john_w
Miscreant
OK, I hope I made this sound enough like a B-grade Japanese monster flick for at least some twisted minds to catch the irony.
As mentioned several months ago, I got so curious about the differences between the most famous AU-717, and the other most famous AU-919, that I went out and nabbed a 919 on e-bay for a reasonable price, hooked it up, and just as I did with the AU-9500, spent WAY too much time painstakingly swapping cables back and forth well into the night to see just how much of a difference the 919 Diamond Differential actually made. (The binding posts on the 919 are a great feature, but not the best for manually swapping speaker cable!)
Specs:
One thing very noticeable in the specs is the difference in distortion: The 717 is rated at < .025% for all forms of distortion, whereas the 919 measures in at < .008%. That's far lower than most common consumer HT gear made today! But, distortion is hardly everything. In fact, it's not always even a good barometer. I've heard that levels at this range are pretty much undetectable by the human ear anyhow. (Not sure if that's true -- just what I've heard.) And, some relatively high distortion amps are commonly favored over some that look quite pristine on paper.
As far as weight is concerned, the 919 is noticeably heavier as one might expect, at 47.2 pounds vs. 39.2 pounds for the 717. (It's also rated somewhere around 30W/ch higher, as I recall)
I won't go into other specs and features, as B/F has repeatedly cited this information in several past threads.
Test gear:
One difference I made since I compared the 717 with the AU-9500 was a huge upgrade in interconnect cables. I picked up some silver core units that I swear really bring out the high frequencies in everything I hook up to them, and make everything seem to respond much faster. Yes, I know some of you won't buy that one. Just another subjective observation, like most of this. (Besides, it's really cool to have interconnects that look like they belong on a space shuttle!)
Otherwise, my gear is the same: Pioneer CD changer/laserdisc combo, cheap 14 guage Monster Cable knock-offs for speaker cable (soon to be replaced), Phase Research SN#R speakers.
Sound:
Going into this, I suspected that the 919 would be a tad more clear, and maybe have a little overhead to give it that extra dynamic punch I missed from the 9500. But the actual differences I heard were far different from that, and really took me by surprise.
As far as I can tell, the 919 is actually no more dynamic than the 717. The 9500 is still top dog in that respect, IMO. But the thing that made my jaw drop was the bass. The low frequencies come out much more clear; it's tighter and better defined than with the 717. And I thought the fuzzy bass issue I had was with my rear-vented speakers! The midrange also sounds noticeably better. Treble was less exciting, and if anything, the extreme high end is a little less prominant, and probably in more of a natural balance.
After my AU-9500 comparison, someone commented that I never mentioned imaging. For both of these comparisons, I had about the worst possible speaker positioning for producing a decent image. I also figured that imaging was more a function of the speakers, anyhow.
Just the same, I closed my eyes during an acoustic guitar passage and with the 919, I could more easily picture the artist sitting on a bar stool right in front of me. Of course, having better focused lows and mids can't help but to improve the image.
So what made the difference? The new circuit design? That's no doubt part of it, but I wonder how much of it has to do with those huge custom filter caps, especially since I'm running on raw, "dirty" power. And the power grid in this part of the country is notoriously crappy. That would explain a better improvement in the low end. Of course, there's the possibility that I've just tricked myself into hearing things that justify my extra time and expense. But I think the differences were clear enough to me to trust what I heard.
Of course, the 717 is still a fine old piece of gear. These are the kinds of differences that probably go unnoticed if you hear these two amps days apart, and are only giving them a casual listen. But the extra $, and the extra time spent trying to find the far more rare 919 on e-bay is worth it, IMO, if it fits your budget.
And going back to the AU-9500, the choice is far more clear with the 919. Unless, of course, you want more high end, and prefer a softer, less focused bass. That's entirely reasonably, IMO. "To each his/her own", as they say.
To be fair, the older 9500 does seem to have better dynamic range, and has more features. (Two headphone jacks - as if that were useful, 3-band tone controls with a midrange control, 3 speaker pair connections - though only two run at once, separate left and right mike inputs, and two extra source inputs if you "cheat" by using the NR Adapter and quad adapter inputs for anything but phono.) In fact, the two extra inputs are great for the extra choices in source input we have now (CD, TV, dvd audio, laserdisc, etc, etc...) But no matter what, the sound quality trumps everything else, in my book.
I'm still planning on trying to sell the 717 locally. If I put it on a national market, it'll be posted on audiokarma first, and I'll give this forum a good pre-warning.
If you've read this far, you probably need to be locked up almost as badly as me. :screwy:
But then, you're just the kind of independant thinker to give me your 2 cents worth about all of this. Am I daft? Dillusional? (Well, the answer is probably "Yes!" But is it evident by this post?)
I wouldn't be surprised or feel put down if this didn't take on any replies. There may not be much more to add. But if you feel like voicing an opinion, by all means go for it! (Remember, there are no wrong answers to this one!)
