List of Digital (Class-D) Home Theater Receivers - Page 4 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Audio > Receivers, Amps, and Processors > List of Digital (Class-D) Home Theater Receivers

Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Rimbaud's Avatar Rimbaud
12:53 PM Liked: 12
post #91 of 1899
07-20-2004 | Posts: 92
Joined: Mar 2004
Your welcome. Forgot to mention that Pioneer has the EX-500 in their Elite line. It is a two-unit package of a digital reciever and a DVD player, and is available in the US now. The reciever includes MCACC and a microphone.

Myself and others (on audio circles) are assuming this reciever uses digital amps given the size of the chassis, power rating, and cool running ability (Goodguys display model). Does anyone have more info on this model? I seem to remember an AVS forum member ordering one.
beowulf7's Avatar beowulf7
08:32 PM Liked: 20
post #92 of 1899
07-20-2004 | Posts: 2,366
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz
If they(Rags) ever reveiw one of the lightweight digital receivers, do you really think there going to give there honest opinion whith the higher priced competition paying there bills......IMO it will never happen.

You either try them for yourself or go by word of mouth on these digital wonders. as these will never get a fair reveiw in ANY rag.

I know what you mean. But I'm hoping these mags/rags can at least compare these 2 receivers to each other, not necessarily to $1k receivers. Both the Kenwood and Panasonic (will) go for $400-500 MSRP - basically, they're similarly priced. It would be nice to compare these 2 to H/K's much more expensive DPR 1005 (or even 2005), but that probably will not be fairly compared for reasons you mentioned.
HuskerHarley's Avatar HuskerHarley
07:33 AM Liked: 10
post #93 of 1899
07-24-2004 | Posts: 1,464
Joined: Aug 2001
I'm trying to decide on an amplifier when I discovered this thread and now it makes me wonder (very confused) if the amplifiers I've been researching are going to become dinosaurs in the very near future.

What are the pro's & con's of both technologies?

Harley
beowulf7's Avatar beowulf7
09:10 AM Liked: 20
post #94 of 1899
07-24-2004 | Posts: 2,366
Joined: Mar 2002
Well, Husker, to summarize them quickly, here's how I see it.

Pros of a digi amp: cleaner (w/ digital sources), cheaper, weighs less, takes up less space, "wave of the future"

Cons of a digi amp: may sound clumsy w/ analog sources, not yet as powerful as an analog amp, limited availability

Pros of an an ana amp: better "time tested", can be more powerful, sounds better (w/ analog sources), more selections available

Cons of an ana amp: very large in weight and size, extra D/A conversion done (w/ digital sources), will one day be obsolete

I generalized and made a few assumptions, but that's pretty much the way I see it right now.
Ben_Tech's Avatar Ben_Tech
07:22 PM Liked: 10
post #95 of 1899
07-24-2004 | Posts: 900
Joined: Apr 2003
Another tripath based unit:

'Motorola Home Theater System DCP501'

http://broadband.motorola.com/consum...oducts/dcp501/

This one is 5x100 class T amps, DD/DTS/PLII, built in DVD/CD/MP3 drive & AM/FM tuner. Also receives digital cable. Spring clips.

I don't think I'll be getting this unit, but it is interesting. I am debating between the JVC, Panny and Kenwood, maybe even one of the Sony ES units.
M Code's Avatar M Code
12:10 PM Liked: 133
post #96 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 9,970
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by Ben_Tech
Another tripath based unit:

'Motorola Home Theater System DCP501'

http://broadband.motorola.com/consum...oducts/dcp501/

This one is 5x100 class T amps, DD/DTS/PLII, built in DVD/CD/MP3 drive & AM/FM tuner. Also receives digital cable. Spring clips.

I don't think I'll be getting this unit, but it is interesting. I am debating between the JVC, Panny and Kenwood, maybe even one of the Sony ES units.

The mentioned Motorola unit uses the older TriPath solution, TriPath has announced an entire new range of components called Godzilla.. here is the link for more info..

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....lar&id=523241&
Horatio's Avatar Horatio
01:11 PM Liked: 10
post #97 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 14
Joined: Jan 2003
M Code,

Do you know whether the XR-70 will use Godzilla? Which does the XR-50 use? Or is this the technology you said would be used in mid/late 2005?

