It has been years since I last upgraded and looked for a high quality processor - and much to my surprise, when I search for a 7.1 processor with all the appropiate audio schemes as well as HDMI audio input needed for bandwidth, it seems that the high end doesn't exist any longer

Krell and Theta have some older designs that don't seem to play all that well with what is needed for state of the art. Clearly without hdmi audio, they do not have the bandwidth to pass what is available from all codecs these days.

When people start talking about Yamaha, Denon, Integra, Pioneer, Sony and Onkyo Receivers, I have to wonder what has happened to the High End?

Is there a good list of high end processors out there that at least pass everything one needs today, that one could use as a good starting point to start researching?

Just what are the top of the line Home Theaters using these days?

Not exactly high end, but Denon's new preamp (AVP-A1HDCI) does have all of the HD audio capabilities, 1.3a, etc. MSRP is $7k. Not many have worked with it yet as it is just now hitting the streets. There are some posts in the audio threads, but no quality reviews at this point.

Krell is also approaching the release of the 707, which is also planned to have it all, including 8.4 ch. ($25-30K?)

The other manufacturers are still digging around their tool bags.

Jim

HDMI happened to high-end. it's going to kill off quite a few small companies.

I still like my Lexicon MC12HD Balanced. It has HDMI 1.3. along with 108op24. It serves my needs well.

I still like my Lexicon MC12HD Balanced. It has HDMI 1.3.I think it's HDMI 1.1 (since it was released before HDMI 1.3 parts were widely available).

Sanjay

Sorry but the new one is HDMI 1.3

oops it is 1.2.My error

http://www.lexicon.com/products/news.asp?ID=19&newsID=87

I think it's HDMI 1.1 (since it was released before HDMI 1.3 parts were widely available).

Sanjay

Sorry but the new one is HDMI 1.3

Hmm, I think Sanjay is correct. I know when the MC-12HD first came out it was definitely 1.1. If Lexicon had switched over to 1.3 I would think there would have been some press about it somewhere.

I'm currently thinking about upgrading my MC-12 V5EQ to the HD while the new trade-in program is around. HDMI 1.3 would indeed be a bonus

Rod

This thread may be of some assistance:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=940065

This thread may be of some assistance:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=940065

I agree and remember it well

http://www.lexicon.com/products/news.asp?ID=19&newsID=87

That looks to me like a firmware patch release for interoperability with HDMI 1.3 devices. It doesn't say it is HDMI 1.3 or even 1.2. HDMI version is controlled by the chip used for transmission and receiving.

To to best of my research it is HDMI 1.1. If you hear different please let me know.

http://www.lexicon.com/products/news.asp?ID=19&newsID=87

That is talking about software version 1.2 for the Lexicon (the 1080p upgrade) not HDMI v1.2. The MC-12HD is HDMI v1.1.

Shawn

My BluRay Player outputs 1.3 and my PJ receives 1.3
Never had an issue with compatibility

That is talking about software version 1.2 for the Lexicon (the 1080p upgrade) not HDMI v1.2. The MC-12HD is HDMI v1.1.

Shawn

Thanks Shawn

Shawn is correct. The Lexicon is HDMI 1.1 but will accept HDMI 1.3 video pass through. As per Lexicon yesterday when I had to ask them about their upgrade. So my guess is it will handle new codes as PCM only (L or M) take your branding however way you want).

The EVO 707 from Krell will be HDMI 1.3. Most likely units will be shipped in April though a few may trickle ou end of this month.

Richard

It has been years since I last upgraded and looked for a high quality processor - and much to my surprise, when I search for a 7.1 processor with all the appropiate audio schemes as well as HDMI audio input needed for bandwidth, it seems that the high end doesn't exist any longer

Krell and Theta have some older designs that don't seem to play all that well with what is needed for state of the art. Clearly without hdmi audio, they do not have the bandwidth to pass what is available from all codecs these days.

When people start talking about Yamaha, Denon, Integra, Pioneer, Sony and Onkyo Receivers, I have to wonder what has happened to the High End?

Is there a good list of high end processors out there that at least pass everything one needs today, that one could use as a good starting point to start researching?

Just what are the top of the line Home Theaters using these days?


The high end companies are also small companies. They have limited resources. All the new technologies have essentially left them behind. Halcro and Cary seems to be catching up though. If the technology remains stationary for a few years, you will see high end components again. But, this does not mean the high end is any better than the Denons and the Yamahas in the DSP portion of their design. They may be better in the analog sections of their design.

Someday, it would be nice to see measurements of the jitter in the DACs of all these receivers. I think we are down to this being the only differentiating issue between all these units.

Shawn is correct. The Lexicon is HDMI 1.1 but will accept HDMI 1.3 video pass through. As per Lexicon yesterday when I had to ask them about their upgrade. So my guess is it will handle new codes as PCM only (L or M) take your branding however way you want).

The EVO 707 from Krell will be HDMI 1.3. Most likely units will be shipped in April though a few may trickle ou end of this month.

Richard
I just want to confirm that unfortunatly there is NO upgrade for HDMI.If the proc is HDMI 1.1 it will always be 1.1 !
And the Lex MC12HD is 1.1

I just want to confirm that unfortunatly there is NO upgrade for HDMI.If the proc is HDMI 1.1 it will always be 1.1 !If a manufacturer wanted to rip out the HDMI 1.1 connectors and boards in their pre-pro and install HDMI 1.3 parts, there's nothing to stop them from physically doing so. But that sort of 'upgrade' would likely be a poor business decision, so I doubt you'll ever see it. For all intents and purposes, you are correct: a HDMI 1.1 device will remain so. And the Lex MC12HD is 1.1Correct.

Sanjay

Krell's S1000 will have an upgrade program from HDMI video pass through to HDMI 1.3 audio and video.

Richard

I think the two pre/pros to keep an eye on are the Cary Cinema 11a and Cinema 11v Combo in the more reasonably priced segment, and the Classe SSP800 in the <=$10k segment.

in terms of bang for the buck, i think the integra 9.8 is great for what it does but many reviews indicate its sq is definitely not worth more than its price point. for example, a recent comparison between the 9.8 and a denon 4308 indicated the denon was superior in every shape and form (according to the reviewer), albeit at a much higher price. i really think the denon 5308 receiver and new avp pre/pro is an excellent piece spec wise and all reports indicate its sq is excellent and it has no hiccups with anything. obviously time will tell as there are not very many avp around yet, but definitely very positive feedback for this piece. i have my 2 channel setup that i may end up downsizing if this piece is as good as people say for its 2 channel performance. also, if any modding companies take it to the next level with a tube stage, it may end up being a fantastic unit.

in terms of bang for the buck, i think the integra 9.8 is great for what it does but many reviews indicate its sq is definitely not worth more than its price point. for example, a recent comparison between the 9.8 and a denon 4308 indicated the denon was superior in every shape and form (according to the reviewer), albeit at a much higher price. i really think the denon 5308 receiver and new avp pre/pro is an excellent piece spec wise and all reports indicate its sq is excellent and it has no hiccups with anything. obviously time will tell as there are not very many avp around yet, but definitely very positive feedback for this piece. i have my 2 channel setup that i may end up downsizing if this piece is as good as people say for its 2 channel performance. also, if any modding companies take it to the next level with a tube stage, it may end up being a fantastic unit.


While the Integra and it's cousin the Onkyo Pro offer numerous features for a reasonable sum of money, I believe the thread title is "High End 7.1 Processor", the operative term being "High End". I think it's fair to say the Integra and Onkyo are lower Mid-Fi products and do not qualify as High-End.

I must agree with you that these units are not worth any more than their current price points. Considering the numerous, known issues with the platform, they may not even be worth their respective prices?

agreed. the integra is mid-fi not because of its price, but from its performance. the denon however (although i haven't heard it personally) may be just as good as any "high-end" pre/pro available right now, but it is the ONLY one that can do everything it advertises without any hiccups. all the other "high-end" pre/pro's available now in one way or another have a problem with something, whether it being decoding hd codecs, etc. plus you get an excellent video processor in the unit, which is an added bonus. i think many are discounting the denon simply because they are not a "high-end" company like halcro, theta, lexicon, etc. but it may very well prove to be the next killer piece for its price. the anthem d2 is also an excellent piece for the money (at the time), but not so much anymore.

agreed. the integra is mid-fi not because of its price, but from its performance. the denon however (although i haven't heard it personally) may be just as good as any "high-end" pre/pro available right now, but it is the ONLY one that can do everything it advertises without any hiccups. all the other "high-end" pre/pro's available now in one way or another have a problem with something, whether it being decoding hd codecs, etc. plus you get an excellent video processor in the unit, which is an added bonus. i think many are discounting the denon simply because they are not a "high-end" company like halcro, theta, lexicon, etc. but it may very well prove to be the next killer piece for its price. the anthem d2 is also an excellent piece for the money (at the time), but not so much anymore.

As for the Denon, it may very well be a great interim solution for some and a long term investment for others. They make quality gear. Not high-end, but excellent Mid-Fi nonetheless.

The Anthem D2 has recently received the ARC (Automatic Room Correction) upgrade. I'm not a fan of Anthem, but they try hard and I've recently heard good things about the updated D2. It's still not capable of handling HBR audio and is lacking HDMI 1.3.

It has been years since I last upgraded and looked for a high quality processor - and much to my surprise, when I search for a 7.1 processor with all the appropiate audio schemes as well as HDMI audio input needed for bandwidth, it seems that the high end doesn't exist any longer

Krell and Theta have some older designs that don't seem to play all that well with what is needed for state of the art. Clearly without hdmi audio, they do not have the bandwidth to pass what is available from all codecs these days.

When people start talking about Yamaha, Denon, Integra, Pioneer, Sony and Onkyo Receivers, I have to wonder what has happened to the High End?

Is there a good list of high end processors out there that at least pass everything one needs today, that one could use as a good starting point to start researching?

Just what are the top of the line Home Theaters using these days?

I would suggest looking at the Halcro SSP-200. It is HDMI 1.3b and handles MCPCM. You would then only need to find a player that can processes the new codecs and send out audio via PCM such as the Denon DVD-3800BDCI. :)

I would suggest looking at the Halcro SSP-200. It is HDMI 1.3b and handles MCPCM. You would then only need to find a player that can processes the new codecs and send out audio via PCM such as the Denon DVD-3800BDCI. :)

The Halcro is NOT HDMI 1.3.

Do your homework!

The Halcro is NOT HDMI 1.3.

Do your homework!

The latest SSP-200 is! I have it!

The latest SSP-200 is! I have it!

Provide documentation please.

I would suggest looking at the Halcro SSP-200. It is HDMI 1.3b and handles MCPCM. You would then only need to find a player that can processes the new codecs and send out audio via PCM such as the Denon DVD-3800BDCI. :)

I would instead recommend the Denon AVP. It has comparable SQ to the Halcro, without the numerous headaches.

I have the latest Halcro SSP-200.

It is NOT HDMI 1.3...

It sounds like the Halcro headaches come with updating a 100... I have a new 200. No issues. Same with other 200 owners.

TheBland,

So, did you trade in your SSP-100 for a SSP-200? Did you do a trade becuase your upgrade SSP-100 had issues?

Darrell

My dealer set me up with a 200... so I skipped the upgrade program all together.. I've been a long time customer and he took care of me when an opportunity arose. .

My dealer set me up with a 200... so I skipped the upgrade program all together.. I've been a long time customer and he took care of me when an opportunity arose. .

Good move Jeff. Very astute.

While the Integra and it's cousin the Onkyo Pro offer numerous features for a reasonable sum of money, I believe the thread title is "High End 7.1 Processor", the operative term being "High End". I think it's fair to say the Integra and Onkyo are lower Mid-Fi products and do not qualify as High-End.

I must agree with you that these units are not worth any more than their current price points. Considering the numerous, known issues with the platform, they may not even be worth their respective prices?

Right you are.

I was in a high end audio/video retailer several weeks ago and they happened to have the Integra setup with a full Klipsch surround system in one of their "cheaper" rooms. They put on the DTS demo disk and I walked out of that room about 30 seconds later. I am sure I've had socks that sounded clearer and less muffled than that.

I would instead recommend the Denon AVP. It has comparable SQ to the Halcro, without the numerous headaches.

At EHX last week in Orlando, even Denon's $4k DVD-5910CI didn't meet basic specs. It's like they piled a bunch of stuff in there and didn't bother to make sure it worked correctly. If this is what they give you for a non-HD DVD @ $4k, I will continue to avoid that badge.

That said, I don't consider Denon, Integra or Onkyo the high end. If it is, we are all in trouble in the long run.

Right you are.

I was in a high end audio/video retailer several weeks ago and they happened to have the Integra setup with a full Klipsch surround system in one of their "cheaper" rooms. They put on the DTS demo disk and I walked out of that room about 30 seconds later. I am sure I've had socks that sounded clearer and less muffled than that.


