Sony 9000ES vs Sony STR-DA4ES [Archive] - Audioholics Home Theater Forums

View Full Version : Sony 9000ES vs Sony STR-DA4ES

steve

09-01-2002, 10:48 PM

OK folks, its done.  If your in this section of the forum, that means you passed the article.  It is now released on the front page.

This is old news, check out the article!!!!

One thing I will let out to wet your appetites is that the 4ES does NOT use a SHARC Processor.

Sony cleverly slipped out the more expensive, higher quality SHARC Processor found in the 5ES and the 9000ES, and replaced it with a less expensive RISC Processor.  As usual, they are living off the names of the higher quality predecessors to market their new products.

There are a number of nice features about the new Sony STR-DA4ES and 7ES, but there are also many shortcomings that will be discussed in detail when the review is completed. For starters, I am convinced that Sony has lost touch with user interface and remote controls.  They are spending too much time and money to add the LCD displays, but most of the practical access buttons and commands are not easy to find.

The article has taken longer than expected because of the challenge it was finding all the specs on the new Sony Processors and D/A Converters found in the 4ES and 7ES.  I had to go to a multiple Manufacturers Representative to find the spec sheets and managed to convince them to send me a CD with all the info on all the Sony IC's.  The pertinent info will indeed be included in the upcoming article.  

Sorry for the delay, but I'm putting everything I can find into this article and comparison.

Also, this review would not be possible if it wasn't the generosity of Jim Oade at Oade Brothers (www.oade.com). Equipment is not cheap and having someone like Jim, who is interested in participating in the pursuit of 'the truth in audio,' is a blessing to all us Audioholics.  

Thanks Jim : )

If you're in the market for equipment at a competitive price, check them out.  Let them know that Audioholics sent you and they'll set you up with an extra discount.

Stevie D
Audioholics Staff

Oade Brothers (http://www.oade.com)

RLA

09-02-2002, 12:18 AM

Hi
I am looking forward to this review
the 9000 is indeed a formidable piece and was ahead of its time when released *The 4ES looks good on paper for the $$
Will you be *bypassing the internal amps of the 4ES and comparing only the pre amp sections? *I hope the 4ES is as good or better than the DA5ES it replaces.
Ray

steve

09-04-2002, 10:54 AM

Greetings Ray,

I'm glad to see your interest.  It is my goal to use the Sherbourn Amplifier for both the processor and receiver in 5 channel modes.  I also intend to compare both units in two channel by using the 4ES amplifier for both sources.

This will give me an idea of how the Sony Amplifier is, and also a fair test of both units in an isolated environment in two channel stereo.

I'm about 1/2 way through the article and have some great pictures and things to share.  I'm thinking of also including some pictures and thoughts about the remote controls.

Regards,
Stevie D

GermanMan

09-12-2002, 05:05 PM

If possible, it would be nice to not and differences, improvements and or problems of the 4ES as compared to the 5ES as well.

09-13-2002, 08:10 AM

Regarding the DA4ES review, it would be great if comparisons could be made against the DA7ES (quality of power supply, sound, etc). Also, the only Sony ever really lauded by the critics was the classic DA777ES. Do these new units have the "push-pull" power supply, do they stack up against the old unit in terms of quality of sound? How do they guard against being under-powered now that there are 7 channels on the same supply vs.5?
 I would think the DA4ES would be quite a value if it's competetive in build and sound quality to the Denon 3802/4802 and the Onkyo 898.
 Please hurry with this review, I am wanting to buy a new receiver and the Sony DA4 and DA7 are 2 of my considerations. Way to go.

steve

09-13-2002, 03:34 PM

Paul,

I encourage you to register when you post comments so that we may respond directly to you and answer your questions : )

For an update, we have found the sound quality of the 4ES a bit weak and lacking.  The Analog direct and the Digital modes tend to be a bit lifeless and bright.  

The article is taking longer than expected because most of the processors and D/A converters are Sony products and there is no public spec's available.  I have a source that is sending me the information and hope to have it included in the article soon.

As for your receiver decision, I still think it's best to go sepearates, but on a budget, I would consider other receivers before the 4 and 7 ES's.

Sony tends to come out with a first run, such as the 5ES, with the best of manufacturing techniques.  They then pull it from the market, and come out with something that lives off the name, but lacks the quality.  At this point, we feel the 4ES fits this model.  Our only info on the 7ES now is that it has more power, but is built the same way as the 4ES.  From what we can tell, the 4ES is not a push pull configuration, but the 9000ES definately is.  Once we verify these issues, the article will be posted.  We are making sure the information within it is correct though.

