Battle of the Sonys - Part 1

[Clint DeBoer]

<font color='#000000'>Well, this seems to be the week of the preprocessor here at Audioholics. Steve DellaSala has completed his <a href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/sonybattleP1_1.php">review</a> of the preprocessing capabilities of the Sony TA-E9000ES and the STR-DA4ES. We have taken the liberty of breaking up the article into two separate parts, with one being released each week. We're not trying to artificially generate suspense - but there is just so much information here, this is the only way to digest it! <a href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/sonybattleP1_1.php">Read on</a>!</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>This message was e-mailed to me regarding the Sony Article. &nbsp;I thought it would be beneficial to post it in the forum and answer it here for others to read.

Thanks C.T., for your question.

Regards,
Stevie D


I planned to buy the 4ES as the pre for my HK PA5800 80w/5ch but your
article scares me away from it even I can get this unit from Sony for $600.

But I have a few questions to ask:
- is it unfair to compare a $1000 unit with a almost 2K unit?
- is it worth to use my HK 5Ch amp and find a new receiver as pre (current
is RX-V795) or just to get rid of it and buy a good receiver with decent
powers( >100W/ch from Yamaha, Denon)?

Best regards,
C .T.
[I]</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>C.T.,

Thanks for your response to the Battle fo the Sony article. *I have the following answers to your questions:

1) *"is it unfair to compare a $1,000 unit with an almost $2k unit."

C.T., Good question and good point.

It really wasn't my purpose to compare the $1,100 (retail) Sony STR-DA4ES to the $2,000 (retail) Sony TA-E900ES, based on their price, but more for the fact that they share the ES title. *Besides, when you consider that the 4ES and 7ES are almost identical Receivers, with a more expensive remote and larger power supply on the 7ES, this jacks the price up to $1,800 retail (or so) for the 7ES. *Also, you can still purchase a new 9000ES for about $1,100 at a few mail order places, such as www.oade.com. *So for these reasons, price was not my comparative factor.

What I am trying to express in this article is that Sony seems to have taken away some of the quality found in the 5ES and in the 9000ES to do the 4ES / 7ES. *It's not to say the 4ES isn't a great Receiver. *ESPECIALLY if you can get it for $600. *For $600, I would jump on it. *But, I don't think its worth $1,000, as there are other Receivers in this price range worth considering first. *

2) *"is it worth to use my HK 5Ch amp and find a new receiver as pre (current is RX-V795) or just to get rid of it and buy a good receiver with decent powers( >100W/ch from Yamaha, Denon)?"

Actually, the HK 5800 is a really good Receiver, so I'd have a hard time getting rid of it. *If you start talking about using this unit as an amplifier and buying another Receiver, I'd have to say, it's probably not a wise investment. *

First of all, you really need to define what your after for wanting to upgrade your current HK Receiver. *Do you want/need a rear center (6.1)? *Do you want/need 6-channel inputs for new Audio formats? *Are you looking for other features not found in your HK?

If so, then I'd save a bit more money, wait a few more weeks and look at other units in the $1,200 range. *Perhaps GDS or Ray can suggest what models to look at, as I have really not reviewed the newer Yamaha's, HK's and Denon's Models yet.

Good luck, and if you have more questions, I encourage you to use the forums. *Audioholics is pleased to answer questions in here.

Thanks</font>

[RTPBob]

<font color='#000000'>Steve, a really great review. &nbsp;I took your advice and called Oade (talked with Jim and reffereced Audioholics) and he had a DA5ES that he was willing to sell me at a substantial discount (cheaper than the best deals I've seen on a DA4ES). &nbsp;I was considering the DA4ES because of its 7 channels, but I can add an extra amplifier later if I ever want to go that route. &nbsp;The DA5ES should arrive today! &nbsp;

Now that I have one, can you give a quick comparison between it (as a preamplifier) and the 9000ES? &nbsp;Also, do you have an opinion on its amplifier section?

Thanks for the article and advice to chase down the DA5ES.</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>CT;

First off just to clarify, I don't think Steve knew that the HK 5800 is a five channel power amp and not a receiver. &nbsp;That being the case, the 5800 is a very good 5 channel amp and may prove to be more musical and rugged than the 4ES amp section. &nbsp;My best advice to you is try the two and compare them. &nbsp;You can always use the amps from the 4es to power another room and rear centers if you prefer the sound of the HK amp.
The 4ES IMO, is one of the best receivers on the market in the sub $1000 price class. &nbsp;It has a ton of useful features (multi room, EX, Prologicii, excellent bass management, and two sets of 6 channel inputs). &nbsp;Most receivers in this price class do not offer all of these features. &nbsp;On the downside, the 4ES is difficult to set-up, the manual is poorly documented.
IF you can get past that, then its a good deal. &nbsp;While we really like the 5ES, it is very difficult to acquire now since it has been discontinued.</font>

[randyb]

<font color='#000000'>I want to add my thank you for the great article(s). &nbsp;It was well written and very infomative.</font>

<font color='#000000'><img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> Great detailed article. I own the 4ES and before i bought i did listen to 5ES and the 4ES swithing backforth and could not here a difference. They sounded the same to me, so i assumed that they were basicly the same receiver with the 4ES having an x-tra amp. The 4ES sounds incredible in my large Home Theater set-up. I'm running all 7ch's and the 4ES handles it with no problem even at very high volumes. I paid 680.00 for it instesd of the 1000.00 list i thought it was a steal *for the money.

What do you think of the build quality of the 4ES compared to other receivers in it's price range?

Do you think the 4ES is a bad movie surround sound reciever?

How would you rate the 4ES seperation when it comes to movie playback?</font>

[RTPBob]

<font color='#000000'>Gene, I wouldn't call the DA5ES "very hard to find" just yet. &nbsp;Maybe "a little more work to find" would be more accurate. &nbsp;A couple of us Audioholics have found them and I've seen e-bay auctions from authorized dealers in Canada for DA5ESs, who may have more than one in stock. &nbsp;Also a number of internet retailers have them still listed and one might be able to negotiate a good price on a last year's model.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Steve:

I read your article on the TA-E9000ES. I own this unit along with the 2.01 and 2.5 software upgrade. Do you really think that the Disco soundfield is similar to 4 channel stereo? I tried it and it wasn't even close.</font>

[ctransj]

<font color='#000000'>Stevie and Gene,
Great work on the review of the Sony 4ES/5ES/7Es... like i said, it's the best review about the Sony ES line.
I hope you guys will do some serious reviews for the other receivers from Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo...and justfocus on the new models, we really appreciate and think it's helpful. I don't like to read some review about receivers which are about to be discontinued. What is the point right?

You told me you posted my email on this forum but I didn't find it until now and already bought the 5ES. I really like this forum where the staffs actually read our posts and reply promptly.
Thanks alot.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Robert,

I didn't mean to say that Disco Mode is the same as 4-channel stereo. &nbsp;If you read the article, all I'm stating is that it is a great mode for playing in parties when you want maximum output from your rear speakers, and don't care too much about the acoustics. &nbsp;Its definately, not an audiophile mode, but it has its purpose.