As mentioned several months ago, I got so curious about the differences between the most famous AU-717, and the other most famous AU-919, that I went out and nabbed a 919 on e-bay for a reasonable price, hooked it up, and just as I did with the AU-9500, spent WAY too much time painstakingly swapping cables back and forth well into the night to see just how much of a difference the 919 Diamond Differential actually made. (The binding posts on the 919 are a great feature, but not the best for manually swapping speaker cable!)
Specs:
One thing very noticeable in the specs is the difference in distortion: The 717 is rated at < .025% for all forms of distortion, whereas the 919 measures in at < .008%. That's far lower than most common consumer HT gear made today! But, distortion is hardly everything. In fact, it's not always even a good barometer. I've heard that levels at this range are pretty much undetectable by the human ear anyhow. (Not sure if that's true -- just what I've heard.) And, some relatively high distortion amps are commonly favored over some that look quite pristine on paper.
As far as weight is concerned, the 919 is noticeably heavier as one might expect, at 47.2 pounds vs. 39.2 pounds for the 717. (It's also rated somewhere around 30W/ch higher, as I recall)
I won't go into other specs and features, as B/F has repeatedly cited this information in several past threads.
Test gear:
One difference I made since I compared the 717 with the AU-9500 was a huge upgrade in interconnect cables. I picked up some silver core units that I swear really bring out the high frequencies in everything I hook up to them, and make everything seem to respond much faster. Yes, I know some of you won't buy that one. Just another subjective observation, like most of this. (Besides, it's really cool to have interconnects that look like they belong on a space shuttle!)
Otherwise, my gear is the same: Pioneer CD changer/laserdisc combo, cheap 14 guage Monster Cable knock-offs for speaker cable (soon to be replaced), Phase Research SN#R speakers.
Sound:
Going into this, I suspected that the 919 would be a tad more clear, and maybe have a little overhead to give it that extra dynamic punch I missed from the 9500. But the actual differences I heard were far different from that, and really took me by surprise.
As far as I can tell, the 919 is actually no more dynamic than the 717. The 9500 is still top dog in that respect, IMO. But the thing that made my jaw drop was the bass. The low frequencies come out much more clear; it's tighter and better defined than with the 717. And I thought the fuzzy bass issue I had was with my rear-vented speakers! The midrange also sounds noticeably better. Treble was less exciting, and if anything, the extreme high end is a little less prominant, and probably in more of a natural balance.
After my AU-9500 comparison, someone commented that I never mentioned imaging. For both of these comparisons, I had about the worst possible speaker positioning for producing a decent image. I also figured that imaging was more a function of the speakers, anyhow.
Just the same, I closed my eyes during an acoustic guitar passage and with the 919, I could more easily picture the artist sitting on a bar stool right in front of me. Of course, having better focused lows and mids can't help but to improve the image.
So what made the difference? The new circuit design? That's no doubt part of it, but I wonder how much of it has to do with those huge custom filter caps, especially since I'm running on raw, "dirty" power. And the power grid in this part of the country is notoriously crappy. That would explain a better improvement in the low end. Of course, there's the possibility that I've just tricked myself into hearing things that justify my extra time and expense. But I think the differences were clear enough to me to trust what I heard.
Of course, the 717 is still a fine old piece of gear. These are the kinds of differences that probably go unnoticed if you hear these two amps days apart, and are only giving them a casual listen. But the extra $, and the extra time spent trying to find the far more rare 919 on e-bay is worth it, IMO, if it fits your budget.
And going back to the AU-9500, the choice is far more clear with the 919. Unless, of course, you want more high end, and prefer a softer, less focused bass. That's entirely reasonably, IMO. "To each his/her own", as they say.
To be fair, the older 9500 does seem to have better dynamic range, and has more features. (Two headphone jacks - as if that were useful, 3-band tone controls with a midrange control, 3 speaker pair connections - though only two run at once, separate left and right mike inputs, and two extra source inputs if you "cheat" by using the NR Adapter and quad adapter inputs for anything but phono.) In fact, the two extra inputs are great for the extra choices in source input we have now (CD, TV, dvd audio, laserdisc, etc, etc...) But no matter what, the sound quality trumps everything else, in my book.
I'm still planning on trying to sell the 717 locally. If I put it on a national market, it'll be posted on audiokarma first, and I'll give this forum a good pre-warning.
If you've read this far, you probably need to be locked up almost as badly as me. :screwy:
But then, you're just the kind of independant thinker to give me your 2 cents worth about all of this. Am I daft? Dillusional? (Well, the answer is probably "Yes!" But is it evident by this post?)
I wouldn't be surprised or feel put down if this didn't take on any replies. There may not be much more to add. But if you feel like voicing an opinion, by all means go for it! (Remember, there are no wrong answers to this one!)