How exactly could you tell the sound you heard was due to the processor ?

I've been waiting to let things settle. One problem is the audio delay and lip synce issue. I'm currently taking the 1080P/24 and upconverting to 1080P/60 There is just enough delay with audio to drive me nuts.
Are all the new high end recivers able to address audio delay with no problems.
regards

I have the latest Halcro SSP-200.

It is NOT HDMI 1.3...

It sounds like the Halcro headaches come with updating a 100... I have a new 200. No issues. Same with other 200 owners.

Jeff,

I thought your unit was clipping BTB on all sources?

How exactly could you tell the sound you heard was due to the processor ?I, too, was wondering about that.

Jeff,

I thought your unit was clipping BTB on all sources?

It does do that but since I am using a Lumagen Radiance, my video is bypassing my Halcro...so it isn't impacting my picture.

That said, it will be fixed in a shortly forthcoming release.

It does do that but since I am using a Lumagen Radiance, my video is bypassing my Halcro...so it isn't impacting my picture.

That said, it will be fixed in a shortly forthcoming release.


AHH! The answer to many problems = Lumagen Radiance. I'm glad you've found a workaround for the BTB clipping issue.


So, you must be sending an audio only stream to your SSP-200 from the Radiance's 2nd. HDMI output?


By the way, it looks like your room and CIH Screen upgrade came out great!

Enjoy it in good health!

At EHX last week in Orlando, even Denon's $4k DVD-5910CI didn't meet basic specs. It's like they piled a bunch of stuff in there and didn't bother to make sure it worked correctly. If this is what they give you for a non-HD DVD @ $4k, I will continue to avoid that badge.

That said, I don't consider Denon, Integra or Onkyo the high end. If it is, we are all in trouble in the long run.

Just curious, what 'basic specs' doesn't the 5910 meet? What doesn't work?

I, too, was wondering about that.Because he could see the brand name of the equipment.

I've been waiting to let things settle. One problem is the audio delay and lip synce issue. I'm currently taking the 1080P/24 and upconverting to 1080P/60 There is just enough delay with audio to drive me nuts.
Are all the new high end recivers able to address audio delay with no problems.
regards

If it's got the type of 1.3 HDMI that supports lip sync (not all do) then there shouldn't be a problem.

Because he could see the brand name of the equipment.You mean Klipsch? ;)

You mean Klipsch?You know what I meant:)
I've been waiting to let things settle. One problem is the audio delay and lip synce issue. I'm currently taking the 1080P/24 and upconverting to 1080P/60 There is just enough delay with audio to drive me nuts. Are all the new high end recivers able to address audio delay with no problems.
regardsThat's the quandry for people who need to spend a buttload of money on gear isn't it.
A lowly receiver has features that the high-end can't match for 15 times the price and a "mid-fi" pre/pro has features that can't be equaled for 10 times the price plus the owners don't have to wait 6 months for firmware to allow basic functionality or buy up to a new model because they couldn't get it right the first time.
There, did I get all of my jabs in?;)

True...but if your not spending a lot of money, it simply sounds flat... I didn't get a true hard on in my theater until I crossed the $100,000K threshold. Now even the most idiotic movies give me wood!

Wood Pecker, Woody Wood Pecker cartoons, that is.

True...but if your not spending a lot of money, it simply sounds flat... I didn't get a true hard on in my theater until I crossed the $100,000K threshold. Now even the most idiotic movies give me wood!

I hope your theater doesn't sound like "wood". You'd be "knocking on wood" a lot!!!!@@@

Jeff, one can spend bucko buckos & tons of money and still sound flat - e.g., the Wisdom Audio million dollar system at CES several years ago, it really sucked!!!

[QUOTE=Steve Bruzonsky;the Wisdom Audio million dollar system at CES several years ago, it really sucked!!![/QUOTE]

It wasn't that good !!!

Right you are.

I was in a high end audio/video retailer several weeks ago and they happened to have the Integra setup with a full Klipsch surround system in one of their "cheaper" rooms. They put on the DTS demo disk and I walked out of that room about 30 seconds later. I am sure I've had socks that sounded clearer and less muffled than that.



At EHX last week in Orlando, even Denon's $4k DVD-5910CI didn't meet basic specs. It's like they piled a bunch of stuff in there and didn't bother to make sure it worked correctly. If this is what they give you for a non-HD DVD @ $4k, I will continue to avoid that badge.

That said, I don't consider Denon, Integra or Onkyo the high end. If it is, we are all in trouble in the long run.

That system must have been set up real good. It doesn't come close to reflecting our experience with the 9.8 through a Six Shooter to Enterprises & Dreadnaught into Vandersteen 5A's & VCC-5 with SVS Ultra 13's. I haven't walked out yet.
Name me a 1.3a "High End" processor you can buy today please.

I'm in a similar situation as the original poster. My question however is this: It seems many people are saying the Denon 5308 is one of the best options? However, isn't it a amp also? If I'm looking for a high end separate that can do HDMI 1.3 and all the thrills, any suggestions? Thanks a ton :)
-Ori

It wasn't that good !!!

It wasn't even that good!!!

You know how Wisdom Audio sells their stuff? Their "homeowners" have Tupperware like parties. And rich folks come who are really impressed by the Bose like but bigger sonics!!!

And most of these systems are WAY more than 100 grand. Yet they are very bland sounding!

I'm in a similar situation as the original poster. My question however is this: It seems many people are saying the Denon 5308 is one of the best options? However, isn't it a amp also? If I'm looking for a high end separate that can do HDMI 1.3 and all the thrills, any suggestions? Thanks a ton :)
-Ori

Ori,
Both the new Integra and Denon pre/pros are getting good ink. Check out their threads for details.

I didn't get a true hard on in my theater until I crossed the $100,000K threshold. Now even the most idiotic movies give me wood!

Wow, I'm never going to watch movies with you, at least not at your place.. :eek:

That system must have been set up real good. It doesn't come close to reflecting our experience with the 9.8 through a Six Shooter to Enterprises & Dreadnaught into Vandersteen 5A's & VCC-5 with SVS Ultra 13's. I haven't walked out yet.
Name me a 1.3a "High End" processor you can buy today please.

The new Denon Prepro has SQ that is comparable to the Halcro and the AVP2+6 (depending how you configure it). It has HDMI 1.3a

Darrell

The new Denon Prepro has SQ that is comparable to the Halcro and the AVP2+6 (depending how you configure it).
Are you sure about that?

There used to be at least a two class difference between the flagship Denon/Pioneer/etc gear and true high end audio components.

Are you sure about that?

There used to be at least a two class difference between the flagship Denon/Pioneer/etc gear and true high end audio components.

I've owned all three units, and that's my opinion.

Are you comparing the old Denon seperates from ~10 years ago, or the more recent AVRs? Either way, neither is a valid basis of comparison for the new Prepro.

It sounds like your opinion is already formed if you are discounting the comments made by someone who has compared the new unit to other known units. It appears you will have to go have a listen, trust your own ears, and make your own judgement. That's always best anyways.

Darrell

There used to be at least a two class difference between the flagship Denon/Pioneer/etc gear and true high end audio components.

In what regard exactly ? Pure stereo mode ? Nowadays the automatic room eq will most likely determine what you hear in the end, paired with a good or not so good microphone and a good or not so good use of the eq, as well as all other (sometimes endless) options.

Imagine you got a dull, layed back sounding speaker. The eq will straighten it out, but you like dull, layed back sound. What will you think of the unit ?

Imagine you got a correctly treated room with high grade well balanced studio monitors and the eq will over-brighten the end result (once mentioned on some entry level receivers) ! What will you think of the unit and what is essentially then it's "sound" ?

Are we talking then about the overall sound or without eq or what ? Or are you still talking sound of better components used ? These will be tough to judge with room eq used.....

I've owned all three units, and that's my opinion.

Are you comparing the old Denon seperates from ~10 years ago, or the more recent AVRs? Either way, neither is a valid basis of comparison for the new Prepro.
No, I was talking about integrated amps from 3 or 4 years ago and from my own listening experience as well. But maybe you were talking surround SQ and not stereo performance.

I currently own a Tag McLaren av32dp and because of the new formats am looking at a replacement. When stereo is taken into consideration I don't expect either the new Denon or upcoming Pioneer to match it. Surround will be a no-contest I'm sure, mainly because of HDMI.

It would be great if these relatively cheap prepro's would suffice because Meridian, Lexicon and others are much more expensive. :)

edit: typo

In what regard exactly ? Pure stereo mode ? Nowadays the automatic room eq will most likely determine what you hear in the end, paired with a good or not so good microphone and a good or not so good use of the eq, as well as all other (sometimes endless) options.
For surround sure, but you need a pretty powerful (Tact etc.) room eq adjustment to keep stereo performance at a high standard. My Tag does very good room eq but you have to do it manually. My previous Pioneer was much better in that regard.. :)

No, I was talking about integrated amps from 3 or 4 years ago and from my own listening experience as well. But maybe you were talking surround SQ and not stereo performance.

I currently own a Tag McLaren av32dp and because of the new formats am looking at a replacement. When stereo is taken into consideration I don't expect either the new Denon or upcoming Pioneer to match it. Surround will be a no-contest I'm sure, mainly because of HDMI.

It would be great if these relatively cheap prepro's would suffice because Meridian, Lexicon and others are much more expensive. :)

edit: typo

I didn't know Denon had integrated amps put 3-4 years ago, but yes, I was discussing Processors as that is the thread subject.

The new Classe is supposed to have a nice 2-CH built into its new processor (SSP-800), maybe that brand name is ok for you.

I didn't know Denon had integrated amps put 3-4 years ago, but yes, I was discussing Processors as that is the thread subject.

The new Classe is supposed to have a nice 2-CH built into its new processor (SSP-800), maybe that brand name is ok for you.
I don't know what you are on about. :confused:

Denon has integrated amps (not receivers) here in Europe. And what I see as high-end surround prepro's are those with pretty decent SQ even without multichannel effects.

Brand names are not my thing, but it makes for easier conversation as model types differ from continent to continent. Will keep an eye out for the Classe you mentioned (hadn't looked at it yet).

These are interesting times. We had to wait for several years for proper HDMI-support. Now with all the sophistication put into top of the line commercial products it will be harder for high-end products (> $10.000) to distinguish themselves.

My point was comparing multi channel processors with various eq technologies makes it quite hard to judge on "inner component sound influences", many are so proud of in their "expensive units", as what we hear is most likely more influenced, if not determined, by the room eq the unit will eventually perform. So saying the one or the other brand is of low quailty, say Onkyo or Denon are in SQ much below a certain high priced item is nowadays really pure ignorance.

For surround sure, but you need a pretty powerful (Tact etc.) room eq adjustment to keep stereo performance at a high standard.

I cannot follow you here. You need good linear speakers and a very good room, that's it. If you cannot do that eq is as important in stereo as in multi channel, unless you like a so called "sounded" presentation.

Ori,
Both the new Integra and Denon pre/pros are getting good ink. Check out their threads for details.

Thank you for the response, really appreciate it. When you say the Denon, are you referring to the AVP-A1HDCI? If so, I appreciate the response, wanted to make sure those were the two main competitors currently. Last question, is there anything in the middle of those two price ranges? Something along the line of 2500-3k? I'd love if the Denon 4308 was a separate :(

The latest components are essentially computers. Smaller high-end manufacturers simply can not keep up with the latest technology (1 person show vs. large R&D departments, etc.). They have to rely on licensing / reusing mid-fi technology (drives, chips, etc.) and improving it (power delivery, board quality and layout, analog audio circuits, etc.).

Ettepet, yes I agree that these are interesting times. On one hand you have a historically mid-fi company that is applying a brute force method (room correction, lots of processing, etc.) and getting excellent results. The scale of their operation helps keep their costs of all the additional circuitry down. On the other side you have the small high end designer who is working with older technology but trying to squeeze every possible ounce of perfection from the design.

for all we know it may be years for some of the high end companies to even start thinking of releasing hd capable machines wheres "cheaper" companies already have this technology and they sound great. i have come to appreciate that quality has nothing to do with price tags. seriously, i have owned some hideously expensive equipment that sucked and had severe quality control issues. then i demoed stuff almost to see "how much better" my current system was only to be surprised. yup, ended up selling my "high-end" gear for stuff that should have been priced way higher for its performance and quality. hence my point not to discount the new denon units... although i haven't heard one yet, there are very many happy people out there who have already owned the "high-end" stuff. i actually may jump ship again if this pre/pro is as good as people say it is.

