Just bought the Sony 3000ES S-Master Pro digital amplifier receiver
today. Performed an in home evaluation using high-end Infinity 4.1t
Intermezzo speakers and Monster 7000 A/C power conditioning and
isolation.

Sound Quality Observations:
-------------------
The S-Master Pro 3000ES sound quality was raspy, somewhat hollow and
noisy. By comparison, Sony's previous analog amplifier based 4ES
receiver provided a cleaner, better defined and very natural musical
sound. The differences were deemed sufficiently large that no further
analysis was required.

My Opinion:
---------------
Sony has taken several large steps back-wards with their digital
amplifier S-Master Pro technology. This technology (as is) belongs
only in low-fi applications. Why is this so? Apparently Sony does not
own the best digital amplifier technology patents.

The specifics:
1) Because of the digital attenuator, the signal loses resolution at
low levels and gains noise at high levels. Analog volume pots deliver
the full resolution at all settings and noise is not an issue here
either.
2) The S-Master Pro noise shaper shifts some noise back into the audio
band. It is worse than SACD!
3) The 4ES has a lot more useful features. For example, the 4ES sound
quality improves substantially with the Infinity speakers when the
impedance selector set to 4 ohms. The switch has been stripped from
the 3000ES.
4) With one exception there is no worst match than feeding an ANALOG
signal to the new S-Master Pro amplifier as the signal will go through
another A/D conversion before being amplified. The one exception is:

Combining SACD with S-MasterPro Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------
I am perplexed at the lack of coherence in Sony's combining of these
two new technologies. It is a fact (see SACD note at end) that the
lower resulting resolution of the time averaged samples of SACD
technology are a large step back-wards, even compared to old 16 bit CD
technology. My listening indicates that SACD music is too polite with
no muscle or sharp transients that both CD and DVD-audio formats can
render. SACD purpose appears to be two-fold: copy-protection and
licensing fees.

5) It is interesting that because of Sony own copy protection scheme,
every SACD player produced (so far) only has ANALOG outputs. As a
result there is much LESS signal processing/stages involved in sending
this analog signal to a direct mode analog amplifier (4ES) than
compared to sending it through a S-MasterPro digital amplifier.

6) What is even more ironic is that EVEN IF the SACD signal is sent in
digital format to the S-Master Pro receiver, it is still converted to
various other digital formats including the PCM format (the arch
"enemy" of SACD). Unbelievable!

7) Digital Rule #1: For highest fidelity rescaling or sample rate
conversion of audio or video signals is to be avoided.

Achieving Quality Takes Time
-------------------
It took CD format 20 years to sound really good. How many generations
of digital amplifiers will it be before they sound close to analog
amplifiers?
My guess: At least 10 from Sony and that assumes several major course
corrections. To be frank, Sony has lost a previously loyal audio
products customer.
Hopefully the other major AV receiver manufactures will continue
producing incremental improvements to their already excellent
products. You don't know how good something is until you lose it!

No Runs, No Hits and Protection Error #21
--------------------------------------------------
Whenever I connected the 3000ES pre-out front outputs to my Infinity
woofers, this protection error popped up at power-up. I overcame it by
connecting these cables after the 3000ES was powered-on, but before
the Infinity woofer amps were powered on.

Disclaimer
--------------
Even though I speak my opinions in a no-holds manner, do not assume
that I am a Sony basher. Far from it: I also own both the Sony GWIII
rear and a HS20 front projectors. Each is a superb product.

Credits
--------
My thanks to David Rich of the Audio Critic and
http://www.puredigitalaudio.org/dig...tml#Discussions
and you guys here.

Note at end:
Stereophile (and John Atkison in particular) was a major vehicle used
to launch the SACDs format. For unknown reasons, the magazine pushed
the inferior SACD format hard. Sony responded by buying
mult-page-pull-out-ads of beautiful women in Stereophile. Because of
the sell-out I quite subscribing, now I skim it at the bookstore.
In the current issue, a MAJOR jewel of truth is BURIED in a
manufactures comment(!) near the rear of the rag. Some of our most
esteemed mathematicians have proved that the effective sampling rate
of SACD is inferior to the 23 year old CD format. The point they make
is that SACD samples are dependent on those around them. Because SACD
samples are averaged together, this reduces the effective sample rate
and thus the signals resolution.
PCM sampling (used in both CD and DVD-Audio formats) is independent of
surrounding samples, and is one reason why it is the superior format.