Panasonic SA-XR50

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #80 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 01:03 am »

Okay, this threads getting a little hairy. Everybody please ratchet it down a notch. Any name calling and hair pulling can be done in the Fight Club, thank you very little.

Sorry to those who PM'd me about this thread. Normally I keep an eye on things here, but I have to confess that I've finally gotten sick of reading about Panasonic recievers- you could probably say anything here and I'd never notice.

Grayson73 · « **Reply #81 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 02:28 pm »

Let's get back to discussing the receivers, shall we?

Wayne, any updates on the new SA-XR50?

Wayne1 · « **Reply #82 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 03:11 pm »

I've put about 75 hours on it. So far it sounds nice but it does not impress me as much as the SA-XR45 did.

The bass is a bit boomy in comparison. The Modded SA-XR45 is in a whole 'nother league.

I have not looked into mod possibilities.

Grayson73 · « **Reply #83 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 03:33 pm »

Quote from: Wayne1

I've put about 75 hours on it. So far it sounds nice but it does not impress me as much as the SA-XR45 did.

The bass is a bit boomy in comparison. The Modded SA-XR45 is in a whole 'nother league.

I have not looked into mod possibilities.

So even unmodded, you would consider the SA-XR45 better?

Did you ever look at the SA-XR25?

Wayne1 · « **Reply #84 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 03:59 pm »

I have never heard an SA-XR25. There are a number of folks here and on other sites that have had both and compared them.

In the gear I am using in my office system, with very little time on either, I prefer a modded SA-XR45. You may have a different opinion.

The only way you will find out the answer to your questions is to get a SA-XR25 and SA-XR45 and try it your system. What you want from a receiver may be different than what I want. You have different speakers, wire, source and room.

azryan · « **Reply #85 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 05:54 pm »

Grayson,

I have two XR25's and a XR45 I had for over a month (Wayne's got it now modding it).
IMO the two weren't wildly diff. but the 25 seemed a bit grainier and when you adjust the volume you can hear a little click for each db.

The 45 didn't do that.

When I get the modded 45 back the word is it takes about a month to break in, so I will eventually post comments on how much it goes up in quality but it might take a while from now.

I think Wayne's brief sound quality comments on the the 50 vs. 45 and the technical diffs he pointed out show the 50 to IMO the latest version of the 25, and it'd be worth it to wait for the 70 which hopefully will be much more like the 45.

If the 70's not I'd be shocked as it's price features vs. the 50 seems just like the 25 vs. 45.

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #86 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 06:31 pm »

It is interesting that Wayne should comment on the bass of Xr50 ('bass is boomy'). The XR50 rates a power response of 4hz-88Khz for -3db. This was not specified for the XR45 or XR25. So I am thinking, either, with breakin the bass would smooth out or Wayne needs to reposition his speakers etc. In my guess, the XR50 should be better than the XR25. It seems to be a cheaper version of Xr45 (because of features) but the XR70 will be about the same quality of Xr45 (in terms of gold plate connections, power supply etc) but with more features.

azryan · « **Reply #87 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 08:15 pm »

AphileEarlyAdopter,

Wayne said 'in comparrison' it was boomy vs. the 45.

There should be zero reason to guess he doesn't know how to position his speakers.
That was a pretty misguided thing to say when you're talking about someone like Wayne.

Your guesses of sound quality based on manufac. specs won't get you anywhere IMO either, and features don't have anything to do with sound quality.

Buy whatever you want but I think you're figuring out what to get based on bad information and ignoring some great info people have posted.

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #88 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 08:25 pm »

I would be the last person to second guess Wayne's expertise. Actually, I want to give my new XR70, whenever, I get it, for modding.
This is digital technology and I eagerly read the specs to see how the chipsets were improved. That is all. I just saw a connection between the specs and Wayne's observation. I am pretty sure, eventually, he will get to the bottom of all things. Just that people like me are excited to form an initial opinion on these releases.
I dont know why you think, I am not listening or respecting his input/expertise.
BTW, I dont totally rely on specs/features. I do have a CS/EE background so I like to approach my hobby little bit more scientifically, than some audiophiles. I have clear ideas on how to buy components/cables etc many based on solid elec. engg which are used by major manufactures like Nordost and enterprising small companies like BV Audio, Empirical. I am very open-minded and that is the reason for my interest in these digital amplifiers.

