New JVC digital receivers pre-order at J&R

soundboy · « **on:** 8 Mar 2005, 11:51 pm »

Starts at $180.00

J&R

Red Dragon Audio · « **Reply #1 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 12:36 am »

it's too bad they're trying to cram more and more channels of power into the same chassis.

5 channels is really quite enough for most movies. 6 channels could be good in the right size/shape of room but when you have a small room, that 6th channel won't get used (and most movies are Dolby Digital 5.1 anyway...rarely do you get a DVD with 6.1)

I wish they had just put 5 more powerful channels of power in these amps.

oh well.

I'm thinking of taking the plunge to compare it to my Panasonic XR45.

soundboy · « **Reply #2 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 04:03 am »

Unfortunately, it's all about perception.

For the average Joe/Jane out there, the perception is the more the better. 5.1 is almost seen as obsolete in terms of surround sound, reserved for only the bottom-of-the-line receivers.

I would also like to see 5 better amps in a single chassis.

Red Dragon Audio · « **Reply #3 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 04:21 am »

pretty soon we'll be force fed 8.1 and then 9.1 (we need speakers on/in the ceiling too!).

Man 5.1 is actually very good but the marketers really have to have something to sell in 2005 and then 2006.

soundboy · « **Reply #4 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 07:33 am »

Isn't the Denon 5805 a 10 X 170 watts receiver already?

gongos · « **Reply #5 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 08:26 am »

Now that's just stupid.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #6 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 12:06 pm »

From what I've read, the early examples of Tom Holman's 10.2 Ch demoes have been awe-inspiring. Sure, at some point no one is gonna buy that many speakers, but from a standpoint of what can be done it's supposedly incredible.

panomaniac · « **Reply #7 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 09:29 pm »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

F10.2 Ch demoes have been awe-inspiring./quote]

Oh brother... 12 channels for home audio.
"We" have too much money. Most of the people in the world hardly have electricity, and we need 10+2 audio. Phooey. Why can't all that engineering and marketing genius go into making something that sounds really good and doesn't cost a fortune?

OK, in the interests of honesty, I must admit to having used 12 channels of playback very often (for a living). Like at IRCAM and GRM, where 12 channel playback was run of the mill. I've even heard 300 channels (yes three hundred!). Good fun. And very awe inspiring. But those were huge installations in theaters or public places, not a home.

And to think, Quad Stereo died an early death.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #8 on:** 9 Mar 2005, 09:35 pm »

Quad was pretty low tech and lacked the ability to replay many discrete hi rez channels. Does anyone here really think MC is going away? Unlike the days of Quad, MC pervades nearly every home nowadays in the form of home theater. Guys that ten years ago owned boomboxs now are buying HTIBs. MC may not be taking the music world by storm, but there's been a paradigm shift to MC for HT. Even your average "Joe Sixpack" now equates surround with good home theater.

I haven't heard the 10.2 system, but again, the "experts" who have say it's amazing. At any rate, even if much of the world lacks electricity, so long as we have big screens, air conditioning and drive 9 MPG suvs, I doubt the extra $25 per year of power 10.2 requires will be the deal breaker.

Expensive? Probably. I suspect many would get good results with ten modestly priced speakers, but then there are also people who spend $250,000 on a 2 channel system. So I guess the cost is all relative.

Will 10.2 catch on? I don't know. There are quite a few people who use six or seven speakers and a sub. Will they splurge for three more? I only use 5 (plus 2 subs) right now, so I can't say. But if there eventually is a lot of quality software in 10.2 I'd say it has a good shot.

timbley · « **Reply #9 on:** 10 Mar 2005, 04:57 am »

Quote from: soundboy

Isn't the Denon 5805 a 10 X 170 watts receiver already?

Good grief! I'd need to put more re-enforcements under my floor for that receiver. I've just gotten rid of my center and surround channels. 2 channels of good sound is complex enough for me.

el-cheapo · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 Mar 2005, 07:41 pm »

Quote from: heavystarch

it's too bad they're trying to cram more and more channels of power into the same chassis.

5 channels is really quite enough for most movies. 6 channels could be good in the right size/shape of room but when you have a small room, that 6th channel won't get used (and most movies are Dolby Digital 5.1 anyway...rarely do you get a DVD with 6.1)

I wish they had just put 5 more powerful channels of power in these amps.

oh well.

I'm thinking of taking the plunge to compare it to my Panasonic XR45.

I am pretty sure I am going to get one of these.
I mean, if you only ever use 5.1 with this, does the power issue ever matter?
Where did you read about the specs of this receiver? I can't seem to find anything concrete on it.

Red Dragon Audio · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 Mar 2005, 09:39 pm »

el-cheapo

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4026165

That looks like a good place to get specs.

el-cheapo · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Mar 2005, 04:07 am »

I guess my point wasn't specs persay, but what was meant by them using the same chassis? I mean, this is a new receiver, right?
I also don't care about more than 5 channels, but I don't care if they are there...