Thanks for your response to our article.

Cheers</font>

<font color='#000000'>Ooppp, I meant Steve, not Stevie. Sorry.
thanks.</font>

[Clint DeBoer]

<font color='#000080'>I think he answers to Steve, Stevie, or anything over 85 decibels... &nbsp; &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':laugh:'></font>

<font color='#000000'>Steve,
this is very interesting article, somehow unique because &nbsp;it shows how high end equipment differs from hi fi. However, when comparing the 5ES to the 4ES, details should be given. When saying that one unit is better than another, you should provide good reasons (e.g. a listening comparison like you did nicely for the Sony TA-E9000ES &nbsp;vs 4ES). &nbsp;Or leave it out of the article.

BTW, the weight comparison between the two units is not correct:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore, when comparing the STR-DA4ES to the older, and much better STR-DA5ES, you will notice the following. The 4ES offers discrete amplifiers for 7.1 (two rear centers), where as the 5ES offered discrete amplifiers for 6.1 (one rear center). Interestingly, when Sony added the extra power amplifier to the 4ES to support the two rear centers, the overall weight decreased by about 7-lbs. </td></tr></table>

According to the manuals, there is a weight increase of one kilogram (4ES: 21 Kg, 5ES: 20 Kg).



I am not saying that the 5ES is not better than the new 4ES as said in the article. I just don't know.

Bruno</font>

<font color='#000000'><img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> I agree with BrunoB, like i said in my previous reply i listen to both and could not here a difference between the the two. That is why i wanted you to rate the 4ES sound seperation in digital mode compared to the 5ES and the 9000ES.

Also wanted you to rate the build quality as well, let's say on a scale 1-10 on both areas. I apologize if i was not clear. Can you go into greater detail on what makes the 5ES a much better reciever than the 4ES? Thx.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Also the optical connector on my 5ES doesn't look like the picture as shown by crutchfield.com but the same as the 4ES picture. It's not fragile as you described but it's very hard to remove the optical cable. It's the same connector but instead of the plugging type cover, it's just flip up when you insert the cable just as the VCR when you insert the tape.
I sacrified the new features of the 4ES: 12V triggers, 7th discrete amplifier.. because Steve said the 5ES is better. I would appreciate if you confirm and point out why the 5ES is better.</font>

<font color='#000000'>hey guys,

aren't you sorry that you "listen" to somebody else's opinion and thereafter get stuck with a product which raises doubts in your mind? it's obvious that one of the reasons for which steve said the 5ES is better than the 4ES is the processing method (SHARC vs. RISC). oh, and the infamous optical connectors ... out of sheer curiosity and taking advantage of the return policy of the store from where I've got my 4ES, I plugged and unplugged an optical cable for about 100 times. Well, nothing broke, trap doors did not fly away or anything like that. Maybe I'm very lucky, who knows? now, it is clear that the 4ES is heavier than the 5ES (1 kilo) and not lighter by 7 lbs. as Steve presented in his "long researched and awaited" review .... this should tell you something ... so think for yourself, don't listen to what others have to say ... buy both receivers and listen to them ... then either return or sell the receiver you don't want on eBay ... last 5ESs sold on eBay fetched on average about $730 about two weeks ago. there are none available at the time of my posting .. you may even make a profit if you buy from oade.com (heard that they have great deals on the remaining stock) and sell on eBay ... just kidding of course, but the message remains: do your homework, and take with a grain of salt whatever others are saying ....</font>

<font color='#000000'>Yeah, I am thinking of selling my 5ES on ebay. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Greetings everyone,

There are many good responses to our Article in this forum, and I appreciate all the feedback. &nbsp;There is indeed, a weight discrepancy in the article and I apologize. &nbsp;It will be updated soon, and thanks for pointing it out. &nbsp;It seems that I took the wrong information when comparing the weights. &nbsp;It just shows that we are not all robots here and sometimes, errors occur.

I wish to point out the following information on the power supplies of the 5ES and 4ES. &nbsp;

1) The 4ES and 5ES both use 71V x 15,000 micro-Farad Caps. &nbsp;As the capacitors are used to store energy to supply a stable DC voltage to the Amplifiers, in theory, if all 7 channels are being driven simultaneously, there is less headroom in the 4ES than the 5ES due to that extra 7th channel. &nbsp;

2) &nbsp;The 5ES uses the Nichicon Gold Tune caps, which are known to be a high quality, audiophile capacitor with low loss. &nbsp;I provided a hotlink to these caps in the article for everyone to check out. &nbsp;The new 4ES does not use the Nichicon Caps, but instead, they are generic caps. &nbsp;

3) &nbsp;Also, the 5ES uses a Linear Rap Transformer, much like that of the 9000ES, but the 4ES uses a Brando Transformer, which again, is another form of a generic brand component.

4) &nbsp;The 5ES is SHARC based Processor and the 4ES is RISC, and there are many Audiophiles holding to the fact that a SHARC system offers improved performance.

There is a difference in the level of performance between the two units, but it is not going to be as dramatic as comparing an alarm clock to a Yamaha Z1 Receiver. &nbsp;The differences will be subtle and may require attention listening for details with different sources in order to appreciate.

I don't understand why anyone feels like they are loosing features between the two units. &nbsp;For example, I just finished evaluating a pair of quad-pole speakers in the two surround channels, and there was more than enough sound to fill my entire 18-foot wide room. &nbsp;

If any wants to improve their surround channel response, consider purchasing speakers that image better and you’ll be amazed at the difference.

In addition, I may be able to understand wanting to add one mid-center rear, especially if you are in a very large (wide) room. &nbsp;Keeping in mind that most DVD recordings still do not have this discrete channel in their recordings, you will only be getting a mono blend of the rear surround speakers. &nbsp;

What I have a hard time justifying, is adding two mono rear center channel speakers to a Home Theater System. &nbsp;In most cases, you don’t need to have two mono center channels if you need any at all.

Furthermore, if any of you are not satisfied with their purchase of the 5ES over the 4ES, based on the review, I will be happy to swap it out with you. &nbsp;I have a brand new 4ES at my disposal and would love to trade it for the 5ES.


Best Regards,
Stevie D</font>

<font color='#000000'>Ok Steve ( Steve = &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':angry:'> ). So far I am OK with the 5ES: features( 2 multichannel input, 2rd,3rd rooms), better bass than before, look nice... But I missed Yamaha DSPs.
&nbsp;- Here is what my Dad complained about:
&nbsp; &nbsp;- not as loud as the old one
&nbsp; &nbsp;- difficult to navigate the source since it doesn't has the pointer on the LCD to tell which way to go.
&nbsp; &nbsp;- the tuner preset buttons are so thin and difficult to access if the front pannel door is close.
&nbsp;
Also the manual is not that great.

I need help in the setup, PLEASE HELP.
- Look like I need to adjust the EQ in order to get the better sounding?
- Can we assign each EQ setting to each individual source?
- Why I need to turn the Sony volume halfway when I listen to the music but only 3/10 of my yamaha( 85W/ch). Is it because the sony has the digital control? fine tune?
- Does it has both DPL and DPL2? I don't see it shows DPL2 but just DPL light up.
- When watching the movie in 5.1 DD/DTS what DSP should I use or just press AFD? normal surroundsound?
- Should I set: Cinema Studio Ex. A,B,C when watching 5.1 DD/DTS movie?