My point was comparing multi channel processors with various eq technologies makes it quite hard to judge on "inner component sound influences", many are so proud of in their "expensive units", as what we hear is most likely more influenced, if not determined, by the room eq the unit will eventually perform. So saying the one or the other brand is of low quailty, say Onkyo or Denon are in SQ much below a certain high priced item is nowadays really pure ignorance.
I believe price has little to do with it, unless of course the price of high quality design and good components.

The problem with stereo is that much care should be taken to preserve the original signal (small phase changes etc.). Much more care in fact than even highly impressive sounding surround setups need.

I use stereo performance as one of my criteria, and have found previous models of these commercial brands lacking in this regard. I'm pretty sure they still do, but hopefully to a lesser degree.

@Anthony A.: I don't know what all these people who so like the latest Denon use as a reference, but I place little value in general opinion nowadays. I let my own ears decide and try to find opinions of people with similar interests and discriminative power/skill.

I believe price has little to do with it, unless of course the price of high quality design and good components.

The problem with stereo is that much care should be taken to preserve the original signal (small phase changes etc.). Much more care in fact than even highly impressive sounding surround setups need.

I use stereo performance as one of my criteria, and have found previous models of these commercial brands lacking in this regard. I'm pretty sure they still do, but hopefully to a lesser degree.

@Anthony A.: I don't know what all these people who so like the latest Denon use as a reference, but I place little value in general opinion nowadays. I let my own ears decide and try to find opinions of people with similar interests and discriminative power/skill.
For me the new Denon proc is NOT a hight end proc
I Have listened to it in a 11.2 system with TAD speakers
I was very disapointed !

I was very disapointed !

it could be the power amps used, the software being movies or music, or the improper autocal/manual set up.

The problem with stereo is that much care should be taken to preserve the original signal (small phase changes etc.). Much more care in fact than even highly impressive sounding surround setups need.Perhaps the reason for that is that stereo relies on fine-tuning a listening room to provide a satisfying but logically spurious and random contribution to the ambience. One cannot listen anechoically nor can one let the room's contribution overwhelm. It is a lose-lose proposition requiring care and skill to balance optimally. Adding true ambience in the case of multichannel makes the task much, much easier.

For me the new Denon proc is NOT a hight end proc
I Have listened to it in a 11.2 system with TAD speakers
I was very disapointed !

Questions :

1) was that your system ?

2) if not, how did you know the sound was the processor's fault ?
Did you switch between different processors ?

3) what was done to get 11.2 out of this 9.3 processor ?

Questions :

1) was that your system ?

2) if not, how did you know the sound was the processor's fault ?
Did you switch between different processors ?

3) what was done to get 11.2 out of this 9.3 processor ?
1) No .it was a demo in a theater
2) If it was not ?? it was the denon amps !! you can choose
3) this demo was done with the new combo Denon Proc/Amp

1) No .it was a demo in a theater
2) If it was not ?? it was the denon amps !! you can choose
3) this demo was done with the new combo Denon Proc/Amp

It wasn't the pre/pro or the amp. I've heard them and they are world calss. Others in the thread dedicated to these have also attested to this...must have been some other element in the chain or the room itself. But time will tell...conventional wisdom will evolve in due course.

you can choose

Sorry, but that statement makes your impression on the Denons you shared as such pretty unsubstantial and basically redundant.......I do not want to be offensive, you have the right to your opinion. Basically, Pete said it all.

The only bigger hair I have personally with the Denon, besides some smaller issues, and that's why I do not save up for the unit, is that it remains a total riddle to me, why such a non legible display is build by the Denon engineers into their top unit that has a list of 7K Euro in Germany :( That display is truely not high end :cool:

Andreas,
I think Denon's assumption was that most people will be using the OSD GUI which is very legible and fairly easy to navigate once you get used to it. For many, the unit will be in a rack or equipment closet. If someone really wants a better display on or near the pre-pro itself, they can always hook up a little LCD or overlay a third-party control system.

i have come to appreciate that quality has nothing to do with price tags.

I agree.

I use stereo performance as one of my criteria, and have found previous models of these commercial brands lacking in this regard. I'm pretty sure they still do, but hopefully to a lesser degree.

That was because many receivers do not have a pure direct mode/stero mode. Now many receivers do offer this and it makes a big difference.

Yes Pete, true, and that is how I currently, for the setup menu at least and some sources, do it for my Pioneer receiver, for the time being until I find a processor I like to 100%. I have two 19 inch 16:9 TV-LCD monitors (900x1440 Pixels) in parallel to my standard 80 inch wide 16:9 screen to check stuff.

However, in my case, I'm 13 feet away from my electronics, I like to be able to read the processors display. Almost all japanese units have those fancy displays with all sort of small funny icons, my current Pioneer has one of the cleaner ones.

http://www.areadvd.de/images/2006/avrm_pioneer_display.jpg

I admire the clean and simple one or two lines diplays of my former Meridian 568 and 861 and Lexicon MC-1 though ;)

http://www.denon.de/site/datadir/gr/1_gr_av_AVPA1HD.jpg

Will wait for the release of the Onkyo over here, as well as the new Pioneer flag ship....

Hope is the Pioneer will be under 5K Euro (7K Dollars), in case it will come to Europe. That is currently 2,2K Euro "List" below the Denon. Can't wait for final specs of the Pionner. Read somethings about Jitter free technologies adopted from the "professional audio world". Here you find some pictures, which CES visitors may recognize, of course not those shopping allways above 20K Dollars ;), which basically this forum is for :

http://www.areadvd.de/hardware/2008/ces_pioneer.shtml

http://www.areadvd.de/images/2008/ces_pioneer_susano_1.jpg

PS: not to be mistaken, at lower price compared to the new Denon processor the Pionner is a receiver with full amps most simply will not need/want ! Quote "As the first flagship A/V receiver in nearly three years, Pioneer engineers utilized hand selected, professional-grade digital components, notably the renowned Wolfson 192 kHz/24-bit digital analog converter (DAC). Approved by professional sound engineers, the addition of Wolfson DACs ensure significant prowess in Pioneer's new flagship model. Highly regarded among professional sound engineers, the SC-09TX boasts six Wolfson WM8741 D/A converters. By including the industry's most superior sounding DAC, entertainment enthusiasts, notably audiophiles, will recognize the high performance capability only found with Pioneer's new reference receiver."

Why are people so insistent that they talk about a $5k Receiver in a thread that asked about High End 7.1 processors?

And besides, none of these things would ever have the proper amps to power speakers that you would want for a high end system.

Thus, can you please start a new thread if you want to talk about entry level receivers with built in amps.

Thanks

Why are people so insistent that they talk about a $5k Receiver in a thread that asked about High End 7.1 processors?

And besides, none of these things would ever have the proper amps to power speakers that you would want for a high end system.

I thought you use your own 'proper amps' with the AVP, the AVP is a pre/pro :rolleyes:

Why are people so insistent that they talk about a $5k Receiver in a thread that asked about High End 7.1 processors?

It was named as an alternative, as most receivers have pre-outs. The Denon is a processor, the Pioneer as said a receiver. The Pioneer just sounded DAC wise very interesting. I would not use its amps either, as I use active monitors. It is up to anybody to spend maybe tons os stash on a processor more for less quality. Happens every day....

It was named as an alternative, as most receivers have pre-outs. The Denon is a processor, the Pioneer as said a receiver. The Pioneer just sounded DAC wise very interesting. I would not use it amps either, as I use active monitors. It is up to anybody to spend maybe tons os stash on a processor more for less quality. Happens very day....

If the pre-pro section is exceptionally good, one possibility might be to use other amps for the fronts, and then bridge or bi-amp the sides/rears with the Pioneer's amps, assuming there are 8 of them.

Not for users of ML/Krell or similar amp brands. As you can see, they have enough problems to already swallow the "amplifier-use-as-a-processor-frog".

PS: although purely suggested as an interim solution....

Why are people so insistent that they talk about a $5k Receiver in a thread that asked about High End 7.1 processors?

And besides, none of these things would ever have the proper amps to power speakers that you would want for a high end system.

Thus, can you please start a new thread if you want to talk about entry level receivers with built in amps.

Thanks

What receiver are you referring to? We have been talking about Denon's high-end 7.1 processor. Isn't that the subject of this thread?

Why are people so insistent that they talk about a $5k Receiver in a thread that asked about High End 7.1 processors?

Are you saying that the units are not high end because of the name?

And besides, none of these things would ever have the proper amps to power speakers that you would want for a high end system

Well that would depend on the speakers but I do not think anyone said that.

I can understand BeachComber's frustration a little bit. He wanted to know about high end HDMI processors that are used these days in the best houses, sort of like in the other processor thread. We (including me) got carried away a little bit as we know that there are not that many good alternatives out (many rumor mills), into the direction that sounded logical and good to alot of people (Denon e.g.) on this board, but a direction BeachComber actually didn't want to hear about (for whatever reason, although technically very feasable). Sometimes discussions are not purely on what is good and logical, but on what and how things are simply done and that clearly relates sometimes to what amount of money one can simply waste without feeling any pain :D

I can understand BeachComber's frustration a little bit. He wanted to know about high end HDMI processors that are used these days in the best houses, sort of like in the other processor thread. We (including me) got carried away a little bit as we know that there are not that many good alternatives out (many rumor mills), into the direction that sounded logical and good to alot of people (Denon e.g.) on this board, but a direction BeachComber actually didn't want to hear about (for whatever reason, although technically very feasable). Sometimes discussions are not purely on what is good and logical, but on what and how things are simply done and that clearly relates sometimes to what amount of money one can simply waste without feeling any pain :D


I've seen and heard most Denon products out there for the past 20 years - and none of them have met what most would call the state of art in high end.

When Denon's $4k DVD player will not even pass the basic standards that a $100 HD-DVD will at EHX in Orlando last month, then yes, I continue to have problems calling anything they do high end.

So, as for your money vs pain comment - go buy the $4k DVD player. I'll stick with a $100 HD-DVD instead for my upconverts. It's clearly a better quality and more "high end".

When Denon produces Military Grade Tolerances instead of Consumer Grade (Radio Shack) tolerances, then it might be time to reconsider.

As said, everybody is entitled to their opinion, and you to yours. Why you mention now DVD/HD-DVD Players as a proof on sound quaility differences for sound processors is a riddle to me.

Which 7.1 to 10.2 military grade HDMI 1.3a multi channel processor with sophisticated room eq technologies and up-scalling do you currently use ?

And one more, pls specifiy what military grade relates to in the audio world....as soon as I find some measurements on the 7K Denon processor from tests we can compare the figures...

Japanese companies make low-end gear with too many bells and whistles and *occasionally* upper mid-fi gear with way too many bells and whistles.

True high-end is the both the focus on performance and the elimination of unneeded gizmos not related or detrimental to performance. Japanese don't have the focus to deliver true high-end. Putting more inputs on than anyone can possibly use, for instance, is not high-end, therefore, none of these machines really qualify.

Japanese companies make low-end gear with too many bells and whistles and *occasionally* upper mid-fi gear with way too many bells and whistles.

True high-end is the both the focus on performance and the elimination of unneeded gizmos not related or detrimental to performance. Japanese don't have the focus to deliver true high-end. Putting more inputs on than anyone can possibly use, for instance, is not high-end, therefore, none of these machines really qualify.
I do agree John !

John,
how come, when we talk about the most expensive video, say the Barco 1500 or the Sony 4Ks (Japanese), that many or all agree on something that is actually visible or simply not there ? We talk about clear and solid measurements, about the Photo Research 650 vs. the cheaper analyzers, ansi contrast, the screens fabrics, etc, all solid facts.

But when it comes to audio sound quality, the world is all the sudden so different, it's like it is not circling anymore ? Inside components do not matter, but the pure brand name. Rediculous. The top line japanese products boast some of the best channel separation measurements for multi channel and THDs, but that does not count anymore, even if they carry the same Sharc or Motorola processors onboard, same DACs, best out there (Crystal, AD, Wolfson, BB, hand sellected), various power supplies as in the Denon, whatever, it all doesn't count...

...I do not get it. Most be that I'm too much "infected" by the professional audio world.

Japanese companies make low-end gear with too many bells and whistles and *occasionally* upper mid-fi gear with way too many bells and whistles.

True high-end is the both the focus on performance and the elimination of unneeded gizmos not related or detrimental to performance. Japanese don't have the focus to deliver true high-end. Putting more inputs on than anyone can possibly use, for instance, is not high-end, therefore, none of these machines really qualify.

Should "high end" be defined by performance or by a design approach (e.g. bells and whistles)? The former, imho. If the bells and whistles can't be bypassed and in fact must detract from performance, then it is a problem. But if a bells and whistles product can indeed offer high performance then (to me at least) it is high end.

Denon is very capable of designing and manufacturing high-end gear. They offer flexibility -- what you call "bells and whistles" -- but they also provide a means of bypassing everything with their Direct and Pure Direct modes. Many early adopters of the AVP -- including those who own or have owned recognized "audiophile" components -- have given it high marks.

