Re: SONY STRDE-4ES RECEIVER

ANYONE READ THE REVIEW ON THE SONY STRDE-4ES A/V RECEIVER IN THE JANUARY 03 ISSUE OF SOUND & VISION?<p>ANYONE HAS A SONY 4ES RECIVER?<p>THE ARTICLE DID NOT MENTION THE 5 YEARS WARRANTY.<p>I''''M THINKING OF GETTING EITHER THE 4ES OR THE 2ES.<p>IS THE 4ES WORTH THE EXTRA CASH?<br />WHAT''''S MISSING IN THE 2ES?

[Captain_RJ]

Yah I did!<br />I can''t recall a time when the magazine did a review on a ES receiver. I remember they did a review on a Sony DB, mid-line series. Anyone recall otherwise, and which issue?<p>I, for one, thinks it great that they did this review. I love ES components, and I have owned an ES receiver since 1999. And to add to that, Daniel Kumin did a great job on this article, and I especially liked the part in the begining about the critical role a remote plays in the joys of owning an A/V receiver. <p>I think the STR-DA2ES is built around a DB, mid-line series constructed reciever. <p>The differences:<br />The DA2ES has 100 watts per channel, while the DA4ES runs 110 watts per channel.<br />With the DA4, you get the more rigid, and ultra sturdy frame and beam contruction, more massive power supply, and better heats sinks to dispel unwanted heat.<br />Your also go from 6.1 to 7.1 channel I/O''s, 2-room/2 sourced source capabilities, 2 digital coaxial inputs and a RS-232 port when going from the DA2 to the DA4.(Finally, actual DTS-ES and D.D-EX logos on the front panel.)<br />And lastly the remote itself on the DA4ES is pretty slick and looks like a joy to work with.<p>With it''s great looking front panel, numerous features, and amber glow LCD and thumbwheel operation, I think the DA4ES is worth the price of admission, and is the model I''d go with.

[3db]

This may cause a lot of heat but try and listen to what I''m trying to say. I strongly feel that S&V has not given an honest review since the review of the Marantz7200. They clobbered it because of its reliabilty and as a result, Marantz yanked there adds out of S&V. Every review since then has been very wishy washy. I don''t trust the review of the Sony as far as I can throw it. Any surround sound receiver company that declines to have a 5 channel load test done on it is hiding something. That includes Sony Doing a power test with all channels loaded tests the capability of the power supply, one of the most important parts of any amp or receiver. Stay away far away and get yourself a Yamaha or Denon.

I currently own the 4ES, what a great receiver. Has it all not to mention the equalizer settings that the others did not have. Would highly recomend it. Can''t go wrong with the price either. smile.gif border=0

I believe that specs cited indicate that Sony rates it as the max for 1 channel when the other channels are putting out 1/8th of rated power. If I am remembering it correctly, that would make it approx 100w X 1 & 12.5w per channel for the remaining channels at MAXIMUM. Maximum is an extreme rarely reached, so it''s unlikely that you''d put the receiver into the position of actually having to "allocate" power that way. The specs cited in the review indicate that this way of rating power is in a accordance w/a an FTC (?) code. I think that almost all, if not all, surround receivers have exaggerated specs, if you are talking about an ideal of full range (20-20,000 hz) sound, all channels driven at once. Some exaggerate more than others. You have to take this into account, along w/your room size & other factors, when choosing a receiver. As you will read many times, seperates are the way to go. If I didn''t live in an apt where I have to be careful about volume & don''t even bother w/a sub, I''d go w/seperates, but I make do w/a Sony STRDA1Es recvr. I don''t dispute your contention that the power rating is suspect, but to me, suspect power ratings are a rule, rather than an exception. This doesn''t mean that the products suck. It just means that you have to be careful when deciding what combination of power & speakers you''re gonna use.<p>< December 19, 2002: Message edited by: meestercleef ><p>< December 19, 2002: Message edited by: meestercleef ></p>

[wallstreet]

Yea I read that too. It sounded very fishy to me. They must not be using discrete amplifiers for each channel.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 3db:<br /><strong>This may cause a lot of heat but try and listen to what I''m trying to say. I strongly feel that S&V has not given an honest review since the review of the Marantz7200. They clobbered it because of its reliabilty and as a result, Marantz yanked there adds out of S&V. Every review since then has been very wishy washy. I don''t trust the review of the Sony as far as I can throw it. Any surround sound receiver company that declines to have a 5 channel load test done on it is hiding something. That includes Sony Doing a power test with all channels loaded tests the capability of the power supply, one of the most important parts of any amp or receiver. Stay away far away and get yourself a Yamaha or Denon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[rkkwan]

