First, a $1500 system. *Then* a talk about digital amps. (1 Viewer)

[Rob Silver]

You guys just listed the receiver and speakers, where's the display and DVD player? The OP said HTS, so I assume he meant the whole HTS instead of just an audio system (sans player).

Personally, I can't stand upgrading parts, specially not the audio part of HTS. I'd have saved enough money to buy the whole audio system. Now the display on the other hand I don't mind. 20" bubble tube + $10K audio system = My HTS.

 

[matt-f]

rob, the interpretation which I'm reading is that he needs audio. Unless he's got the video already, it's not been stated.

I do agree, you about saving the money to buy a whole *good* HTS system, not get something now with what you have.

 

[FeisalK]

to each his own I guess, me I went the upgrade route ~ basic system to start off with, and replaced with better equipment as and when I could. IMO everyone's gonna get bitten by the upgrade bug anyhow...

judging from the postings on the Panny XR series, what you get is more than what you pay for

 

[John Garcia]

To all accounts, regardless of these features, the XR25 should still provide very good sound, even compared to the 630, though I'm sure the 630 will best the XR25 in power without question.

I went the upgrade route too, because the amount of time it would have taken me to save up for what I got would have been a lot longer than I would have liked to have crappy or no sound. I find that taking my time I am able to shop around at my leisure and find exactly what I want, then look for the best price at the time.

 

[matt-f]

John,

It will be still very good yes. However, the fact that if the XR25 doesn't have a dedicated DAC also means the unit is very busy because it's processing all channels which does slow the processor down.

With dedicated DAC, each channel has it's own dedicated DAC, which is an advantage. This explains why some features are not avaiable on some recievers because it's a single DAC instead of dedicated DAC.

Hard to say about the upgrade route IMO. When I think about it, you would be spending more $$$ than if you waited for something better. If you're planning to sell it second hand, then maybe.

 

[FeisalK]

maybe the XR doesn't have DACs because it doesn't need DACs?

I'm no engineer, maybe someone else could simplify Tripath digital amplifiers

 

[Jack Briggs]

As I thought, the originator of this thread still has just one post to his credit.

 

[matt-f]

hehe Jack, maybe he just wanted to ask just one post.
--------------------------

FeisalK, the XR probably need have dedicated DAC or power, then it's just a low-end reciever. This will be the the differences between a low-end and a high-end reciever.

Before I gotten my HK reciever, I wanted to get a Panasonic until I found this info out.

 

[FeisalK]

matt, I believe the Panny uses TI's Equibit technology for amplification - in stereotimes (http://www.stereotimes.com/acc102403.shtm) there's a review of the TacT Millennium using the same technology. In reference to the TacT



which is why I think the Panny doesn't need DACs - a PCM datastream from a CD is converted directly to PWM (still in the digital domain)

edit Equibit is now called PurePath

 

[FeisalK]

coming back to topic though, a budget of $1,500 precludes any high-end stuff

 

[matt-f]

FeisalK,

I read the links and info you provided. That's digital amplication, nothing to do with DACs.

Sound is analog which means there is a DAC. The conversion process is being pushed further down and will be analog for the speakers.

Must expand budget range!! I'm suprized about my local ISF pro actually, he's got $25 000 sound system!!

 

[FeisalK]

exactly!

 

[NickSo]

According to Feisal's link, TI's digital tripath technology disregards any need for DAC's, it takes the digitial signal and directly outputs it to the PWM signal and ampifying it in the digital domain, without the need of a traditional DAC and the analog amplification of capacitors etc.

Exactly! Instead of converting it to analog earlier and amplifying an analog signal (whcih introdudces noise and interference), most of the stream will be in digital (not as susceptible to noise/intererence). Keeping the stream digital until the very end cuts down on the exposure to noise/interference the analog signal encounters, and thus, better sound.

This theoretically gives it an advantage in SQ since its amplified in the digital domain.

The point is, sure the HK is good, but for $1.5k, the digital receivers emplying TI digital amps will do very well... we know you own a HK, and that you enjoy the sound from it, but you gotta recognize that these receivers ARE capable of producing awesome sound, comparable to the HK, because of new technology which enables better sound, for a lower price.

You're trying to say that he can ONLY get a decent system by spenidng a LOT of money (quote: "Must expand budget range!! "), buying a HK receiver etc, but clearly it is not the case.

 

[matt-f]

I do believe manufacturers other than HK have similar methods to amplify it digitally. However, we are talking about two different things there.

I'm talking about the DAC for the conversion for analog for the analog speaker output. 1 processor doing that or dedicated processors (1 per channel)?

Saying there is none is impossible since you can't hear anything since the XR25 has no digital speaker output as I've spoken to an owner of this unit today. He did mention digital speakers do exist but IMO, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a reciever?

 

[NickSo]

No, because, like i said earlier, the main point is that the signal is in the digital domain for more of the process, thus being less exposed to noise (than if was in an analog signal).

The longer the signal is analog the more exposure to noise it is. So if it was amplified in the digital domain, it would not pick up that noise, unlike if it was amplified while analog.

 

[matt-f]

You're talking about the digital amplication.. It's neat stuff.

The reciever doesn't send the signal binary to the speakers since it only has analog speaker outputs - the electrical pulses are controlled digitally which is analog. If it has digital speaker outputs then it makes sense but there are very few digital speakers out there which sort of does defeat the purpose of a reciever.

 

[FeisalK]

matt,

there's a nice article about how digital amplification works, and why you do not need a DAC at PSAudio here:

http://www.psaudio.com/articles/sdat.asp

SDAT is their implementation of PWM amplificaiton, and to quote the article:


in short it's a totally different way of thinking.

edit: of course they work with regular speakers

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

To simplify what FeisalK said, digital path receivers use digital amplification. When given a digital signal (CD, DVD, HDTV) they don't require any digital-to-analog conversion and therefore do not require DACs. Digital-to-analog conversions, no matter the quality, introduce noise and distortion and lower sound quality. If the signal is kept digital for the entire process then that is one less source of noise/distortion added into the mix which leads to the posibility or purer sound. Digital amplifiers are also much more effecient than analog amps, allowing for much smaller power suplies to be used, meaning more of the cost of manufacturing (passed on to the consumer as a large part of the final price) can go towards other internal components that can increase sound quality. Implementation is a large part of the final outcome but the myriad of rave reviews of the digital receivers from panasonic seem to speak for themselves.

 

[matt-f]

I read the article and do understand it, thanks!

FeisalK, it does work with regular speakers because the digital amps are using PWM.

My understanding is the pulses are done digitally. The way I see it is a digital method of performing analog - not sending binary information which is also defined as digital which is what I was confused about.

 

[FeisalK]

"performing analog"?

analog is not a process