Japanese companies make low-end gear with too many bells and whistles and *occasionally* upper mid-fi gear with way too many bells and whistles.

True high-end is the both the focus on performance and the elimination of unneeded gizmos not related or detrimental to performance. Japanese don't have the focus to deliver true high-end. Putting more inputs on than anyone can possibly use, for instance, is not high-end, therefore, none of these machines really qualify.

Accuphase. Audio Note. Esoteric. 47 Labs. Luxman. Just to name a few. Last I checked these were all Japanese companies.

Well, I meant the usual suspects. Slapping on twice as many features and doubling the price doesn't make it high-end. Besides, those guys don't do surround preamps, for the most part.

Well, I meant the usual suspects. Slapping on twice as many features and doubling the price doesn't make it high-end.

Just to be clear, you're saying the Denon AVP isn't high end?

John,
how come, when we talk about the most expensive video, say the Barco 1500 or the Sony 4Ks (Japanese), that many or all agree on something that is actually visible or simply not there ? We talk about clear and solid measurements, about the Photo Research 650 vs. the cheaper analyzers, ansi contrast, the screens fabrics, etc, all solid facts.

But when it comes to audio sound quality, the world is all the sudden so different, it's like it is not circling anymore ? Inside components do not matter, but the pure brand name. Rediculous. The top line japanese products boast some of the best channel separation measurements for multi channel and THDs, but that does not count anymore, even if they carry the same Sharc or Motorola processors onboard, same DACs, best out there (Crystal, AD, Wolfson, BB, hand sellected), various power supplies as in the Denon, whatever, it all doesn't count...

...I do not get it. Most be that I'm too much "infected" by the professional audio world. Andreas, you have hit the nail on the head and basically summed up "high-end" audio. Everything else in the Universe obeys the laws of physics except high-end audio. The uber high-end can't survive if sufficient numbers of people are unable to suspend belief to believe.

John,
how come, when we talk about the most expensive video, say the Barco 1500 or the Sony 4Ks (Japanese), that many or all agree on something that is actually visible or simply not there ? We talk about clear and solid measurements, about the Photo Research 650 vs. the cheaper analyzers, ansi contrast, the screens fabrics, etc, all solid facts.........


Well, also, part of true high-end is honesty. Name a Japanese receiver, aside from Rotel, that doesn't use exaggerated specs. But let's take the Denons as an example. An *obvious* flaw is that they clearly didn't bother to listen to the Audyssey system before implementing it, or if they did, couldn't hear well enough to notice the flaws in it. NAD, on the other hand, did listen, did notice, did care, did re-engineer it. I mean, I agree with you, to the extent that the end result is what matters, but high-end is *also* a way of thinking and designing. You can also argue that few surround processors are really "high-end". I'd count the NAD M15 amongst them, however. Denon is excellent mass-market gear, but given the choice between performance and adding unnecessary crap, they'll add the unnecessary crap. If they approach high-end fidelity with non-hi-end design, more power to them. But it's not my kind of gear. I'd rather have a product that is just as good at half the price because it has none of the crap. Especially if they bothered to listen to it before shipping it.

1) What in technical details did NAD do better ? Was that measured somewhere via a RT60 frequency curve ?

2) As you took Denon as an example, but the AVP is a pure processor, pls specify excactly what is exaggerated in that unit / unnecessary crap ?

I agree that it is not your kind of gear. But I will disagree on anything else you have said on quality refering to that unit. I read that you quoted already the NAD's curve is more "smooth" sounding, but I have my doubts this is due to a "fault" in the Denon or a fault at all, but that the Denon is more accurate, which normally means a brighter, more transparent sound field, which many do not necessarily like, hence some say this is the reason why high end products are "sounded" (from speakers to sources). Also have in mind the 7K Denon supplies a much better Microphone than usually found in cheaper units.

Well, also, part of true high-end is honesty. Name a Japanese receiver, aside from Rotel, that doesn't use exaggerated specs. But let's take the Denons as an example. An *obvious* flaw is that they clearly didn't bother to listen to the Audyssey system before implementing it, or if they did, couldn't hear well enough to notice the flaws in it. NAD, on the other hand, did listen, did notice, did care, did re-engineer it. I mean, I agree with you, to the extent that the end result is what matters, but high-end is *also* a way of thinking and designing. You can also argue that few surround processors are really "high-end". I'd count the NAD M15 amongst them, however. Denon is excellent mass-market gear, but given the choice between performance and adding unnecessary crap, they'll add the unnecessary crap. If they approach high-end fidelity with non-hi-end design, more power to them. But it's not my kind of gear. I'd rather have a product that is just as good at half the price because it has none of the crap. Especially if they bothered to listen to it before shipping it.

Let me guess, you're a dealer for NAD, but not for Denon? That was SO hard to figure out!

I believe it will be far more interesting to have a direct comparison ("blind", if possible) than all this rhetoric.

With projectors, speakers and subwoofers this has happened a number of times now. Anyone "upgrading" from a high-end set to hdmi up to the task?

Performance criteria could be: stereo (over analog/spdif/hdmi), bass, and surround field.

I believe it will be far more interesting to have a direct comparison ("blind", if possible) than all this rhetoric.

With projectors, speakers and subwoofers this has happened a number of times now. Anyone "upgrading" from a high-end set to hdmi up to the task?

Performance criteria could be: stereo (over analog/spdif/hdmi), bass, and surround field.


Here's a link to a user review of the Denon AVP, from someone that has also owned Halcro and Proceed units:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13445255#post13445255

I haven't followed the Denon thread that closely, but it seems that owners are fairly pleased.

Here's a link to a user review of the Denon AVP, from someone that has also owned Halcro and Proceed units:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13445255#post13445255

I haven't followed the Denon thread that closely, but it seems that owners are fairly pleased.
Although a wonderful story, we would need opinions of several people present and a more "direct" comparison. Also information on the exact setup and circumstances is lacking.

Another approach would be to have a couple of never-pleased die-hard money-no-object stereophiles try to make the most of the Denon and see what they conclude. They could give the analog section and DACs a good workout, if they ever got over their initial resentment. :D

Although a wonderful story, we would need opinions of several people present and a more "direct" comparison. Also information on the exact setup and circumstances is lacking.

Another approach would be to have a couple of never-pleased die-hard money-no-object stereophiles try to make the most of the Denon and see what they conclude. They could give the analog section and DACs a good workout, if they ever got over their initial resentment. :D


Oh, I agree. One user review shouldn't be taken as 100% conclusive of anything. But for me it does suggest the Denon is potentially a very worthy unit. And as I get closer to audition time for selecting my own equipment, I'll be looking for more user and traderag reviews.

2) As you took Denon as an example, but the AVP is a pure processor, pls specify excactly what is exaggerated in that unit / unnecessary crap ?

you're kidding me, right? have you seen the bells and whistles that have nothing to do with fidelity -

12 channel
THX® Ultra2 certified
HDMI v1.3a compatible
Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g, Windows Vista and DLNA certified
Ethernet and RS-232C ports
RDS, HD Radio and XM Radio ready
2-way remote capability with optional RC-7000CI and RC-7001RCI remote system

Plus about a bazillion unnecessary composite, component, S-video and analog connections.

I agree that it is not your kind of gear. But I will disagree on anything else you have said on quality refering to that unit. I read that you quoted already the NAD's curve is more "smooth" sounding, but I have my doubts this is due to a "fault" in the Denon or a fault at all, but that the Denon is more accurate, which normally means a brighter, more transparent sound field, which many do not necessarily like, hence some say this is the reason why high end products are "sounded" (from speakers to sources). Also have in mind the 7K Denon supplies a much better Microphone than usually found in cheaper units.

Audyssey screwed up on their target curves, the Japanese didn't even notice, NAD did. That's the difference between upper end mass market and high-end. EVEN IF, outside the curves, you can't tell the difference sonically. High-end isn't a price, it's an approach. You can call the Denon high-end if you like, but to me, it's just a $2000 preamp with 3.5 times as many unneeded features.

John,
Just because this component offers features that you do not yet understand or find compelling does not mean that it does not qualify as "high end". Everyone has their biases as to what the ideal pre/pro should include. The Denon just gives you everything including the ability to bypass everything. You may not be interested in streaming music files from a hard drive, but a good many others are. You may not have any intention of hooking up to a network, but many others do. You may not have need of the multi-room/multi-source possibilities. Others do.

The Denon AVP is clearly not your cup of tea. But to label it as not deserving of being called "high end" is simply nonsense.

The Denon AVP is clearly not your cup of tea. But to label it as not deserving of being called "high end" is simply nonsense.

No, we just happen to have a different meaning for the word "high-end". Very few A/V pieces fit my definition. What you call high-end is what i call upper mid-fi. Not that Denon couldn't make a 'high-end' piece if they wanted. But then, it wouldn't sell to the upper mid-fi people and probably not the the 'high-end' people either. Denon can't sell its product without having more features than everyone else.

"12 channel
THX® Ultra2 certified
HDMI v1.3a compatible
Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g, Windows Vista and DLNA certified
Ethernet and RS-232C ports
RDS, HD Radio and XM Radio ready
2-way remote capability with optional RC-7000CI and RC-7001RCI remote system"

This is in no way evidence that the unit is not high end sounding. A lot of that means the unit meats a criteria, others may not pass at all. If you now manage to make the proof that the one or the other feature/spec of the above does hurt the sound performance we have something to talk about.

"Audyssey screwed up on their target curves, the Japanese didn't even notice, NAD did. "

More details pls concerning the AVP !

Ah, 'high-end sounding'. What does that mean? As good as a Meridian? Could be. Beyond audibility? Could be. Good enough? I imagine so. As long as you're not using the Audyssey, anyway.

I have a Mazda5 minivan that is fun to drive, it's the best handling minivan on the market. is it high-end? No. Is it a sports car? No. And even if I could make it as fast as a Miata and corner as well, does it make it a sports car? No. It's still a van.

But again, if you want to call it 'high-end' based on anecdotal listening, I'm okay with that, if you think that it is the best sound achievable today. I'm just saying that it doesn't meet my definition of high-end because it's really trying to accomplish something else entirely. And that's okay. I just think we should expect more more performance and fewer useless features. If you can afford $7K for a preamp, how could you possibly be in a position where you need S-Video, for instance? Or even component video or more than one 7.1 analog in?

For the most part, i'm just being philosophical, not anti-Denon here. What makes something high-end? Price? Parts? Sound? Lack of sound? Design philosophy? Or some personal definition combining elements of the above? I just don't want to see the term "high-end" be destroyed like "high fidelity" was, just because Denon is kicking most of high-end's butt right now ;)

This is in no way evidence that the unit is not high end sounding. A lot of that means the unit meats a criteria, others may not pass at all. If you now manage to make the proof that the one or the other feature/spec of the above does hurt the sound performance we have something to talk about.

Maybe what Alimentall should really be saying is something like "I don't sell Denon product in my store, so it has bo be upper mid-fi, not high end, because I say so. I do sell NAD in my store, so it is high end."

Maybe what Alimentall should really be saying is something like "I don't sell Denon product in my store, so it has bo be upper mid-fi, not high end, because I say so. I do sell NAD in my store, so it is high end."

Well, I do not mind, if a dealer is biased, I'm too. I was Merdian (568, 861), I was Lexicon (MC-1). And most often it is very obvious and therefore easy to filter. What I do mind however, that when ever I try to get deeper answers, facts on spec, on measurements, I only get a fun sounding little high end story excuse something and that tells me much more about that persons knowledge than any simple bias does.....

PS: why one needs older format input is very easy to unserstand, some people cherrish their "findings" and keep them for a very long time !

Well, if high-end is a set of measurements, that is another possible definition as well.

For me, a true high-end preamp would setup would a unit that had only the necessary features (and of course, different brands would field slightly different features sets, rather than kitchen sink engineering as do the Japanese) or, for instance, a three box unit that separated video, analog audio and digital audio. High-end has almost always been defined as "straight wire with gain" or the concept of taking extreme measures with minimalist design to attain even minute performance differences.

FWIW, I think the NAD M15 is a good, solid, mid high-end design - fewer bells, whistles with most attention paid to the analog circuitry, power supplies, etc. Did it achieve its goal? Personal opinion. Is it better sounding than a $7K Denon? As good? Indifferentiable? Not as good? Who knows? Not me, i haven't compared them subjectively or even objectively. Certainly doesn't have the feature set, which some flat out want. Meridian? That, to me, is as high-end and high-end gets. And they're behind on HDMI and other features, but that is the kind of thing that really is high-end. Lexicon, Theta, etc. What's happening now is an unusual instance where the Japanese are not only pounding high-end companies on features, but they're at least trying to compete on performance. I say "trust, but verify" ;)

One can ask the question though - if a $2000 NAD with its improved version of Audyssey outperforms a $7K Denon with its stock version of Audyssey, which is higher end? :) Like i said, there's nothing wrong with being upper mid-fi design if you still manage to achieve the equivalent of high-end performance, at least anecdotally.

