[Rob Babcock]

Okay, I do remember him discussing his mods of the Sony.  I recall asking him if he could work similar magic on the Sony ES receivers.

[ABEX]

For Transports are you talking about CDP's or from a computer?

I have been told that LiteOn makes pretty good tranports for cmptr based system. My DVDP from them has bit the dust though.

Philips SA-963 is said to be good as it has Dual Lasers for those using MP3's and measures good according to Steve Nugent. I use an old Philips CD-80 which never misses a track since I have owned it.

Of what I understand Philips CDM-1 Transport is still regarded as the best transport their engineers have ever assembled. That was agreed upon by a gathering of their engineers in europe sometime ago.

PLUG & PRAY--

[Ears]

In an attempt to avoid cutting the grass or painting the bathroom, I managed to find a more important way to spend my morning.

While waiting on the Kenwood 7100 to arrive, I decided to try bi amping using the RX-10 and Pany 45 in stereo mode.

While it is very hard to match up levels accuratly while trying this, I did the best I could while trying both recievers on the highs and 7 inch midwoofers, whith and whithout the subwoofer.

I found the Pany 45 to be far superior to the RX-10 when used down to aprox 45 hz whith more control,accuracy and authority than the JVC....it is not even close, much to my suprise.
I figured this would be the exact opposite of how it turned out.

As far as integrating both recievers in a bi amp set up, the JVC was easier to integrate while using it for the highs as opposed to vice-versa.

I beleive despite the power difference of using both, both receivers sound better whithout the other, whith the exception of the Pany 45's control of the midwoofer.

I mainly did this to see if it was worth trying two of these digital wonders for either H/T use or on hard to drive speakers were one of them is not enough, that and avoiding my honey to do list
I beleive the answer is yes it is worth using two, as long as there both Panys or JVC's ect so its easier to dial in the volume and have the same flavor of sound.

[Rob Babcock]

So let me get this straight- you have a Panny, a JVC, and you've ordered a Kenwood!     Dmason will be proud!  

Funnily enough I too was wondering how it'd work to use two digital receivers as power amps.  That would be a cheap way to biamp all five speakers!  Although maybe not an easy way....

[scottpretti]

Ears,

What does the JVC xover at?  I know the lowest the Panny goes is 100hz.

[Ears]

So let me get this straight- you have a Panny, a JVC, and you've ordered a Kenwood!     Dmason will be proud!  

Funnily enough I too was wondering how it'd work to use two digital receivers as power amps.  That would be a cheap way to biamp all five speakers!  Although maybe not an easy way....

Rob, I had every intent on having the dpr2005 included in this face off...so to speak, but my 2005 had a crackling, and at times, loud buzzing in the right front channel.
I was all set to order another when two more users reported the same right speaker buzzing/crackling, so I gave up on H/K's QC.

I beleive it would work great if you use the same brand and model, this would make it somewhat easier to adjust the levels for highs/lows.

hmmmm, maybe a modded Pany on the Highs , and a stocker on the lows :)something to think about while I cut the grass.

[Ears]

Ears,

What does the JVC xover at?  I know the lowest the Panny goes is 100hz.

The RX 10 is adjustable from 80hz to 200hz.

[ABEX]

Well that XO point helps!


Do not know what I will consider for my next Digital amp,but I like to see things that did not show up in the panny and other models addressed.

Thx!

[TheChairGuy]

That was a cool test, Ears!  Glad you were able to shirk chores for science  

Could be that the 'hybrid' nature of the JVC gives up a little of the bass impact/wallop all digi amps seem to have, yet blend in better hi frequency response   An area of deficiency that the digi amps all seem to tend to.

As Steve at Empirical Audio told me a few times (he mods them all, you know); you can't get an amp with stellar highs and great bass all in one.  His reference is solid state (modded JC-1's), yet many folks are damn happy with his Carver mods.  I heard his last reference amp, the Adcom 565, and it was terrific.  When I asked him what direction to turn recently, his recommendation at $3000 or less was still the Adcom 565.  Overall, he felt the performance was superior to the Carver 1600 modded for similar money.

