Digital Amplification Of Sony Receivers

[bleeding ears]

Hi all,

With all the talk about digital amplification happening I am interested to know if anyone owns or has auditioned the new Digitally amplified Sony receivers, or any other digitally amplified receiver or amp.

I am mostly interested to know how the sound and power ratings compare to other regularly amplified receivers or amps, not so much about the actual
functions, just the amplification side and sound.

Anyone out there know anything or made comparisons?

Basically what I am wondering is, is digital amplification better?

[Indytown]

Hi all,

With all the talk about digital amplification happening I am interested to know if anyone owns or has auditioned the new Digitally amplified Sony receivers, or any other digitally amplified receiver or amp.

I am mostly interested to know how the sound and power ratings compare to other regularly amplified receivers or amps, not so much about the actual
functions, just the amplification side and sound.

Anyone out there know anything or made comparisons?

Basically what I am wondering is, is digital amplification better?

Bleeding ears, go to the B&W site under B&W 803 and digital amplification, they are discussing that receiver over there.

[Aussie Geoff]

Hi,

I have linked the Club B&W Thread to here as the drift into Sony Digital was really off topic for that forum...

Geoff

[Indytown]

Hi,

I have linked the Club B&W Thread to here as the drift into Sony Digital was really off topic for that forum...

Geoff

Sorry about that; drinking beers here on Sunday night.

[Aussie Geoff]

IndyTown,

Not a problem - it was an interesting discussion - I hope it continues here...

Besides - a warm night and beers do go together so well... :T

Geoff

[yfei]

Sony DA9000ES caught my eye yesterday, I wonder how good it is compared to other 'true' HiFi digital amps, like NuForce, Ben Canto, Rotel when driving current demanding B&W 800 series speakers.
Hard to find any digital vs. digital comparison, especially reviews on this sony amp.

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/amplification/a-v-receivers/sony/PRD_302799_2718crx.aspx#reviews

http://ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/405take/index1.html

"When we measured it, we found that it didn't put out as much power as you might expect into lower impedances. (Many solid-state amps can come close to doubling their 8Ω output into 4Ω; the Sony put out nearly the same into both loads—actually, slightly less into 4Ω.) It also produced noticeably less power at 20Hz than at 1kHz."

http://ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/1204sony/index4.html

[Shane Martin]

FWIW, Sony has switched away from the digital receivers on their ES line.

[bleeding ears]

Shane, the Sony site in Oz still shows digital amplification for their ES Line of receivers, if they have gone away from digital amplification in newer models it would be very interesting to know why?

The TADA 9000ES which appears to be a sort of integrated home theatre amp claims 7 x 200 watts digital amp. Wonder how it sounds at $5999 Australian it would want to be good however it does have a processor built in it appears , which would make it a bit more reasonable costing.

Yfei, interesting stuff in those reviews, as has already been said this digital amplification changes all the rules that I am accustomed to, like no doubling of output wattage with 4 ohm speakers compared to what you get with 8 ohm speakers. but it appears that perhaps wattage is not everything, I could be wrong but current seems to be what makes digital amps perform well.

At the end of the day I guess all that matters is how good it sounds and how much it costs and this is basically what I am interested to know.

Dollar for dollar does digital amplification outperform regular amplification?
I am getting the feeling that this is not as simple a question as I first thought, but asking for some comparisons is a good start.

Thanks guys

[Leef DaLucky]

Awesome stuff.