Grayson73 · « **Reply #89 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 08:36 pm »

Unfortunately, there is no way to get the SA-XR45 anymore, which is why I bought the SA-XR50.

I'm disappointed to hear that the SA-XR50 is not as good as the SA-XR45 though.

I did compare the XR50 to the XR25 and thought the XR50 sounded better.

Grayson

Smeggy · « **Reply #90 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 08:50 pm »

Well the 50 *should* be better than the 25 given the HUGE price difference

($139.99) hehe.

BenF · « **Reply #91 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 09:08 pm »

To reiterate what I stated above in this thread, the difference in freq response is in the high end roll off, not the low. For bass, there is no specification difference. I looked at all the manuals on-line.

XR10 shows a freq response of 10Hz-44kHz + or - 3db and THD 0.9%

XR25/XR45 shows a freq response of 10Hz-44kHz + or - 3db and THD 0.3%

XR50 shows a freq response of 10Hz-88kHz + or - 3db and THD 0.09%

The difference in THD is very small, probably inaudible to most folks, and most speakers can't go out beyond 44kHz, so I doubt that these specs mean anything in this discussion. They are just a reflection of the improvement in specs of the TI chips.

If we must have a comparison, it is between the models in real listening tests. Then again, not everyone will be able to hear the difference in their system, so I tend to trust experienced listeners, like Wayne and others (you eventually get a feel for who's opinion is worth listening to). Because I needed a new receiver, and the best I could find at that time within my low budget was the XR45, I bought one.

Ben

PhilNYC · « **Reply #92 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 09:26 pm »

Just curious...how does the XR50 stand up to the likes of a Denon AV3801 or similar AV receiver in terms of sound quality? I have the 3801, but might part with it for an XR50 because I need the 3 component inputs that the XR50 has and the 3801 doesn't.

Specifically, I'm interested in how they compare in the following set ups:

-Running digital out from my DVD player, using the receiver's DAC for 2-channel audio

-Running digital out from my DVD player, using the receiver's DAC for 5-channel Dolby Digital/DTS

-Running analog out from my DVD player for 2-channel audio

Any thoughts? I'd also be interested in this comparison of the XR50 against other ~$1000 receivers from 3-4 years ago (Marantz SR7000, etc).

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #93 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 10:49 pm »

Grayson..are you into this as a hobby or just that you want to get a good receiver ?
I think, there will always be something better. There are so many things you can do to make your system sound good, apart from the amplification/source.
I find cables/power conditioning, influence the sound a lot.
Please let us know about your system, I shall try to help you in improving it. Dont worry, be happy

You can always sell you receiver and get the better XR70 with little damage.

azryan · « **Reply #94 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 11:33 pm »

"-I dont know why you think, I am not listening or respecting his input/expertise.-"

It just seemed like you confused what he said I guess.

He said the 50 had boomier bass vs. the 45 and you seemed to be thinking that's the same as saying 'the bass is boomy' and that he might need to fix how he set his speakers when I'm sure he knows how to set them correctly.
But then I'm just pretty much repeating myself to answer your question.

Anyway....

I can totally see you wanting to look at specs to learn 'real' things rather than just people wording opinions is assorted ways.

I try to do the same thing if the information's available, but where I see the problem here is that looking at say TI's specs on this or that chip might tell you if a newer one is a better design which may or may not relate to better sound in an actual product...
Your looking at Panasonic's Rec. specs is IMO not at all a trustworthy source of data.
Crap printed in mass market manuals is IMO not ever to be trusted on it's own.

It seemed to me you were saying the 50 specs much better than the 45 based on Panasonic's numbers and seemed like you were showing it as a contradiction to what Wayne found actually having heard them both.

It might be that the 50 measures the same or worse than the 45 even though Panasonic claims it's much better?

I dunno, but it wouldn't shock me, and in this case I'd take Wayne's brief A/B with two fairly long broken in units.