Thanks alot.</font>

[norberth]

<font color='#000000'>Hello again Steve and all,

Your clarifications are very welcome but I have a couple of questions for you.
We may all agree here that in Europe the DA5ES is called VA555ES. How come Home Cinema Choice (well respected british magazine) mentions in its review of the above mentioned receiver that the transformer is ... BANDO?
Here is the article I'm talking about ... (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/testbench/Amplifiers/Sony/SonySTR-VA555ES.php)
Why is it that the mentioned DSP chips are SONY's 2 x CXD9616 (same as in DA4ES) and one CXD9617 (CXD9718 in the DA4ES)? Is the European version different from the American one?

Just wondering ...</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Greetings folks,

I really want to point out a few things about the Battle of the Sony article that seems to be misunderstood. &nbsp;First of all, just about any review you read that has an opinion in it, is based on some subjectivity on behalf of the author. &nbsp;No matter if it's in a magazine or on the Internet. &nbsp;When I wrote this article, there is indeed some subjectivity in it as well. &nbsp;However, there are also sound Engineering principals, and they may not be explained enough in the article as to cause some confusion among this forum.

For example, we did not elaborate on how we conducted the test, and so I understand why some of you may doubt the results. &nbsp;For that reason, I wish to elaborate in this forum.

Room Acoustics
The room we conducted the listening study in, was acoustically dampened by use of sound panels. &nbsp;Sound panels were placed throughout the room in an effort to eliminate echo. &nbsp;This allows for quantifiable detection of even the most minor sound variations as they are not lost in bad room acoustics. &nbsp;

Speaker System
The speakers used to test the Processors/Receivers, are a top line set of upgraded LSE speakers form RBH that include their high end, Status Acoustic Drivers. &nbsp;These speakers are the most accurate, flat speakers we have found in their class and we've been using them for a base line reference system for 3 years. &nbsp;We are extremely familiar with the sound characteristics of these speakers as we've listened to countless audio tracks with them. &nbsp;This helps us recognize even minor differences in the sound characteristics between different processors/receivers placed in this set up.

Audio Tracks
We played a variety of different formats, from 2-channel CD's, DVD-Audio, DTS, SACD and so forth. &nbsp;We listened to a number of songs and movie sound tracks, on countless speakers and Home Theater systems. &nbsp;All of the ears present and listening during this test, were familiar with the sound characteristics of each song or sound track and therefore, were able to determine any minor differences.

Procedures
During this comparison, we then spent countless hours switching back and forth between each unit and paying meticulous attention to the sound quality of each track, from the vocals, studio acoustics, instruments and so on, all in an effort to hear any minor sound difference between units. &nbsp;We played these tracks over and over again, switching back and forth between units, and there were definite differences in the level of details we heard in each set up, as discussed in the article.

Conclusion
Keeping in mind that the test was conducted in an ideal environment, with top of the line equipment. &nbsp;The group of people conducting the test all agreed that there were subtle sound differences (with the amount of detail, dynamics and so forth) between each unit, as discussed in the article. &nbsp;

As some of you go out and purchase these units, you will place them in completely different rooms (no-sound panels, for example), use them on completely different speakers, and may not even use an amplifier. &nbsp;That being the case, the differences in performance will be even more subtle than what we heard in the 'perfect' set up of our reference system.

No one should read this article and expect to A/B these units together and hear a difference that will be like comparing an alarm clock radio to a Yamaha Z1. &nbsp;The differences are subtle as indicated above.

Personally, if it were me buying a unit, I would go for the one that offered improved performance in an ideal test set up, instead of worrying about having two mono center channel speakers. &nbsp;

That’s what went into this article. &nbsp;We admit that there is some subjectivity in our article, but we tried to minimize it with sound testing procedures. &nbsp;Thank you all for reading.

Cheers,
Stevie D</font>

[turbo56k]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Guest : I need help in the setup, PLEASE HELP.
- Look like I need to adjust the EQ in order to get the better sounding?
- Can we assign each EQ setting to each individual source?
- Why I need to turn the Sony volume halfway when I listen to the music but only 3/10 of my yamaha( 85W/ch). Is it because the sony has the digital control? fine tune?
- Does it has both DPL and DPL2? I don't see it shows DPL2 but just DPL light up.
- When watching the movie in 5.1 DD/DTS what DSP should I use or just press AFD? normal surroundsound?
- Should I set: Cinema Studio Ex. A,B,C when watching 5.1 DD/DTS movie?

Thanks alot.
Hi,

According to the manual if you want to play DPL II you have to choose normal surround and than press "surround" button on the from panel use the scroll to choose the desired surround mode.

If you set ADF for 5.1 source, you're only getting the straight or pure 5.1 recording. However if you choose cinema ex etc..... it will take the 5.1 source and re-create a different ambience, often sounds better than ADF IMHO. I personally prefer Virtual Multi Rear for action movie because it really helps the rear to difuse the sound, cant really tell where the speakers are, and Cinema Ex C for drama or movies involve alot of dialogues.

Regards,
Turbo56k</font>

<font color='#000000'>Today I just found out one thing that the Sony ES doesn't do which is I really need it: keeps the last video source if I switch to audio only source. Which means I can't watch the sat, tv while someone else listens to the radio or cd. I set the "V pwer" to "always on" still doesn't help.
Please confirm.
Soooo <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('></font>

[steve]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Guest : <font color='#000000'>*- Here is what my Dad complained about:
* *- not as loud as the old one
* *- difficult to navigate the source since it doesn't has the pointer on the LCD to tell which way to go.
* *- the tuner preset buttons are so thin and difficult to access if the front pannel door is close.
*
Also the manual is not that great.</font>
<font color='#000000'>ctransj,

I have to agree with you and your dad about navigating through the Sony menues. &nbsp;Both the 5ES and the 4ES are challenging to set up, and the remotes are no picknick to use either. &nbsp;I especially don't like the fact that you can't change speaker level volumes on the fly. &nbsp;

It does get better, though, if you use the on-screen display, instead of just the remote, and you may even consider buying a different, hometheater remote and programing some macros.

You are also correct in stating that the Sony manual isn't great. &nbsp;Almost every Sony product I own seems to be that way. &nbsp;They tech support staff is a big help at times, so you may want to call them and ask some questions.

Cheers!</font>

[GermanMan]

<font color='#000000'>Let me say that after having read the Sony 9000/4 comparison article, I need to be a bit critical of it on several fronts.

Not only the giant error on the weight of the two units, and the actual analysis and conclusion based on that mistaken information, but other grammatical errors in the article itself lead me to believe that this article was not properly proof-read and the technical analysis is suspect. &nbsp;If you have the two units in house, the way to compare the weights is to get a balance and actually weigh the two units and not rely on either the manuals or some figures you got from somewhere.