Here's a little review i did on the pannie XR50.
Pannie review
I've been living with this little guy for some time now.
Since the review was written, i've made a bunch of changes to my system.
1) gone completely component video
2) switched over to Acoustic research masters.
2) added HD satellite (optical in)
3) went FP (more on that, after i get my screen set up)

This thing continues to amaze me.
When i switched over to a digital (optical) connect on the satellitle system the difference was VERY noticeable-much cleaner, more impact. you want to keep things in the digital domain as much as possible for these particular recievers.
I still listen to CD over analogue with very good results (i listen to a lot of 70's rock- Gabriel's Genesis, Supertramp, Zeppelin, Eagles etc) and this is the best receiver i've owned thus far.
Digital amps certainly have a new found and very valid place in the industry thats for sure. Sibilance is perfect now. Bass is strong and clean. Soundstage is quite excellent.
I'm one of the people who actually chose to mate a revealing/bright-ish speaker with a digital amp. I'm a sucker for detail. The marriage between the pannie and my Paradigm Studio ref's V.3's is just that- detail galore.

Jerry really would know more about digital amps and 2 channel, you can read more from him in his recent 1077 thread.
But, currently, i'm favouring this amp over my Onkyo, Marantz and Pioneer. There's even a new version of the XR out, the XR55.
I'm thinking about upgrading over to this one. This newest incarnation sports a lower LFE crossover (80 as opposed to 100) and a 3rd component in (for Xbox 360!). All for a pretty darn low price.
Excellent little experiment if you can pick one up.

cheers,
mikey

[bleeding ears]

Leef, you said that you favoured the Panasonic over the others like Marantz Pioneer etc.

Which models of say Marantz were you comparing the Panasonic to?

Was it the models in the same price range? eg Marantz Sr 4000 - Sr4500 series?

It would certainly be interesting to hear one of these Panasonic's but you dont see them too much in Oz.

The Panasonic and Sony's are the only receivers I have heard of that use digital amplification, look forward to hearing them one day.

thanks Pete

[David Meek]

Dollar for dollar does digital amplification outperform regular amplification?

This is just my opinion. Not yet, but give it a little time to get more main-stream acceptance. This'll bring sales up and unit price down. THEN, when there's a reasonable customer target base you'll see the cost/capability points start to level out.

I am getting the feeling that this is not as simple a question as I first thought, but asking for some comparisons is a good start.

So true - so very true. It's not a simple question as it's based on an individual's preferences, an individual's discretionary income, availability of products to evaluate, the other components in the person's system, etc.

Personally though I'm a beliver. Once I get enough of that "discretionary" stuff to upgrade my amps, the new digital Yamaha MX-D1 is on my short list. Here's Mike Fremer's review of it in Stereophile.

[Azeke]

That Yami MX-D1 sure looks pretty, and would certainly improve my rack space, but I have to stick with my conventional amps for now. I need to upgrade my FP to HD, one thing at a time for me. It took the wife a while to agree, and she is still not certain, but I am wearing her down , however I digress. Ahhh, the digital world 8) .

Best regards,

Azeke

[Leef DaLucky]

B.E. i much preferred the Pannie over both the marantz 4200 (?) and the pioneer 1014.
i've also had a couple weeks with an older marantz (the 680 i believe) back in the day so i'm pretty familiar with marantz's signature sound. To be honest it's just not my style. I eventually went with onkyo because of this reason. The onkyo was a little too dry at times, but like I said i like my detail.
I think i paid around $3k back in '97 for my last onkyo system.
This pannie cost me $300 last year.
It's a shame they're so sparce in Oz.
You'd really get a kick out of one.

Mikey

[Jmac]

Shane said:

FWIW, Sony has switched away from the digital receivers on their ES line.

No disrespect, but simply not true.

The top two models of the ES line, the 7100ES, & 9100ES (the 2005/6 model line up) are both fully digital. The 9100ES is pretty much an update on the 9000ES with HDMI switching, and a mic input for calibration etc.

As I mentioned in the B&W forum, I have an Sony flagship TA-DA9000ES fully digital amp, which outdoes my analogue Naim-Audio 2 channel kit in smoothness, detail, and dynamics - no mean feat when you consider Naim is some of the most highly regarded analogue kit going, especially in the UK.

