The Little Wonders: JVC's RX-ES1sl & F10

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #40 on:** 20 Nov 2004, 05:29 am »

Whaddya' know, Video Only is a small chain in the Northwest with some stores in Cali.....

Video Only

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #41 on:** 20 Nov 2004, 06:30 am »

gongos, I live by the city of industry fry's and they had the jvc f-10 - I didn't check to make sure it was in stock though. Price was near $300, maybe $290?

ToddSTS · « **Reply #42 on:** 20 Nov 2004, 05:53 pm »

Those of you in the military may want to check your local AAFES BX/PX. My local PX has the F10 for $249 (no tax). But I went cheap and bought a ES1SL off ebay for $129. I wanted to check out the technology first. Of course I will stroll through the PX every now and then to see if they drop the price or have a sale. Also I remember a Marine Corps exchange (In Hawaii) having a strange JVC digital mini-system. I wasn't one of the initiated to digital amps at the time so I mearly made note of it and moved on. So the Navy and MC Exchages would be a good place to check as well.

Just FYI for those who can take advantage.

Todd

mcgsxr · « **Reply #43 on:** 24 Nov 2004, 03:30 pm »

I now have the JVC ES-1 in my system - it displaced my B&K pre/pro, and a stock Teac. I am using a OneAC as the power filter (not likely best I know, but hey, it is all I got!), Nakamichi cd player transport, Mensa DIO with Bolder PS, Bolder interconnects, and some speakers I recently built.

The only thing that changed from my previous setup was the amp/pre.

JLM had the JVC before me, I had bought it off tvyankee, and shipped it to JLM. It is broken in, and running well in my system. I am using the DVD Multi inputs, and it runs warm to the touch, but not hot (I used to have a class A amp connected to 4 ohm speakers, so I KNOW hot).

So, how does it sound?

I cannot say yet (so why am I posting this - Canuck doofus!) but I am intrigued by one thing I am hearing - every now and again a guitar note will really bloom with this amp, versus my Teac. I am not sure how to describe it, other than the sound of the guitar will suddenly be very clear and clean, without anything else changing.

Has anyone else noticed that certain instruments/frequencies are really smooth and clear?

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #44 on:** 24 Nov 2004, 04:04 pm »

Quote from: mcgsxr

Has anyone else noticed that certain instruments/frequencies are really smooth and clear?

CanuckMark,

Yep, absolutely....that's the part that slays me about the JVC's. Every so often, quite often sometimes, there is a pluck of some instrument or warble of a voice that completely moves me to listen intently. I've never had any moments like that in my home with any other amplification device(s). Not having had any 'digital' amplification device previous to the JVC here, I don't know if it's part of the breeding.

I suspect it my be inherent in the hybrid design of the JVC more so than others....it seems that the engineers in Tokyo orchestrated a clear and deep tube like midrange and married it to the inherent virtues of SS gear....extended highs and controlled lows/superior woofer damping.

It's really marvelous technology for the money and I can hardly wait to hear what JVC has in store in future years at higher price points and some additional refinements to the technology.

btw, the F10 sounds near identical as I can tell to the ES1sl, but does handle the lower impedance loads better.

It's by no means 'perfect', I'm pretty sure there are some whopping SS amps that could control my Maggies even better with more authority, but I doubt any would come anywhere near the US$350 list for an amp/preamp/tuner with remote. Fascinating stuff indeed

soundboy · « **Reply #45 on:** 24 Nov 2004, 10:07 pm »

I keep reading that the DVD/Multi input is the cleanest one on the F10 since it is straight-thru analog. So how're the other inputs?

Red Dragon Audio · « **Reply #46 on:** 25 Nov 2004, 12:42 am »

Hi Guys,

I see a few of you are worried about impedance matching the RX F10 with maggies at 4ohms. The nice thing about maggies that they are a flat 4ohms and don't have any crazy dips or jumps in their impedance.

I am working with a custom transformer company to get a batch of Autoformers, not unlike Paul Speltz's ZeroFormers, but they will only have one level; 2x nominal speaker impedance.

Here is a http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=8189">POST about using ZeroFormers with the XR45 and some speakers whose impedance dips to 3.2ohms and is a nominal 4ohms. The reviewer states it sounds less harsh and thin up top which I find the XR45 can be on my own speakers (Diapason Adamantes III; nominal 6ohms but dip to 3.2ohms as well down at 200Hz).

