Printable View
My Kenwood 6060 has a clipping circuit built in. I found out it worked when I hooked up an external DAC that had a voltage that was higher than the Kenwood's input. I couldn't hear any clipping but the light was coming on very briefly on occasion. I hooked the DAC up to two other receivers that I own and there was no indication of clipping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt C.
David
A week ago Saturday, my wife was taken down by a dog while riding her bike. The dog attacked the bike and not her so all her injuries were caused by bouncing down the pavement and not by animal bites. No broken bones but lots of swelling and black and blue all over. She knows how to properly wear a helmet and this was the difference between coming home that night from the emergency room and ....Quote:
Originally Posted by bikeman
The inside of the helmet took some skin off and she had a minor concussion but that's much better than the alternative. She's still recuperating so I'm also off the bike and at home more than usual for this time of year. It's given my a chance to experiment with the Panny 55.
Yesterday, we did extensive listening to CD's. I used the RS SPL meter to equalize between analog and digital signals. The bottom line is I can't hear a difference. Sometimes I'd think there's a difference but when I re-ran the passage, the difference wasn't there.
My wife has much better hearing than myself so I asked her to listen for any differences but didn't tell her what changes were being made. Sometimes I didn't even make a change so that I could better control the test. There were a few occasions where she thought she could detect a difference but she was unable to pick out those differences with any degree of certainty when we re-ran the passage.
The receiver continues to impress me. Like most folks who buy Ascend speakers, I'm not looking for the ultimate in audio. We're looking for the best value. The Panny 55 might just fit the same senario.
If anyone has any questions or would like me to try a particular combination with this receiver, let me know. I've got some extra time on my hands for another week or two.
David
I've taken the Dayton 10" sub out of the loop and I'm now running the 340's full range. I'll probably stick with this for awhile. With Internet Radio this is definintely the way to go.
David
OK, here's my first impressions on the xr55:
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/160136.html
Very interesting Eddie...keep us posted as you rack up more time with the unit.
after several days of listening only to the Panny, today I finally started doing some A/B listening with the Panny vs. my beloved NAD...and the "aha" moments are coming in spades right now.
Started with some Bach: a solo piano piece ("Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring") and the Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G Major (Allegro). The piano piece had both receivers pretty close at moderate volumes, though I could already hear a clarity advantage in favor of the Panny, which simply sounded more open and natural.
However at high volumes (90-95db) and particularly on the violin concerto, the Panny simply WIPED THE FLOOR with the NAD, which started to get thin on the highs and weak on the mids during musical peaks, with a layer of fuzz settling in around the edges. The Panny on the other hand calmly delivered the goods with perfect aplomb, didn't even get hot to the touch, stayed the same warmish temperature to the touch throughout.
Moved on to Norah Jones, "Don't Know Why" and "Seven Years"---didn't crank the volume above 80db this time, but again the Panny held a clear advantage. Wow, the midrange was just tremendous...Norah's voice seemed much fuller, her breaths more audible, when she held a note for a couple of seconds it all came through clear and effortlessly. In comparison the NAD seemd to favor certain parts of the frequency range over others, Norah's voice while still very pleasing did not have the same range.
Van Morrison, "Moondance"---a mediocre recording, but again the Panny did it with a bit more life and verve than the NAD.
Santana, "Put Your Lights On," "Maria Maria," and "Corazon Espinado." This is one of my favorite demo CDs because the songs have a variety of tempos and both simple and complex passages. There is also a lot of treble and midrange happening at the same time, all driven by a strong beat.
Once again, during complex passages (by which I mean lots of instruments, voices, percussion all happening at the same time) the Panny pulled ahead and never looked back. Separation of musical inputs was outstanding, bringing out many details that were muted on the NAD.
The NAD clearly does deliver more bass (I had my speakers set on large on the Panny, with the sub turned off) and on simpler compositions did have more of a laid back, warmish sound. However at about six times the price (an equivalent NAD amp + pre-pro today would run about $1300 compared to the Panny's $230) that's a lot of dough just for a particular sound characteristic with a particular type of musical compositions. In fact if I were buying my system from scratch today, I would choose the Panny without a second thought over both the NAD and the Marantz and spend the extra money on the speakers and sub...complete no-brainer.
What particularly surprised me was the fact that the slim featherweight Panny actually seems far more powerful than the behemoth NAD in both SPL and maintaining SQ at high SPL. It is rated at 100wpc at 6 ohms, but after today I would guesstimate that they could easily list it at 150wpc at 8ohms if they wanted to and they'd still be far more honest than 90% of their competition. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this receiver even as a party appliance.
Wow, wow, wow..a 230 lousy bucks suddenly goes a VERY long way, indeed!
This Panny is far from perfect in terms of componentry, features, remote, and ease of use no doubt---but the performance it delivers at this ridiculously low pricepoint is simply staggering. If Panny adds another say $200 to the price tag to give it higher grade features and components, it will be extremely hard to beat.
Simply put, I cannot imagine there being too many solid-state analog receivers around 10 years from now, other than the real high end die-hard audiophile niche.
SOLD!
PS. Also will hook up my $60 Panasonic DVD player to the Panny for music playback and see how it sounds compared to the Marantz CDP since with the xr55 there are no DACs involved at all, the DVD player will simply be used a transport so unless its transport and chassis completely sucks it should produce the same musical output as the Marantz.
If this proves to be true, I'll probably move my Marantz CDP and NAD to the bedroom and sell off the Marantz receiver. SHWEEET! Less clutter, less cost, better SQ!
Nice review.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie
This is why I think it is so important that we reward good engineering over hearsay and subjectivism.
Imagine the poor guy who gets his advice from the wrong crowd and ends up blowing $250 on a couple of crappy 10-watt tube amps.
In the end, only two groups suffer when we accept fundamental truths about audio components:
1. The people who make $250 speaker cables.
2. The magazines who get paid to say that such things impart magic to music.
PS--Don't forget to occasionally whip out the SPL meter to make sure you aren't being unfair to that loyal old NAD amp that has served you so well. Cheers!
No worries, all my listening today has been done with SPL meter in hand! :)
But yeah I do feel a little guilty towards my beloved NAD...
Damn, I almost feel like a 50 year old man leaving his 50 year old wife of 25 years for some 25 year old hottie!
This pretty much sums up my feelings for this receiver. The only reason I would consider a different recevier or separates is to get more features. Right now, I don't need additional features and probably by the time that I do, the offerings will be quite different from today's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie
Nice write-up Eddie. I'm afraid we've let the cat out of the bag. ;)
David
> I'm afraid we've let the cat out of the bag.
It puzzles me that aside from audio forums, the Panny hasn't been getting that much buzz.
Guess we'll have to wait until somebody like Microsoft latches onto this technology and markets the hell out of it, then we'll truly see the audio world flipped on its head...
Oh well, I guess it took CDs a few years to take off too didn't it? Somebody refresh my memory on that. Funny, I remember balking at paying $15 for a CD at the time, when LPs were available for $6 and cassettes for $7!