For reasons that I cannot fathom, some folks either cannot, or simply refuse to take Sony seriously with their top line products - perhaps for reasons of disatisfaction with models lower in the range, or maybe just simple blind prejudice - the badge doesn't carry enough kudo's perhaps, - either way, their loss, as the 9000ES is a stunningly good amp either for 2 or multi-channel - music or HT - and punches so far above it's price point in sound, build and finish, it's not funny.

My advise is don't dismiss Sony - you'd be missing out on something quite special; especially if you want a cutting edge solution to 2 channel music and surround sound in one box.

Best Regards

John... :-)

[Lex]

There could be a difference in Sony USA and Sony Europe's products... this could explain it, or perhaps it's slower to catch up in product changes in Europe?

[Shane Martin]

No disrespect, but simply not true

Thanks for clarifying. I just read that. The 7100 is tempting(I'm an ES owner already) but there are some flaws I have read about with the HDMI switching. Still it's over 50 lbs which is a beast.

[bleeding ears]

Shane and Jmac,

Since you guys seem familiar with Sony gear perhaps you may be able to give me your impressions of the Sony Tan 9000ES 5 channel amp, which I own. It is not a digital amp.

This amp is the one than that came out with the Sony Tae 9000ES processor about 1999 I think. I dont have that processor I have just gone to a RSP 1068 Rotel processor from a marantz receiver (as pre/pro) and now am wondering how good a job my Sony amp does and if an amp upgrade could be warranted?

this amp does 5 x 115 watt
or 2 x 210 watt
and weighs about 20 -21 kilograms so it is also no lightweight
Any comments or info anyone?

thanks guys

[Jmac]

Hi 'Bleeding ears'

I owned a TAE/TAN combination prior to the TA-DA9000ES, primarily for AV/HT purposes as an add on to my Naim system to provide decoding, and an amp to drive centre and rear speakers.

I had it for just over a year, and was very happy with it; unfortunately the amp developed a recurring fault, and to cut a long story short, Sony replaced it with the latest TA-DA9000ES digital flagship. (The US version is the STR-DA9000ES)

The TAN had a very 'natural' sound, for lack of a better word; certainly in terms of the midband it had a lovely sense of finesse and bloom, however in particular, the detail and dynamics of the new digital flagship are in another league over the TAE/TAN combo IMHO - I had the TAE with the orginal V1.18 software, as well as the later V2.0 software as well, however good as it was, the simple circuit of a digital amplifier such as the STR/TA-DA9000ES gives some of the best detail retrieval of anything I've ever been priviledged to hear - and I'm talking in Audio Research, Krell, and Naim league.

Let me put it this way, and no disrespect as both the Sony TAN and the Rotel RSP 1068 are fine pieces of equipment, but if you were to audition the new 9000ES digital amp, something tells me, finances permitting, that you would most likely not be holding onto the Rotel/Sony combo when you left the store!

It really is that good IMHO - I suggest if at all serious that you give it a listen.

Of course, you may well be happy with what you have - as I say, no disrespect or urging you to make pointless upgrades perhaps, but IMHO good as the TAE/TAN was, the digital comfortably outclasses it in every area of musical performance.

As usual, the caveats of IMHO etc apply; YMMV...

Best Regards

John... :-)

[bleeding ears]

Jmac,
You seem to be in no doubt that the digital Sony does a great job,
I will have to have a listen to one.

There does seem to be a general view that digital amplification is the
way to go in any brand of amp or receiver.

Digital certainly looks like the future and from what I am hearing it is
for good reason.


since we are talking about Sony gear could you tell me a little more
about the Sony Tan 9000ES amp that you no longer have.

After reading owners reviews on the "audio review" site some owners have said that it sounded better when using the extra 2 channel inputs in BTL mode. (Bridged 2 x 210 watts)

Did you run your amp in this configuration or just in plain 5 channel 5 x 115 watts? and if so what did you think?

Thanks

[Andrew M Ward]

1) I have an Sony flagship TA-DA9000ES fully digital amp

2) For reasons that I cannot fathom, some folks either cannot, or simply refuse to take Sony seriously

3) My advise is don't dismiss Sony

1) I'm not sure it's fully digital; it must have an analog input (right) so it's probably class D... Or perhaps it requires a digital input?

