Panasonic SA-XR55 receiver

[bikeman]

Yesterday Brown brought me a Panasonic SA-XR55 receiver (digital amp). I've posted a quick impression on the Panny thread @ AVS. More to come as I have time to experiment.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...84#post5976784

I'm Bikedorian over there. Someone had taken Bikeman ahead of me.

David

[Eddie]

Yes, please share all the details. I'm seriously considering the sa-xr55 for a bedroom system but hell if it can beat my NAD I'll put it in the living room gladly...should score a lot of WAF brownie points!

That AVS thread is interesting but whew, very long and a million directions.

[bikeman]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Yes, please share all the details. I'm seriously considering the sa-xr55 for a bedroom system but hell if it can beat my NAD I'll put it in the living room gladly...should score a lot of WAF brownie points!
That AVS thread is interesting but whew, very long and a million directions.

The 55 has pluses and minuses. I'll use it for at least a month before putting my Kenwood back in the main system. I don't expect to hear much difference but we'll see in September. The Panny did seem brighter when I first hooked it up but I've adapted to it. When I switch back, it will be interesting to see if I have a preference. This is not a fool proof method but it's what works best for me.
When you say "beat my NAD," what does that imply?

David

[Eddie]

> When you say "beat my NAD," what does that imply?

My NAD completely blew my Marantz 5400 out of the water: incredible power, clarity, fullness and nice tight bass. The Marantz can produce about the same db but cannot match the other characteristics.

So I'd be curious as to how the Panny would compare in those departments. Quinn thought that the JVC rx-f10 he used to have was overly "analytical" for example, and other detractors of pure-digitals have complained of them being too bright, flat, weak, etc.

If the Panny can match or exceed the NAD I would jump at it.

[svenyun]

I bought an XR55 while my HK 7200 was in the shop, for about 3 weeks. The HK is back, and the first impression after hearing the HK again is that the Panasonic is a little brighter, with more detail. Bass is tight and well controlled. The HK has a warmer sound, by that I mean the mid bass has more energy. Almost sounds a little sloppy compared to the Panasonic. The blend between my CBM-170s and the SVS sub sounds more natural with the Panasonic. I could listen to music with the sub on the Panasonic, whereas with the HK I preferred to set the mains to large with no sub. Both receivers were crossed over at 80Hz. The HK seemed a little more dynamic, this may have been the more prominent mid bass though.

The HK tested out at almost twice the power into seven channels at 8ohms (~130W, Sound and Vision test I think) compared to the XR55 (~86W). The XR55 thread at AVS has a link to the German review that tested the Panasonic. The two tests may not have been done in the same conditions, but it's enough of a comparison to get a general idea. The German review also tested a Yamaha, HK, and a Sony if I remember correctly, all in the $500 range I think, and none of them held up to the Panasonic in the all channels driven test.

Keep in mind the price difference between these two receivers. If I had a budget of $500-600 and looking for a receiver I'd get the Panasonic because I doubt any analog receivers in that price range would match it. To think that it compares this favorably to something so far up in the HK line is pretty amazing.

Something else I liked about the Panny, very fast changes between digital bitstreams, eg Dolby Pro Logic -> Dolby Digital as in changing from DVD menu to the movie. The HK chokes on these changes and mutes for 2-4 seconds.

I still don't know which one will end up in the spare room.

[bikeman]

Originally Posted by Eddie

> When you say "beat my NAD," what does that imply?

My NAD completely blew my Marantz 5400 out of the water: incredible power, clarity, fullness and nice tight bass. The Marantz can produce about the same db but cannot match the other characteristics.

So I'd be curious as to how the Panny would compare in those departments. Quinn thought that the JVC rx-f10 he used to have was overly "analytical" for example, and other detractors of pure-digitals have complained of them being too bright, flat, weak, etc.

If the Panny can match or exceed the NAD I would jump at it.

The Panny dosen't even completely blow my Kenwood 6060 "out of the water." It has a different signature for sure but it will be another two months before I decide which I perfer sound wise. For ease of use, the Panny wins hands down. It dosen't have all the bells and whistles so that could affect a buying decesion.
I think the term analytical describes the Panny pretty well. From all that I've read, and it's a bunch, folks say the Panny is more analytical than the JVC.
Sven's post is a real eye opener for me. I think quite highly of the H/K 7200.

David

[Eddie]

yeah the 7200 is a $2000 flagship isn't it? Pretty staggering if a $250 Panny keeps up with it.

David, have you heard the JVC rx-f10 yourself? I remember reading that it was supposed to be better for 2-channel music, but that was a while back when it was being compared to the older xr25/50/70 models.

[svenyun]

After more listening, with and without the sub, I think the Panasonic does seem more "analytical" than the HK. That is a good way to describe it. This is more true as the volume goes up, but at normal levels they compare well. As I said before the HK does have a slightly warmer sound so if you prefer that, you'd probably enjoy the HK more. With inefficient 4 ohm floorstanders the HK probably would stand out even more, it does have a bit more power to work with. I'm still amazed the Panny sounds as good as it does, I wasn't expecting to have to listen very much to make a preference. It was a cheap standby while the HK was in the shop.

[bikeman]

Originally Posted by Eddie

David, have you heard the JVC rx-f10 yourself? I remember reading that it was supposed to be better for 2-channel music, but that was a while back when it was being compared to the older xr25/50/70 models.

I haven't heard the JVC. It is much more of a hybrid amp than the Panny so I would expect it to have some different qualities than the Panny. It is the prevailing view that the JVC is better in analog than the Panny.
I also haven't heard the earlier Panny's so I can't comment on any differences there, if any.
One area that I'm very pleased with the Panny is listening to Internet Radio (which I do often). I seldom sit down and listen to IR. I have it on when I'm buzzing around the house and gardens which is quite a bit. It might not be quite CD quality but I get to hear a lotta different music that I wouldn't otherwise get to hear.
The Panny does digital very well. I'm not sure on the analog side of things just yet but it's a keeper for sure.

David

[Kurt C.]

Anyone know how to determine if/when a given receiver is nearing its upper limits without driving it to obvious clipping?

I happen to believe the experts who tell me that "within their limits" and all preamps/amps (and receivers) sound very similar if not identical.

How do I know if the two receivers I'm listening to are both "within their limits".

OK, I found a partial answer to my own question in this thread:

Amp Clipping Discussion

I still wish there were some kind of simple aftermarket meter that I could hook up to my system to see when it is appraching the point of clipping.