The impression I received as I read the article was one that the reviewers clearly favored the 9000 series and their technology and had a clear bias against the 4/7 series right from the start. &nbsp;Whether that bias is justified and correct is unknown, but it certainly taints the reasoning and conclusions in the article.

The technical analysis is totally unconvincing from an engineering standpoint. &nbsp;

Power Supplies: in the article the ratings are stated as 15,000 milli-Farads (that is what mF means) and in the discussion earlier, they are now rated at 15,000 micro-Farads (which would be 15 milli-Farads). &nbsp;Proofreading? &nbsp;Which is correct? &nbsp;In any case, the purpose of the capacitors, and the power supply itself, is to deliver stable, clean power to the rest of the circuitry. &nbsp;IF the power supply does that properly, then the nature of the components used to do this is of no concern. &nbsp;Using expensive brand name capacitors compared to less expensive brand capacitors does not mean the power is cleaner at the other end. &nbsp;After all, a capacitor is a very simple device - it stores charge and releases it. &nbsp;While the quality of a capacitors ingredients and construction may affect the temperature stability and current delivering ability of the unit, if the cheapest capacitor on the market will do the job, then you gain nothing by using a more expensive capacitor other than bragging that you have more expensive capacitors in your box. &nbsp;It was not clear from the article the capacitors, or the winding on the transformers made any difference - in fact, the review did indicate that the quality of the audio, under a silent signal, was just as expected -silent. &nbsp;No hum, hiss, etc. &nbsp;It would seem that the power supply and the electrical isolation of the 4ES does the job. &nbsp;The technology of the time of the 5ES or 9000 series design may have demanded more expensive components, or those components are just overkill.

On vibration - much was made about the lack of absorbing material on many of the parts in the 4ES. &nbsp;I'm not familiar with the intricacies of audiophile components, however, from an electrical standpoint, I fail to see HOW a vibration in a solid-state component could in any way, translate into an acoustical signal effect on the output side. &nbsp;Whether the case lid dings and rings or just goes thump when you flick it with your finger really would appear to be irrelevant in a unit that is a digital signal processor where such vibrations, in my mind, have no effect on the signal quality. &nbsp;While turntables and other sources that require mechanical interfaces to extract/deliver sound clearly can suffer from the transfer of vibration, in digital processing systems, the data is a pure digital data stream until the point that it is converted to an analog signal. &nbsp;This happens in pre-amp at the outputs or on the input side, you have some analog signal until it’s converted by an ADC into digital data for processing. &nbsp;Even in the analog form, I cannot see how the signal is affected by vibration. &nbsp;Are you telling me the movement of an electrical wire will affect the signal it is transmitting? &nbsp;I am skeptical but very much open to any engineering information to the contrary. &nbsp;I may be missing some vital knowledge here, so please educate me.

On to the processors: SHARC vs. RISC. &nbsp;RISC is indeed a processor with a limited number of machine instructions constrained by the fact that each instruction MUST be able to be executed within a defined limit - say one processor clock cycle. &nbsp;This means each instruction runs as quickly as is possible on the hardware level. &nbsp;Any higher-level instructions missing from a CISC processor can still be accomplished by executing several RISC instructions. &nbsp;RISC processing is more efficient processing at the cpu level - it has distinct advantages when properly applied to the correct problems. &nbsp;SHARC, as described is a specialized processor architecture for special processing applications. &nbsp;I would conclude that SHARC is even more specialized for digital audio signal processing than the more general purpose RISC processor. &nbsp;Now, is one preferable to the other? &nbsp;Not if they both do the job. &nbsp;If the necessary processing of the digital signal to perform the ‘massaging’ of the data stream can be accomplished in the time frame allowed by the RISC processor, then nothing can be gained by using a more dedicated SHARC processor. &nbsp;It is digital data and if you take 6 and multiply it by 7, it makes absolutely no difference if I do it on my old 386 or use IBM's DEEP BLUE supercomputer, the result is still 42 (although there was that one problem on the original Pentiums from Intel (CISC processors) where that may have actually resulted in 42.0000012345 ;) Just kidding.) &nbsp;However, digital signal processing in these components IS a real-time effort. &nbsp;The data stream comes in one end and goes out the other end at a fixed clock frequency to feed the digital-to-analog converts. &nbsp;Any processing of the digital stream MUST be finished on any sample or sequence of samples of the digital audio data stream within the time allotted to it. &nbsp;This means that a more specialized processor certainly could, and I would expect, SHOULD be able perform more processing on a digital data stream within a given time window than a general RISC processor. &nbsp;However, the question is - is it needed. &nbsp;The only way to answer if the SHARC vs. RISC solutions from Sony are different in terms of quality is to look at the source code for the algorithms that do the processing on the SHARC and RISC units in conjunction with those processor specifications. &nbsp;IF the RISC solution uses some short cuts or does not process the signal to the same 'resolution' as the SHARC processor, then there could be some loss in processing ability of the RISC vs. the SHARC engines. &nbsp;However, I'd imagine such detailed analysis was not performed (since apparently the units could not even be disassembled enough to identify the processor on the bottom of the board)- nor would I expect it to be performed. &nbsp;But to suggest that on the surface, the SHARC system is better than the RISC system is misleading. &nbsp;Any differences in the acoustic output may well come from any other number of subsystems in the unit other than the processors. &nbsp;Without a detailed analysis, it is just not possible to make that call. &nbsp;Saying that SHARC systems are better than RISC systems is not sound on an engineering basis -they may well both be performing the same data manipulation?

About 7.1- First off, let me say that every single channel is MONO (we all know that, right?). &nbsp;Each speaker is a 'mono channel speaker'. &nbsp;The 4ES's 7.1 processing provides a left and a right rear channel speaker output, where as 6.1 provides only a single rear channel output. &nbsp;The review states that you only get the same signal sent to the two speakers, so you are not getting discrete signal on the two rear channels. &nbsp;The question I've had for a while and that is not answered by the review is, what is the capacity of the system in terms of separate right and left rear channels. &nbsp;If fed with a 6.1 channel signal that only has one rear channel, then, of course, that same signal is sent to both rear channels on a 7.1 setup. &nbsp;However, is the 4ES capable of sending two different signals to the two rear channels or is the hardware wired such that you will always only get the same signal to both the rear channel speakers? &nbsp;IF the digital DTS audio stream comes in as a 7.1 encoded signal, carrying 2 separate rear channels, will the 4ES reproduce them correctly? After all, DTS does define a 7.1 signal (http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.6.2). &nbsp;Just because no current DVD media includes it does not mean it will not show up. &nbsp;Of course, just because we may foolishly buy a 7.1 capable system today, does not mean we will ever be able to use that feature. &nbsp;There may never be DTS 7.1 media with two different rear channels. However the question remains, IF the DTS signal contains 7.1 info - that is two different rear channel signals - then will the 4ES decode them properly and thus provide two different signals on the rear outputs? &nbsp;This is a 'bet' people have to decide for themselves if they want to make it. &nbsp;Since I only buy a new unit every 10 years or so, if there has been a technological advance this is a decision I will need to make in the near future.