The DA4ES seems to be a good receiver, and the numbers should be respectable too. I understand why Sony may not want to have the numbers published, as it will not be 110w x 5 or 6. But it''s no different from other consumer-grade components.<p>What I have problem is with S&V. I know this is their bulletin board, but I think they made an editorial mistake. Note that this is an "exclusive" report, meaning Sony gave them a unit to test before it''s available to the public, and to other magazines. And Sony have to rights to tell them not to test or publish the all-channel power.<p>However, I think S&V should just say "No, our responsibility is towards the reader. We will not review your receiver if you don''t allow us to test or publish an important test." Without testing all channels driven, how are we going to know the quality of the power supply?<p>S&V is doing their reader a disservice. They should have waited until they can get a model off the shelf and test it then.<p>-Ray

[Hot_Monkey]

Out of the magazines and in the real world...<p>I was actually most impressed by the amp section in the new Sony ES receivers... even the entry level STRDA1ES. I have heard both store and home demo''s of these new units (a friend and my mother in law both have new ES receivers) and they sounded great to me. I own a 100 pound gorilla Rotel RMB1095 (5X200) THX amplifier (center, sides, rears) as well as it''s little brother RB1080 (2X200) THX (for the front channels), and have some concept of what real power sounds like. These receivers were anything but lacking, especially for the price. Plus they have fantastic "tune-abilty" with 10hz increment crossovers for all channels. I give them my full endorsement... they are built like bricks for the price, and have a 5-year warranty to boot. I would go so far as to say that Sony ES receivers have long been some of the most under-rated receivers on the market. Sony gets a bad rap for their entry level stuff.<p><br />Monkey

[thunderbird9095]

I think there might be some misunderstanding out there? First, Sony''s lower line of the present (at least) is not all that bad. I was reading a review called "Shoot-out between entry level receivers ''01, ''02" (I think it was SV''s site or audio reviews?) site and the Sony tied for 1st place with a lesser powered Onkyo. True the Onkyo was rated only 1/2 the power of the Sony, but I think you have to throw out specs (at least for a moment) and concentrate on how the unit(s) perform. Your own perceptions on material you''re familiar with is ultimately the proof in the pudding. Second, Sony is targeting a wider AV audience than most mfgs and you''re bound to get more negative reviews from those who spend little and expect alot!

[3db]

I can''t knock the Sony for the way it sounds because I never heard it. But what concerns me is that every receiver tested so far as an all channels power test applied to it. Why not this one? Of course the rated output will decline in an all channels test. I expect it to, but by how much is the real question? In the multi-channel audio formats, I suspect that these added channels will be used extensively thus creating a greater demand on the power supplies. This a 7 channel receiver so why wasn''t 5 of teh channels tested. It comes across as if Sony is trying to hide something, spec or no spec.

[rkkwan]

I don''t think Sony is trying to hide something <b>about the DA4ES</b>. Instead they''re trying to change the way magazines and people think about receiver power; but I don''t think telling S&V to not test 5-channels driven is the right way.<p>I don''t know how this should be done either, as Sony also has to compete with entry level HTIB, where <b>everybody</b> is advertising "500 watts of power", "1000 watts of power" etc. And no manufactuer is going to unilaterally disarm in this power-inflating war at the low-end.<p>The problem with all this "inflation" is that it hides the difference between the entry-level and high-end receivers. How is Sony going to sell a $1,000 receiver with "only" 110w x 6, while it''s selling one for &lt;$250 with 80w x 6? Most consumers are not smart, or will bother, enough to learn about 6 vs 8ohm loads, 1kHz vs 20-20kHz, THDs, etc.<p>Anyways, I can see the dilemna and problem they are in, but I don''t see there''s a clear way out. But prohibiting S&V to publish power ratings is clearly not the way to do it.<p>-Ray

The standard Sony uses is in the review. The problem, as I see it, is that there''s no specific standard (like red book) that''s been agreed on industry-wide. The review says that Sony says it was designed to exceed the specs in EIA/CEA amplifier specification #490-A, which involves each channel tested individually at full power while all other channels run at 1/8th rated power. Yes, Sony should have agreed to the S&V test, but technically speaking, Sony''s power rating is "legal".<p>< December 20, 2002: Message edited by: meestercleef ></p>

[Eric]

Get the 4es and don''t look back. I''ve seend authorized e-tailors going for around $600.<p>Eric.

[3db]

Its got nothing to do with legality but more of legitamicy (where''s the spell checker). All othe receivers are tested this way by S&V, Home Theater, Sterophile, etc.. Now you have one company trying to change the playing field and make the specs even more vague than they are. As an Elctrical Engineer, I get futsrated at reading meaningless specs but the spec that Sony is hiding behind makes it even harder to decipher. An industry standard needs to be put out that clearly defines rated power levels at rated loads thru a specified bandwidth. And if you are selling muti-channel receiver and amps, then ya better have the power supply to back up your claims. I wouldn''t but this Sony because of this issue. Its that serious an omission in my books.