Rob
Earz's Avatar Earz
01:53 PM Liked: 10
post #98 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Panasonic uses direct digital amps from T/I which are nothing like the Tri Path chips that are not used at this time in any direct digital applications.

One is digital direct whith precise accuracy that lets you hear everything good or bad on any given recording, and one sounds almost like a tube amp which colors or masks some of the nasties on any given recording.

One is direct to the binding posts whith no conversion or processing, and one is an analog/digital hybrid at this trime anyway.

These sound like two completely different flavors.

No hybrid digital recievers sound like the Pany whith the possible exception of the Kenwood, which I am waiting for the UPS guy to deliver as I type.
Alex solomon's Avatar Alex solomon
02:02 PM Liked: 10
post #99 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 3,371
Joined: Sep 2002
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz
Panasonic uses direct digital amps from T/I which are nothing like the Tri Path chips that are not used at this time in any direct digital applications.

One is digital direct whith precise accuracy that lets you hear everything good or bad on any given recording, and one sounds almost like a tube amp which colors or masks some of the nasties on any given recording.

One is direct to the binding posts whith no conversion or processing, and one is an analog/digital hybrid at this trime anyway.

These sound like two completely different flavors.

No hybrid digital recievers sound like the Pany whith the possible exception of the Kenwood, which I am waiting for the UPS guy to deliver as I type.

Can't wait to hear your take on the Kenwood.
M Code's Avatar M Code
02:15 PM Liked: 133
post #100 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 9,970
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by Horatio
M Code,

Do you know whether the XR-70 will use Godzilla? Which does the XR-50 use? Or is this the technology you said would be used in mid/late 2005?

Rob

The Pansonic and Kenwood both use the TI 5182 solution which is rated @ 75W 8 Ohms, this was originally developed by a Danish company called Tocada and TI purchased them 3 years back. The TI is excellant for its sonic performance and cost-competitive, as long as one uses efficient 8 Ohm loudspeakers. Also its output design is a chip which can limit the dynamics compared to PWM designs using discrete mos-fets..

Comparing the audio quality of the Panasonic to the Kenwood, we found the Kenwood had better clarity and resolution which is likely due to its better Sharc Melody DSP. However the Kenwood like the Panasonic, was not capable of pushing my 4 Ohm Infinity loudspeakers beyond 91 dB, so I will continue to use my HK 2005 which replaced a very expensive Denon 5803 as it sounds superb. Since we deal and install in very expensive home theater/audio systems we get an opportunity to audition these new products so we can easily borrow a competitive product for a week from my distributor and actually set these up in our reference system for an objective comparison. My personal preference is still the HK 2005, I have been running it for about 6 weeks now and it continues to sound superb, actually seems to have burned in now...

Regarding TriPath, nobody is yet using the Godzilla parts as they are too new and will not appear in production units until early 2005, however the origional TriPath parts have been used by Audio Research for high power applications use and for low powered ones they were in the Sony dream system (30Wx6 @ 10%THD) which sold over 1 million pieces. Also the new JVC products are using the ST digital amplifier solutions, and HK is using the D2Audio solution....
Earz's Avatar Earz
04:18 PM Liked: 10
post #101 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Well...I have the Pany 45, JVC x-10 and the Kenwood 7100 all ready for the shootout.....so to speak.

The Kenwood sounds exactly like a Panasonic out of the box, only burn in time will tell if this holds true.
Both the JVC(after 200 hours) and Pany 45 sound superior to the buggy and analog sounding HK dpr 2005.....time will tell if I agree whith Alan as to the 7100 also sounding better than the 2005.

The JVC has tubey sounding mids whith a slightly rolled off highs and fatter sounding bass than the Pany 45.

Mcode....were did you recieve this info on the JVC using tri path tech....everyone is speculating that JVC is in fact using there own version based on tri path, and I noticed JVC was not listed as a current tri path user in your link?
More info please.

At any rate, the Panys all can drive most speakers whith no problem, it is only a certain few that have had a problem, so to say you need 8 ohm speakers is tottaly mis-information.

They drive my 6ohm 88db monitors whith no problem.