Connectors - I would imagine that most users would set up their systems and pretty much leave them alone. &nbsp;Optical digital connections are in no way inferior to coax digital. &nbsp;Also, the 9000ES does not provide any Component Video support (and so the lack of on screen display over component video is really a mute point). &nbsp;Component video switching (no processing here) may be of interest to those who will be using a component video out from their dvd players as well as from a dish receiver or HDTV tuner in the future.

About the audio quality perceived by the reviewers, I wonder how much of that difference may be related to feeling comfortable with the established system they have had for a while. &nbsp;It is clear that the reviewers felt there was a difference in the two systems output. &nbsp;Which is better, that’s a different question. &nbsp;If someone has listened to the sound from a 9000ES system for many years that can become familiar and any new feel or change to the sound can be considered substandard. &nbsp;However, different does not equate to wrong. &nbsp;Each person has their own tastes and as the reviewers rightly pointed out, each home setup will be different and so it is indeed a personal choice as to which system one feels happy with. &nbsp;Auditioning a system at HOME in the proper room where it will be used is the ideal solution - but we cannot always do that. &nbsp;To some, the 'correct' way to listen to something is as the original composer/mixer/studio/director/artist intended it to be. &nbsp;If I can get the system to put out the same signals the studios put into the source, I'm happy. &nbsp;Others want to tune the studio source to their specific listening preferences. &nbsp;So long as YOU, the listener are happy, that is all that counts.

In all, the review seemed biased from the beginning and as it approached each step of the analysis and the explanations themselves were unconvincing on a technical level. &nbsp;All in all I think I ended up with MORE questions in my mind than less after reading the review. &nbsp;I would say it was not very helpful and only serves to make owners or buyers of the 9000ES feel good. &nbsp;Whether that result is justified is not answered.


Finally let me say that I may have made mistakes in my assesments in this post, so if anyone finds an error, please do post about it.

For what its worth, to those who might care to know: I hold a Bachelors degree in Computer Engineering, a Masters in Electrical Engineering a PhD in Computer Science and am an licensed Professional Engineer in the field of Electrical Engineering in the United States. &nbsp;I am not an audiophile nor do I dig deeply into the technical details of audio or video equipment until such time as I need to make a purchasing decision - such as in the near future. &nbsp;I do, however, like to make very informed purchases and purchase the right equipment for the money I spend. &nbsp;I will buy a $50 Timex or $200 Casio watch with the latest technological features and will never spend several thousands of dollars on a Rolex or similar watch - which I'd feel I'd have to use the rest of my life. &nbsp; This way I can take advantage of the latest that technology has to offer.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Good post and lots of details. *I'm going to need some time to digest all this and respond. *There are some issues you bring up that I don't necessarily agree with, but there are some good points in your write up that I do. *Perhaps the review isn't clear in some of these details.

I'll try to answer soon. *Thanks for the post.

Oh, I realize each channel is mono, thats what a single channel is. *What I am trying to state is that the two center rear channels (7.1) in the 4ES are the same signal. *They have descrete amplifiers, but they are not descrete, seperate channels. *They simply run a mono-signal to each of the speakers. That being the case, I personally question the necessity of having two rear centers with the same exact sound coming from them. *Again, I point out that if you have quality rear surround speakers that image well, the rears should sound as full as one would wish. *Just my though.

Also, the capacitors in the power supply are rated in micro-farads (obviously), not milli-farads. &nbsp;The typo is due to conversion from a .doc file to HTML and will be fixed soon. &nbsp;Thanks for the reminder.</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>First of all, it seems I have to correct both of you gents.
A 5.1 DD/DTS soundtrack is not composed of any 'mono' channels. *Each channel is discrete containing its own mixed part of the master soundtrack.
6.1 or 7.1, are basically identical, only 7.1 offers two rear amps to feed two speakers, instead of one, with the EXACT same signal. *DTS ES does offer the ability for an additional discrete rear channel, hence 6.1,7.1, but there is hardly any software yet available with that format. *Thus DD EX, which is a far more common format for DVD, offers a non discrete rear channel that is matrixed off of the left and right surround channels, much like Prologic does when deriving a front center channel. *Personally, I feel if your rear speakers image well, there is little point of having rear center speakers in most home theater applications. *However, that is my opinion. *Other people have different opinions. *Who is to say who is right?

Germanman, Steve's objective was mostly to point ouf the hardware differences between the units to help justify how his subjective listening results correllated. *It is obvious that Sony took more care in the consruction of the 9000ES and 5ES Recievers, and rightfully so, considering these units are more expensive than the 4ES. *In my opinion, Sony is notorious for creating a benchmark product, establishing its reputation, then cost reducing it to offer more affordable, and in most cases, lower performing models to target the mainstream.
The quality of the power supply, preamplifier section, and digital processing components all play a role in determining the overall performance of the product. *Since we don't have schematics of these units, and associated firmware code, it is difficult to analyze in detail to that level, to determine how much of a quantifiable difference the sum of the parts truly is.

Your tone suggests personal bias in this review. *I really don't understand how you have drawn that conclusion. *The author of the article has no loyalties to any of these products. *We are always searching for the best value in audio/video and thus choose those type of components to adorn our reference systems. *This is one of the perks we have as the owners of this website. *Our hard work, comprised of endless hours of research, writing, and working with vendors is what affords us such luxaries. *If you still prefer one of the units that we didn't recommend, by all means get it! *If you are unhappy with our conclusions, then take them with a grain of salt and purchase based on your own conclusions/preferences. *When I go out and buy products, I read reviews as reference material only, not as a biblical source. *Choose what is right for your application. *In the end, we would prefer our fans to be happy with products that they choose based on our recommendations, and their own conclusions. *I always tell people to not just blindly follow ours, or any reviewers advice.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Interestingly enough, I NEVER SAID SHARC WAS BETTER THAN RISC. *

If you read the article, what I actually state is the following:

((("Many HiFi Enthusiasts believe SHARC Processors are superior to RISC. *To debate this issue is beyond the scope of this article. *Provided instead, is information on how the differences apply to the units within this article.")))

If you note, I clearly indicate that "Many HiFi Enthusiasts believe," I never said that I believe. *Also, I do acknowledge that debating this issue is beyond the scope of this article. *So I don't understand the attack about what I said, when I never said it. *

I realize it is not necessarily the technology (RISC or SHARC), but the implementation that is important. *Without schematics and design code, there is no way of telling which is better. *But if you notice, I provided a hotlinks to other sites that discuss RISC and SHARC Processors. *The point being that the article is intended to be dynamic and provide other places to go for research.

Secondly, we did not set forth with a biased toward the 9000ES. *Instead, we used it is as a baseline of comparison, as every comparison requires some form of a benchmark to compare from. *The ‘biased’ view probably comes from the fact that the sound quality between the units was so dramatic that I couldn’t help but notice and mention it.

Without electrical schematics, and design diagrams, it is hard to really discuss the 'Engineering' and Electrical design of these units. *That's why the level of detail some of you are looking for isn't found within this very brief, but informative article.