[Hot_Monkey]

I agree with the notion that all manufacturers should find a common measuring method. In the meantime, I also agree that Sony should have submitted their unit to the S&V test. But I do understand why they might not care to.<p>As mentioned in one the above posts, so many consumers are caught up in the numbers game when it comes to power and wattage. I like to think of things in terms of what I call "real world power". Hook the unit up to a pair of speakers and torture it with difficult and challanging material and see what the cat drags in. I once had a small high quality 30 watt integrated amplifier that easily drove large speakers to very impressive levels with minimal distortion. I once had a 100X5 watt (major name brand) AV receiver that started to sound like a maxxed out 1970''s car radio when asked to play hard. Watts are important, but only part of the puzzle. One current example would be the excellent Rotel RSX1055 receiver. It is rated at a seemingly low 75 watts per five channels, but I would stack it up against just about any 100 to 150 watt receiver in it''s price range. A friend of mine just got one and is driving good sized floor standing speakers with great sound and no signs of distress from the amp even at high levels.<p>Monkey

[rkkwan]

Interesting discussion. <p>I think we are facing two problems here. One is the design and philosophy or receiver design; the other is reporting/advertising.<p>First, let''s look at the design. Right now, there are two philosophies. In the low- to mid-range, you have receivers that have 5, 6 or 7 amplification channels that each can output 80watts or above. However, they all have a restricted power supply, resulting in reduced power with more than two channels driven. I''ve seen an Onkyo tested at like 25watts on S&V not long ago.<p>On the other hand, you have companies like Rotel that believes the power supply should match the power requirement with all amplification channels driving. So, you have a true 75w x 5 output.<p>And finally, the top of the line receivers from Denon, Pioneer, etc seems to be doing something in between. I''ve read some 130w x 7 receivers that can produce like 170-200w with a single channel driven; while with all channels, the numbers go down to about 70-80 each. So, the "130w" figure really means little, except that it is more powerful than the 100w x 6 receiver.<p>Question is, which is the better philosophy in building the receiver? Solid state amplification isn''t that expensive. I doubt substituting a 100w chip with a 150w chip will cost more than a few bucks, plus a bigger heat sink. But a power supply that can feed 1000w driving simulataneously will cost real money, as well as making the unit much heavier - resulting in increased cost of making the chassis, as well as shipping, etc. But do people really need that much power driving all channels all the time with surround source? In theory, one should require a <b>lower</b> power per channel when listening to multi-channel stuff, especially when using a powered sub. So, wouldn''t it be a waste to use a huge power supply when you never need it? And what about the Rotel approach - 75w x 5 is a lot of power when multi-channel source, but 75w x 2 may not be enough to run low efficiency front speakers. Wouldn''t be money better spent in getting more power to those channels?<p>---<p>Second is the reporting. I have no idea what should be done, really. Say, my Yamaha has six 100w channels (let''s assume we''re talking about 8ohm, &lt;0.1%THD, 20-20kHz), but will only get 40w when all channels driving. What should we call this receiver? Right now Yamaha calls it a 100w x 6 receiver. Should that be changed? To what? <I will agree that those Circuit City fliers that say "600w total power" should stop doing that immediately.> Seriously, what should we call my receiver then? What about the Rotel 75w x 5? Should it be called "TRUE 75w x 5"? Or "TRUE 375 simultaneous, all the time, real, honest-to-God, not inflated watts"? <p>And what about those $300 receivers that are called "100w x 6" but are rated at 6ohm, 1kHz, 10%THD? Should there be a federal law prohibiting that? Who''s going to monitor and test each unit? Or how about that top-of-the-line "130w x 7" receiver? Where the hell do they come up with the figure 130w? Wouldn''t Denon/Pioneer rather advertise that as "180w x 7" with fine prints saying that it''s actually 80w x 7? tongue.gif border=0 <p>---<p>Many questions to think about this holiday season. Hahaha... biggrin.gif border=0 <p>-Ray<p>< December 20, 2002: Message edited by: rkkwan ></p>

[Hot_Monkey]

"And what about the Rotel approach - 75w x 5 is a lot of power when multi-channel source, but 75w x 2 may not be enough to run low efficiency front speakers. Wouldn''t be money better spent in getting more power to those channels?"<p>Good point... Which is why Rotel sells the RSX1055 as a home theater oriented receiver. But it can be tweaked in a way that I have not seen in any other HT receiver. For movie soundtracks, the 5X75 power is plenty. If an RSX1055 owner wants to include better two-channel stereo performance in their system, the set-up menu allows you to divert the 75watts (X2) originally intended for the front channels and re-assign them to 6th and 7th channel duty. Add a potent stereo amplifier for the front two channels (example: RB1080 2X200) and now you instantly have both awesome two channel performance and muscle, plus you have expanded your home theater capability to 7.1 with all matched power and sound quality. This is a neat trick, and I think answers your question. <p>Monkey