I am shooting to have them done for around $150-$185/pair if possible.

Would any of you be interested in trying a set out?

This will help me get an idea of what kind of batch quanitites I should ask to get from the makers. Obviously the bigger the batch the lower the overall cost to everyone. They are currently doing a huge order for a new theater in their area so we'd be next on the list.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #47 on:** 25 Nov 2004, 02:15 am »

Hey Starch,

The JVC F10 isn't thin or scratchy up top (it's almost broken in now for me), but I sense that there is performance left on the table driving the Maggies...that is, it can be improved. I'm very happy with it, but I have first hand knowledge how well the JVC sounded on Vandy's (amazing) and I think the impedance issue here is limiting factor on a 6 ohm rated receiver.

I've been thinking/toying with the idea of the ZeroTransformers, but couldn't quite bring myself to pony up $450 for a $250 receiver. I know Paul Speltz has a return policy, but I am loathe to inconvenience a small businessman with 'loaners', tryouts and the like.

I sure do like your estimated cost and would be interested in trying it. That is, assuming it's a plug-in-and-go deal (no assembly - I got enough projects right now) and it's about the cost you quote (within, say, 10% or so). So, count me in, I'm game. PM me with details if you like.

Hey, nice website, too

Thanks, John / TCG

sleepkyng · « **Reply #48 on:** 25 Nov 2004, 03:29 am »

mark-
so you're ditching the teac? did you ever get that modded by wayne?

looks like i might be interested in this jvc!

mcgsxr · « **Reply #49 on:** 25 Nov 2004, 12:09 pm »

Well, I am certainly not getting rid of my Teacs (either of them), but I was searching for a way to have both HT and 2 channel, affordably. The advent of digital amplification seems to have put the ball in my court, and since I do like the sounds that they make, I can have my cake, AND eat it too!

Wayne is has my Teac again (shipping damaged the poor little guy) and is ensuring that all is well with it, before stuffing it back into several boxes, and trying it all over again - hopefully this time the gods of shipping will have MANY more sacrifices due to the holiday boost in business, and my amp will come home in good shape.

I will need to do a couple of things, before I can determine how to allocate the differing amps that I now own (!) to which job - HT or 2 channel. Firstly, I will need to assemble the speaker compliment for HT, and give both the JVC and the B&K/Teac combos a shot at it. Then I will need to listen to both for 2 channel, and see what I prefer.

I am finding that the JVC has some strange "aura" about certain frequencies that my Teac does not - however, I also find that the distinct clarity that the Teac brings to the party in the treble is not fully replicated by the JVC - I am not in a position to declare which one will ultimately reside in my 2 channel system yet, since there are still so many variables...

I CAN understand though, that if space and $$ constraints are in place, that the digital recievers would win out for some. I imagine that you have read Tomek's postings about the Panny and Teac and Tube amp - so I guess you have read that to him, the Panny and Teac are for all intents and purposes identical in sound?

SO, if you love the Teac sound, the Panny could be the right one for you - good luck with it, and PM me if you are selling that Teac...

lcrim · « **Reply #50 on:** 27 Nov 2004, 03:00 pm »

CG:
Can the JVC F10 accept a digital input from a Redbook transport and keep it in the digital domain as the Panasonic and Sony ES digital receivers can?
Saving the cost of a DAC would be a very big deal.

tonygeno · « **Reply #51 on:** 27 Nov 2004, 03:20 pm »

Quote from: lcrim

CG:
Can the JVC F10 accept a digital input from a Redbook transport and keep it in the digital domain as the Panasonic and Sony ES digital receivers can?
Saving the cost of a DAC would be a very big deal.

Yes.

cjr888 · « **Reply #52 on:** 27 Nov 2004, 03:32 pm »

Actually I didn't think any of the JVC took direct digital connections?

ToddSTS · « **Reply #53 on:** 27 Nov 2004, 09:00 pm »

Quote from: cjr888

Actually I didn't think any of the JVC took direct digital connections?