What you will notice in the article is a wealth of information with hotlinks to almost every critical IC within the 4ES and the 9000ES. *This was found through endless hours of research and also by contacting IC Manufacturers and Distributors. *Most of the information is not readily available and nowhere that I am aware of, is it even posted on the Internet in any other review of these units. *

I was hoping that some readers would spend time researching these hotlinks and discussing it within the context of this forum, and therefore, maybe provide additional Engineering Design principals about the 9000ES, 5ES and the 4ES. *Instead, a few people seem to be spending their time correcting spelling and bragging about Engineering backgrounds.

The article was intended to by dynamic, thus the hotlinks. *As indicated in another comment I made above, I will correct the weight discrepancy, I will change the symbol from milli-Farads to micro-Farads, and make a few more corrections that were kindly pointed out. *Even so, I’m sure some will find flaw’s as they will never be happy unless they do.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Steve,
I posted a response in the other thread about the Toshiba IC's that you identified as being the DSP processors, the TC9274x. In fact, this is an analog switch, used for selecting a source from amoung the various A/V inputs. I posted a link to the Toshiba data sheet in the other thread. The DSPs are in fact the Sony CDX9616's. As this is a proprietary in-house DSP, I have no info for it, and will not likely be able to find any. It is likely based on a SHARC or SHARC-like architechture (i.e. a DSP processor with some more advanced I/O capabilities).

I would also like to respond to your comment regarding 6.1 vs 7.1 channels, especiallly wrt the 4ES:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I am trying to state is that the two center rear channels (7.1) in the 4ES are the same signal. &nbsp;They have descrete amplifiers, but they are not descrete, seperate channels. &nbsp;They simply run a mono-signal to each of the speakers. </td></tr></table>
The 4ES' DCS (Digital Cinema Sound) has several &quot;virtual&quot; modes where the receiver creates the illusion of speakers that are not there. I will not argue as to the usefullness of these modes, but I will say that the receiver will send a different signal to the left and right surround-back speakers in order to create this acoustic illusion. The reproduce the same channel from the source, but the extra information added by the DSP is distinct between the two. This is one reason why the two channels of amplification are necessary.

The other reason for two channels of amplification is that the 4ES will intelligently use the surround back speakers, if a pair of them are connected, while in other surround modes, such as DD/dts 5.1 or pro-logic. The left surround-back speaker will duplicate the left surround speaker (same for he right) when a separate surround-back channel is not avaiable. Note that if a virtual mode is also used, all four speakers will play a distinct signal, even though some/all are reproducing the same &quot;channel&quot; from the source. So, even without the virtual modes, the two surround-back speakers will sometimes reproduce two different signals (the normal left and right surround channels). Additionally, the Digital Concert Hall A &amp; B modes (used for 2-channel music sources) are now fully 7.1 channel capable.</font>

[randyb]

<font color='#000000'>As I stated in the other thread.
Germanman and Aaronb,

This is just a suggestion, but rather than make this a personal debate about intent, I would much rather see you both help develope this forum. &nbsp;You both seem to have extensive knowledge and maybe a private email to Gene and Steve could find some kind of use for your knowledge (i.e. reviews of technical details before an article is posted, etc.). &nbsp;Just my 2 cents</font>

[GermanMan]

<font color='#000000'>Well I knew that had to come. &nbsp;I figured I would either get razzed for putting credentials on the post or someone would say something along the lines of 'you only have 5 posts, what the heck do you know about hifi'. &nbsp;Its the price of speaking in a forum.


While I have no doubt that the 9000/5 units are surely better constructed than the 4/7 units, it is not clear that the better construction is justifiable in terms of the use and performance of the devices. &nbsp;Whether vibrations on the ICs affect thier signal processing ability or having a more sturdy and solid case affects what comes from the speakers... I am not convinced. &nbsp;The same goes for why I doubt that the $5000 Rolex or Tag watch does not really keep any better time than my $40 Timex.

The thing that has not yet been clarified is the true nature of the rear amps and channels in the 7.1 operating environment. &nbsp;It has been stated that the DSP modes allow two rear channels to output slighly different signals to the rear speakers as a result of processing the other signals available. &nbsp;Its also stated that the right rear and left rear speakers can get the right surround and left surround signals, respectively, when listening to a 5.1 source. &nbsp;That alone, indicates that the two channels are indeed separate from the back side of the DSP processing stage. &nbsp;It has also been stated and is clear that when listening to a source that only has a single rear channel of data in it, that the two rear channels will be fed with the same signal. &nbsp;What I would really like to know is if there was a 7.1 source (say DTS ES ) which actually had 2 separate rear channels encoded on them, would a 7.1 sytem like the 4/7 units process them and send those discrete signals to the output producing different signals being sent to the two rear channel speakers. &nbsp;This depends partly on what the DTS standard defines (is discrete 7.1 in it), as well as how a processor implements it (does the 4ES fully support a 7.1 signal source or does it just offer some interesting ways of listening to 5.1 and 6.1 sources by supplying a 7th amplified channel?). &nbsp;I suppose this cannot be tested yet, as there are no 7.1 dvd sources out there, or we cannot get the information from the design engineers at Sony.

If indeed, the 4ES just provides for new ways of listening to 5.1 and 6.1 sources, then the 7.1 aspects are somewhat overrated and it may well be worth sticking with the 6.1 systems. &nbsp;Certainly, if you have a nice 5.1 or 6.1 system already, its not worth considering an upgrade. &nbsp;However, if you are going to buy a whole new system and trying to decide between a 5.1/6.1/7.1 system, then it is critical to know, not only what can the system do with the exisiting software (how does it make 5.1/6.1 sources sound) but what could it do with future software (if and when some 7.1 stuff comes out).

I think this sort of heated debate with folks disagreeing virgously with each other and/or challenging each other is exactly why one has forums. &nbsp;A forum with some posted info and a bunch of ' I agree' or 'good job' responses is really not too usefull.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Aron,

Once again a valid and nice post. *Thanks Aron B. *And Germman, it's nice to have you back. *

Just to continue on a point, the 7.1 channel in the 4ES is basically done with DSP effects, as you have pointed out.

The majority of DVD's are formatted with 5.1 with only a few, tiny percentage in 6.1 (DVD-EX, DTS-ES); but there are no commercially available formats that are 7.1 discrete. *

Any uniqueness in sound is from processing effects into these two channels from other channels, such as the rear surrounds. *Yamaha has been doing something similar to this for a number of years with their front effect speakers, so it’s not new technology, so to speak. *Its just being adapted to the rear centers now in the case of 7.1. *

Granted, there may be some sound effects that perhaps enhance the overall surround mode experience in a few applications, but for all practical purposes, 6.1 and 7.1 are the same, identical channel with only DSP changing their sound. *

On a separate note, I just finished reviewing a pair of quad-pole, rear channel speakers on a standard 5.1 system (the article on these beauties is forthcoming). *With many of the DVD's we listened to, these rear speakers alone, were enough to fill the entire room adequately, and did not leave any of us longing for a rear center or two rear centers for that matter.