Please keep looking at this site for more info.  The article will be done sooooooon.  I promise.

Cheers!

RLA

09-13-2002, 05:05 PM

Hi Steve
Can you get a good look at the DAC on the 4ES or is it
burried? If so can you tell me what the production
number is on the SHARC if it is printed ? Also is there any thing inbetween the Analog inputs and the Volume Control
on the 4ES?or does it bypass also the firmware ver #
Thanks
Ray

steve

09-18-2002, 11:41 AM

Ray,

I have been able to access most of the chips in the 4ES and all this will be included in my article.  I also have most of them tagged with the manufacturer specifications.  

I'm still trying to verify the truth in this, but it appears that the 4ES does NOT use a SHARC Processor as does the 9000ES.  I have searched high and low, short of pulling the darn thing apart, and can not find any SHARC Processor in this unit.  I believe is is now being done with a Sony proprietary unit, which I will find the specs on.

Regards,
Stevie D

jason69

09-20-2002, 02:39 PM

Just waiting on what you guys have to say about the DA4ES?
I am a happy owner of the 7ES, have had it about a week and watched Fifth Element (SuperBit) &   Monsters Inc.  which blew me away!!! A must have DVD. HT sounds Great, But a little disappointed in 2 Channel for music. and 2 channel A+B room. It shuts off the Sub "unlike my STRDA80ES" Haven't worked with it enough on music and need advise on configuring the 'Mains B&W 604s2" to large or small, I tend to go with large for Music & Video, but am I straining my amp and speakers They are really jumping when I crank it up. If I do config. small on HT it sounds great when I lower to 40Hz. One concern though, Is there a gap if I set my sub at 40Hz my receiver at 40Hz? because the 604 frequency response specs. say 44Hz - 20kHz. Is there a 4Hz gap? Do I need to set the Sub at 50 or 60 just to have a little overlap? Or am I ok because I should be looking at the freq. range spec. which is -6db at 34Hz and 30hz.  
One more thing I'm having a little trouble with the remote but getting better, the manual is poor. The display dimly lit. I wish it was as bright & blue as my RMAV3000.

09-20-2002, 04:03 PM

Hi guys,

Here are my two cents, in any case not to be taken as expert advice but mere observations....
I've had previously the STR-DB930 for about 2 years. When these new receivers came up decided to upgrade. Got a DA-4ES from J&R for $639 + tax and played with it for the past three weeks. Today I went again to J&R and a salesman was nice enough to let me peek inside the DA-7ES. So here it goes:
They both weigh about the same, which is also specified in their common manual. They have an identical power supply except for the fact that the 7ES has the ES logo on top of it. They use the same Sanken SAP17 transistors, mounted on the same heat sinks. Capacitance rated at 30000 microF, the same as my old STR-DB930. Soundwise the DA-4ES is good but not great. I also strongly suspect that it does not have even 2/3 of the rated power. What else? Huge amounts of heat emanating from the heatsinks; I was forced to purchase another TV stand and add a fan. Things are just a bit cooler now. I keep wondering how does SONY justify a $1300 price difference between the 4 and 7. Probably is pure marketing. Also from a quality build point of view, this new generation continues SONY's declining trend. (use cheaper components, charge customers more) So you will say, why did you get the SONY then? Well, I've been pleased with their DVP-S7700 DVD player, XA-20ES CD player and some other products as well. Always wondered why people never talk seriously about the ES line of receivers. Now I know why ... And I also agree with the previous reviewer who said that SONY builds a great product first than takes it off the market and profits from its good reputation by selling a ton of quasi junk instead.

Cheers and happy listening ... and can't wait for the "pro" opinion

GermanMan

09-20-2002, 07:48 PM

That ES designation on the power supply in the 7es vs the 4es may be where the extra 10watts of power come from (or whatever the difference between the 2 models was) in that they test the power supplies they get for delivery and stability and cleanliness of power and those that make the cuttoff get the ES logo and go into the 7es and those that don't go into the 4es without the log.  Same sort of thing as microprocessor production and the clock frequency they are rated at.

Given the price of some of the sony remotes (as replacements) the giant tablet sized looking 2-way remote that comes with the 7es may well bump up the cost $500 (you get a 2nd room remote too with the 7es - did you find out or does it say in the book - is that remote an RF device such that you could use it in a 2nd room that is out of line of sight?)