Both JVCs have digital inputs. They will accept a digital signal. But the technology is different. The way I understand it the JVC will do the Digital to Analogue conversion and then amplify the signal, while the Panasonic, Kenwood, etc to the D/A while they convert the PCM to PWM during the amplification process. Or something like that. So the quality of the DACs in JVC is critical (when using a digital input), while the PWM controller chips in the Panny are the DACs. Kind of.

Todd

lcrim · « **Reply #54 on:** 27 Nov 2004, 10:12 pm »

In the Panny and the Sony, a digital input from a Redbook transport is kept digital until it is sent to the speakers. This lack of multiple conversions is one reason for extraordinary quality in CD playback. I have a Panny XR50 connected in this manner @ my girlfriends' and while it is not the equal of say a Meitner, it is very satisfying, esp. given the price. I recently sold a Sony 3000ES which also only required a digital cable from a cheap DVD player to provide nice playback. I now have a pair of Teac's driving the same speakers as the Sony albeit w/ a decent tube preamp, and have a universal player and analog as inputs. I like the rich quality of sound from the Teac "monoblocks" but I've not heard the JVC and if it could do the trick that the Panny and Sony are capable of, it would make the F10 even more attractive.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #55 on:** 28 Nov 2004, 03:54 am »

Quote from: lcrim

CG:
Can the JVC F10 accept a digital input from a Redbook transport and keep it in the digital domain as the Panasonic and Sony ES digital receivers can?
Saving the cost of a DAC would be a very big deal.

Larry,

I'm no expert of such things, nor an engineering type, but I can say conclusively that the digital inputs (either coax or optical - I've tried both with an Empirical modded Sony DVP-S7700) is far and away inferior to the discrete analog inputs. Any DAC you can buy on Audiogon for $200 used, in conjunction with a good/stable transport should be handily better than running a digital direct to the JVC.

Running a good combo via the analog inputs (and using the DVD Multi setting) and you will be rewarded with a lot more of the good life than you thought $250 would ever buy. Match a good front end to the JVC and use good 6-8 ohm speakers and you'll think wonder exactly how much more will you need to spend to be any happier. I am far happier with the two cone n' dome 8 ohm speakers I own over the 4 ohm Maggies right now. Tho the F10 does a good job I just get the idea it isn't as happy driving it as it was the higher sensitivity cone n' domers.

P. 8 of the F10 owner's manual pretty much supports all of our findings that connecting your DVD, outboard DAC or CDP with it's own discrete output jacks via DVD Multi are superior to the 'digital' pathway....

Quote

This connection is the best connection method for enjoying DVD audio sounds. When a DVD audio disc is played back, th original high quality sounds can be reproduced only using this connection

Damn, it is awfully overachieving in this setting tho..but some sort of power conditioning seems to be a must to get the best out of it. Helpful touches on mine have been ZSleeves on the digital cable and analog IC's, and a dose silver bearing grease (Mapleshade's) everywhere it can go. Truly good stuff.

soundboy · « **Reply #56 on:** 28 Nov 2004, 08:46 am »

Quote

Running a good combo via the analog inputs (and using the DVD Multi setting) and you will be rewarded with a lot more of the good life than you thought $250 would ever buy.

Doesn't that effectively limit the user to one analog component if the optimal performance was to be had with the JVC?

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #57 on:** 28 Nov 2004, 11:20 am »

soundboy,

You still have analog inputs marked VCR (ins & outs), DBS and TV...the tuner is built in...how many more analog inputs do you need - and for what?

Seems to me enough, but then, I'm no videophile

soundboy · « **Reply #58 on:** 28 Nov 2004, 08:45 pm »

TheChairGuy,

I went through the JVC threads and I am under the impression that the analog inputs, aside from the DVD/multi ones, go through a analog>>>digital>>>analog conversion. Maybe I am wrong?

mcgsxr · « **Reply #59 on:** 28 Nov 2004, 09:09 pm »

Soundboy, I think you are right - I plugged my Mensa into the TV input this afternoon (to address a sub FIX that I needed...) and I can attest that there is some degradation of the sound this way, versus the DVD/Multi input.

IF I were going to use this for 2 channel, I would be fine, since the Mensa is all that I care about SQ for, the TV and movies, for me, can suffer the extra conversion. I am not a vinyl guy (please, no stone throwing!

) so it is not as much a concern to me...