2) People not taking Sony seriously is a result of Sony making a laughing stock of it ‘self regularly, for example a long history of format development and subsequent abandonment ~ Home Theater in a box ~ speakers that sound like crap ~ bad senior mismanagement of product development ~ 90 day warranties ~ rampant distribution issues, it's available everywhere, for gods sake you can but Sony gear at a gas station ~ I'll stop :

3) Sony has largely dismissed themselves from the realm of credibility


Just my 2 cents :W

[bleeding ears]

Andrew, being a bit new to all this stuff especially digital amps, I have a bit yet to learn.

Perhaps you could explain?

Do digital amps only accept digital inputs and not analogue? is that what you are saying?

If so does that mean that digital amps are no good for DVD Audio or SACD?
or have I got it all wrong and they work just like a regular amplifiers inputs.

thanks

[David Meek]

The term digital amps - at this point in time - generally refers to the power supply circuitry only. These amps accept analog signals just like their non-digital cousins. Now there ARE a few true digital amps like the TacT product but they are few and far between, and very expensive.

[yfei]

Most digital amps only receive analog input signals, such as Bel Canto eVo, 'nuforce', rotel 1077 ..... The amps internally has a fast switching digital signal, and use the analog input to modulate this signal should be sent to output or not.

Some digital amps has a 'digital direct' path, like the Sony DAxxxxES series. So they don't require you to have DAC and preamp to feed in any analog signal. They can directly take digital audio out from the dvd player, and use it (internally need to change the digital data format a bit, from PCM into DSD like) to directly drive the digital amp. So you potentially should have cleaner sound (by avoiding so many intermediate analog steps, analog cables), and also lower your cost.

Theoretically it is heaven: recording sound into DSD, then use DSD to directly drive the speakers. Sony DA9000ES, DA9100ES can do this. But I can't find any review about Sony's sound. From measurements, it's not good for 4ohms speakers, about 110w max at 8 ohms, but less than 100w for 4ohms. Good amp should double the power at 4ohms. What is Hi-Fi describe it's sound as dry (judged by their British taste of HiFi, generally is different than the US).

Andrew, being a bit new to all this stuff especially digital amps, I have a bit yet to learn.

Perhaps you could explain?

Do digital amps only accept digital inputs and not analogue? is that what you are saying?

If so does that mean that digital amps are no good for DVD Audio or SACD?
or have I got it all wrong and they work just like a regular amplifiers inputs.

thanks

[Lex]

Actually many audiophiles would tend to say taking a digital signal, transfering to analog, then back to digital is not a good thing. This is a problem that plagued the Lexicon digital processors of the past, the fact everything analog was converted back to digital before processing.

The fact is, several CD players, to begin with don't even have that great a DACs, people have relied upon either high quality external DACs or pre-amp DACs, so either way, then to turn around and convert it back to digital, no thanks. Digital amps that don't even accomodate a digital input signal? Makes no sense at all-

Lex

[Andrew M Ward]

Actually many audiophiles would tend to say taking a digital signal, transfering to analog, then back to digital is not a good thing. This is a problem that plagued the Lexicon digital processors of the past, the fact everything analog was converted back to digital before processing.

The fact is, several CD players, to begin with don't even have that great a DACs, people have relied upon either high quality external DACs or pre-amp DACs, so either way, then to turn around and convert it back to digital, no thanks. Digital amps that don't even accomodate a digital input signal? Makes no sense at all-

Lex

A) So you've listened to these Class D amplifiers that do not accommodate a direct digital input? (yes/No)

B) Or you are implying that it's not an "audiophile grade" design philosophy...(Yes/No)

C) Consider a CD player (for example) that is connected digitally directly to a preamplifier, then the preamplifier is direct digitally connected to a pure digital amplifier. In this system the CD is not converted to analog until it hits the amplifier.... is that (in your opinion) a good thing. (Yes/No)

D) How do we address jitter in a system passing along a direct digital signal between three pieces? Does each piece have its own clock? Or do we use a master clock in the system (Like DCS) ???

Just curious

[yfei]

Have to note that, digital amps do not 'CONVERT' analog back to digital. Digital amp don't need to have any ADC or DAC built in. There is no any 'conversion' or 'quantization' process involved. The only thing happened inside a digital amp is 'modulation'.

I think, use DSD digital to feed digital amp makes more sense than using analog. But I am not sure about redbook PCM, if digital conversioin from PCM to DSD will lost sound quality or not.

[yfei]

D) How do we address jitter in a system passing along a direct digital signal between three pieces? Does each piece have its own clock? Or do we use a master clock in the system (Like DCS) ???

According to Sony DA9000ES (or maybe 9100)'s technical white paper, it solved jitter problem. It use a big buffer for the input digital data to remove input jitter, and the internal digital path is jitter free.

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/STRDA9000ES_TWP.pdf

[Lex]

Andrew, respectfully, I am not "playing". Call me a traditionalist if you want, but I am very happy with my 17,000 worth of amps investment.

I have no desire to go down this path or any other at present as I am very happy with my system.

Gee, it took 5 minutes for me to be quoted twice, not once. That's a little disturbing actually. You guys have fun. FYI, I deleted one of those quotes, no need to quote me twice. People can read what I said up there.

[chrispy35]

The term digital amps - at this point in time - generally refers to the power supply circuitry only. These amps accept analog signals just like their non-digital cousins. Now there ARE a few true digital amps like the TacT product but they are few and far between, and very expensive.

Whaaa? I was under the impression the 'digital' portion refers to the output stage (i.e. o/p transistor either fully on or off). Heat in amps is mostly generated in the outputs, hence the heatsinks on the transistors and not on the power supply. Digital amp...less heat...reduced heatsinks...reduced size.

That said, going to a switched power supply will also reduce the size of the amp as well but I'm guessing it wouldn't have as much of an impact on sound as going with a digital output stage would.

Question: Is is possible to have a digital class-A amp?

[Andrew M Ward]

Okay with me

Lex,
I'm just trying to understand the details due to my own curiosity...

I'm well aware that nobody ever changed anybody's mind on a forum. Minds are made up, and this is basically a verbal gymnastics exercise.

:W

[Sim reality]

Whaaa? I was under the impression the 'digital' portion refers to the output stage (i.e. o/p transistor either fully on or off). Heat in amps is mostly generated in the outputs, hence the heatsinks on the transistors and not on the power supply. Digital amp...less heat...reduced heatsinks...reduced size.

That said, going to a switched power supply will also reduce the size of the amp as well but I'm guessing it wouldn't have as much of an impact on sound as going with a digital output stage would.

Question: Is is possible to have a digital class-A amp?

I looked it up and you are right... Class D is has a switched output... I think most people are talking about a Class G amp in which the power rails are switched. I believe Class G can have a class A, B or A/B output side.

I think I remember reading the efficencies are approximately (don't quote me on this):

Class A: 10-20%
Class B: 30-40%
Class D: ~90%
Class G: Probably 1.5 time more efficient then the class A or B equilvilents

I don't think we will ever find a true class D in audio though... The power required just to run the clock on the CPU to control the output stage properly would probably suck up as much power as using a class G amp...

[Lex]

I am not saying they can't do some things right, perhaps they do. But anytime you mess with the output of quality audio devices, the skepticism in me is automatically turned on. I mean, I have a 2K CD player, a Lexicon pre-pro that cost close to 10K, then I am going to drop my entire sound off and leave it to a cheaper amp, that is going to manipulate and rebuild everything basically. That's my impression, instead of taking a quality DAC, and then inputting a clean analog audio signal into a normalized amp with high quality output stages, etc, such as my Mark Levinson 336. Nugh said, that's where I am coming from.