For me, achieving maxiumum rated power has never been an interest, as I've never run my amp anywhere near the top of its range - my current old amp the STR-AV1020, runs with the knob no higher than around 30% for the most part unless I'm listening to a low level audio signal such as Comedy Central on cable or from my laptop - and then its up at 50%.  Of course that box runs hot too - must be a sony thing.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing - running hot - so long as the design is right that the head dissipation keeps the temperature in that proper operating range the circuits are designed for, its fine.  Might there not also be a problem if the ciruit is running too cool such that the charactceristics of the capacitive and inductive and even semi-conductor components change from their designed performance, affecting the resulting output?

Anyhow, I'm too anxious about this review wich is now 1 week overdue on the initial mid-September projected date.  See what happens when you set a date - you always get in trouble over it.  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

steve

09-22-2002, 09:09 PM

Dear GermanMan,

Thanks for pointing out the delay in the article.  Most of the problem I had is that there is no information posted on the new Processors and DA Converters in the 4ES.  I checked high and low and even contacted Sony Semiconducters.

Appearantly, they don't want us to have the info.  That's OK though, I found a way of getting it, but it took me over a week of busting my hump.

It will all pan out in the end.  Thanks for everyones patience.  Believe me when I tell you, it's coming.

Cheers

09-23-2002, 04:15 AM

I'm from Australia and recently just bought a STR-VA555ES which is DA5ES in USA. I would be interested in know how the d4es do against the D5es if thats possible. I just dont understand how Sony can offer more features at a lesser price, I always suspects that they did some costing cutting to the newer models but just dont know where.

In Sydney the Da5es cost $3500 RRP, I bought mine for $2500. The new Da4es cost less than the Da5es according to my dealer but he did not give the exact amount.

One of the reason I bought the Da5es was because of the review conducted here on audioholics. I'm quite happy with my investment. My system consist of Tannoy Saturn S60 mains, Saturn S6c Centre, Tannoy MX-2 Surrounds, and MK MX105 Sub  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>.

One last thing, I never have any problems with the Da5s heating up, runs quite cool after a few movies.

Thanks in advance

steve

09-23-2002, 11:50 AM

Greetings to the Australian,

Audioholics was extremely pleased with the 5ES.  You are correct that Sony does have a habbit marketing the first product with superior electronics and quality at a good price, then offering model spin offs that live off the name.

The 4ES is a great Receiver, no doubt, but in our initial reviews, we find it lacking compared to the 5ES.  This makes sense if you think of how Sony markets their products, as mentioned above. The 5ES is no longer available or we would have included it in our review.  I do know for sure that the Semiconductors in the 5ES are not the same as what's in the 4ES.

RLA

09-26-2002, 01:16 AM

Hi Jason
The 604 is not a full range speaker,There Advertised  cut off is -3db at 44 Hz  They are closer to 50Hz in the room
I would set them to small and set the crossover to  60hz
on the Sony.If your subwoofer has a crossover bypass
use it  If not turn the subwoofers crossover to the max
position This will prevent crossover cascading and you will be
utilizing the very good bass management that the Sony has
I have mains that will play to 27Hz flat  they are not full range speakers either and I set them to small  If you dont
like the way the bass sounds like this then your subwoofer
is more than likely the problem.Keep in mind that when you
select the Multi Channel input  a full range full bandwidth
signal will be sent to all speakers regardless of settings.
True full range speakers will play down in the teens
There are a few that will do this  but they are Mega $$
speakers
Happy Listening
Ray

jason69

09-26-2002, 12:54 PM

Thank You Ray,

Great info, and I thought I had full range towers. I have been tinkering with my 7ES on music and a few dvd's all weekend and I could not get it to sound as good as my STRDA-80ES, as far as bass goes. it just doesn't have the tight punch. I was trying mostly (small speakers). In the set up, the 7ES was kicked down to 40Hz & I was tweaking the sub dial between 40Hz & 50Hz. that could be why I had to dial in more volume on the sub and attenuate the 7es sub  setting to +6db.

By any chance do you have a suggestion where I should start the Hz/kHz for the mids & treble? The amp adjustable range is (MID 198 Hz to 10 kHz) and (TREBLE 1.0 kHz to 10 kHz)

I also like to keep the center the same because I thought the B&W LCR-6s2 was a  somewhat a full range center, being it's a 2&1/2 way.