I’ve now heard that THX is coming out with new spec which requires speakers on the ceiling. *All I have to say is, when is it all going to end? *I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, but I do have to ask, how many more speakers do these Manufacturers expect us to buy before it becomes ridiculous. *Before long, there will be processors/receivers that even have speaker channels for sidewalls (oh, wait, there is), and everyone is going to want that as well. *

At some point, we should realize that some of this is a scam to get us, the Consumers, to buy more speakers and get rid of our older, but still valid, equipment. *

Upon our recent review of several new Receivers, including the 4ES, I have safely concluded that I have no desire to outdate my 9000ES at this time. *I am content with 5.1, and the much better build/sound quality. *

Besides, I don’t know about you guys, but my wife won’t allow me to have two more rear center speakers, or speakers on the ceiling, or sidewall for that matter. *I’ve already been told that I’m pushing my luck with the rear speakers you see in the Reference System pictures under our Reference System section. *

I’m glad we can keep these debates friendly, and this post is not intended to argue or anger anyone, except maybe some of the Manufacturers.

Thanks,
Stevie D</font>

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there are no commercially available formats that are 7.1 discrete</td></tr></table>
I have read that the current spec for &quot;dts-ES discrete&quot; allows for 7.1 in addition to 6.1 discrete channels. I am not aware of any software (DVD's, dts-CD's, etc.) that takes advantage of this capability, though. I also cannot comment on whether the current crop of dts-ES discrete equipped receivers/pre-pros can decode the 7.1 channels.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Germman,

To clarify something, I'm not stating that sound dampening the chassis will improve the sound quality going to the speaker. *What I mean is as follows:

Sound dampening the chassis on the 9000ES is intended to keep it from vibrating during movies or music, and therefore, preventing it from creating a vibrating sound of its own. *

I know this happens because I've noticed on many occasions, when there is cranking bass, a number of electronics in my rack, especially my new Wide Screen TV, vibrate and/or ring. *These vibrations and rings are annoying and interfere with my focus of the sound track.

On the 9000ES, the chassis is sound dampened. *Knowing this assures me that at least one piece of equipment in my rack wont ring when I’m playing music or movies. *I wish I could say that for my new wide screen TV. *Every time there is any bass at all, the whole cabinet vibrates louder than the speakers.

As for Sony placing foam on the IC’s in the 9000, I am curious as to why they did this too. *As it is located internally, and no one will really see it, I can't imagine it is done as a marketing scam. *For them to actually place this material on most of the IC's is costly, and therefore, must have a reason. *I don't know what that reason actually is, nor do I mean to imply it in the article, but it must be justified or they wouldn't have done it.

Without more information or knowledge of the reason, I can only assume it has to do with sound isolation from vibration, but again, I'm not sure. *Maybe someone in the forum can help out.

As for your comment about a good debate in the forum, I'm in favor. *I just don't like the personal bashing, so lets not do that anymore please : *) *We can accomplish much more by disagreeing as friends then as enemies.

Thanks,
Stevie D</font>

[randyb]

<font color='#000080'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I knew that had to come. *I figured I would either get razzed for putting credentials on the post or someone would say something along the lines of 'you only have 5 posts, what the heck do you know about hifi'. *Its the price of speaking in a forum.</td></tr></table>

I think the credentials were appropriate. *I think it does add credibility to your remarks on technical matters. *I hope you all continue a friendly debate. *I mean it is not like you are debating whether a Sony is better than a Yamaha is better than a Denon is better than-well you get the picture. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>Sorry about that man. *Your correct, it does help to identify credentials, and I didn’t mean to mock you about it. *In fact, GDS, myself and all the writers on this site, posted a staff bio with our credentials under the staff bios section.

When things get heated, it's easy to criticize people, but I think we will all do better recognizing each others strengths and weaknesses and helping create an informative forum.

Stevie D</font>

<font color='#000000'>Hello!

I just purchased a STR-DA4ES for a whopping $641 from a NYC source.

I have listened to the many recievers out there and for the most part CANNOT hear any real substantial differences in my listening / home theater room.

The 4ES has worked well, is extremely flexible and has more bells and whistles than I will ever use.

I have an old PS AUDIO 200C I crank up and I still cant hear any great difference!!

I will most likely never use 6.1 or 7.1..so the missing headroom from the amp section is even more non-existent..

I would not hesitate to bu a 4ES again, especially at the price of $641~

Alex
Raleigh
, N.C. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

[jamvog]

<font color='#000000'>How does the remote of the 4ES and the 5ES compare? Which comes out on top? Also is there infoformation on how you tested these products? What was tested how it was hooked up etc.. I tend to like my STR-DA4ES but that's probably because my last reciever was a STR-G3. So if I can get around with that remote I think I can work most anything. I do have a question about the 6.1 decoders available on the 4ES. The manual states on the Auto / Matrix 6.1 that it has a 6.1 discrete decorder built-in. Does the 9000ES have this feature? I was not sure if the 4ES has it exactly. But I thought it did. The opinion I have of the review is price. Bang for the buck as they say. The 4ES is a reciever the 9000ES is a pre amp correct? So in earlier posts the units are about the same cost minus the ampliers needed to get sound from the 9000ES. So I still would not put them in same class even know they are ES products they are different components.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>I don't remember the remote for the 5ES, as it's been some time since I've seen it. *I can tell you that the 4ES remote is not very user friendly and is challenging to navigate through, especially in the dark when watching movies. *Worst thing about it is you can not change speaker levels ‘on the fly.’

The way the products were tested was explained in another forum section. *In general, we connect the units to a full set of very accurate, flat speakers. *We then listened to a multitude of different audio tracks from CD's to SACD's to DVD-A's to DTS and so forth. *Once we had a sense of what an individual track (songs or movies) sounded like, with respect to overall quality, dynamics and tonal character; we switched back to the other unit and listened again. *We repeated this process until we were confident we identified the tonal differences between the units. *It was a lengthy, careful process that we feel helped us to identify the different tonal characteristics of the receivers/processors capabilities.

As for putting the 4ES and the 9000ES in the same category, that's not really the purpose of the article. *Instead, it is somewhat of a comparison of the old (9000ES without 6.1 or 7.1, the 5ES without 7.1), to the new (4ES with 7.1). *The comparison is where we identify some potential shortcomings in the 4ES design and build quality.

The 4ES is a good receiver for the money. *Most of the tonal quality differences between the other units are minor and may only be noticeable on 'high end' speakers. *My personal conclusion though, is the 7.1 is not really a positive addition to warrant some of the other changes in the 4ES compared to the 5ES or the 9000ES, such as the user interface, amplifier section (of the 4ES), and so forth. *To me, it’s just not worth having two center channel rear speakers.

To answer your last question, the 9000ES does not have discrete 6.1. *With the software upgrade, it does offer a Virtual 6.1 Matrix Sound-field, but it is not discrete. *It just enhances the sound coming from the 5.1 surround speakers. *I have actually found this mode to be extremely useful when listening to 2-channel movies from Satellite. *It really separates the sound and gives the sense of 5.1/6.1 Surround and it does it very well.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Stevie,

Thanks for your ongoing responses in this forum. &nbsp;My primary interest in the DA4ES / DA5ES debate is based on Analog performance. &nbsp;I have an SACD player, and a DVD-A player, and each outputs only analog. &nbsp;Because of this, I like the Sony recievers for having 2 multi-channel analog inputs. &nbsp;No other reciever, of any brand, seems to have this feature.

