170SE Impressions with my H/K AVR630 and Pany XR55

[1Time]

I got my two B-Stock Ascend 170SE's yesterday and have had them playing for about 12 hours now. I will update my impressions and comparison over the next couple of days. Comments and questions are welcome.

Pany XR55 Settings:
Treble = -10
Bass = +2
Speaker = Small
Crossover = 80 Hz
Dual Amp = On
Sound Mode = Stereo
Source = FM Radio - Smooth Jazz and Classic Rock
Volume = Low

H/K AVR630 Settings:
Treble = 0
Bass = -2
Speaker = Small
Crossover = 80 Hz
Dual Amp = N/A
Sound Mode = Stereo
Source = FM Radio - Smooth Jazz and Classic Rock
Volume = Low

Speaker Position and Room:
~ 22" from side walls
~ 20" from rear walls
~ 4' 5" from floor, shelf mounted
This positioning was done for convenience in my small listening room, which mostly has hard surfaces.

Ascend 170SE Impressions with Low Volume Music:
Pros
- smooth, even response from highs to lows, not "peaky"
- nice ambience, big sound field, nice stereo imaging
- excellent value for its performance
- handles speach well (comercials) and music very well
- seems like it would perform even better with more power
- works great with my H/K AVR630, best with Logic 7 (music)

Cons
- overall tonality is a bit higher than seems natural, slightly compressed
- very slightly sibiliant, likely due to my source
- does not work well with my Pany XR55

Other Comments
I'm keeping this brief for now. I will expand and update this as time permits and cover my comparison of the two receivers.

[bikeman]

I got my two B-Stock Ascend 170SE's yesterday and have had them playing for about 12 hours now. I will update my impressions and comparison over the next couple of days. Comments and questions are welcome.
Pany XR55 Settings:
Treble = -10
Bass = +4
The treble setting indicates some serious room issues. The bass setting could indicate alotta things.
There is no way there is that much difference between those two receivers.

David

[ebh]

i haven't played with the treble/bass settings at all on my panny xr55... maybe i should try it out and hear what it sounds like.

[BradJudy]

Using FM radio as the source introduces issues. First, you're also comparing the tuners of the two receivers (unless you're using an external tuner). Second, FM radio isn't a very good quality source.

I'm confused by the positioning - 4'5" high on shelves, but 20" from rear wall? Is this a really deep wall unit or something?

[1Time]

I now have a Bach CD playing with the Pany's treble set at -4. Sounds very good and enjoyable. The bass of the 170SE's seems proportionate in volume to the higher frequencies so being away from the wall doesn't seem to be an issue.

My entertainment center is positioned away from the front wall so I can walk behind it to allow convenient changing of connections as I compare receivers, speakers, and subs.

I may want to fashion some home-made room treatments some day; however my preference IS to keep the ambience effect that the hard surfaces in my room seems to compliment.

Thanks for posting your input. I expect to have time to get more into all of this tonight or tomorrow.

[1Time]

Taking a break so posting again. Switched back to FM (smooth jazz) and changed settings on the Pany to -3 Treble and 0 Bass. Sounds very good. So what's happening here? I think the Pany was breaking in. Of course the Ascends also are breaking in but they sounded very good with my H/K before. Now with the Pany they just sound even better, fuller, deeper, more musical (I've turned them up a little too). The two FM stations I listen to the most come in very clear and play music that compliments the frequency range of the 170SE's.

[muzz]

How is it that Panny sounds good at all, at a weight of <9 lbs?
I've read ALOT of folks run the 55 and 57 receivers........

Distortion #'s seem higher on these..

I have a Yamaha HTR5550, which I am considering upgrading to a HTR 5990 or 6090(I like Yamaha receivers).

ALL of these receivers weigh ALOT more than the Pannys.

[BradJudy]

How is it that Panny sounds good at all, at a weight of <9 lbs?


It uses very high efficiency switching amplifiers - less power consumption means smaller transformer and little or no heatsink, the two heaviest parts in an amp. It also has few inputs/outputs, so there's less weight in connectors and a taller chassis.

[muzz]

Thats kinda what I figured.
I think I'll stick with the design of the old amps.

Never thought I'd see the day that CE's would start using switching supplies in audio applications.

[1Time]

Just a quick update. I'm gonna take perhaps a week more of breaking in the 170SE's and Pany XR55 before posting futher impressions and comparison. There are several other variables that are affecting my decisions including my need for headphone use that combine to make this process very time consuming. And I'm now concluding to do all of this before getting the equipment broken in is a waste of time. Sorry for jumping the gun here; I got a little too excited with my new toys. I will update later.