Thanks again…

Jason

Tai

09-26-2002, 09:18 PM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>jason69 : By any chance do you have a suggestion where I should start the Hz/kHz for the mids & treble? The amp adjustable range is (MID 198 Hz to 10 kHz) and (TREBLE 1.0 kHz to 10 kHz)
I would be interested in teawking with the equaliser too, if anybody body can help  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

Thanks in advance

RLA

09-26-2002, 11:53 PM

Hi
The Sony has a very good EQ with lots of adjustability
however I would caution the use of the EQ to correct room or
placement problems,Fix thoes first then do very minor tweeking a DB or two at the most with the EQ
Everyones room is different so it is impossible to make EQ
adjustment reccomendations without doing  Room Mode
and Room Profile  computations  I spend countless hours
hip deep in my model software just to get basic rooms
tuned correctly Room construction,Size,Materials,Glass,Floors
HVAC,Doors,Furniture,and system are just a few factors <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>
Cheers Ray

steve

09-28-2002, 06:16 PM

I know I've been promising for too long now about this article, but it really is almost done.  Most of my problem has been finding the correct information on the IC's used in the new 4ES.  I have most of them nailed down now.

One thing I will let out to wet your appetites is that the 4ES does NOT use a SHARC Processor.

Sony cleverly slipped out the more expensive, higher quality SHARC Processor found in the 5ES and the 9000ES, and replaced it with a less expensive RISC Processor.  As usual, they are living off the names of the higher quality predecessors to market their new products.

More detail on this, oh - much more, will be presented in the pending article.

Please Stay Tuned

RLA

09-29-2002, 12:26 AM

Hi All
I can tell you for sure you dont want to miss Steve's
Face off  Having read most of it I can say for sure it is
the most comprehensive in depth review I have read in a very long time lots of details  It is well worth the wait
Cheers Ray

10-17-2002, 01:00 AM

Hi,

Could anyone please tell me the exact weight of the DA5ES as specified in the user manual?

Thank you

10-23-2002, 03:11 PM

Just recently I've been on a hunt for a new Sony receiver.  I was originally looking at the STR-DA5ES, but since it was the older model, I planned on purchasing the STR-DA4ES instead.  After reading your article, Battle of the Sonys: TA-E9000ES vs. STR-DA4ES Part 1 and 2, I soon realized that my original plan would be best (STR-DA5ES).  I really enjoyed your article and found it to be very helpful in making my decision.  Thanks again and great article!

10-24-2002, 06:50 AM

Hi guys.
Just stumbled into Audioholics like an hr. ago and what fantastic reviews! The review between the TAE9000ES and STRDA4ES is informative and brilliant.
I am from NZ and like some of you guys in the forum, am looking for the right amp to buy.
I'm currently deciding on the 9000ES, VA555ES (DA5ES equivalent) or VA333ES (DA4ES equiv.) Trying to decide btwn the 333ES and 555ES is hard.
The reviews have shown that the DA5ES still sounds consistently better than the 4ES however, my listening experience with the NZ equivalent models have been much closer but the 333 lacks the consistency at higher volumes.
The 333ES offers several advantages over the 555ES. Could someone verify if this is true btwn the 4ES and 5ES?
STRVA333ES/4ES:
7.1 channel with 2 surround back spkrs
Spkr A+B option (N/A for VA555ES)
DTS96/24 decoding
Each spkr volume adjustable by 0.5dB increments (1dB for 555ES)
More intuitive button and function menu layout on front panel
New binding posts
New gen CXD-9718/9616 32 bit processors
Infinite turning digital volume control knob
ES power transformer similar to VA555ES (with ES logo designation)
New remote control (yes, looks the same as DA4ES. The 555ES' was different)

Something still sounds very right with the VA555ES and that's what's bugging me. However, I still can't decide especially when the 333ES is quite a lot cheaper AND with the addition of 7.1 channel amplification.
Is this the same situation you guys are facing over there?
I haven't had a listen to the 9000ES in over a year and will put it under consideration after having read the review an hour ago. I was blown away when I first listened to it. It had the most integrated and cohesive sound I've ever heard from any AV amplifier system - you're enclosed in a sphere of sound and the speakers are literally invisible.

GermanMan

10-25-2002, 07:36 PM

Just because this thread covers the same ground, I'll post my review of the review here as well:

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.  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.  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.  

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).  Proofreading?  Which is correct?  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.  IF the power supply does that properly, then the nature of the components used to do this is of no concern.  Using expensive brand name capacitors compared to less expensive brand capacitors does not mean the power is cleaner at the other end.  After all, a capacitor is a very simple device - it stores charge and releases it.  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.  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.  No hum, hiss, etc.  It would seem that the power supply and the electrical isolation of the 4ES does the job.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  Even in the analog form, I cannot see how the signal is affected by vibration.  Are you telling me the movement of an electrical wire will affect the signal it is transmitting?  I am skeptical but very much open to any engineering information to the contrary.  I may be missing some vital knowledge here, so please educate me.