The JVC, with their hybrid technology, seems to offer up a halfway option for both bass and treble.

I've only compared it to average solid state amps I've owned, and currently the 'digi' LC Audio Exodus (that is going back to DIYCable to fix something that may contribute to 'hardened' mids and highs), but I found the JVC presentation to be the most pleasing of all.  Noted that the Exodus needs a fix and it may not be fully broken in yet...so all final judgements are awaiting.

It may be an analogous situiation to what hybrid tube/ss users have had for years.  With any technology, particularly a blend, it's a trade-off, I guess.  There is no perfect; merely, what you can and will live with at the pricepoint.

 

[Ears]

Well that XO point helps!


Do not know what I will consider for my next Digital amp,but I like to see things that did not show up in the panny and other models addressed.

Thx!

I always use the large setting as it says to do whith woofers over 4 3/4 inches anyway in the JVC manual.

I left the two receivers  hooked up bi amping all day and sat back down to listen and it does sound better than one receiver on its own.
The bass is really tight and distinct, and even though I find the RX-10 slightly rolled off in the highs, an extra click on the volume of the JVC can remedy this.

So for two channel bi amping, the two recievers sound fantastic together and for multi channel....well I would not even bother trying to match the two receivers levels, as well as each individual channels levels, unless they were the same brand, and had the same settings.

Whith the same brand, the remote will change settings on both receivers whith one push of the button, so after balancing the highs and lows whith one receiver turned off at a time, you would have a regular volume control.

Until I try a few more digital receivers and figure out what I am going to use long term,(usually a year)I am going to be listening to two channel redbook through both receivers, and hi rez 2 channel through my Sim i-5.

I would not recommend using two receivers in a situation were other family members use this set up though for obvious reasons.

[Dmason]

This bi amping idea is pretty neat; my concern is whether or not you can assume that the volume increase curve with the two receivers would be in a linear fashion. The timbre of the speakers would change along with the volume as I understand it. Best of both worlds.

[Ears]

That was a cool test, Ears!  Glad you were able to shirk chores for science  

Could be that the 'hybrid' nature of the JVC gives up a little of the bass impact/wallop all digi amps seem to have, yet blend in better hi frequency response   An area of deficiency that the digi amps all seem to tend to.

As Steve at Empirical Audio told me a few times (he mods them all, you know); you can't get an amp with stellar highs and great bass all in one.  His reference is solid state (modded JC-1's), ye ...

I know that I have never owned any audio gear, at any price, that was perfect in every way....so steve will get no argument from me.
I am also a huge beleiver in mods...for most audio gear.

If I end up whith two modified  digital wonders instead of hi end seperates for H/T or 2 channel so be it.
Sound quality, is #1 priority before features or anything else.

In other words, whatever I end up whith, it will be modified

For now, I am leaving the combo in bi amped mode for cd, Pany 45 for H/T, and use my modified by Reference audio mods east Sim i-5 for 2 channel hi rez.
I should be receiving that back soon  

Keep in mind that I am mainly trying to end up whith a hi power digital set up for H/T.
The only current digital receivers that fit this bill are the two big Sony es models that nobody seems to have listened two or reveiwed.

Alan Gouger, over at AVS is going to be trying the strda 9000es in the next few weeks and give his opinion.
This will be the absolute first opinion of the 9000, I have heard or read about, from somone who is not selling the big Sonys.
I find this strange since it has been out for a while now.

[Ears]

This bi amping idea is pretty neat; my concern is whether or not you can assume that the volume increase curve with the two receivers would be in a linear fashion. The timbre of the speakers would change along with the volume as I understand it. Best of both worlds.

This is definitly true as you have to find the sweet spot at any given volume level, and it does sound better at cetain levels than others.

This would be a bit easier whith the same brand imo.

