2 channel A/V system - analogue vs. digital & Amp Questions

[Pancho Urbano]

Hi, folks.

I'm enjoying the Samsung Slimfit 30" CRT HDTV at full 1080i using free over the air digital content here in San Diego - just absolutely beautiful picture - no problems at all. I also us the Samsung upconverting (1080) DVDR for movies. THe DVDR and TV are currently connecrted with HDMI. We have a baby daughter, so I'm under strict instructions to avoid exposed cables and wire around the house. The TV is on a danish midcentruy credenza - space is limited and aesthetics are important with my lovely wife.

Now I finally want to amplify the DVD/TV into some quality monitors! I have Rosewood Onix XL-S and some orphan Michaura M55s ready to rock - I'm looking for 2-channel amplification advice. Here are the choices I've constructed within budget:

AudioSource Amp 100 ($100, simple and slim - sub-par sound in comparison?)
Emotiva BPA-1 ($160, would have to switch inputs b/t TV & DVD, nice quality build and superior sound?)
Teac Legacy AG-H800 ($250 second hand [nib], tripath, digital reciever)
Panasonic XR-57 (digital, multifunctional, fugly and probably too big)
NAD 325BEE ($400, nice looking & good size, NAD sound worth the money?)

Would toslink on the Teac & Panasonic really sound that much better than analogue on the Emotiva, NAD, or even the AudioSource? I really like the looks of the Emotiva and I've long wanted to begin building an NAD system. Sound quality is most important, however.

Any comparative thoughts or new ideas are appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Pancho Urbano]

bump - anyone out there?

 

[MDS]

Would toslink on the Teac & Panasonic really sound that much better than analogue on the Emotiva, NAD, or even the AudioSource? I really like the looks of the Emotiva and I've long wanted to begin building an NAD system.

The Teac and Panasonic are receivers and AudioSource is definitely an amp. Are the Emotiva and NAD amps as well? The reason I ask is that your question sounds like you want to pick one of those choices but you know you need some kind of pre-amp, right? You can't just use one of the amps directly to your speakers.

Optical audio connections allow you to send the digital data directly to the receiver/pre-amp for processing so will sound 'better' than an analog connection if the dacs in the receiver are better than the dacs in your dvd player. I think it is nearly always impossible to tell any difference but digital should be preferred because it allows you to use further processing features of the receiver.

The digital amps (Panasonic and Teac) refer to the type of amplifier and not whether or not you must use digital audio connections to them.

 

[Pancho Urbano]

Thanks for your input. Yes, the Teac and Panasonic are true receivers - which is probably just cream on the crop, as all I need is an integrated amp. The NAD and Emotiva are integrated amps - the Emotiva only has one input which means I would physically have to change the connections when switching between the DVD player and the TV.

In terms of digital vs. analogue - I know the Teac and Panasonic would keep a true digital signial directly to the speakers (including TV programs, which come over in HD), but would the Panasonic (big box brand) and/or Teac (better sound from same manufacturers of Esoteric, tripath) necessarily sound BETTER than the more mid-fi "higher end" sound of NAD or Emotiva?

In other words, can a digital signal from a mass market manufacturer necessarily sound better than regular solid state amplification from mid-fi companies?

Also, I know the AudioSource is an amp - but is it an integrated amp (has volume knob)? Have no idea how this thing sounds. I like the NAD sound and the Emotiva is highly regarded.

Thanks!

 

[Seth=L]

The Panasonic and Teac are receivers (processor, preamp, and amplifier in one unit)

The NAD is an integrated amplifier (preamp and amplifier)

Audiosource and Emotivia are amplifiers (only intended to be used if you have a preamp, which you don't have at the moment) you can scratch these two off your list.

Preamps include volume control, switching abilities, and tonal control. Processors decode digital information, and amplifiers amplifier electrical signals.

The sound that comes from your speakers is and always will be analog, laws of physics. Because speakers work off of electric current that is the only way they will work.

 

[Pancho Urbano]

clarifications

Hi.

Thanks for your thoughts. I think I should clarify my choices and basic questions.

Here is the situation:
I have a TVD/DVD that I want to amplify beyond the TV speakers. I can connect the DVD/TV through analogue connections (l/r cable) to the Emotiva and NAD integrated amps - right?

I can also connect the TV/DVD digitally (toslink) to the Panasonic and Teac, and enjoy the added features of a radio tuner and digital processor.

Now, to my questions:
Which of these units would sound best? I'm driving Onix xl-s speakers.
Would a digital connections through mass-market products necessarily sound better than analogue connections into the Emotiva or NAD - positioned as mid-fi components?

Let's throw out the AudioSource apm, which is causing confusion. FYI - The Emotiva BPA-1 is an integrated amplifier - with only one input.

Any further comments are welcome.

 

[MDS]

Thanks for the clarification. Now I have another question.

When you say you want to amplify the TV beyond the speakers, do you mean that the TV will be the source of audio (using its internal cable tuner - instead of a cable box) and you want to send that audio to a receiver or integrated amp to be amplified and played on your speakers?

If so, then I don't think the question should be whether analog or digital connections sound better. The question should be what type of audio do you want to send to the receiver/integrated amp. If you use the L (white) and R (red) analog audio OUT of the TV you can use either of those receivers or the integrated amp. If the TV has a digital audio out, you can use either of the receivers but I take it not the integrated amp as it only has analog inputs.