Meridian? That, to me, is as high-end and high-end gets.

By your own "minimalist" definition, how could Meridian qualify? Doesn't the 861 lack an analog bypass, basically digitizing anything that isn't already digital?


if a $2000 NAD with its improved version of Audyssey outperforms a $7K Denon with its stock version of Audyssey, which is higher end?

Pure conjecture, by your own admission.

Audyssey screwed up on their target curves, the Japanese didn't even notice, NAD did. That's the difference between upper end mass market and high-end. EVEN IF, outside the curves, you can't tell the difference sonically. High-end isn't a price, it's an approach. You can call the Denon high-end if you like, but to me, it's just a $2000 preamp with 3.5 times as many unneeded features.

John,

I agree that typically, an Audio piece with too many bells and whistles will not sound great, I think that in the end though, High End is equipment that sounds great. I don't care how it gets that great sound, as long as it has it.

But, I think it is a mistake to say a loaded piece of equipment will never sound great. There are many other factors to SQ as you well know.

While a agree that the Denon has a lot of unnecessay stuff (mainly the Bazillion old tech ports on the back), I think the sound quality compares well with other pieces I have owned that are considered "High End".

You are welcome to come give it a listen if you like. You have fine attention to detail, and could form a more informed opinion of the Denon. Bring a few CDs. I have cold beer ready. ;)

Darrell

Beer = good ;)

Yeah, don't get me wrong, you can still throw in the kitchen and get good, even excellent sound, though at a much higher price than necessary. And, if they come out with a Speed version of the Mazda5 so I can play road racer in my mini van, I'm in, even though a Miata is more the real sports car :)

Well based on some of the definitions of "High End" I have seen here, I guess I am more into High SQ, than "High End". I really don't care how or why a unit sounds great as long as it does sound great.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, you can still throw in the kitchen and get good, even excellent sound, though at a much higher price than necessary. And, if they come out with a Speed version of the Mazda5 so I can play road racer in my mini van, I'm in, even though a Miata is more the real sports car


And thats how obviously a discussion ends on the Denon with zero technical content and those that tried to get some are left and can only shake their heads..... :(

Well based on some of the definitions of "High End" I have seen here, I guess I am more into High SQ, than "High End". I really don't care how or why a unit sounds great as long as it does sound great.

Well, me neither, but I don't want to pay for stuff I'll never use, image, marketing or gimmickry. So I'm a cheapskate when it comes to high-end too. Of course, home theater may create new definitions for what is high-end. Keep in mind that a lot of what is called 'high-end' today, i consider to be simply expensive mid-fi, so I'm not just picking on Denon. As I said, the word gets thrown around pretty loosely these days, which is unfortunate.

So, if the NAD T175 sounds better, you'll be trading in that Denon then? ;)

And thats how obviously a discussion ends on the Denon with zero technical content and those that tried to get some are left and can only shake their heads..... :(

What do you want? Did Denon solve the Audyssey EQ curve issue that has plagued previous Denons? The too bright, too lean in the bass issue? NAD did. Because they bothered to listen and because they have one of the foremost experts in psychoacoustics on staff to address it. That's an example, but is that the kind of thing you're trying to figure out? If you use Audyssey, I pretty well guarantee that the NAD curve will sound better in most circumstances because it's based on better psychoacoustics. SO.......wouldn't that make the NAD super high-end then? Or is the most technologically advanced product the most high-end? :confused: Like I said, we probably all have different definitions of what constitutes high-end.

I mean, look, we can argue back and forth all day without changing anybody's mind. I'm not trying to argue, just saying that most AV preamps, let alone receivers, don't approach the capabilities of purist stereo units, certainly not in measurements such as S/N or channel separation. So, when we say 'high-end', I guess then, what we mean is 'for an A/V piece'.

So, if the NAD T175 sounds better, you'll be trading in that Denon then? ;)

John,

If it sounds better, handles HDMI (without dropouts) so I can have my high-res formats, and has balanced outs, I would consider it.

Is this just a sneaky way for you to get ahold of my Denon Prepro? :D

Darrell

John,

If it sounds better, handles HDMI (without dropouts) so I can have my high-res formats, and has balanced outs, I would consider it.

Is this just a sneaky way for you to get ahold of my Denon Prepro? :D

Darrell

Maybe! ;) No balanced outputs though :( Too expensive to do properly for questionable benefit, though I have given them a nudge to make a real balanced card for it. They do it on the M3/M5 but they have a healthier budget and for only two channels. HDMI does seem to be working great though with the latest software with no issues thus far with our gear, running HD-DVD and DVD-A over HDMI. To be honest, by my own definition, the T175 is still really upper mid-fi, yet sounds better than most AV preamps. I'm eagerly awaiting the replacement for the M15 which is a true high-end piece, but lacks the Audyssey, the modular chassis and the advanced HDMI capabilities required to keep up with the current formats.

Actually, I'm really pressing for a pure digital volume control with HDMI or quad coax to an amp or speaker which is either pure digital or had built in DACs. That's the future.

The Denon AVP and all recent upper-end receivers have the latest Audyssey Pro software wherein you can select from several possible curves based on your preference. All Audyssey software is standardized -- not modified to the tastes or desires of different licensees.

As for what constitutes rational vs.needless features, a manufacture is never going to satisfy everyone. Had Denon done away with S-Video inputs, some number of potential buyers would say, "if only it had S-Video inputs so I can watch my legacy Laser Discs and Video Tapes". It's a reasonable engineering decision to add legacy inputs -- phono among them -- to cover all the "if only" wish lists, while at the same time providing the ability to enjoy "straight wire with gain" via the Pure Direct setting. The Lexus has lots of "bells and whistles", yet few would deny that it is a high-end luxury vehicle.

What do you want?

Well, what did I get from you that relates to the Denon AVP ? It becomes clearer and clearer I only get an attitude, nothing more :(

The Denon AVP and all recent upper-end receivers have the latest Audyssey Pro software wherein you can select from several possible curves based on your preference. All Audyssey software is standardized -- not modified to the tastes or desires of different licensees.

Incorrect. The NAD T series product has their own curve based on Paul Barton's lifetime of experience in the field, not just pure math or supposition.

As for what constitutes rational vs.needless features, a manufacture is never going to satisfy everyone. Had Denon done away with S-Video inputs, some number of potential buyers would say, "if only it had S-Video inputs so I can watch my legacy Laser Discs and Video Tapes".

Laserdiscs and video tapes work better over composite than over S-video. Only DVD, and maybe satellite works better with S-video than composite and anyone who's DVD, satellite and TV don't all have HDMI would be foolish to buy the Denon.

It's a reasonable engineering decision to add legacy inputs -- phono among them -- to cover all the "if only" wish lists, while at the same time providing the ability to enjoy "straight wire with gain" via the Pure Direct setting. The Lexus has lots of "bells and whistles", yet few would deny that it is a high-end luxury vehicle.

Actually, a higher end approach is to leave the choice of phono section to the high-end user, as NAD does. S-video has no use for the owner of a $7K preamp. Composite, only for a few things like a camera. Pure Direct is good, if you can avoid a lot of noise from having too much analog, video and digital circuitry in a very cramped quarters.

Luxury products are luxury products. High-end, at least in audio, has usually referred to as either a) raw performance or at least, b) the quest for it. Much of what is deemed high-end is more a luxury mass market product, such as a Lexus, vs a high-end, high performance product such as a Corvette C6 or even a Miata. I would deny that the Lexus is a sports car.

Well, what did I get from you that relates to the Denon AVP ?

What doesn't?

Let me put it this way. You can't be a "lady" part time. You can act like one part time.

What doesn't?

In all nothing, nothing factual related to the AVP. Well, you said alot, but no proof from your side of low sound quality from that particular unit. Pls feel free to quote any of your posts anytime.

You could have given me some measurements where other Audyssey systems clearly surpass the new Denon (taking the AVPs full flexibility of the US version into account). You could have shown me where the AVP's main power supply and it's 8 supporting supplies fail in complicated setups (in all the German page quotes 16 power supplies), his BB 192kHz DAC, his Sharcs, his true high quality inner layout fails sonically. But you cannot. You look for trifles, the most technical insignificance to argue with (like too many inputs) and it is just getting lame :(

In all nothing, nothing factual related to the AVP. Well, you said alot, but no proof from your side of low sound quality from that particular unit. Pls feel free to quote any of your posts anytime.

I didn't say it had low quality sound, at least not in direct mode. I am saying that, unless they fixed something, the Denon version of Audyssey doesn't stand up to that of NAD's. I would also say that most of what Denon puts in as 'high-end' is done from the standpoint of marketing. And it might work. But they put it in as a 'feature'. Just as Audyssey was put in as a 'feature' without having even evaluating its efficacy, whereas NAD listened first, fixed second, installed third.

Besides, don't you think it's easier to get low noise and a better layout if you have fewer unnecessary inputs and outputs?

So high end is "name + price" now that is what I would call ridiculous.

So high end is "name + price" now that is what I would call ridiculous.

Who said that? Some people think that, but certainly not me. High-end is both a performance level and a way of approaching product design. Not a name, nor a price. The problem with products like the Denon is that they should be half the price with half (or less) of the crap.

Besides, don't you think it's easier to get low noise and a better layout if you have fewer unnecessary inputs and outputs?

Proof that in case of the AVP not with just your ears and prejudism, but some solid measurements and we got again something substantial to talk about. See, if Denon would throw the DSPs/DACs next to a non shielded power supply, twisted some wierd wires around the DACs, maybe then there would be something to talk about....but you saw what and how they build the unit inside, right ? Looks pretty thought through. Feel free to further elaborate on what NAD did exactly do to improve on Audyssey, not in a night's tale fashion. You got any in room measurements for a typical stereo set up ? See, I'm not even blocking, if you proof me wrong on the AVP. If you proof me the AVP is mid-fi, then it is, but pls proof it in clean and substantial way. Otherwise this all sounds like the "airiness discussion on power cords" :(

Proof that in case of the AVP not with just your ears and prejudism, but some solid measurements and we got again something substantial to talk about. See, if Denon would throw the DSPs/DACs next to a non shielded power supply, twisted some wierd wires around the DACs, maybe then there would be something to talk about....but you saw what and how they build the unit inside, right ? Looks pretty thought through. Feel free to further elaborate on what NAD did exactly do to improve on Audyssey, not in a night's tale fashion. You got any in room measurements for a typical stereo set up ? See, I'm not even blocking, if you proof me wrong on the AVP. If you proof me the AVP is mid-fi, then it is, but pls proof it in clean and substantial way. Otherwise this all sounds like the "airiness discussion on power cords" :(

Andreas,

Alimentall is the sort of intellectually dishonest equipment dealer who will push whatever brands he carries, and denigrate anything that he doesn't carry that is in a competitive price range. (If a product is 5x-10x the price range of what he carries, he will sometimes say good things, such as with Meridian 861, in order imho to appear more objective.)

In fact, when the subject is amplifier power, he has been known to write things like "anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy" http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13355503#post13355503 . It just happens that the most powerful amp his store carries is 180W. Surprise, surprise.

On the subject of the NAD prepro, he seems to be saying that NAD is using a different target curve from the standard Audyssey one. It must sound better to his ears. Unless he is able to post reviews of the NAD that say things like "clearly superior to any other implementation of Audyssey," then personally I take his opinion with a grain of salt.

I think we can all guess where Alimentall would stand if he were a dealer for Denon but not NAD.
.

John,
I don't want this to sound didactic, but let me tell you that there have been times when my impression about a product and it's relative worthiness in the pantheon of similar offerings has taken on a kind of conviction which I readily espoused and defended, only later to discover was totally wrong. I felt like a jerk for not having delved into the facts more deeply and for having strained my credibility with other enthusiasts whose respect I valued. Having been through this embarrasment more than once, my advice to you is that you try to suspend your notion about Denon's pedigree and credentials with respect to "high end" and get some first-hand exposure to the AVP-A1HDCI. Study the product more closely both in terms of build quality, parts quality, engineering and design layout, and, most importantly, sound quality. If you do this rather than perpetuating urban legend, you just may encounter some of the same regret I have felt after discovering how wrong my assumptions had been.

Proof that in case of the AVP not with just your ears and prejudism, but some solid measurements and we got again something substantial to talk about. See, if Denon would throw the DSPs/DACs next to a non shielded power supply, twisted some wierd wires around the DACs, maybe then there would be something to talk about....but you saw what and how they build the unit inside, right ? Looks pretty thought through.