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

Ears, that is an interesting experiment.
Like you said earlier, if both the receivers were the same, that would be much easier to do. There might be some differences in jitter in two separate digital connections, but that should not be very different.
The XR50 has a A-B speaker setting which can be switched on to handle probably lower impedence loads. Steve@Empirical Audio thinks the XR45 has very high output impedence. So maybe, adding some wires, changing the inductors etc will help. Definitely a mod worth $1k would go a long way in giving a high-fidelity digital playback. One important thing to note is,  the sound varies widely with the quality of the input signal. This should be addressed with a good transport, before anything else, also this is very non-invasive. I will be ordering a balanced power conditioner soon and see how much that improves the sound.

[azryan]

-Alan Gouger, over at AVS is going to be trying the strda 9000es in the next few weeks and give his opinion.
This will be the absolute first opinion of the 9000, I have heard or read about, from somone who is not selling the big Sonys.  

Anyone who was at the CES last Jan got to hear that Rec. in the Polk Audio room.

It's power supply and output transistiors are diff. from the rest of the ES line. And a HUGE price diff. to boot.

[Ears]

Ears, that is an interesting experiment.
Like you said earlier, if both the receivers were the same, that would be much easier to do. There might be some differences in jitter in two separate digital connections, but that should not be very different.
The XR50 has a A-B speaker setting which can be switched on to handle probably lower impedence loads. Steve@Empirical Audio thinks the XR45 has very high output impedence. So maybe, adding some wires, changing the inductors etc will help. Definitely a mod wo ...

I had a different 45, and still do that I changed out the binding posts to accept my AP oval 9 cables and changed the cheap tin plated internal signal wire to Audio Consulting enamel coated solid silver wire in a 24 ga twisted pair.
I originally did this for the front two channels only, and could not hardly beleive the immediate improvement in sonics that changing signal wire has on the 45.
Everything improved, and by no small margin either.

Unfortunatly, I later tried changing the center and surround channels whith the same wire and screwed up my 45.
Working on the 45's or even the RX-10 should be left to the pros that have the right tools and equiptment is the lesson learned.....novices be warned as these little digitals are harder to modify, then say changing a few caps in a source ect.

I don't beleive spending 700.00 to 1k to have one of these modded is too much , and after hearing just what the AC hookup wire did for sonics, I would imagine nobody is going to be dissapointed whith the results.

My tranport is a modified Philips 963sa which seems to be ranked among some rather more expensive competition at Empirical.

[ABEX]

EARZ
Thanks for the response as I feel for the cutoff should not be used anyway. It is better to bypass using it and just have all the speakers to use their total range and set the sub to match their low cutoff point.

My main speaker's go to about 35Hz-3db and will need a sub to blend at that point or there about.

That is what I tink anyway!

[Ears]

-Alan Gouger, over at AVS is going to be trying the strda 9000es in the next few weeks and give his opinion.
This will be the absolute first opinion of the 9000, I have heard or read about, from somone who is not selling the big Sonys.  

Anyone who was at the CES last Jan got to hear that Rec. in the Polk Audio room.

It's power supply and output transistiors are diff. from the rest of the ES line. And a HUGE price diff. to boot.

And were might I find some of these opinions on the 9000.
I have seen it for sale for 2670.00 which is not bad if it sounds fantastic.

Or should I take the lack of reveiws, personal or professional as an indicator that the 9000 is lacking for the dollar?

[Dmason]

I heard the DA5000es some time ago with a Sony SACD and thought it was pretty durn good; if the 9000 has all the good stuff, I am sure at a price of $2700 it would be well worth looking into. I also think the cosmetics are right on.

[Ears]

EARZ
Thanks for the response as I feel for the cutoff should not be used anyway. It is better to bypass using it and just have all the speakers to use their total range and set the sub to match their low cutoff point.

My main speaker's go to about 35Hz-3db and will need a sub to blend at that point or there about.

That is what I tink anyway!

I could not agree more,xover points are for sattelite speakers only imo.