[bikeman]

Sorry for jumping the gun here; I got a little too excited with my new toys.
We've all been there, done that. I'm currently going through it with my first widescreen HDTV. I finally have video that's more in keeping with my audio.

I will update later.
Look forward to your impressions. :cool:

David

[BradJudy]

Never thought I'd see the day that CE's would start using switching supplies in audio applications.

If you mean switching power supplies, tons of consumer electronics use them - probably the vast majority. Of course, that's a different topic than switching amps.

[muzz]

Yeah I meant Supplies.

I know alot of stuff uses them, but I didn't figure they were clean enough for HiFi.
I've built FWB supplies myself.

I mistaken thought you wrote Supplies, I went back and saw that you wrote Amps.

My Bad.

Thx

[cyberbri]

I may want to fashion some home-made room treatments some day; however my preference IS to keep the ambience effect that the hard surfaces in my room seems to compliment.



I just want to add that if you treat the first side-reflections, the soundstage opens up greatly and the imaging really improves.

You'd think the reflections would increase the "size" of the sound. But I've found that with side-wall treatments, I only hear the sound from the speakers (plus any minor reflections elsewhere in the room), and that sound is much, much bigger.

With fiberglass panels with frames, you can cover them with any kind of fabric you want. Not just plain canvas, but patterned or colored fabric to match your living space. I use a purple shower curtain, that luckily was the exact same color as our walls, for the side panels. For the front panels (bass traps), I use a patterned tablecloth.
( http://gallery.avsforum.com/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/7455862 )
So you can find creative ways to help blend panels in a little better that everyone in your house can at least live with.

[tilt]

cyberbri, your bfd graph looks very good (from your gallery) , would you say that the sound was much improved or just somewhat improved.

Thanks
Eric

[cyberbri]

Much, much, much improved.

The bass traps (GIK Acoustics, 2x 244 panel in each front corner) did a great job of tightening up the bass and getting rid of the ringing and boominess, although I would like to get some more absorbption in the corners if possible.

On top of cleaning up the bass, it improved the response slightly. But because of my room, etc., I added the BFD to flatten out the response. Bass went from great (nothing) -> even better (panels) -> amazing (panels + BFD). I can hear each bass note in music - it's extremely detailed and no bass notes over power any others.

I highly recommend both. After seeing the panels, I'm confident I could fashion together some regular panels. Although what I would like to get are the Tri-Traps from GIK Acoustics, since they would fit nicely behind the panels I already have.

[tilt]

I have done some homemade rigid fiberglass panels myself and am happy with the results. I have downloaded some room analysis software so to better calibrate my room, but have not used it yet. thanks for the replay, and sorry for the threadjack.

[1Time]

My 170SE's are sounding SO good now with music. They're finally getting broken in. Very nice, and I'm mostly just listening to FM radio with my H/K AVR630. After a few hours the Pany simply wore me out, very fatiguing, as if it were never going to mellow out and become more musical. I know it needed to break in several more hours before I should have given up on it. However, I wanted to listen to and enjoy what already was sounding so good and that was the H/K and 170SE's. I could only keep one of these receivers and the H/K does such a fine job with the 170SE's, plus it has features I want that the Pany does not have, and the H/K's performance with my headhones is top rate, VERY nice. Sorry all... I actually sold my Pany before breaking it in for a good 40 hours to see how it would better compare with the H/K.

[muzz]

I would've thought the High Current amp would sound better, but thats just my old school ass(tube gear in my past- nothing high end, but smooth none the less).
The 170's sound sweet to my ears as well 1Time.

[1Time]

Oh, and one more thing. I'm listing to way more music at home than I ever used to and am watching way less TV. I think this is a good thing.

[muzz]

I was already starting to get away from TV a bit B4 I ordered the 170s, now that I have them I am listening to more music than I have in years.

I had to force myself to watch U571 and Phantom Menace yesterday, just so I could give the 340 some excercise!
Didn't watch the entire movies though...that Pod race has some amazing sound.

My SO was out for about 6 hrs, so I was able to crank it up a bit!!

[1Time]

I've got my 170SE's paired with a lowly but capable $86 Sony sub and my H/K AVR630 (FM radio mind you) and MAN THESE SOUND GOOD! No time for TV or DVDs now... LOL I even have to force myself to put my headphones on late at night.

[darkhorror]

Could the problem with the sound that poeple have with this receiver be because the treble control is not correct.

My thought is that there treble control could be initialized incorrectly such that 0 in treble is not flat but infact boosted. That is what mine sounds like, it sounds amazing at -10 treble.

I wish someone who has the ability to test this would make some sort of test.

My other thought is could there be something wrong with the power it's getting.