The difference is the format of the audio signal. Cable does broadcast DD 2.0 and DD 5.1 as well as some stations in PCM. If you use the analog outs of the TV, the tv will be decoding and downmixing those signals to 2 channel analog (the same way a dvd player would if use analog outputs). Now your surround sound is gone unless you use a matrix decoder like PLII that can take that 2 channel analog signal and expand it to 5.1.

If you use the digital audio out from the TV, the receiver can do the decoding and you'll also get to use any further processing features it has, such as Late Night mode. That is why I said before that I think digital connections should be preferred.

So I would pick one of the receivers. Yes it will sound just as good as using the analog connections to the integrated amp, provided you don't have a giant room for which the receiver's amplification is insufficient.

 

[Seth=L]

If you are willing to spend $400 on the NAD, why not get a nicer Yamaha or Denon?

 

[mouettus]

NAD all the way baby... I actually own the 320BEE and jesus christ... PURE sound! worth the money!!

 

[Pancho Urbano]

When you say you want to amplify the TV beyond the speakers, do you mean that the TV will be the source of audio (using its internal cable tuner - instead of a cable box) and you want to send that audio to a receiver or integrated amp to be amplified and played on your speakers?
.

Thanks - you are getting at my question. I don't have cable - I enjoy terrestrial digital programs on my local network affiliates for free. No cable box, not subscription. Along with the digital picture, digital audio is transmitted, as far as I know. Therefore, I do indeed have the option of toslink digital out from the TV to the Teac or panasonic. I *also* have the option of walking away from digital sound altogether and linking the TV to the integrated amp (NAD or Emotiva in this case) by way of analogue audio cables.

So - I have the choice here and I'm looking for the best sound.

As for the Yamaha or Denon - wouldn't the NAD be superior to both of these in terms of audio quality? I have heard the 320BEE, and I really like the sound. I just don't know how it would compare.

 

[MDS]

The only comment I will make on receiver sound quality is that the receiver has very little to do with sound quality (room and speakers are far more important). So pick the one with the right mix of features, ease-of-use, and price.

I still think a digital connection is the way to go. If you are getting digital audio from the broadcast it would be best to send that straight to whichever receiver you choose so it can do all of the processing.

 

[Seth=L]

Thanks - you are getting at my question. I don't have cable - I enjoy terrestrial digital programs on my local network affiliates for free. No cable box, not subscription. Along with the digital picture, digital audio is transmitted, as far as I know. Therefore, I do indeed have the option of toslink digital out from the TV to the Teac or panasonic. I *also* have the option of walking away from digital sound altogether and linking the TV to the integrated amp (NAD or Emotiva in this case) by way of analogue audio cables.

So - I have the choice here and I'm looking for the best sound.

As for the Yamaha or Denon - wouldn't the NAD be superior to both of these in terms of audio quality? I have heard the 320BEE, and I really like the sound. I just don't know how it would compare.

It can't hurt to listen to Yamahas and Denons in the $400-500 range. I own a Yamaha, it sounds excellent. Like MDS said, speakers and room acoustics will make the biggest impact on SQ in your room. The preamp section of the NAD may be a tad better than Yamaha or Denon. It may not be noticable either, you just have to listen for yourself and find out. I find the Digital switching amps in the Panasonic and Teac (no personal experiance with the Teac in particular) to be lacking in quality.

 

[Pancho Urbano]

Yes - Yamaha especially seems to be turning up the quality. I've heard they are adding phono stages back to their receivers. I have a Technics SA-DA 15 for now driving my stereo setup. I don't know if you remember those (there was also an "8" and "10" in that particular line, and they were available in very dark brown as well as gold), but they were the last of the Technics-badged receivers that Matsushita made (panasonic's parent company and Japanese electronic giant) before they devoted Technics to DJ turntables.

I've enjoyed the Technics very much, but I've ben jonesing for some higher quality stuff. NAD is mid-fi, I know. But a step up, yes?

I just have to decide of analogue connection to the NAD would be preferable to the Teac. I have ruled out the Panasonic - the Teac is smaller (small form factor is a plus for me), and uses the tripath chip. So, back to my intial questions - analogue through the NAD, or digital through the Teac. Part of the issue is that if I use analogue, the TV itself would do the sound decoding, and while the picture on the Samsung TV is unbelievable, I don't necessarily trust the sound processing. Perhaps I should just pass the digital signal through via toslink to the Teac.

 

[mouettus]

from which source does your toslink come from? should be a cable box or satellite receiver. you should have analog (out) connections from these equipment as well. Then just plug it into your NAD (analog). That's what I'm doing right now and I can't seem to hear the difference between digital or analog connections.

If you're going the surround route, then, you have no choice. But if you're enjoying 2 channel sound, then you can safely choose either one of the possibilities.

 

[Pancho Urbano]

from which source does your toslink come from? should be a cable box or satellite receiver.

Content is terrestrial HD broadcast through the TV itself, which indeed has toslink and analogue out. Trying to enjoy 2 channel. Maybe there is no difference. Any further thoughts?

 

[blekenbleu]

Content is terrestrial HD broadcast through the TV itself, which indeed has toslink and analogue out. Trying to enjoy 2 channel. Maybe there is no difference. Any further thoughts?

Televisions tend to be prodigous sources of electrical noise.
To accomodate this, they have shielding and radio frequency
coupling to the power line in order to shunt this energy and meet
FCC requirements. This makes TV signal grounds relatively noisy.
TOSlink completely isolates (television) electrical noise among
components, so long as those components are not also connected
for video. Some ampifiers and receivers are more robust than others against
electromagnetic interference, just as some televisions are more offensive.