Has anyone matched this receiver with the M80's? Are there issues with this receiver's ability to drive the M80's? What's your opinion? I chose the Sony over the Denon 3803 mainly due to price. I am interested in a 7.1 system.
Thanks,
Gerry
Gerry, the DA4ES was an excellent buy at $700 or less and should have no problem with the M80s. It has the common 8/4ohm switch, but it should be left at 8 ohms unless it's absolutely necessary to limit the current flow with the 4 ohm setting.
I'm driving M60's with the DA4ES and they sound fuller than they did with the 10 year old Denon receiver I was using. You can find it for under $700 at various internet retailers.
I was considering the Sony myself, but it doesn't have 192/24-bit DAC's, as far as I know. Otherwise, it seems to have almost every format supported, and composite to s-video conversion. Here's the best price I've found for the Sony
http://www.legacyaudiovideo.com.
John:
Thats what I was hoping to hear. I was really concerned about the 4ES driving the 4ohm load.
phruska:
I agree - the 4es seems like a lot of bang for the buck. I still have not thrown out the idea of getting the M60's though.
DanTana:
You are right that the Sony does not have 192/24-bit DAC's. The thing is I am not completely sure what that means! If you can fill me on what that means I would appreciate it.
Thanks to all,
Gerry
In reply to:
You are right that the Sony does not have 192/24-bit DAC's. The thing is I am not completely sure what that means! If you can fill me on what that means I would appreciate it.
It's a sampling rate. Digitizing an analog sound wave is usually done by grabbing points along the sound wave at recurring intervals. CD's do this at 44.1Hz. DVD-A multichannel does it at 96Hz. DVD-A stereo can do this at 192Hz. This basically means the encoder is taking 192 samples of the sound wave per second. The more samples, the closer to the original analog signal is possible. 24-bit precision refers to how accurate the individual sample is encoded. At 16-bit, traditional CD quality, you have 16 ones and zeros to represent the data point samples by the encoder. The larger the number, the closer to the actual value you can get.
All this boils down to is that 24/192 is more precise than 24/96 or 16/44.1. Of course, I'm pretty skeptical that people can hear that level of precision, but I haven't had the pleasure myself.
OH let me tell ya Semi, the sound is incredibly noticeable.
Its like listening to AM radio vs FM.
Ok, maybe not quite that dramatic, but darn good analogy i say.
I'll have to take your word for it until SOMETHING worthwhile is encoded in high bitrate audio. Of course that would require the RIAA to stop chasing it's tail, making up bullshit numbers, and actually [censored] innovating. I know, it's a novel idea.
Actually produce more than one worthwhile track on a high bitrate, multichannel format with extras and cool packaging and you'll have me at a cost around $10. Try to sell me the same crap from the last two decades for $20 at one maybe two decent songs on a crappy recording and 25% fewer disks a year and then complain because I'm buying 5% fewer CD's? I'll laugh you right back to your pathetic monopoly you losers.
chesseroo:
so would you be of the opinion that the 192kHz sampling rate offered by the Denon 3803 is worth an extra ~$200? I guess you would have to throw in the better component switching capabilities offered in the Denon as well.
Semi:
Thanks for the great explanation. If I understand what you are saying, there is little software that takes advantage of the increased sampling rate. It also sounds like this is a technology that manufacturers aren't exactly embracing right now.
Thanks again
-Gerry
Wow. My initial reply was off by a factor of 1000. Teach me to post drunk.
[quot]Thanks for the great explanation. If I understand what you are saying, there is little software that takes advantage of the increased sampling rate. It also sounds like this is a technology that manufacturers aren't exactly embracing right now.
The RIAA is too busy fighting for ways to screw you on fair use laws to invest time into new technology at the moment.
gerrys,
I can't say whether the 192khz DAC option is worth the extra $200 or not, especially onboard the receiver. You do have to consider the overall package of paying more for a 'higher' end item.
We had a discussion about DACs not long ago. You can try doing a general search for the term and see what comes up.
The type of connection you make between your cd/dvd (analog or digital) and your receiver will actually determine which DAC will be used, either the one in your cd/dvd or in the receiver.
If you have a cd/dvd player capable of 192khz sampling, then it really would not matter much. Not unless you do some ear testing and feel that you prefer one DAC over another, but i highly doubt you will hear much of a difference to make any of it worthwhile.
My Toshiba DVD supports DVD-A and has built-in 192/24-bit DAC's, and it says it must be mated to a receiver with the same for the best audio. Since my DVD supports it, I think it necessary for my receiver to as well.
Hi all,
Don't get all worked up over 192 kHz/24-bit data rates. Although DVD-A supports this, if a music producer selects that rate, it limits the number of channels that he can use, so few if any DVD-A's are mastered at 192 kHz. Moreover, the thermal noise generated by solid-state circuitry exceeds the theoretical advantages of 24 bits (6 dB x 24), which in theory would yield a 144-dB dynamic range. Impressive, but not practical. What happens when your furnace blower or refrigerator cycles on? So much for usable dynamic range in a domestic environment.
Regards,
This was the older post i had referred to earlier where we discussed DACs on the cd player vs the receiver:
the old post
Alan:
In other threads, you stated that other brands such as Denon can handle the 4 ohm load adequetly. Have you heard any negative feedback on the Sony 4ES's capability to handle the 4 ohm load?
Thanks,
Gerry
Hi Gerry,
Sorry, I haven't heard any feedback on the Sony ES and low-impedance loads. Among my colleagues, I don't know of anyone with a Sony receiver. There's a consensus that Sony's ES line has much higher standards than the low-priced stuff, but that's not enough to make judgments about its performance with low-impedance loads.
Regards,
I have M-60 matched up with this Sony receiver. No problems with driving these speakers. These receiver has much to offer as indicated in many treads. There should be ample power to drive the M-80s.