[bikeman]

Could the problem with the sound that poeple have with this receiver be because the treble control is not correct.
My thought is that there treble control could be initialized incorrectly such that 0 in treble is not flat but infact boosted. That is what mine sounds like, it sounds amazing at -10 treble.
Maybe you got a defective unit. There's no way -10 is going to sound "amazing." Well, not amazing good anyway. ;)



My other thought is could there be something wrong with the power it's getting.
No. At least not to cause this problem.

David

[1Time]

Once my Ascends broke in a bit, and to a relatively much lessor extent the XR55, I had no issue with the highs with this combo (except some slight sibilance with lessor sources) and that's with the treble set at -3 or -4. However, with some sources the XR55 sounded best with the treble set at -1 or even 0.

As compared to my H/K AVR630, the XR55 seemed more revealing throughout all frequencies when used with the 170SE's, which I found desirable and for a while had me leaning toward the XR55. However, later I determined the negatives of XR55 for my use out-weighed its positives as compared to my H/K.

The XR55's negatives for me were: 1) it was too electronic and sterile sounding, to the extent it was very fatiguing to listen to with my Ascends, not at all musical and not as enjoyable to listen to as with my H/K, and 2) the XR55 does not have some of the features my H/K has that I prefer, and 3) it did not sound as good (musical or natural) with my headphones as they did with my H/K.

Of course I had only used the XR55 for about 3 hours and I'm sure after adequate break-in it would have loosened up, became more musical and enjoyable, perhaps even so to the extent where I may even have preferred it over my H/K. However, I am so satisfied with the performance of my H/K with my Ascends and my headphones for sound and features that I chose to keep the H/K and not to wait out the long break-in period with the XR55. The XR55 seems to be a very capable receiver and I can now see why it is so popular.

[bikeman]

2) the XR55 does not have some of the features my H/K has that I prefer, and 3) it did not sound as good (musical or natural) with my headphones as they did with my H/K.
To hit such a low price point, features were certainly sacrificed. The headphone jack ain't gonna win any awards, that's for sure.

David

[1Time]

To hit such a low price point, features were certainly sacrificed. The headphone jack ain't gonna win any awards, that's for sure.

David

Sorry, I did not mean to denigrate the performance of the XR55 with headphones. To the contrary I found its headphone performance to be quite strong. It's just that I found the positives and negatives I previoiusly noted between the XR55 and H/K to apply with my headphones except they were accentuated even more so than with my Ascends. I've found headphones tend to accentuate the character of an amp better than speakers. The headphones I use are Audio-Technica ATH-A900. After break-in I'm certain many would consider the XR55 to be excellent for use with headphones as well.

[bikeman]

Sorry, I did not mean to denigrate the performance of the XR55 with headphones.
I don't think the headphone circuitry is anything but an afterthought on the 55. I use a separate headphone amp when listening to hp's. My cans cost more than my Panny receiver so my expectations are a bit higher as well. Since I started working days just over a year ago, I don't listen to hp's like I use to. I much perfer listening to my Ascends.

David

[1Time]

I don't think the headphone circuitry is anything but an afterthought on the 55. I use a separate headphone amp when listening to hp's. My cans cost more than my Panny receiver so my expectations are a bit higher as well. Since I started working days just over a year ago, I don't listen to hp's like I use to. I much perfer listening to my Ascends.

David

I'm finding I prefer listing to the Ascends for music, mostly casual listening at lower volumes. However, for TV or movies I will use my A900s headphones.

My A900s only cost $20 more than what I paid for my XR55, and I got a goood deal on each. However, I thought the HP out of the XR55 was very strong. Of course I was using my A900s which are easy to drive. The XR55 sounded a lot like my LDM+ portable HP amp.

I may soon buy a pair of Senn HD580s to use as well, which I think would have gone much better with the XR55. If I buy the 580s, I will try them with my LDM+ from the HP out of my H/K (which I know is a no-no). And then if that doesn't work well with the 580s, I would be forced to get a better HP amp.

[bikeman]

I may soon buy a pair of Senn HD580s to use as well, which I think would have gone much better with the XR55.
These are what I use. Nice cans.

David

[Lindahl]

A little late, but the treble control on the Panasonic won't do a thing for FM radio. FM radio doesn't carry any frequencies over 16 kHz. The treble control on the Panasonic operates at 20 kHz. That said, the HK is a pretty polite receiver, so the harshness you had problems with was most likely due to the source. The Panasonic, as you say, is very analytical. Probably a bit like M&K speakers, from what I've heard (no offense Dave :D).

Oh, and you can certainly get harshness and sibilince as low as 5 kHz, so the treble control probably wouldn't have done you any good, anyway.