There are 100's of posts on other boards,whith many different 4 ohm speakers were Pany users have had no problem driving them, although they do rate the receivers for 6-8ohm speakers like most every other receiver ever made.
M Code's Avatar M Code
04:57 PM Liked: 133
post #102 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 9,970
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz

Mcode....were did you recieve this info on the JVC using tri path tech....everyone is speculating that JVC is in fact using there own version based on tri path, and I noticed JVC was not listed as a current tri path user in your link?
More info please.

Latest info I got was that JVC is using the ST solution

Quote:



At any rate, the Panys all can drive most speakers whith no problem, it is only a certain few that have had a problem, so to say you need 8 ohm speakers is tottaly mis-information.

They drive my 6ohm 88db monitors whith no problem.

There are 100's of posts on other boards,whith many different 4 ohm speakers were Pany users have had no problem driving them, although they do rate the receivers for 6-8ohm speakers like most every other receiver ever made.

As mentioned previously it really depends upon the loudspeakers, their sensitivity, impedance, room size, walls and source material. In my comparsion, all I did was to paly the same source material and monitor at what SPL the amplifier ran out of gas.. Both the Kenwood and Pansonic went to a little over 91 dB and then shut down. Now if someone had high sensitivity loudspeakers like a Klipsch then less power is required for a high SPL level as those loudspeakers have a sensitivity fo 93dB versus the 85dB for my Infinities. But then I don't care for the horn and narrow dispersion of the Klipsch design...

Just my $.02 worth...
NickB's Avatar NickB
07:08 PM Liked: 10
post #103 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 643
Joined: May 2000
M-code, your last statement was a bit misleading. To equate a sensitive speaker design with Klipsch is just wrong. There are plenty of normal speakers, that don't use horn tweeters, which will output in the 87~93db range (and are 6 to 8 ohms to boot). Most designs using horn tweeters are upwards of 97db, and do not sound good to my ears either, but there are many conventional designs that will work wonderfully with these digital receivers.
Earz's Avatar Earz
07:42 PM Liked: 10
post #104 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by NickB
M-code, your last statement was a bit misleading. To equate a sensitive speaker design with Klipsch is just wrong. There are plenty of normal speakers, that don't use horn tweeters, which will output in the 87~93db range (and are 6 to 8 ohms to boot). Most designs using horn tweeters are upwards of 97db, and do not sound good to my ears either, but there are many conventional designs that will work wonderfully with these digital receivers.


Exactly right , not only do my( 2k in parts alone) monitors weigh in at 88db 6ohm, they also are superior to my Theil 3.6's that dipped to 2 ohm.

One of the benifits of owning reasonably sensitive speakers that are revealing, is you can use a little digital wonder receiver of any flavor and actually hear the trancparency you may very well be missing....regardless of your gears pedigree.
beowulf7's Avatar beowulf7
09:36 PM Liked: 20
post #105 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 2,366
Joined: Mar 2002
M Code, I can believe the H/K DPR 2005 is better (maybe even much better?) than Kenwood's or Panasonic's digi-amp'ed receivers. But we have to look at value ... $350 vs. $1200.
M Code's Avatar M Code
10:47 PM Liked: 133
post #106 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 9,970
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by beowulf7
M Code, I can believe the H/K DPR 2005 is better (maybe even much better?) than Kenwood's or Panasonic's digi-amp'ed receivers. But we have to look at value ... $350 vs. $1200.

Key point is that both AVR and speakers should be matched, and then auditioned to see if they meet the user's requirements including $ budget. That's why I quantified it to SPL, with my Infinity speakers I need a minimum amount of power but then if I had lower expectations and played the system at a lower level I could get by with less..

The Panansonic and Kenwood both did fine up to 90dB, so if 90dB meets the user's criteria then all is well. So if higher SPL is desired more power is required.. pretty simple..

That is the same reason I needed 7 channels of amplification as I wanted Logic 7 and DPL2x for the back surrounds.
There are no free rides, you get what you pay for.

At least thats what my pappy always said...
Earz's Avatar Earz
11:31 PM Liked: 10
post #107 of 1899
07-26-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Well for some of us, sonic quality is king, and in that respect The Pany is far superior to the 2005 and I guess you did not catch that when you were measuring db's below 90.

If all I wanted was more power from a Pany, I would run two of them bi amping all 6 speakers and have more power than the dpr 2005 and still have superior transparency, all from one remote, and whithout crackling and loud buzzing in my right front channel
JohnR_IN_LA's Avatar JohnR_IN_LA
12:53 AM Liked: 12
post #108 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 7,490
Joined: Feb 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz

The Kenwood sounds exactly like a Panasonic out of the box, only burn in time will tell if this holds true.