Oh, sure, there's some postjudice there, based on their track record of solidly good mid-fi gear. Of course, there's no measurements or data on the Denon website, so i guess we can probably only say that it has higher quality design than their receivers. But given the choice between putting in better quality parts or features, Denon will go for the features. That has been their modus operandi and it has been very successful. They only addressed the pitiful performance of their amp sections when it got out that some 85-120W Denons really only measured about 25-35W/ch all channels drive. This Denon, as in all the others, looks like a marketing guy designed it by throwing in everything, whether you need it or not.

Feel free to further elaborate on what NAD did exactly do to improve on Audyssey, not in a night's tale fashion. You got any in room measurements for a typical stereo set up ?(

Got my ears. The NAD curve is designed, not to make the sound accurate at the listening position, but is designed to make the sound less problematic at the listening position. The sound should be accurate at the speaker, not the listening position. Then it mitigates the bad effects of the room without trying to eliminate them. The result? Upper midrange/treble is smoother, warmer, more natural and the bass has some room gain in it, but with the peaks and dips removed, so more ample, more natural bass. NAD leaves in the stock curves so you can hear what's wrong with them (or use them if you like). if you use Audyssey, then the NAD is almost certainly better in subjectivity and I would bet money on it in a blind A/B.

Just using that one as an example how a small, high-end oriented company can get things right that a big mid-fi oriented company will often get wrong. Of course, these days it doesn't much matter as people pick product based on a) feature sets and b) does it even work. And that's good for Denon.

John,
I don't want this to sound didactic, but let me tell you that there have been times when my impression about a product and it's relative worthiness in the pantheon of similar offerings has taken on a kind of conviction which I readily espoused and defended, only later to discover was totally wrong. I felt like a jerk for not having delved into the facts more deeply and for having strained my credibility with other enthusiasts whose respect I valued. Having been through this embarrasment more than once, my advice to you is that you try to suspend your notion about Denon's pedigree and credentials with respect to "high end" and get some first-hand exposure to the AVP-A1HDCI. Study the product more closely both in terms of build quality, parts quality, engineering and design layout, and, most importantly, sound quality. If you do this rather than perpetuating urban legend, you just may encounter some of the same regret I have felt after discovering how wrong my assumptions had been.

Maybe :) Though the Audyssey thing is not an urban legend. If this one is truly high-end, it will be despite all their normal instincts and despite their inability to let some features. And, my main point, if they were actually going for a high-end sports car rather than a high-end mini-van, it would have fewer cupholders and a $3K or $4K price.

Syswei,

agree, I think that dealer statement was clear all the way and accepted. However, I stil had high hopes he had something technically substantial to offer and share :(

Syswei,

agree, I think that dealer statement was clear all the way and accepted. However, I stil had high hopes he had something technically substantial to offer and share :(

There's nothing on the website!!!

Like i said, you just can't put an AV preamp in the same category as a YBA or Conrad-Johnson stereo preamp. I don't think this thing can pull off a 120dB S/N ratio or anything, most are good for 90-105dB. Most preamps made by high-end companies are still pretty mid-fi. If you say it's high-end for an AV piece, yes, you're probably right on that one. And maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe we can't even hear the difference and only think we can. I heard a mid-fi Denon CD and compared it to a 'high-end' Proceed DAC with the same output voltage and they sounded identical to me, except that the Proceed was noisier.

We just have different POV on what constitutes high-end.

The sound should be accurate at the speaker, not the listening position

Then what exactly shoud be at the listening position ?

Got my ears

Common John, it's time to invest and get that calibrated microphone and lap top software, like ETF, etc, you have been looking at all the time..... :D

Then what exactly shoud be at the listening position ?

Music!

Common John, it's time to invest and get that calibrated microphone and lap top software, like ETF, etc, you have been looking at all the time..... :D

You're right there! But my ears still trump the measurements.

And don't get me wrong, 'upper mid-fi' (electronics) is actually quite good and debatably, all that we can prove we can hear anyway.

FWIW, my definition of mid-fi/high-end is basically this -

Entry mid-fi - Sony, Technics, etc. Almost no attention to sound quality, lots of useless bells and whistles.

Middle mid-fi - Denon, Yamaha, etc - Some attention to sound quality, slightly more meaningful features

Upper mid-fi - Affordable NAD, Rotel, etc - Relatively cheap parts still, but smarter design, generally only useful features.

Entry high-end - Upper NAD, Rotel, etc - Lots of attention to sound, circuit design, fewest possible features necessary to accomplish the task, generally higher grade parts in a cheap box.

Mid high-end - NAD Masters, Anthem, etc - Nicer cabinetry, adds more design aspects too expensive for more affordable gear.

Upper high-end - Conrad Johnson, YBA - Exotic parts that cost many times more than normal parts, extremely simplified design, over the top cabinetry, but generally still not ground breaking.

Exotica - Meridian, etc - Unusual, ground breaking technologies that are extremely expensive and state of the art, but may trickle down.

Maybe :) And, my main point, if they were actually going for a high-end sports car rather than a high-end mini-van, it would have fewer cupholders and a $3K or $4K price.

At some point car analogies cease to serve the debate. It's interesting that you equate "high end" with "sports car" and that an AV pre/pro in your universe is lower down on the food chain than an audio preamp. Nevertheless, there is an ever-expanding community of AV-ophiles who understand and appreciate high-end pre/pros and they are not looking for minimalist "sports car" content. They are looking for "sports car" performance, however, and despite what your intuition is telling you, the Denon AVP delivers it in spades. Stop giving us your speculation about it and go check it out.

Music!

Expressed as vague as it can get....you are a bit like a sponge, no matter where you touch it, always flexi with little to no substance. May I call you Sponge-John like in Sponge Bob ? ;)

You're right there! But my ears still trump the measurements.


You are indeed ready for that airiness power cord level matched a/b comparison. I'm pretty sure you will not be able to give an expertise as a real measurement, given the fact of perceptual masking by off axis colorations. So before you swear, with your little ears, on the holy bible of sound and loose your dealer soul forever, find somebody with a RT60 tool and some non linear (high end) speakers, and a regular room and a parameteric equalizer. If you manage to set the eq curve to the same quality as Audyssey or other similars will do, I will believe. So far I really can't....sorry. You seriously did not pass the test so far.

PS: be very carefull with your ranking. I have owned one of the units you have mentioned and can tell exactly how it looks inside......as I swapped "cards" myself....but I will not allow you to let us get carried away off topic here !

Stop giving us your speculation about it and go check it out.

I'm not sure if Darrell is ready to have me open it up and take it apart yet ;)

BTW, maybe I can sneak in a category called "Exotic mid-fi" :D

You seriously did not pass the test so far.

When did you pass mine?

BTW, i'm not claiming golden ear status here, just saying I can tell the difference between the NAD curve and the Audyssey curve and one is obviously better than the other.

I'm not sure if Darrell is ready to have me open it up and take it apart yet ;)

BTW, maybe I can sneak in a category called "Exotic mid-fi" :D


John,

There are some pictures of the inside of the box in the Denon AVP thread. But, there won't be any AVP opening/disecting at my place. :eek:

You are welcome to come over and check out the AVP though. Feel free to bring CDs or movies, but leave the screwdrivers at home. ;)

Darrell

When did you pass mine?

BTW, i'm not claiming golden ear status here, just saying I can tell the difference between the NAD curve and the Audyssey curve and one is obviously better than the other.

There is Audyssey Pro which allows you to utilize different curves. I wonder if they have the NAD curve (or one similar)? It would be interesting to hear the two curves on the same equipment/speakers.

Darrell

BTW, i'm not claiming golden ear status here

Oh yes Sponge, you already did.......by saying this.....not only in this thread btw.....

But my ears still trump the measurements

and there is no chance, no chance at all you will ever get out of this mess, you put yourself into. If you are not able to set an eq to the same quality level as Audyssey does, it tells itself that you lied in your posts and you assertions, by saying the above sentence. You did that all on your own.

It is no mircale to hear a difference between a bright and a pleasing sound curve. But that ability has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with what is correct and what is a flaw. It is simply a proof that you are able to hear, and that you are selling your own philosophy, your imagination and maybe even your ego to others.

Start to finally proof the quality of your ears above measurements, or start to bring solid evidence, where the Denon AVP fall short sonically and we got something to talk about.

One remark in the good : bring your hearing and real world measurements together John, and you got something solid in your hands others will envy. I do not see why even the most biased dealer should not be able to make that happen !

There is Audyssey Pro which allows you to utilize different curves. I wonder if they have the NAD curve (or one similar)? It would be interesting to hear the two curves on the same equipment/speakers.

They have several curves - bright, brighter and brightest :)

Nothing like the NAD curve, unless they've made a deal to add it.

Keep in mind, I don't think the NAD curve is always better than 'off' either, though it does seem to be much of the time. In a real high-end situation, room treatments and proper setup should be done and Audyssey left off.

Oh yes Sponge, you already did.......by saying this.....not only in this thread btw.....

You wanted 'measurements' of the target curve. my point is, i don't have one, nor does it matter in distinguishing one that sounds good and one that does not. Therefore, nothing you are ranting about has any context.

Besides, I had telegraphed my findings to NAD based on my hearing only, not looking at graphs. Having one of the best scientists in this field agree with me and correct accordingly made me feel pretty confident in what I was hearing.

Also, I have not said that the Denon sounds in any way deficient, aside from the Audyssey thing (assuming there wasn't a major overhaul). I simply have a different POV of what constitutes high-end and on this, we won't agree, so there's no need for the quasi-personal attacks or you increasing frustrations and diatribes.

Having one of the best scientists in this field agree with me and correct accordingly made me feel pretty confident in what I was hearing.


But then it should be easy for you to get facts of what was done ? If they simply took down some treble, to please the ear, then it is like the usual 8 to 10Khz drop to please the so called "high ender" ear. Taking down treble usually in that region is pleasing to the ear, and even conveys a deeper and less "present" soundstage. Usually, this is manipulation/sounding, which is not correct and is simply not the goal of linear reproduction on an input signal at the listening spot. However, if they really found some real flaws then pls ask what was done and share some facts.....

The flaw is simply the basis for the curve. We are accustomed to bass gain and music is mixed for this, not outside. We also are not sitting 3" from the speaker. The NAD curve addresses these two issues. It is not just to 'please' people, it's to get it right. Even so, i think Audyssey is plenty flawed in execution and needs a lot of further development and I have suggested about a dozen ways to both NAD and Audyssey how it could be improved.

But you're not going to believe me, so why don't *you* go experience a T175 that is properly set up and flip between the curves yourself. My point remains, the Japanese just included Audyssey as a feature, whereas NAD actually bothered to listen to it and work on it before including it. That is one big difference between a mid-fi company and a high-end company.

It seems to me that because you have had a bad experience from some so-called high-end companies that you think high-end is a bad term. But if I label something as 'mid-fi', you're equally bothered. Most "high-end" isn't high-end at all, it's mid-fi in a fancy cabinet with fancy marketing or its entry level high-end with a fancy box and marketing materials and an even fancier price. And some mid-fi gear can sound good enough that it is sounds just as good, even if it isn't a high-end design. If you can't get over this problem you have with labels, I'll just put you on ignore and move on.

A high-end dealer in my area for whom I have a great deal of respect just did a week of comparison listening between the $20K Theta Casablanca and the $7K Denon AVP-A1HDCI in Pure Direct. They said that the Theta sounded better but not by much. It suprised the hell out of them because they, like John, had assumed that it would just be decent sounding, not world class.

In due time the truth about this pre/pro will percolate from the informed to the uninformed (i.e. from those who have heard it, used it, and tested it to those who just spout old CW).

I wouldn't expect a big difference in direct. Of course, high-end electronic sales are founded entirely on small differences or even (maybe especially) the feeling that something might be better. I don't think understanding that is a reason to be called 'uninformed'.

Besides, most people these days are far more worried about functionality and features than with slight differences in sound. They're more worried about the big picture. I could probably be happy selling something like the big Denon, but prefer to sell stuff that offers more value, even if it doesn't have all the features and get people into better speakers. I have no problem running Revel Ultimas from a 'lowly' NAD T175/T975, though many people would call that 'mid-fi'. Doesn't much matter since I can drop in better speakers than they can and set it up better ;)

I don't know John, will the T175 be fully transparent on studio grade monitors, or will I miss my beloved, very, very present and well extended resolution / sound staging ? I hear on Genelec and I'm seriously not looking for the next best low pass filter around 2K Dollar :D

Feel free to come back with measurements from NAD and we discuss further what happens how in the room. Until then pls realize, sometimes it sounds like that you discovered something, sometimes you say NAD listened before installing. The first implies they did not know either before you called them...hehe.... In all very funny sounding. But good to hear they could advice to China before production. Hope that is not the same production plant nowadays some Japanese companies do their cheap receiver production in. Sorry, I just could not refuse and I clearly have nothing against NAD.