What I really would love to know is, it this going to be better, worse or the same value as the F10. I suppose we can't tell until it comes out, but hey, at 200 it is worth the risk.

foggy · « **Reply #13 on:** 16 Mar 2005, 06:27 am »

The new receiver line looks great, but I'm a little behind the curve on the amp technology JVC uses. The front end of the amp section is analog, and a digital input will get converted to anolog then back to digital, right?

I'd lean towards getting an XR70 for the full digital path (if JVC isn't), but something I read here made me think that JVC can handle tougher loads better (am I off on that?). My speakers are Energy Veritas 2.1 rated at 8ohm nominal / 4 ohm minimum impedence, 89dB sensitivity. Is this within the sweet spot for Panny? Other thoughts?

el-cheapo · « **Reply #14 on:** 16 Mar 2005, 02:55 pm »

Quote from: foggy

The new receiver line looks great, but I'm a little behind the curve on the amp technology JVC uses. The front end of the amp section is analog, and a digital input will get converted to anolog then back to digital, right?

I am a complete newbie, but I did think that the new JVCs were a full digital path. Maybe a ex-pert can enlighten us.

Horizons · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 Mar 2005, 09:37 pm »

Quote from: el-cheapo

Quote from: foggy
The new receiver line looks great, but I'm a little behind the curve on the amp technology JVC uses. The front end of the amp section is analog, and a digital input will get converted to anolog then back to digital, right?

I am a complete newbie, but I did think that the new JVCs were a full digital path. Maybe a ex-pert can enlighten us.

The JVC CAN do the full digital path but the A/D converters are not very good, unlike the Panny. Conversely, the analog in on the JVC sounds exellent, so-so on the Panny. The JVC F10 is able to drive difficult loads, not so with the Panny.

The Panny via all digital route can sound great with the right speakers. The JVC via analog in can sound great even with difficult speakers.

I choose to go with the JVC since I really like my non-OS, filterless DAC and I have Maggie 1.6QR speakers. Your choice between the Panny and JVC units depends on your situation.

Jay S · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Mar 2005, 01:05 am »

I hope JVC has improved the DAC on this new line of receivers since they have a USB digital inputs. Theoretically, USB is superior to coaxial digital since it is jitter-free.

I like the Nixon non-OS dac as well... a cool mod would be to replace the JVC's internal dac with a Nixon dac board... Hmm, I wonder if it is feasible to run a high power digital receiver on batteries... Vinnie/Red Wine Audio does a custom Nixon dac enclosure and he works a lot with battery power...

dvdvideo · « **Reply #17 on:** 19 Mar 2005, 07:05 am »

A nice HUGE detailed pic to chew on.....

http://www.jvc.com/Resources/DocumentImages/00/00/02/19.JPG

It's a nice looking unit.

From the looks of it, the 301 has 5.1 inputs (dvd multi is one of the input selections on the front panel)....something that was important to me......gives me hope the other models have it too.

lcrim · « **Reply #18 on:** 19 Mar 2005, 02:50 pm »

The full digital path option is becoming somewhat confused in these recent digital receiver threads. In traditional solid state receivers it is necessary to provide D to A conversion on an integrated chip set to playback a digital signal be it PCM (CD's) or Dolby Digital or DTS, the last two for movies. Multichannel conversion of SACD and DVD-A is most popularly accomplished at the player, while there are some higher end combinations that can pass these multi-channel signals digitally from the player to a separate processor.
The real beauty of the Panasonic and also the Sony digital receivers (and some others) is that they are the DAC, the signal remains digital all the way to the point where it is sent to the speakers. The JVC receivers apparently do a traditional D to A conversion with a digital signal and another conversion back to digital for the amp section. This probably why they sound so much better with an analog input. There is a savings with the Panny on a DAC and all attendant cabling, digital, IC and power.
On the other side of the coin, the JVC seems more comfortable with more difficult loads especially low impedance speakers such as many electrostats.

In the end, the sound you hear is the combination of all the components in the chain and should please you no matter how it is achieved.
Hope this helps.

JohnnyLightOn · « **Reply #19 on:** 19 Mar 2005, 05:34 pm »

With a full-digital path, you're limited by the DAC in the receiver. That DAC becomes your source. This is great if you like the receiver's internal DAC. But if you want to use a better DAC, a digital receiver that amplifies an analog input without any digital conversion will function as a cheap and great-sounding traditional audio amp.

This is the whole reason why people like the JVC. You get an integrated amp (+ tuner) for around $250, a quarter of the price of traditional solid-state integrated amps at this sound quality level. For $250 you are not going to get a great-sounding source, too. You need to supply your own source; it's just about the amplifier.