Anyone do a comparison of the XR-57 with analog receiver?

[badassfajita]

I just hooked the XR-57 up to my 340SE's and was curious if anyone else had experience comparing the Panasonic to a mid priced Yamaha/Denon/HK.

Thanks.

[Quinn]

Eddie here in Houston got rid of his Marantz 5400(?) for a Panny XR55.

Have you tried the search function and XR55/57? THere are a few threads on this forum about the Panny digitals.

[sls7u]

I compared the HK 435 vs the Panny xr55 for about a week in my apartment. The rest of my set-up consists of a 340 classic center, 340SE fronts, 170SE rears and an Hsu VTF3 MK2 sub. Sources compared were the HD DirecTV tivo (the old one) and a Denon DVD player, both connected via optical cables to the receiver.

I'm still relatively new to the whole audiophile scene, so excuse my lack of terminology. Basically, the Panny made the music(SACD and red-books)/movie/TV show sound more life-like than the HK. This was true for both voices and instruments, especially ones with higher pitches (strings, piano, cymbols). The HK was good, and definitely nicer than my 10 year old Yamaha receiver. Also, it has a lot more features, including the room equalization function. But, I thought the sound was truer with the Panny, so I saved my self the $400 and kept the Panny. Hope this helps.

[Eddie]

Eddie here in Houston got rid of his Marantz 5400(?) for a Panny XR55.

yeah, the OP has actually heard my xr55 at my house on my 340 classics.

I had already gotten rid of the Marantz by that time though, so he had nothing to AB against.

[badassfajita]

Well I've got the 340SE's, Axiom M22's, a Panasonic SA-XR57, an older Onkyo TX-SR503 (from upstairs system) and I got ahold of a Yamaha RX-2500.

Ok the easiest thing to decide was to put the Axioms back in the box. While at times the top end was cleaner, the Ascends just had *more* throughout the entire frequency range. That was easy. I gave them plenty of opportunity to "win", but they couldn't. At times, the vocals sounded compressed, but only b/c I was A-Bing with the Ascends. Alone, they would be ok.

Now to the hard part...deciding which amp to keep. Unfortunately I purchased the Panasonic from CC a bit early and my 30 day window expires today, so its going back no matter what. If I decide to keep it, I will rebuy from elsewhere on the web.

Listnening impressions--The Panasonic with the SE's are bright--no way around it. I've got the treble at -5 right now and it sounds much better. Thankfully the treble is coming down at 20hz, so the overall sound really isn't affected, just the top end. I listened to the classics before with an XR55 and Eddie had a Marantz CD player hooked up via analog and that sounded good. I've got an optical connection from my cheapo DVD player to the 57. Played loudly with the tone flat, I heard sibilance and I got ear fatigue in 10-15 minutes. But its better now with the treble down -5. Vocals are forward though (I like that!). I hooked up the Onkyo and all the bright treble went away, but so did a lot of the excitement of the music. It just sounded, well plain, but the treble was smooth.

Now on to the Yamaha--with the tone flat, the treble issues went away. The sound was very pleasing and full. Even some of the DSP modes had cool reverb sounds. The best part was the 60hz crossover...some music didn't sound "right" to my ears though--it did lack some of the detail of the Panasonic. Many cool features too--the GUI is very cool and the mic setup worked well. In Pure direct mode, that detail came back, but of course the sub is defeated, so that sux.

So then I just hooked up the Panasonic one more time--the detail is absurd as is the power. It easily sounds more powerful than the 130 x 2 yamaha. The Yamaha can handle its own, but the Panasonic has the edge on clarity.
Well now I am torn between the Yamaha and Panny--The Yamaha can be had used for $100-$150 more than the 57, so cost really isn't a factor to me, especially for the additional bells and whistles that the Yamaha gives.

I'm gonna give one more shot with a HK 635 hopefully and make the final call. Will update soon!

[curtis]

The 340s vs the M22s is really, IMO, a no contest as you have found out. In fact, the 170SE is a much more fair comparison for the Axiom. Somebody else also ask about the 340 vs M22 and said the same thing, but I think the similar driver configuration and costs makes people think they are comparable.

Very interesting read about how the receivers are working for you. Make sure to spend a lot of time listening to each one....at least a few hours each, and level match.

[bikeman]

Listnening impressions--The Panasonic with the SE's are bright--no way around it. I've got the treble at -5 right now and it sounds much better.

Could your listening area be adding to the brightness? I've got the classic 340's with an XR-55 and I'm not experiencing it. Sometimes detail can be expressed as brightness but my first thought would be the room.
Have fun deciding.

David

[Asliang]

The 340s vs the M22s is really, IMO, a no contest as you have found out. In fact, the 170SE is a much more fair comparison for the Axiom. Somebody else also ask about the 340 vs M22 and said the same thing, but I think the similar driver configuration and costs makes people think they are comparable.

Very interesting read about how the receivers are working for you. Make sure to spend a lot of time listening to each one....at least a few hours each, and level match.

Without a subwoofer, the M22 ($460!) vs the 170SE is really no contest either. For music I think it's no contest, the voices are so much fuller--something I don't think a sub alone can fill. Also the 170SEs have much better dispersion than the M22Tis--I can walk around the room and the effect is pretty minimal other than loss of highs; when done with the M22s, listening above and below the listening position or to the far sides, it really sounded localized, whereas the Ascends can really fill a wider area.

[Eddie]

It’s too bad you had such a tight deadline on the Panny, I would have given you the following advice to lessen brightness:

1. Bi-wire the 340s and set the HF Balance so that the woofers are getting much more power than the tweeters.

2. Get a decent CDP and use the analog inputs. That Marantz I have was just under $150 shipped, you can get a used Sony CDP for under $50 that will probably sound better than a cheap DVD player on optical or coaxial.

3. Turn the treble all the way down if needed, since the treble controls are set at 20Hz this will not really screw up the soundstage as it would on most receivers.

4. If #1-3 fail, set your 340s on “large” when listening to music, and “small” only during movies with tons of LFE that you plan on listening at near reference levels.

You did touch on a long-time gripe of mine about the Panny: I wish it had a 60Hz crossover!

(The 2nd biggest gripe is that it doesn’t have a one-touch “Pure Direct Mode” that turns the speakers on “large” for music listening like my old Marantz had.)

[Eddie]

Could your listening area be adding to the brightness? I've got the classic 340's with an XR-55 and I'm not experiencing it. Sometimes detail can be expressed as brightness but my first thought would be the room.

Room conditions are always worth factoring in, definitely.

However I would not be surprised if the SEs are actually more forward speakers than the Classics. Quinn's 170SEs were strikingly brighter than Rysa's 170 Classics, but DF verified that his had a defective tweeter that has since been taken care of, so that was not a reliable result.

I hope to bring my 340 Classics over to the OP's place for an AB against those SEs sometime to find out.