On to the processors: SHARC vs. RISC.  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.  This means each instruction runs as quickly as is possible on the hardware level.  Any higher-level instructions missing from a CISC processor can still be accomplished by executing several RISC instructions.  RISC processing is more efficient processing at the cpu level - it has distinct advantages when properly applied to the correct problems.  SHARC, as described is a specialized processor architecture for special processing applications.  I would conclude that SHARC is even more specialized for digital audio signal processing than the more general purpose RISC processor.  Now, is one preferable to the other?  Not if they both do the job.  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.  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.)  However, digital signal processing in these components IS a real-time effort.  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.  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.  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.  However, the question is - is it needed.  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.  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.  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.  But to suggest that on the surface, the SHARC system is better than the RISC system is misleading.  Any differences in the acoustic output may well come from any other number of subsystems in the unit other than the processors.  Without a detailed analysis, it is just not possible to make that call.  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?).  Each speaker is a 'mono channel speaker'.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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?  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).  Just because no current DVD media includes it does not mean it will not show up.  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.  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?  This is a 'bet' people have to decide for themselves if they want to make it.  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.  Optical digital connections are in no way inferior to coax digital.  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).  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.  It is clear that the reviewers felt there was a difference in the two systems output.  Which is better, that’s a different question.  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.  However, different does not equate to wrong.  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.  Auditioning a system at HOME in the proper room where it will be used is the ideal solution - but we cannot always do that.  To some, the 'correct' way to listen to something is as the original composer/mixer/studio/director/artist intended it to be.  If I can get the system to put out the same signals the studios put into the source, I'm happy.  Others want to tune the studio source to their specific listening preferences.  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.  All in all I think I ended up with MORE questions in my mind than less after reading the review.  I would say it was not very helpful and only serves to make owners or buyers of the 9000ES feel good.  Whether that result is justified is not answered.

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.  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.  I do, however, like to make very informed purchases and purchase the right equipment for the money I spend.  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.   This way I can take advantage of the latest that technology has to offer.

RLA

10-25-2002, 08:44 PM

Hi
I only wish to make a few brief comments on this subject
first being in the custom a/v buisness and audio buisness for 15 years now I can say without hesitation that the latest
technology does not allways sound better
Build quality and system layout contribute a great deal to
the end result  One need only look to Lexicon DC series
and MC series preamps to see first hand what 5-7 year old
processing can do Logic 7 in perticular  now it may be that the 4ES is the equal of the 9000 I dont know I havent heard them side by side but I have heard the 4ES and the 5ES
using them as pre amps and perfered the 5ES to the 4ES
I attributed this to the change from the SHARC to the RICS
the 4ES sounded thinner and more electronic than the 5ES
the more I sit and think about it it may have more to do with the way the code was written for the 4ES  Has anyone else done the comparison? YMMV
Cheers Ray

10-26-2002, 05:53 PM

I would also like to chime in on the apparent bias against the 4. If you go to Oades site, they have wonderful articles posted about the technology incorporated in the 2002 line of ES receivers. Granted, it is written by Sony. My main point is simply this: the reviewer bases some of his complaints on the fact that this receiver will cost $1,000.00 to put on your rack at home. Unless you are foolish enough to shop @ Crutchfield, you will never pay that ridiculous amount. You can get the 4 delivered anywhere in the continental US for a little less than $700. I feel that makes a big difference, but then again I am so biased towards Sony ES stuff, my opinion probably doesn't count for much. I suspect I have too much of a tin ear to be considered a true "audiophile".

steve

10-28-2002, 09:44 PM

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.

10-29-2002, 11:57 AM

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
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</td></tr></table>

Stevie,
This is a tremendous asset, and greatly appreciated, but I completely missed the link to the pdf that provides the links and information. It was easy to miss... I this isn't the first time that I've re-skimmed the article to find this, as I have read a few times that this information was supposed to be in there.

It may be difficult to see it from the perspective of the writer of the acticle, but it did smack of bias, not necessarily toward the 9000, but against the 4ES. It read as if you had made up your mind long ago and were dissecting the unit in order to find and expose every potential flaw, without stopping to give praise where praise might be due. I get the sense that you bought (or auditioned) this receiver to replace your beloved 9000, and were so dissapointed with it and felt so burned about your purchase/experience that you felt you had to warn the world about it.