Just how I saw it. If I'm wrong. Sorry.

azryan · « **Reply #95 on:** 23 Apr 2004, 11:43 pm »

BenF,

"-XR10 shows a freq response of 10Hz-44kHz + or - 3db and THD 0.9%
XR25/XR45 shows a freq response of 10Hz-44kHz + or - 3db and THD 0.3%
XR50 shows a freq response of 10Hz-88kHz + or - 3db and THD 0.09%

These new Recs. could be mesured in a diff way to get better numbers. They might if using the same method of measurments (which I don't know if they did or not) measure exactly the same 'cept the added extention from 44-88kHz.

"-The difference in THD is very small, probably inaudible to most folks, and most speakers can't go out beyond 44kHz, so I doubt that these specs mean anything in this discussion. They are just a reflection of the improvement in specs of the TI chips.-"

They're not specs of TI's chips though, but Pannie's rec's specs. BIG diff.

If they have the same TI chips then the specs of those chips are the same right?

Do we have TI's specs of the actual chips used posted here? I thought Wayne said they use the same main PWM TI chips?

Also not only can't most speakers play out to 88 much less 44kHz like you said, but most audio doesn't have anything in that range (all CD's) or much actual music in that range (like noise dominated SACD).

Then the fact that we can't hear past ~20khz.

And if anything those super high freq. should only damage the actual audible range by possibly combing into the signal and being attempted to be played by speaker tweeters.

AphileEarlyAdopter · « **Reply #96 on:** 24 Apr 2004, 02:17 am »

Azryan,
XR50 uses a different PWM modulator chip than the XR25 or XR45 (this has better specs, going by TI's documentation, see the URL provided by Ben).
The XR50 does not use the same power stage controller (5182 as the XR25 or XR45). It uses a discrete arrangement.
I consider both of the above as good news.
The XR50 does not have that much power supply caps like the XR45.
Ofcourse, this can be remedied with a mod.
All the above information were provided by Wayne.
Now, the performance of the new receiver is up for speculation.
Okay, only an audition, can conclusively, tell us what is the quality of sound. But people like me, who do not have the receiver, can only speculate. Yes, we are all waiting to hear from Wayne.
It is quite possible either the XR50 or XR70 after mods will beat a modded XR45. This is digital technology, it is like PCs, the next version will be faster (sound better), cheaper. Atleast, that is my guess. I could be wrong.

Richard U · « **Reply #97 on:** 25 Apr 2004, 02:37 pm »

I'm curiuos how everyone is going to be using the 50?Two channel or HT?
I returned the 50 and will get the 70 when it comes out. I'm hoping it will have a better power supply,etc. but if it doesn't, the additional features are worth the extra money to me.

I have no technical expertise but what I don't like about the 50 is that the front lt,rt channels are processed differently. For DVDA, I would want all the channels to be processed the same and for HT, at least the front three for seamless sound. For bi-amping in party mode, again, I would want the processing to be the same.

Richard

spydermonkey · « **Reply #98 on:** 25 Apr 2004, 05:52 pm »

From what I gather, the only differences between the XR25 and XR50 are:

-an extra digital input
-A & B speakers
-digital remastering
-DTS 96/24
-bigger display

Is this it? Please list others if you know. Since CC has the XR25 for a clearance price of under $150, I might just return the XR50.

Im not a audiophile, so maybe the XR25 is good enough for me?

Grayson73 · « **Reply #99 on:** 26 Apr 2004, 03:11 pm »

Quote from: Richard U

I'm curiuos how everyone is going to be using the 50?Two channel or HT?
I returned the 50 and will get the 70 when it comes out. I'm hoping it will have a better power supply,etc. but if it doesn't, the additional features are worth the extra money to me.

I have no technical expertise but what I don't like about the 50 is that the front lt,rt channels are processed differently. For DVDA, I would want all the channels to be processed the same and for HT, at least the front three for seamless sound. For bi-amping in party mode, again, I would want the processing to be the same.

Richard

I'm using it for HT mostly. What do you mean by the front lt,rt channels are processed differently? Will the XR70 be different?