Burn-in time for digital amps? Wha? There should be no burn-in on anything solid state, and digital even moreso. 101110101101 cannot change overtime, if it does, its broken.
BeenBoardin's Avatar BeenBoardin
05:50 AM Liked: 10
post #109 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 21
Joined: Sep 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by JohnR_IN_LA
Burn-in time for digital amps? Wha? There should be no burn-in on anything solid state, and digital even moreso. 101110101101 cannot change overtime, if it does, its broken.

That is not true. I work in semiconductor field and work entensively with solid state electronics, specifically microprocessors. We do burn-in our chips before sending them to the customer in order to counter act electro-migration (quick summary @ http://www.irps.org/irw/99/Tuts.htm). Since these amps are made from many discrete chips, getting an idea of how much these chips have been burned in is very difficult. However, a rule of thumb is the cheaper the chips the less likely they have been burned in. Now I am not claiming to know how electromigration can affect the overall system sound but the chips inside do burnin. you are correct that if data gets lost due this effect than the chip is broken.
Alex solomon's Avatar Alex solomon
07:13 AM Liked: 10
post #110 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 3,371
Joined: Sep 2002
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz
Well for some of us, sonic quality is king, and in that respect The Pany is far superior to the 2005 and I guess you did not catch that when you were measuring db's below 90.

If all I wanted was more power from a Pany, I would run two of them bi amping all 6 speakers and have more power than the dpr 2005 and still have superior transparency, all from one remote, and whithout crackling and loud buzzing in my right front channel

Earz, how do I bi amp all my five speakers using two pannies? Detail on how to connect please..
Earz's Avatar Earz
08:34 AM Liked: 10
post #111 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by JohnR_IN_LA
Burn-in time for digital amps? Wha? There should be no burn-in on anything solid state, and digital even moreso. 101110101101 cannot change overtime, if it does, its broken.

Well if this is true, then all 5 digital amped receivers I have tried are big time broken.
Much more broken than any other gear I have tried

I listen to these things for a minute when new, and do not listen again until 50 hours or so, and then only for a short period, and wait another 50 hours.

They smooth out and open up on all frequencys over time err, they get broken over time or something
Earz's Avatar Earz
08:35 AM Liked: 10
post #112 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by Alex solomon
Earz, how do I bi amp all my five speakers using two pannies? Detail on how to connect please..

Check your PM.
Alex solomon's Avatar Alex solomon
08:51 AM Liked: 10
post #113 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 3,371
Joined: Sep 2002
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz
Check your PM.

Earz, u have a PM.
Alex solomon's Avatar Alex solomon
08:59 AM Liked: 10
post #114 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 3,371
Joined: Sep 2002
Thanks Earz, you da man!!!!!!
M Code's Avatar M Code
09:17 AM Liked: 133
post #115 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 9,970
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by Earz
If all I wanted was more power from a Pany, I would run two of them bi amping all 6 speakers and have more power than the dpr 2005 and still have superior transparency, all from one remote, and whithout crackling and loud buzzing in my right front channel

The 2005 is puts out 120W x 7 into 8 Ohms and 210W x 7 into 4 Ohms continuous with all channels driven, yet you mentioned that biamping the Panasonic gives more power...
According to my calculator 75W x 2=150W per CH, 220W to 150W still seems the Panasonic is 70W short per channel.. so maybe triamping the Panasonic will get you close in power but then you still only have 6 channels compared to the 2005's seven channels....

Also go back and reread my posts, I have always said the Panasonic sounded good but simply lacked enough power for my primary system. If the Panasonic fulfills your expectations then go with it..

However keep in mind that I did keep the XR50, though now it is relegated to my garage system as it works great for background music when I am out working on the racecar....
Earz's Avatar Earz
09:39 AM Liked: 10
post #116 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 4,313
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:


Originally posted by M Code
The 2005 is puts out 120W x 7 into 8 Ohms and 210W x 7 into 4 Ohms continuous with all channels driven, yet you mentioned that biamping the Panasonic gives more power...
According to my calculator 75W x 2=150W per CH, 220W to 150W still seems the Panasonic is 70W short per channel.. so maybe triamping the Panasonic will get you close in power but then you still only have 6 channels compared to the 2005's seven channels....

