the Internet. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3438 Registered: Mar-05 | > It's just too bad that there isn't a petition people can sign to have immature cretins like you banned from the Internet. LOL, you are *really* getting desperate when you start down this road. Whatsa matter baby, can't stand the heat? I guess if you keep getting beat up left and right, sooner or later you go crying to the authority figures for some relief, don't you? Aside from being an embarassing doofus, I see that you are also a pitful little crybaby on top of it all, LOL. Dorkmeister, you never fail to give me the giggles...please stick around as long as possible! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3441 Registered: Mar-05 | Paul, > 3db is doubling which is why he said that 1db is over 25%. doubling of what? > also 50w increase does not represent a 2-4 db increase. 50w increase means nothing with out knowing how much you started with. as if you double the power you add 3db. You're probably right, I was going by an extremely rough estimation. However, my point remains that a difference of 12wpc between two receivers at 8 ohms makes a negligible difference in real world usage. > 50w increase means nothing with out knowing how much you started with. as if you double the power you add 3db. So you're saying a 100 wpc receiver would only be 3 db louder than a 50wpc receiver? |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 172 Registered: Dec-03 | Whatsa matter baby, can't stand the heat? Just go to the "Happy Place," Edster. And keep telling yourself that you're not coming across as a complete idiot in every post in this thread. Aside from being an embarassing doofus. Yes, an embarrassing "doofus" with a Physics degree arguing with a simpleton whose sole measure of audio performance is whether his plastastic receiver comes in silver or not. As for your question, since you obviously couldn't understand the math involved, going from 50 Watts to 100 Watts is equal to l0 * log(100 / 50) = 3.01 dB. "DOH!" "Dyslexia!" "ROFLMAO!" "Doofus!" Have I forgotten any? |
|
Silver Member Username: DmeisterPost Number: 173 Registered: Dec-03 | PS Edster, as much as I enjoy bantering with halfwits, this has really taken up too much of my free time already, so I'll be moving on from this thread now. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts to lower the average IQ of the planet by spreading as much "disinformation" as you can between Gym class and your fry-cook job. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3443 Registered: Mar-05 | > As for your question, since you obviously couldn't understand the math involved, going from 50 Watts to 100 Watts is equal to l0 * log(100 / 50) = 3.01 dB. and despite your alleged degree in Physics (from where, the Special Education College?) you are still too THICK to realize that 3db doesn't make any real-world difference whatsoever. > Edster, as much as I enjoy bantering with halfwits, this has really taken up too much of my free time already, so I'll be moving on from this thread now. LOL, you are slightly less retarded than you seem---I was hoping to have at least a couple more days worth of rip-roaring amusement at your expense! aw shucks... |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2480 Registered: Feb-05 | I think it was more at your expense Eddie! It was entertaining though (in a sick sort of way). |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3444 Registered: Mar-05 | > I think it was more at your expense Eddie! heh, whatever you say Art... > It was entertaining though (in a sick sort of way). Nah, just entertaining! LOL |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics