pure digiltal

I'm interested in running all digital. Is there a way of running digital out of the 950 to a digital input on a digital amp?

read John Mayers opinions on pure digital at newformresearch.com I had a chance to listen to the panasonic SA-XR45 receiver, one of the few around that run pure digital into 6x100 watts of digital amplification. The sound stage was wider, deeper and there was more detail and especially inner voices were separated better.
Compared to my 950 with 2x250 watts of Denon 6600 monoblock class a and a sherwood newcastle for the other 5 channels.
If any of you get a chance to borrow one check it out - seems incredible at only $600 Canadian.

At present, an all digital signal path (source - processing - amplification) is not possible in the 950 or in other pre/pros.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

I personally do not believe that digital amps offer the equivalent performance of analog.

1) H/K has a digital receiver (DP 1001 or something) out that, at least when it first came out, got horrible reviews for its sound quality. You can search on HTF.

2) The PS Audio HCA digital amplifier got reviewed by Stereophile a while back. If you read the measurements they did, they were "disappointed" with its performance.

In general, there is a very good reason why an equivalent unit with digital amplification does not cost as much as the analog version. Or weigh as much.

Maybe things will change over time. Or maybe not.


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited February 12, 2004).]

i think digital is a ways off myself. i have heard that hk dpr1001 and it is ok until you turn it up past 25%; i have also heard the pan saxr25 which is better than the hk, but still not very good.

****In general, there is a very good reason why an equivalent unit with digital amplification does not cost as much as the analog version. Or weigh as much.****

This can have very little to do with the quality of electronics. Speaker cables costing $23,000 does not greatly improve the sound over zip cord. I've had the Panasonic SA-XR25 in my system; while my Outlaw 1050 was in for repair (quality?); and found it quite good. My next receiver will probably be digital; Panasonic has a newer model coming.
I enjoy my music at a reasonable cost.

You're forgeting capitalism. Companies are in business to make money. If they could put out a product that was cheaper to make but yet still rival a currently available product in terms of pure performance, they'd charge a price closer to that of the currently available product. In this case, they aren't. $23,000 speaker cables are not reflective of the real world. Class AB amplification is.


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited February 14, 2004).]

With the current state of the art in loudspeakers, digital amplification does not make sense for anyone interested in sound quality as a first priority. Digital amplifiers can be made cheaper, lighter and more efficient than their analog counterparts, but digital amplification in and of itself does nothing to improve absolute sound quality above a good conventional analog amplifier.

Loudspeakers are purely analog devices and this will not change until some fundamentally different technology comes around that replaces the conventional speaker driver. This means the signal must be converted to analog somewhere before it reaches the loudspeaker. Where this takes place must be considered in light of where that conversion can be made with the greatest precision and least impact on sound quality.

The best DACs and digital processing ICs are manufactured for low level circuits. It is much better to process and convert signals from digital to analog (and vice versa) in a chassis where such things as the power supply and other circuitry can be better controlled and isolated. This is much harder to do in components like power amps where the high peak currents involved could disrupt the ability of the DACs to resolve the lowest signal levels (remember that a 24 bit digital word has a theoritical signal to noise ratio of 144db). This after all is the whole rationale of seperate audio components over receivers - that the low level signal processing circuits perform better in a chassis that is removed from the high current environment of a power amplifier section.

A digital amplifier violates good engineering practice by placing circuits which must process very low level signals in the same chassis with circuits which draw high currents in order to drive the loudspeaker.

Certainly digital amplifiers are going to become more and more common, but the entire justification for them is that they can be made cheaper, lighter, and more efficient than an analog amplifier. Notice that the better absolute sound quality is not mentioned anywhere in that statement. The simple fact is that an analog amplifer is the best method of driving an analog device like a loudspeaker when absolute sound quality is the goal rather than cheapness, weight or efficiency. If cost, weight and efficiency are the most important considerations (like in an amplifier made for automobiles or powered speakers for computer use), then a digital amplifier makes sense.

They do not make sense when sound quality is the major concern.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 14, 2004).]