We are accustomed to bass gain and music is mixed for this, not outside

Can you share more details ?

Auf wiedersehen, Andreas, this is going nowhere.

It already did John. Have a good week end though.

PS: at the end my deep appologies to the starter of this thread for burning it. But ignorance to measurements is one thing, saying the absurd something else, spreading audiophile fog.....

PS2: in case someone finds a military grade multi channel audio processor with HDMI 1.3a, refined video processing, current room eq technologies and is produced outside Japan, pls let me know as well ! I had the small feeling the AVP could qualify....but as it is from Japan I'm not sure anymore :cool:

I wouldn't expect a big difference in direct. Of course, high-end electronic sales are founded entirely on small differences or even (maybe especially) the feeling that something might be better. I don't think understanding that is a reason to be called 'uninformed'. ;)

You seem to be backpeddling. In earlier posts you asserted that the Denon couldn't possibly hold a candle sonically to real high-end gear. Most enthusiasts would define the Theta Casablanca as high end. Now you're saying that you "wouldn't expect a big difference in direct". If it weren't for the dismisiveness with which you delivered this admission, I might think you were becoming informed.

You seem to be backpeddling. In earlier posts you asserted that the Denon couldn't possibly hold a candle sonically to real high-end gear. Most enthusiasts would define the Theta Casablanca as high end. Now you're saying that you "wouldn't expect a big difference in direct". If it weren't for the dismisiveness with which you delivered this admission, I might think you were becoming informed.

When did I say it couldn't hold a candle to real high-end gear?

I think you are inferring far too much. At worst, I said that the less expensive NAD would have an advantage if using Audyssey.

Hi All,
Well, I just installed the Denon. and the Theta is on it's way to it's new home. At first blush, EVERYTHING WORKS. What a nice change of pace. I've also bypassed my Lumagen scalar, for now. I hope to dial in some adjustments over the next week, and then I'll try the Audessey room correction. Setup isn't intuitive, but i got the hang of it after an hour or so. Firdst impression, the sound is every bit as good as the Theta through my system. That may mean that I had reached a wall with regard to my room acoustics, but so far, so good.

David

Alimentall;

Upper high-end - Conrad Johnson, YBA - Exotic parts that cost many times more than normal parts, extremely simplified design, over the top cabinetry, but generally still not ground breaking.

Exotic parts like what?

But you're not going to believe me, so why don't *you* go experience a T175 that is properly set up and flip between the curves yourself. My point remains, the Japanese just included Audyssey as a feature, whereas NAD actually bothered to listen to it and work on it before including it. That is one big difference between a mid-fi company and a high-end company.

So you did not go for the audyssey pro install? NAD did not change anything about the room correction and if you went for the pro install I think you would hear a difference.

So we know that high end processors do not run better DAC's, DSP's, so where Alimentall is this huge difference coming from?

Exotic parts like what?

transformers dipped in mink oil for 20 years. capacitors made in zero gravity. That kind of thing.

So you did not go for the audyssey pro install?

Sure, on the pro unit, but it didn't sound right.

NAD did not change anything about the room correction

If you meant that as written, that would be incorrect.

and if you went for the pro install I think you would hear a difference.

Sure, but that just means both would have the same advantage.

So we know that high end processors do not run better DAC's, DSP's, so where Alimentall is this huge difference coming from?

DACs and DSPs don't matter much if they do the same job numerically. The analog parts and avoiding of all noise and interference and other things can make a difference, however.

Hi David,
yes, pls share some more impressions vs. the Theta once you are settled in. What means you have reached a "wall" due to your room accoustics ? Does that mean you suffer still unacceptable reflections that you are aware off that make it hard to differentiate between components in a certain quality level ? Or visa versa ? Sorry, languagewise I'm not familiar with that expression.

John,
you are really riding that audio myth horse ! Ok, so lets continue.

but it didn't sound right.

Around what frequencies axactly ? Also above 16Khz ?

DACs and DSPs don't matter much if they do the same job numerically. The analog parts and avoiding of all noise and interference and other things can make a difference, however.


John,

I have to agree with you.

I have attempted to engage in forum discussions where posters have taken the position that analog isn't important anymore and just because a pre/pro like the Onkyo Pro or Integra offer features like HBR decoding, Audyssey, Dolby True HD or DTS MA, that this is as good as it gets. While these features are desirable and something we all may want, none of this matters if the analog sections ruin the sound. Higher rez audio, fed through low resolution analog stages, still results in low rez audio.

What the nay sayers don't understand is, unless the signal path is digital all the way to the loudspeaker, including digital amplification, then analog will always be important. Actually, analog is most likely more important or at least of equal importance as the digital design. Analog follows digital (D/A). Therefore, how is it possible that a top analog section in unnecessary? This area is where some high-end companies truly excel and where the mass market CE companies either must cut corners or are simply incompetent.

At one time, a mass market DVD player could not compete with a $6,500 Ayre DX-7 or an $8k Krell DVD Standard. Today, an inexpensive Blu Ray, HD DVD or even the new Oppo 983 is superior in performance to either of these. As far as pre/pros are concerned, the CE companies have a long way to go and their progress in this area is not as notable as with players. There are currently no inexpensive solutions that perform better than high-end pre/pros. With the new generation of high fidelity Op Amps, which come close to well designed discreet circuitry, things may change rapidly. If the mass CE companies spent a few extra dollars and utilized these new, Hi Fi Op Amps, they may be able to come close to true high end. Maybe someday, the mass CE industry will be able to match high end, just not yet. At that time, much of the high-end industry may cease to exist?

At some point in time, all HT systems may be like the Meridian, with an all digital signal path from source to loudspeaker transducer (but hopefully sound more to my liking)? For now, as long as we still utilize D/A conversion, I believe some high-end companies are able to create better sounding HT gear, mainly due to their strengths in power supply and analog design. For example, the Logitech Transporter is a really well designed digital media player, but a little hard on a trained ear. By replacing the power supply and analog sections, ModWright has made this a remarkable player.

For all of the non-believers, I suppose ignorance and denial are bliss.

Thank goodness someone does, I thought i was in the <$200 forum for a while ;)

I don't think a preamp has to be 'high-end' to sound good, or certainly acceptable. Maybe the pursuit of even better sound simply isn't that important any more, as long as the product has 'high-end' features. And maybe none of this will matter when everything is digital from beginning to end. Trying convince NAD to build a digital output card as we speak ;)

Thank goodness someone does, I thought i was in the <$200 forum for a while ;)

I don't think a preamp has to be 'high-end' to sound good, or certainly acceptable. Maybe the pursuit of even better sound simply isn't that important any more, as long as the product has 'high-end' features. And maybe none of this will matter when everything is digital from beginning to end. Trying convince NAD to build a digital output card as we speak ;)

John,

It's probably one of few instances we will ever agree on anything. Enjoy it while it lasts :)

How's the store coming along? Any updates to your thread?

Regards,
Anthony

transformers dipped in mink oil for 20 years. capacitors made in zero gravity. That kind of thing.

So you have no idea that any of these high end companies use better parts.

Sure, on the pro unit, but it didn't sound right.

It probably sounded different because you were hearing a flat EQ for the first time.

If you meant that as written, that would be incorrect.

That what did they change? They have their version of an curve used for audyssey but since every room measures different how can it be better?

Sure, but that just means both would have the same advantage.

No because the pro install is measured specifics for your room with specific filter for your room.

The analog parts and avoiding of all noise and interference and other things can make a difference, however.

Ok so show me these better parts you are talking about that receivers don't use.

Thank goodness someone does, I thought i was in the <$200 forum for a while ;)

I don't think a preamp has to be 'high-end' to sound good, or certainly acceptable. Maybe the pursuit of even better sound simply isn't that important any more, as long as the product has 'high-end' features. And maybe none of this will matter when everything is digital from beginning to end. Trying convince NAD to build a digital output card as we speak ;)

Just ignore bluray_1080p until he gets banned again.

So you have no idea that any of these high end companies use better parts.

That was a joke. I take it you've never seen inside a C-J, YBA, BAT or NAD Masters M3, for example.

It probably sounded different because you were hearing a flat EQ for the first time.

Um, no, I have speakers that are as flat as flat gets. Putting the Audyssey on it made them screechy and lacking in bass. NAD's curve, while not perfect, is closer to 'off', but with main improvements being in timbre matching/bass quality.

That what did they change? They have their version of an curve used for audyssey but since every room measures different how can it be better?

Well, no curve can be perfect for every room, every person, every speaker setup. However, theirs makes more sense on basic psychoacoustics - that we hear bass in a room and we hear midrange/treble from a distance. And it tries, with varying result, to get the same basic sound in any room. But, then, you still have 3 curves, plus 'off'.

No because the pro install is measured specifics for your room with specific filter for your room.

Still needs more flexibility before I'm willing to pay for that feature.

Ok so show me these better parts you are talking about that receivers don't use.

Hey, open up a high-end piece some day. Do I have to spoon feed it to you?

Just ignore bluray_1080p until he gets banned again.

Which one is he? :eek:

Edit - I took a wild guess ;)

Audiodynamics,

how much of what you said did you derrive from blind a/b tests ? We are not way back in analogue designs and parts of the 70ties....A good room accoustic will beat any airiness in the analogue output by a trillion percent. And, as you did not notice, nowbody here doubted in the past posts the importance of a good analogue design. Honestly, I only see over-exaggeration on the other side...

Digital active speakers are cumbersome, and not all adhere the very stringend design principles that you find in studio grade equipment. I could now elaborate on my 15 year old Meridian (565, not 568, getting old) setup with 5 digital active speakers (non Meridian), but I'm tired. Speak to some manufacturers of high grade monitor speakers and they will tell you more about some obstacles.

John, the question on 16KHz was a test. I cannot even hear that high, so I thought you would really tell me off, you did not. I think you are really clueless when it comes to give any substantial information on audio quality. Sorry, again you failed a test. I'm out of here and let you keep on spreading the audiophile fog :(

John, the question on 16KHz was a test. I cannot even hear that high, so I thought you would really tell me off, you did not. I think you are really clueless when it comes to give any substantial information on audio quality. Sorry, again you failed a test. I'm out of here and let you keep on spreading the audiophile fog :(


John,

You should be ashamed of yourself for "spreading the audiophile fog" ;)

Sorry, I take that back, he is a dealer, no need to be ashamed, I forgot about that.

Audiodynamics,

how much of what you said did you derrive from blind a/b tests ? We are not way back in analogue designs and parts of the 70ties....A good room accoustic will beat any airiness in the analogue output by a trillion percent. (

Andreas,

Please post a link to any studies that can confirm this trillion percent improvement?


Seriously, I don't disagree with your argument. Of course a well designed acoustic environment is a must. The issue with room correction lies in the implementation. I don't find Audyssey to be anything great. It saps the life out of music. For HT, it's acceptable. My final conclusion was derived only after stringent quadruple blind testing with lab rats :)

He reminds me of dennis...

but thats what i'm on about, if only people would listen!

:)

John,

You should be ashamed of yourself for "spreading the audiophile fog" ;)

I know! it's the whole 'my experience counts and don't have to prove it to anyone, but yours doesn't unless you prove it to my satisfaction' crap. I'm not even an audiophile! Technophile, maybe. Music lover for sure. And it's just an opinion. I'm just using a traditional definition of high-end, rather than the only definition.

Please post a link to any studies that can confirm this trillion percent improvement?

If you have not understood the truth in this simple argument, then why argue at all. You do not seem to be a person that appreciates edjucation ? Show me yourself your in room frequency response of your system, from those different players you mentioned, at the same output level, say minus 20 to reference level, taking the output level of the players into account, if needed. Make that room naked. At best you will come around with "you hear the airiness", when level matched, and maybe something "very clear, I hear a tad of cleaner/deeper bass", or "the music -feels- more integrated" (whatever that means).

Then treat your room properly, start with bass absorbers of 2 feet thickness/diameter in all 4 corners. Go to a shop and home depot, get garbage polybags (shop), say 3 feet heigh, 2 feet in diameter. Stuff them with rockwhool insulation material (home depot). Close the filled bag airtight. Pile those "3 feet heigh rolls" up in all 4 corners of your room. Then look for the first reflections of your speakers towards your listing position, take a mirror, if needed, to locate those on you side walls. Use "hole"-boards to work as Helmholz resonators. Build 8 feet high, 3 feet wide square shaped boxes, with a depth of 3 to 4 inches. With boards roughly half an inch thick. The usually 1/10 of inch thick "hole"-boards come on the front, stuff them with proper fillings (not Rockwhool, to avoid air polution with small particles, use foam, if nothing else is there, I use natural materials only). These absorbers will not kill the treble, but the holes will catch substantial mid frequencies and work good around 200 to 4000 Hz. Place them at the first reflection areas of the side walls.

http://www.trikustik.at/z2akustik-images/11282007175757.jpg

Now, compare you in room measurements, by the sources you have changed. Compare that to your room before treated and after treated. Use RT60 or simliar devices to get a waterfall diagramm of the sound decay at the listening position.

