|   Technics SA DX1050 and Technics 950 are the same? | Eric923
Mar 8, 2002 10:22 PM | | Are these 2 models basically the same besides the extra video input and the s-video inputs? Meaning, do they produce exactly the same sound quality? I'm asking because I can't find a place with a good refund policy that carries the 1050, only the 950's. I also know one has the fan and one doesn't.
I already use the Panasonic RV41's own 5.1 decoder and a Technics SA AX910 5.1 ready receiver. I'm hoping by upgrading to the Technics 1050 or 950 will give me better 5.1 sound and better sound in general. Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks |
| Yes they are the same unit. | SmokE
Mar 10, 2002 1:08 PM | | Also in CosumerReprot receiver's face-off, they were rated as same unit except as you metioned, 1050 have added s-video switching capability and front A/V inputs which 950 lacks. |
| Yes they are the same unit. | Eric923
Mar 10, 2002 7:32 PM | | Thanks for the info Smoke. I've also heard that the 1050 is a high current receiver with the Take capacitators, whereas the 950 isn't not high current. Is this true? and If it is will there be a big difference in sound quality?
Thanks again... |
| Yes they are the same unit. | SmokE
Mar 11, 2002 6:01 AM | | High current does not amke any sense as they put it. Technically all high power Amps are high current since they have to pump the current to put out the power.
It seems that both models 950 and 1050 have same amplifier design (MOS-FET output circuit) and same power and THD ratings. So they are both same in that regard.
TA-KE capacitors are mainly for filtering and I don't think it will make that much of diffrence if one Amp have it and one don't. Basically, all capacitors function the same as to store energy and filtering. TA-KE is just one of many variety Capacitors that are out there.
Power and THD will have more effect on sound quality than type of capacitor is used. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
I hope that helped. |
| Yes they are the same unit. | Eric923
Mar 13, 2002 12:16 AM | | Sweet, thanks for the help, Smoke. |
| Not to start an old argument, but........(this a LOOOOONG post!) | waVeman
Mar 13, 2002 12:43 AM | | .........if one amp has a larger/higher capacity power supply compared to another amp of the same rated output, it can be classified as a high<b>ER</b> current amp.
(If any electronics engineers are reading this PLEASE chime in!!!)
Wattage is made up of current multiplied by voltage. Increase the voltage, the wattage goes up. OR, increase the current, wattage also goes up.
Speakers (except for electrostatic types) are devices that respond to the amount of <i>current</i> from an amplfier to operate. Voltage isn't really that relevant to them (rough analogy: the starter motor in your car. It only needs 12 volts to <u>start a 300+ pound engine</u>. But look at the amperage--current--it needs to use to do this: 300-400 amps! That's why those battery cables are so thick!! Remember, a motor and a speaker are almost <i>exactly</i> the same thing: one just happens to be limited to back and forth motions).
ANYWAY: 1) Power transformers are one of the most expensive parts in a receiver (all that iron and copper). 2) Transformers take 120 volts and drop it to a level the receiver can use. Small transformers can also be used to do this: look at your clock radio, answering machine, CD player. That's because none of those devices needs a lot of current--they aren't really "doing" anything as far as moving something, heating something (stove), etc. TVs? Nope. They just need to charge the screen surface to attract electrons from the electron gun, and that requires a lot of <i>voltage</i> (I think around 20,000 volts), NOT current. Hence, the rather small transformer in there(a step-UP transformer).
BUT, to be able to transport a lot of current to a hungry loudspeaker amplifier, a transformer must utilize a lot of heavy iron and (especially!) copper. Remember, lots of current needs a thick conductor or lots of wire to move properly--remember the battery cables?
Also, an amplifier power supply uses filter capacitors--these have two purposes: to smooth out the incoming A/C power and, 2) act as storage devices to supply the amp with extra power when the transformer runs out of power itself. This happens during big musical crescendos, or, with an HT system, explosions or dinosaur footsteps. (Camera flash's use a similar system: that whining noise you hear when you turn it on? It's the flash's internal capacitor charging up. When you hit the shutter button--POP!--it releases all its stored up power all at once, causing the xenon(?) gas in the flash bulb to (forgot the science term!--fluoresce?) emit a huge amount of light--a crescendo of light if you will. All from one tiny battery, which could never light that bulb all by itself).
SO, to operate a speaker (especially the woofer) <i>most effectively</i>, we need a lot of current. Which means a large power transformer to supply the power amplifer with what it needs to do this. You can have the same power amp but one with a beefy power supply (large transformer and Snappy Tom-sized filter capacitors) and one with a wimpy sized transformer and Lifesaver pack-sized capacitors) and have the same rating of 100 watts output, but I'll guarantee the one with the Big Ones will have more powerful and solid sounding bass, play louder and handle musical peaks better (the filter caps have a lot to do with that).
Why do you think speaker manufactuers recommend at least 16 gauge wire to hook them up to the receiver? Skinny wire will impede current flow.
Real world experience ( I'll keep this short!!!!); In 1995, I worked at Incredible Universe; we sold Technics and Harmon/Kardon receivers; we employees did unauthorized test(!); hooked $500 "100 watt/channel" Technics SA-GX650 (99% sure of model #) and big and very heavy--i.e. large power supply-- $1200 H/K receiver--also "100 watt/channel"-- to very large 8ohm JBL speakers; used Pretenders <i>Learning to Crawl</i> CD; set both receivers, by ear, to same volume level; listened to both, us and several customers.
|
| LOOOOONG Post!........Part Two | waVeman
Mar 13, 2002 12:47 AM | | Which had better bass and overall sound? The Harmon/Kardon, no contest. Now, to be fair, we turned up the volume to levels preventing a normal conversation. So if you listen to flute solos only, the Technics would most probably sound just about the same as the H/K. So, <i>up to a point</i>, the receiver with the smaller power supply can keep up with the larger one.
Doubt all this? Look at those mini-systems that say they have 50-100 watts/channel, and then pick them up or look inside; super lightweight or miniscule-sized parts. Then turn them on and turn them up. Yuck.
If all you needed for high power was small transformers and filter caps, EVERYONE would use them. But anyone with any kind of decent quality standards (even "lowly"Technics, MY brand!!) uses much larger power supply parts. That's just the laws of electrical physics, not slimy marketing. And I'm sure there are cases of overkill, especially as far as hi-end audio is concerned.
<u>But to drive speakers to their fullest potential, ESPECIALLY low impedance (6 ohms or less) or inefficient models, one HAS to have a lot of current.</u>
Like I said, if anyone wants to school <i>me</i>, please do so--I don't want to pass around bad information. But this is what Lamar University (Beaumont, Texas) taught me!!!!!
*****************************************************************************
Those Technics receivers? My SA-DX1040 (now the SA-DA15) receiver definitely weighed more than the SA-DX950. Not sure about the 950 versus the 1050.
My own test of my 1040 receiver's power amplifier:
http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?13@@.eec2ad5/0
Those "TA-KE" capacitors and their story (look under "Master Series":
http://technics.co.uk/ukhome/navigate.asp?MenuItem=2706&NodeType=P
An example of a no-foolin' Technics stereo power amplifier:
http://technics.co.uk/ukhome/navigate.asp?MenuItem=2706&NodeType=P
(Damn! They took off their site an even heavier built amp, @$1700):
http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/archive/perl/579_printreview.htm |
| |