Someday, maybe I can play with one of these, but for now, I really have no desire to find out "what I'm missing", because frankly with a system like mine, I am not missing much- That's not egotistical, it's just confidence in a high quality system valued at around 40,000 US$.

[Andrew M Ward]

I am not saying they can't do some things right, perhaps they do. But anytime you mess with the output of quality audio devices, the skepticism in me is automatically turned on. I mean, I have a 2K CD player, a Lexicon pre-pro that cost close to 10K, then I am going to drop my entire sound off and leave it to a cheaper amp, that is going to manipulate and rebuild everything basically. That's my impression, instead of taking a quality DAC, and then inputting a clean analog audio signal into a normalized amp with high quality output stages, etc, such as my Mark Levinson 336. Nugh said, that's where I am coming from.

Someday, maybe I can play with one of these, but for now, I really have no desire to find out "what I'm missing", because frankly with a system like mine, I am not missing much- That's not egotistical, it's just confidence in a high quality system valued at around 40,000 US$.

We all have nice systems as well, but I am always interested in new technologies and experimenting with new gear (it's fun)...

We get it, you have a kick ass system, but that hardly seems like a reason not to be interested in “the new stuff” especially as a moderator.

So you have a 2K CD player and an MC-12 and some Levinson gear. I have a pair of No.333’s and a $6500.00 CD player and a stack of preamplifier’s that reads like a who’s who list in Audiophile. I hope I never think that what I’ve got is sooo good that I can’t even listen to some new exciting gear...
:evil:

[Aussie Geoff]

Andrew,

I respect your opinion however I think you've made your point and gone past the point of being respectful in your posts to what to me seems like not so subtle insults and jibes...

We don't do that in the guide....

As moderators we don't allow it to continue...

I've noticed it in a number of your recent posts in several of these forums..

Please think VERY carefully about the tone of future posts...

PS - It's fine for people to be happy with the system they have and not want to upgrade. There are very few people with the means and job role that would let them built up a equipment collection like yours...

Geoff

[Lex]

Andrew, please get this ok?

I'm not buying an amp right now, not a valve type, not a solid state, not a digital. So, I am not showing any favorites, or eliminating any amps because I am just not in the market for an amp. I'm sorry if that's not a good enough answer for you. Nor am I going to go out and buy a digital amp just to play with, then return it. That would not only serve no purpose because I don't plan to buy a new amp right now, but also would use valuable time that is a scarce commodity for me running 2 businesses, and working a full time job. I'm not throwing off on digital amps, or anyone else's system. Nor am I throwing off on taking time to research gear. There was a time, I enjoyed and did that as well. But time is a precious commodity now, and I simply do not have enough of it to pursue that dream anymore. In fact, I barely can read Stereophile now. I raised questions and some doubt that they are the cure all for modern day audio, that's all. I would think you can deal with that.

In a perfect world, I'd probably have at least 1 of each amp for cable testing. However, I have neither the room nor company finances at present to store that many pieces of test gear.

[Azeke]

Indeed, we maintain a certain code of ethics here, no need for us to lose our dignity/charisma over personal opinions, we are all entitled to our own thoughts.

However, that is one thought we should all remember, it's not what you say, but how you say it. Just a thought to ponder.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke

[Andrew M Ward]

Wow!
Now we're getting somewhere, I got reprimanded by two moderators and an administrator...

I re-read my post and I just don't see it (the issue) so I called somebody out on their lame-ness (big deal) I mean really, are we all that emotionally fragile?

If I take the time to water-down my replies it loses it's spirit.

I understand it may come across a little "snotty" but the post I was replying to was so condescending, I mean what's with "I have a $2K CD player and a No.336..." that is just too lame for me to let it go.

So I guess pompous condescension is favorable to sassy... I'll try to keep that in mind. I guess if you could see my face, you’d understand :W


One point: A co-worker of mine said I'd get kicked off this forum in no time because I was such a turd.