At the same time, however, much of the technical information provided is unique and valuable. The difference in build quality and component selection is readily apparent from your photos and descriptions. Other information that is presented as fact is really just opinion, such as (quoted from the review): "If using it as a Receiver, the power supply lacks the current capabilities to support high end speakers with the 7.1-channels it offers.". Did you measure the power output of the amp? Was the amp even considered within the scope of the review? No, I think, to both.

Re-reading the section on the processors, I have to agree that you did not directly state that SHARC processors are better than RISC. You did however give a strong implication that this is your opinion. I quote, "Unlike SHARC, where parallel-processing takes place in a single unit, RISC requires two or more interconnected processors, each of which executes a portion of the task.". Besides being inaccurate, this statement implies that SHARC processors and the systems they are in are better/faster. The fact is, a RISC processor is a CPU, a microprocessor. A SHARC processor is a DSP, with some other stuff to make it more useful (a DSP processor is pretty much a one-trick wonder). Neither, by nature of being based on RISC/SHARC architecture, can be said to be better, faster, more accurate, or more precise, or to provide better sound. Either architecture can provide very fast and very accurate DSP processing.

The 4ES can decode dts 96/24 and apply any of it's soundfields and other processing to the resulting multi-channel 96 kHz/24bit signal. The manuals for both the 9000 and 5ES state explicitly that turning on any soundfield with a 96/24 input signal will cause it to be downsampled to 48 kHz before any processing is performed (only 2-ch mode, with it's EQ, can be used with a 96/24 input). This implies that the processing power of the RISC-based 4ES is at least as good as and probably better than either of these older systems.

Overall, I would like to say that the review is valuable, and takes a uniquely in-depth "under the hood" type of look at the units. Many other reviewers would just looks at the bell and whistles and judge based on that.

10-29-2002, 12:11 PM

Stevie, I just found some valuable information to clarify and correct some of the technical data presented in your review and in the IC list for the 4ES.

The Toshiba part # TC9274 is not a processor at all (much less a RISC one). It is an analog switch. These two devices, and most likely the one on the other side of the board, are used as the switching devices for all the various audio and video inputs of the receiver.
This is based on:
http://www.chipdocs.com/pndecoder/datasheets/TOS/TC9274F.html
and
http://doc.semcon.toshiba.co.jp/pef_e/docweb123/e005455.pdf

10-29-2002, 12:16 PM

Sorry, that link to Toshiba's data shee was wrong. Here it is:

http://doc.semicon.toshiba.co.jp/pdf_e/docweb123/e005455.pdf

I believe that the two Sony CDX9616 are the 4ES' DSP chips. The CDX9718 is the DD/DTS decoder LSI IC.

randyb

10-29-2002, 01:33 PM

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.  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.).  Just my 2 cents. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

steve

10-29-2002, 04:02 PM

Now we are starting to communicate here.  

Aron B, I thank you for your last few posts.  You are providing valuable information so that we can all begin to discuss it here in this forum.

In the next week or so, I will gather these newly found facts and update the article.  In so doing, I will also tone down any unintentional 4ES bashing.  I don't mean to totally discredit the 4ES.  It is a ‘good’ receiver, even with the challenging user interface (remote and onscreen programming).  

I’m trying to uncover that Sony lessened some of the build quality in the 4ES from the 5ES, as shown not only by retail price, but by the components used within.  It's still my opinion that Sony has a tendency to mis-use the ES title at times, especially on replacement models.  Lets see if this is true.  

I will update the article once the dust settles with some of our mutual findings.

Again, many thanks to all who are participating in our new fact finding mission.

Stevie D

11-08-2002, 06:47 PM

For whoever is interested I found a DA5ES for sale on eBay. Click to see the auction.DA5ES for sale on eBay (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1396637700)

pastre

10-13-2007, 04:01 PM

Hi everyone
As of lately I am having serious trouble with surround sound on my Sony STR-DA4ES receiver. It would switch all my DVD and HD-Sat channels to 2 channel mode. After playing around with the remote and gazillions of buttons it sometimes switches back to the correct multichannel mode. While running in this initial wrong 2 channel mode the display reads 3/2.1 -> 2.0
I am about to throw the thing away... any help would greaty be appreciated
Thanks
Patrik

PENG

10-14-2007, 12:04 AM

Make sure you set the decode format to auto (see manual page 48). If nothing else work, try re-initiate the processor or flash it with the latest firmware.

Seth=L

10-14-2007, 12:13 AM