B & K reference 50

It has been my experience that the people that own equipment like it or don't admit it if they don't. And, if they don't like it they usually want to sell it. And therefore don't want to tell anyone that may be a potential buyer that something they are selling is not good.

Rwwear, sound logic indeed. No pun intended.

Hmmm, the "logic" used by Rwwear really applies to all components here....why a thread on B&K was chosen to make such a statement is unclear.

I own the B&K 50. It works mighty fine in the context of a HT-only setup. I am not overly excited about a unit which is switching so many sources, audio and video; this only complicates the setup and surely must degrade the sound with all the cables criss-crossing all over the place. But this is not unique; it is typical with virtually any HT receiver/preamp-processor. The new Naim and McCormack units would be examples of such exceptions.

For me, the B&K 50 would not be acceptable as a primary preamp in a music-based system. I actually tried it in my music system and was quite impressed. It did not have any fatigue nor brightness in its tonal balance. This is key for anything to survive with me for any amount of time. I can deal with subtractions, but annoying peaks in tonal balance are not acceptable and the B&K works well here.

And with the B&K, there was quite good resolution. I could almost hear all the intricate low-level percussion with the B&K as I could with my BAT 31SE. Where the B&K 50 falls short is that it failed to convey the incredible harmonic richness and 3-dimensionality of the BAT 31SE line stage. But for movies/HT, do I really care about the width, depth and height that audiophiles strive so hard to achieve in a 2-channel music based system? NOT! With speakers all around the HT room, the fancy special effects within the movie recording bring this to me in spades. And at times when I do use this system as my priomary music source, it sounds quite good. I am impressed with how B&K retains a good quality with a unit that has so many other features besides the use as a line stage / preamp.

If I watched a lot of concert DVDs in my HT system, I think I would want more of that bloom and richness of my audio system. But I think this will be a common problem with any solid-state based multi channel system where there is much D-A and A-D conversion going on.

We read about all the simulated modes within such HT processor units. Ultimately, I just want to have the D-A conversion done as was intended by the movie creators and not play around with all the different kind of modes. And this unit decodes all the formats that exist today. What more can you ask for in this regard.

If you want a clean unit that does not have a ton of switches and knobs, etc., on the panel, this works well. The remote control is a typically laid out unit like many made by TV manufacturers. And running through the menus to set modes, calibrate levels, etc., is easy.

So hopefully I have been of some help here.

John

Not the '50 you're asking about, but I did a direct A/B in my main system between the Ref. 30 and Acurus ACT-3 (now available used below $500 as opposed to $1100 or so for the 30.) In 2-channel mode, the Acurus blew the Ref. 30 out of the water and blow dried it. The ACT-3 is not the end-all in 2-channel, either - there are much better (but at the price, it's a very nice unit.) I did not compare with video, but the ACT-3 lacks component, so that's a big demerit against this older unit. That said as well, this is also just about the only Acurus piece I've ever managed to like, having owned several.

I am very very pleased with the Ref. 30 in a HT setup driving an LCD TV via component video, and doing DTS playback of DVDs. I wasn't impressed with the noise floor and lack of air in 2-channel in my main system, which uses 104db efficiency horns (Klipsch La Scalas) with tubes (Rogue M120). The La Scalas will exacerbate noise generated by any component - the Ref. 30 sounded like it was speaking through a layer of gauze compared to the much cheaper ACT-3, which produced much more freq. extension, air and dynamics. Given the setup/matching, I may have been asking for trouble with the B&K, but I can't say based on input impedances etc. as I haven't compared.

The Ref. 30 (and 50), however, have many, many more features than the older ACT-3, which made my choice clear and comfortable - B&K in the viewing setup, ACT-3 in the listening setup.

That said, if I had to listen to 2 channel with the Ref. 30 I own, I'd be looking into setting it up to perform a passthrough (does it even have it? I never even looked that far) to a better 2 channel analog pre-amp.

I hope this input doesn't take anything away from Jafox's response, which is more directly applicable and very well considered. I like my Ref. 30, but chose otherwise for day-to-day 2-channel listening.

Believe me, I had no intention of slighting B&K in any way. I think it is a fine product. I was just answering a question as honestly as possible. It just so happened that it was a thread that started with B&K. My statement applies to all other products as well.

right now using apogee centaur speakers, citation 7.0 processor and a citation 7.1 4- channel amp. Considering adding a B&K ref.30 but concerned about two-channel quality. What is a good up-grade that gives me excellent two-channel as well as good multichannel performance? I am at the crossroads of audio up-grade.New formats, players, SACD vs HDCD, 5.1 channel CD's, DVD-Audio. It's very confusing. Help!