Hello,<p>I have a SONY STR4DAES receiver for about 4 months now and it has played and sounds very good. For the bucks its a technological miracle...<p>Built very well. easy to use and sounds just AWESOME.<p>I listend to all the carp floating around about this new recevier but my ears tell me this is a good, solid performer, for both 2CH and HT.<p>USing a set of 5.1 Dahlquist (6 ohm) speakera and its really a sweet setup<p>Alex

[wje]

Clearly, as an owner of the STR-DA4ES, I was a bit frustrated when I headed for the lab test table ... only to find out S&V didn''t provide test results for "5 channels driven." I think S&V owes it to their readers to publish this information - whether the manufacturer wants the data published or not. As consumers, how else can we compare one receiver against another? Just relying on what the manufacturer has on their Web site is certainly not enough for us to go on. The S&V tests acted like a "benchmark" where we could review the test results, compare a couple of recivers based on these results and form a better opinion before making a purchase.<p>If S&V is afraid of Sony? Did Sony threaten S&V? If that''s the case, then send me the numbers and I''ll be glad to publish them on the various forums. <p>I think S&V owes us - the readers and supporters of their publication the full results of their testing. Clearly, S&V has recorded the results somewhere. They didn''t just get a response form Sony and say "OK, let''s just do the one channel test, the stereo test and the subwoofer distortion test and send the article to publication." Please, S&V come clean on the results. Each time I visit my local bookstore, I see about 5 other audio / home theater magazines with reviews that appear as if they were written directly after the author read the information sheet from the manufacturer. To me this is awfully poor reporting - and is a reason why I never buy those magazines. Don''t allow yourself to mold into one of these "other" publications with reviews that lack meat.<p>Clearly, getting an item, putting it through its paces and pushing it to the limits - then, giving us the readers a full report is what it''s all about. Inquiring minds want to know.<p>< December 21, 2002: Message edited by: wje ></p>

I have a Sony STR-DA80ES and DB830 so I am definitely not Sony bashing.<p>What confuses me is that while S&V did not test (or perhaps, print the results of the test) with five channels driven per page 58, they did test and print the results with five channels driven for the Sherwood RD-7108 on page 72 of the same issue.<p>I have a problem with this: they should follow one procedure for all amplifier tests or change the procedure. Being consistent is what editors are for! If Sony would only give S&V a review copy of the 4ES on the condition that they do one channel and stereo tests only, we should know that. If Sony threated to pull a portion of its advertising if S&V printed what Sony felt to be an unfavorable power measurement, we should know that too.<p>What''s next: reviews of LCD XBR TV''s in B&W?<p>I hope S&V publishes an addendum with five channel power ratings

[Big Donkey]

biggrin.gif border=0 biggrin.gif border=0 biggrin.gif border=0 <br />I heartily aggree with Hot Monkey but I think the Sony does very well at a $1000 price point. It weighs a ton (good power supply?), has adjustable xovers (to maximise speakers bandwidth), 7x120 watts,PLII,dts,multiroom, etc..<br />I think it sounds warmer than the STRD2ES, the amp sounds like a higher quality amp and because Sony is pushing SACD it has a wonderful analog pass thru with a very wide frequency bandwith (20-100khz). I think the Sony processor has very good movement in AC3 & dts, after all they make movies, they should know about steering.I think they are better than Denon at that price, I''m unfamiliar with Yamaha at that price.<br />Happy Holidays!!!<p> biggrin.gif border=0 biggrin.gif border=0 biggrin.gif border=0

[E_Wallace]

I''ve owned Sony ES equipment since 1991. I''ve yet to have a failure from anything with the Sony logo. I purchased my demo Sony VCR in 1992, and I''m still using it on a regular basis. Meanwhile, friends and family who bought other brands have replaced broken electronics as if on a schedule.<p>Since the Sony test was an "exclusive" preview, I am not even worried about the lack of complete tests. Most of these exclusive reviews are of pre-production units and are not at all the same product a customer will bring home. The production units almost always perform better than the review units. Other brands have had problems with pre-production pieces as well.<p>On the gripping hand, I would very much like to see a complete test on a production piece, and I''m sure that will happen soon. <p>Elton

My particular disappointment with reading the review was learning that the receiver does NOT offer analog bass management, when an earlier issue'' "buying guide to receivers" indicated that it did. Can any owners clarify?

[cws_kahuna]

Go for it. If the 4ES is in the price range you are looking for or even the 2ES. I have the Sony STR-DB840 and love it. I know it is Sony''s mid-range line but it sounds great to me. I have heard the 4ES and think it is wonderful. I know it is not the best out there but not everyone has endless funds.