That said, I was willing to live with cable swapping if necessary if I didn't like the sound of the Sony reciever. &nbsp;However I went to several local audio shops, and compared the sound of the DA5ES to many other recievers, and found in general I liked it better than anything in the &lt;$1500 range. &nbsp;

In your review, you mention that the DA4ES did not perform as well as the other pre/pros you were comparing it with in direct analog mode. &nbsp;Is this not true of the DA5ES, namely is it truly on par with the TA-E9000ES as an analog pre/pro?

Thank you,
Jeremy</font>

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope someone in the forum can clarify if the 4ES uses a digital volume control or not. *If it does, then like the 9000ES, it does not have a real analog bi-pass.
</td></tr></table>
Yes, the 4ES does have a true analog volume control. The sound is not digitised or quantised by the volume control section; it is merely attentuated in the analog domain.

Note that the volume control used on it implemented using digitally-controlled analog potentiometers. The same is true of the 5ES which shares much of the same architecture. Do not mistake this for a &quot;digital&quot; volume control, which would consist of re-calculating digital samples based on an attenuation factor, prior to D/A conversion. The 9000ES has a more unique architecture as you know, and although it is not as closely related to the 4ES as the 5ES is, it also has an analog volume control, implemented in a similar way. The &quot;analog direct&quot; switch will completely bypass the A/D and D/A converters. Note that the volume control on the 9000ES comes after the D/A converters, as indicated by the signal-flow diagrams in the service manual. I will have to reference my copy of the service manual (at home) if you want further details on it.

On the 4ES, the volume dial is a speed-sensitive 'jog' dial, whereas on the 5ES, it is a position-based dial. That means that you have to watch the display, or set the level by ear on the 4ES, but on the 5ES, you can set it (roughly) by positioning the volume dial in a certain spot. It also means that the motor and the associated noise and granularity of control is eliminated, for remote control volume changes on the 4ES.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>AaronB,

Great information and I appreciate you clarifying analog bypass and volume control. *I am the Mechanical Engineer in the group and try to save these questions/issues for Gene as he is the Electrical Engineer.

It seems you have quite a bit of information at your disposal. *I've actually been looking for schematic info on the 9000ES and the 4ES/5ES. *If you have anything your willing to share with us, please drop me an e-mail.

Thanks for your continued support and information provided on these forums. *Your a big help.

Regards,

Stevie D</font>

<font color='#000000'>stevie,
I should be more careful... I may have been speaking about the 777ES receiver when I said that it has an analog volume control section, like the 5ES and 4ES receivers after it. I'll check the service manuals when I get home, and I'll send some links to you so that you can download them as well. The 9000ES preamp just may have some kind of fancy digital volume control, which would be somewhat surprising and unfortunate as it would prevent any kind of true analog bypass mode, and would restrict the frequency response of the analog inputs (based on the sampling frequency).</font>

<font color='#000000'>Update:
The TA-E9000ES pre-amp does digitize all inputs (at 48 kHz) without exception; it has no analog bypass mode. The volume control is digital, and is incorporated into the sophisticated pulse D/A converter system. In addition, the gain of certain analog circuitry is adjusted by the system based on the volume setting to achieve higher resolution from the D/A and higher S/N Ratio. This pre-amp would be a poor choice if listening to (2-channel) SACD or DVD-A.

The 777ES receiver (in many ways very similar to the E9000ES pre-amp) uses a simpler system with a digitally-controlled analog potentiometers after the DAC. This allows true analog bypass without A/D and D/A conversion, enabling wider frequency response and increased fidelity with sources such as SACD or DVD-A. It may also result in a lower SNR (compared to the E9000ES) especially at lower volumes.

The 5ES receiver is similar to the 777ES w.r.t. volume control.

The 4ES receiver is again similar, but also incorporates a system which Sony calls &quot;Optimum Preamplification&quot;. Similar to the E9000ES, this will adjust the gain of certain analog circuitry in order to acheive a better Signal to Noise Ratio, especially at low volumes. Sony claims a 10 dB improvement in SNR over previous receivers (presumably the 3ES &amp; 5ES) The adjustment step is also 0.5 dB instead of the 5ES' 1.0 dB, for more precise adjustments.</font>

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>AaronB,

All the posts and articles I've seen on the 9000ES, mine included, you are the first person that I am aware of, to point out that the 9000ES does not have a true analog bi-pass.

This is indeed, disappointing to know, but I'm glad you were able to find it out and post it on the forum.

This explains why the 9000ES sounds a bit bright in &quot;analog&quot; mode. &nbsp;Very interesting.

Thanks,
Stevie D</font>

<font color='#000000'>Thank-you to everyone for their enthusiasm on this topic. I have finally decided to upgrade my ProLogic amp to 5.1, since I am mixing in the format for television now,as well as film (Odyssey 5, on Showtime). This forum has been a great help. The SHARC chip (if in fact it is in the 5ES) has a very good reputation in the pro audio field, and is inside the Studer D950 we use for mixing (40 bit floating). I believe another console manufacturer has switched to this DSP as well.
When looking for a receiver, it has been interesting to see all the &quot;formats&quot; available. If not already mentioned here, the 7.1 format (in cinema, I guess) really refers to Sony's SDDS, with an inner left and right of center. I find it a bit confusing when manufacturers call 6.1 with seven amplifiers, 7.1. This is incorrect, as the same program exists in the center rear speakers, in 6.1. In 5.1, the left and right rear program gets divided between the center rears (as one post mentioned). I'm sure just as I purchase my new receiver (which is likely to be the 5ES, as we get a good deal from Sony for all the HD gear our video guys have had to buy) a new &quot;format&quot; will come out. Tom Holman (Mr. THX) told us at an AES conference that the ideal speaker setup to cover the full sound field should be 10.2. Yes, ten speakers around the listener, and two subs. Fun stuff.</font>

[Clint DeBoer]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Guest : <font color='#000000'>Tom Holman (Mr. THX) told us at an AES conference that the ideal speaker setup to cover the full sound field should be 10.2. Yes, ten speakers around the listener, and two subs. Fun stuff.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Sheesh... when will these guys quit? &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

[RLA]

<font color='#000000'>I vote for 10.1 now &nbsp;
I have just about finished upgrading my clients to 7.1
<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

<font color='#000000'>Would anyone know where a Sony STR-DA90ESG might compare to others? Or a general comparison of the DA5ES, DA50ES, V555ES and other series of receivers in the sony line?

I bought this model because of Vision Touch, most people bought the DA80ESG because it doesn't have it. These were the first series of ES receivers with DD. I think it uses 24 bit processors instead of 32. I want to check the list from the article to what I find in my receiver. I know the power supply is marked ES and the caps are 15,000uf. I've like it but the amplifier is a downgrade from what I owned previous but still OK. There is a 5.1 out for upgraded Amp but no 5.1 in and no 96/24 in.</font>