Also go back and reread my posts, I have always said the Panasonic sounded good but simply lacked enough power for my primary system. If the Panasonic fulfills your expectations then go with it..

However keep in mind that I did keep the XR50, though now it is relegated to my garage system as it works great for background music when I am out working on the racecar....

Well this might not work for you, but im sure you would have your required db's while running two.
In my case it ends up being 200 @6 channels into 6 ohm, now I just need a second 45.
I may end up whith two pro modified 45's bi amping at a cost thats well over 2k, so the point is, its not about money for everyone that uses a Pany.

I tried to link an AA post from yesterday that has somone wanting more power than his Pany 45 has to offer, but whith the same transparent sound.
This person likes the Pany 45 better than bi amped Bel Canto evo 200.2
's, His former Krells,Conrad Johnsons ect, because he finds the Pany 45 more transparent and dynamic than the rest.

The post is at towards the top of the amp section at www.audioasylum.com and is a perfect example that the Panys are more than just price point champs imo.

Now lets hear a little about your race car please?
beowulf7's Avatar beowulf7
11:08 AM Liked: 20
post #117 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 2,366
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:


Originally posted by M Code
The 2005 is puts out 120W x 7 into 8 Ohms and 210W x 7 into 4 Ohms continuous with all channels driven, yet you mentioned that biamping the Panasonic gives more power...
According to my calculator 75W x 2=150W per CH, 220W to 150W still seems the Panasonic is 70W short per channel.. so maybe triamping the Panasonic will get you close in power but then you still only have 6 channels compared to the 2005's seven channels....

Also go back and reread my posts, I have always said the Panasonic sounded good but simply lacked enough power for my primary system. If the Panasonic fulfills your expectations then go with it..

However keep in mind that I did keep the XR50, though now it is relegated to my garage system as it works great for background music when I am out working on the racecar....

Actually, one could buy 3 of these Panasonic digi-amp'ed receivers and it would still cost less than 1 H/K DPR 2005 receiver. Granted, it's stil only 6.1 channels and not 7.1.
SoftwireEngineer's Avatar SoftwireEngineer
11:42 AM Liked: 10
post #118 of 1899
07-27-2004 | Posts: 577
Joined: May 2004
"that the Panys are more than just price point champs imo."

I concur. The interconnect I use to connect my Phono Pre to the Panny costs $200. My speaker cables are bi-wired Zu Wax (I think around $500 on auction) and the speakers are silverline sonatinas (list price $3.5k).
Actually I was planning to buy a BVAudio Int. Amp or a Primare Int. Amp for around $1k. I just bought the Panny because of all the buzz and I think I save quite a bit of money and gained a lot in sound and convenience (subwoofer output, tuner, multichannel etc).
I am not quoting my system price to boast about it, but to offset the 'slighting' that the Panny seems to receive unfairly now and then.
ABEX's Avatar ABEX
09:44 PM Liked: 10
post #119 of 1899
07-28-2004 | Posts: 319
Joined: Nov 2003
Geez,I have not heard the HK,but I really hate their stuff and if it makes things sound dark and like they are singing underwater I don't have to.

The new Sharp Digi Amp's are what I am interested in as I would like to see what people find success in mating it with and how it might compare to the more expensive Digi AMps we are seeing that go for $2000+ from manfs. like ARC.

My speakers can handle up to 300w so this is a no brainer for myself. More headroom means better dynamics in my system.

For under $200 for 150 clean ,clear and tight watts I am thinking of outfitting everything I have and investing in a SOTA SS processor to make things right!

Just thinking!
bartman_451's Avatar bartman_451
12:30 AM Liked: 10
post #120 of 1899
07-29-2004 | Posts: 94
Joined: Jun 2004
Quick question from someone new to the idea of digital amps -- are they going to start putting these amps in receivers with room correction/optimization technology soon? It seems to me that would be when they could really shine -- doing all the processing in digital, and keeping it in digital, instead of D/A and A/D conversions. I'm eagerly awaiting a 150watt X 7 channel digital amp version of something like the Denon AVR-3805. I guess it'll be a few years for that though. Lots of folks are pretty married to analog amps, and too many confuse the weight of an amp and its quality.

Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3