If you get something of a difference at the listening position via the different players, you are a lucky person. The difference with the treatment will change your life.

Enough said. I'm not here to lecture, or to make people believe me. I try to follow the rules and do not bend them, because I either cannot tell better or am a sales person. Anything like that would only mislead deeply others reading this forum and this cannot be in the interest of this forum.

I could probably be happy selling something like the big Denon, but prefer to sell stuff that offers more value... ;)

That's just the point. The Denon AVP is a super value compared to a Lexicon or a Meridian or a Theta. This pre/pro is so exciting because of it's performance, unique capabilities, build quality, and low price relative to other high-end preamp/processors. Your NAD may be less expensive and it may (or may not) be a value relative to other components in its range, but you can't hold it up as a better value than the Denon AVP....apples and oranges. Well, I take that back. You COULD hold it up as a better value, but few -- especially those who have first-hand experience with the Denon AVP -- would agree with you.

Oh, I have no doubt it's a super value for the feature content alone. My point about 'mid-fi' vs 'high-end' is that an upper mid-fi product prioritizes the feature content and, well, goes for as good a sound as it can while balancing all of that, whereas a high-end product will generally have a much more targeted feature set because it is prioritizing the sound (or the illusion thereof).

Back when i was a C-J dealer, i did a little mockup for them for a surround processor that was 3 pieces, because they were wondering how to get into surround, if they should, etc, etc. So I offered up the idea of a 7.1 analog preamp as a starter piece with dual 7.1 inputs, as well as multiple 2 channel inputs. Then add a 7.1 DAC with digital processing. And then finally work with a company to do a video switcher/upconverter and have them all tie in together. The idea is that you would have three ~$3000 pieces, 3 ~$6000 combos, and a ~$9000 combo and you could work on one piece at a time. plus you have the high-end sensibilities of keeping everything separate. They didn't go for it and still don't have a solution of which I'm aware.

If you have not understood the truth in this simple argument, then why argue at all. You do not seem to be a person that appreciates edjucation ? Show me yourself your in room frequency response of your system, from those different players you mentioned, at the same output level, say minus 20 to reference level, taking the output level of the players into account, if needed. Make that room naked. At best you will come around with "you hear the airiness", when level matched, and maybe something "very clear, I hear a tad of cleaner/deeper bass", or "the music -feels- more integrated" (whatever that means).

Then treat your room properly, start with bass absorbers of 2 feet thickness/diameter in all 4 corners. Go to a shop and home depot, get garbage polybags (shop), say 3 feet heigh, 2 feet in diameter. Stuff them with rockwhool insulation material (home depot). Close the filled bag airtight. Pile those "3 feet heigh rolls" up in all 4 corners of your room. Then look for the first reflections of your speakers towards your listing position, take a mirror, if needed, to locate those on you side walls. Use "hole"-boards to work as Helmholz resonators. Build 8 feet high, 3 feet wide square shaped boxes, with a depth of 3 to 4 inches. With boards roughly half an inch thick. The usually 1/10 of inch thick "hole"-boards come on the front, stuff them with proper fillings (not Rockwhool, to avoid air polution with small particles, use foam, if nothing else is there, I use natural materials only). These absorbers will not kill the treble, but the holes will catch substantial mid frequencies and work good around 200 to 4000 Hz. Place them at the first reflection areas of the side walls.

http://www.trikustik.at/z2akustik-images/11282007175757.jpg

Now, compare you in room measurements, by the sources you have changed. Compare that to your room before treated and after treated. Use RT60 or simliar devices to get a waterfall diagramm of the sound decay at the listening position.

If you get something of a difference at the listening position via the different players, you are a lucky person. The difference with the treatment will change your life.

Enough said. I'm not here to lecture, or to make people believe me. I try to follow the rules and do not bend them, because I either cannot tell better or am a sales person. Anything like that would only mislead deeply others reading this forum and this cannot be in the interest of this forum.


Thanks for the lecture Andreas.

While you offer very sound acoustical advice, I don't think my clients will appreciate their room decor after I toss all of your suggested fiberglass filled trashbags all over their rooms. LOL:) Actually, I doubt they'll pay me. I may even get sued. LOL :) My typical client prefers an integrated acoustic control system, that is hidden behind cloth wall covering.

You still haven't shown me any statistics that prove your claim of a "Trillion Percent Improvement"

I can't stop laughing long enough to type any more.

Nobody will argue that starting with proper acoustic treatments and then moving on to electronic is the far better way to go.

And in a room where one can do so, acoustic treatments will aways be superior to electronic ones.

i would hazard a guess that the trillion % was hyperbole and nothing more. we all know it cannot be more than a million.

Nobody will argue that starting with proper acoustic treatments and then moving on to electronic is the far better way to go.

And in a room where one can do so, acoustic treatments will aways be superior to electronic ones.

i would hazard a guess that the trillion % was hyperbole and nothing more. we all know it cannot be more than a million.

I concur with a million%

I told you a million times, DO NOT EXAGGERATE!!!!! - Rik

AD, I really do not see why we should argue anymore, except that you to try to make the fun of the most basic physics. And if you really do acoustic installations for your clients, you should have measurements of the in room effect at the listening spot of different analogue DVD player outputs vs. a good room treatment yourself. I did the described treatment in my own room, with nice covers to make the treatments invisible. However in the bass region there is a difference between Europen houses made of concrete and typical double layer walls you find in the US houses. As said, so far I can only laugh into your face and that of your "soul brother".

Oh, I have no doubt it's a super value for the feature content alone. My point about 'mid-fi' vs 'high-end' is that an upper mid-fi product prioritizes the feature content and, well, goes for as good a sound as it can while balancing all of that, whereas a high-end product will generally have a much more targeted feature set because it is prioritizing the sound (or the illusion thereof).

Back when i was a C-J dealer, i did a little mockup for them for a surround processor that was 3 pieces, because they were wondering how to get into surround, if they should, etc, etc. So I offered up the idea of a 7.1 analog preamp as a starter piece with dual 7.1 inputs, as well as multiple 2 channel inputs. Then add a 7.1 DAC with digital processing. And then finally work with a company to do a video switcher/upconverter and have them all tie in together. The idea is that you would have three ~$3000 pieces, 3 ~$6000 combos, and a ~$9000 combo and you could work on one piece at a time. plus you have the high-end sensibilities of keeping everything separate. They didn't go for it and still don't have a solution of which I'm aware.

Your concept for CJ is certainly a viable one. I would simply assert that 1) sound quality was, indeed, a primary goal of the Denon engineers with the AVP -- one they succeeded in achieving, and 2) some fraction of the value is derived by combining the separate sections onto one chasis (with no injury to sound quality), providing a savings in money, space, and wiring for those who are happy to have all of the capabilities at the outset rather than piecemeal. Other high-end pre/pros have done the same, just not (so far) as well.

I think your primary hang-up is coming to terms with the fact that a manufacture is playing on both sides of the mid-fi/high-end dividing line. Most traditional high-end manufactures do not also offer popular-priced receivers and dvd players. The fact that Denon does colors your perceptions and mobilizes your self-interested reasoning to somehow detract from their achievement. Some high-end specialty dealers think it vital to keep "crossover" brands out of the club house. I say stop fighting it and embrace it. Can you get the line, John, or does your competitor already have it locked up?

Hi Pete,
there is too much money involved :( Only when the aware consumer, independent of budget, will take a closer unbiased look into the principals of sound reproduction and how the sound behaves in a room, dealers will turn their heads. We are not way back in the seventies where analogue cicuitry was a miracle and a lot of prejudism came from.

Also one remark concerning the "trillion times remark" I did. Imagine you are a dealer. You have two identical rooms, one almost empty, one with excellent room treatments (say close to ITUR around 0,3 to 0,5, rising in the lower spectrum with still excellent levels). Imagine the rooms are made of stone. Bass energy is preserved to it's best. You take a good DVD player and a high end unit. You make a level matched comparison in stereo with the analogue ouputs. Let's say you make sure both players output at a 50Hz signal the same voltage within 1Vp/p, depending on the signal amplitude recorded. The tone is a short 50Hz pulse in a cylce, that goes "slam", pause, "slam", pause, "slam". You measure both rooms. The bad room may have a severe room mode around 50Hz due to either vertical or horizontal room measurements. In the bad room the signal gets not only a peak, an increase of say 6 to 8db, but worse due to the room mode a very long decay time of over a second. The signal would even mask other lower signals, if you would play music.

Now you go into the bad room. You measure the in room response of the cheaper player. You record the room mode as well as the poor decay. The better player will output a tad better, maybe dryer, the signal, but the signal gets caught in the same room dependencies an excites the same room mode at the listening space. Either you hear no difference between the players or you imagine one. You try to see something different when measured on the better player, but actually you measure the room.

Now let's take this on further. You got an interested buyer. He goes into the bad room, listens to Music and a/bs both players. He comes out, and for some reason, he claims the better player has a more integrated sound, although basically almost impossible to hear, due to various room modes and too high reverb in the empty room, an impression rather close to imagination (don't be fooled, alot of rich people listen in rather empty styled modern rooms). The interested buyer goes into the well treated room and hears music. With a sweated face he returns and will tell you, no matter what player, the Music in that treated room was astonishing. The image was so stable, the voices so focused and real, he could almost grap the image and feel any nuance the singer's voice and percussions were performing. He heard sounds he did not hear before. He will tell you that sound, in the other room was "a trillion times better".

What will you tell him. "Sorry Sir, it's just 1254:1 as good". By comparison of what one would hear in the better room, it's fair to over-exeggarate.

I do stand by what I said. We still have no proof the Denon is midfi, just a lot of bias and personal taste and almost no substantial infos from the "soul brothers" :(

Andreas,
You are quite correct about the importance of room calibration. Even the Audyssey Pro can't make up for a really bad room, though it can knock down some of the effects. A properly treated room -- one with the right balance of absorption, reflection, and defraction -- coupled with time and frequency correction such as that provided by Audyssey Pro, can make a $2500 receiver sound better than a stack of expensive high-end separates.

That was a joke. I take it you've never seen inside a C-J, YBA, BAT or NAD Masters M3, for example.
Hey, open up a high-end piece some day. Do I have to spoon feed it to you?

You are the one saying that the high end uses special parts that receivers don't have.

Um, no, I have speakers that are as flat as flat gets.

What does that have to do with an in room measurment? Your speakers will not measure flat in your room.

Well, no curve can be perfect for every room, every person, every speaker setup. However, theirs makes more sense on basic psychoacoustics - that we hear bass in a room and we hear midrange/treble from a distance. And it tries, with varying result, to get the same basic sound in any room. But, then, you still have 3 curves, plus 'off'.

Still needs more flexibility before I'm willing to pay for that feature.

So you have tried the pro install or you have not?

I think your primary hang-up is coming to terms with the fact that a manufacture is playing on both sides of the mid-fi/high-end dividing line. Most traditional high-end manufactures do not also offer popular-priced receivers and dvd players. The fact that Denon does colors your perceptions and mobilizes your self-interested reasoning to somehow detract from their achievement. Some high-end specialty dealers think it vital to keep "crossover" brands out of the club house.

Not really. It's my belief that they only play one side of the fence, that being mid-fi, not that there's anything terribly wrong with that. I just don't like difficult to use products with too many unneeded features. I have to read a manual to operate a Denon product. I don't need to do that with the stuff I sell.


I say stop fighting it and embrace it. Can you get the line, John, or does your competitor already have it locked up?

I don't know, but then, I have absolutely zero interest in the line. I think Denon fits better with our competitor's philosophy and NAD fits better with ours. I tend to look at even affordable gear through a high-end POV, vs some that look at even expensive gear through a mass market POV. And the NAD does everything I need it to do, sonically and operationally! So I have no need to sell a $7K piece to anyone, especially since i can offer up the better Audyssey implementation and an upgradable modular chassis.

The other reason is that I generally only sell product if I have a direct line to their product development team. I know the guys at NAD and I am always developing ideas for them to consider, many of which actually made it on board the Masters and T175. I can't have that relationship with Denon. And i'd rather give my business to deserving American companies than European or Asian companies, especially when I believe they are *more* deserving. Everything I sell is from a US or Canadian company. I've always been disappointed in the end by every European company or Asian company I've sold or tried (except JVC projectors).

BTW, don't mean that to sound harsh. I'm very sure this Denon is a fine product, i just have no interest in the line or even that type of product. i have always liked Denon more than other mass market Japanese stuff and have owned it personally at times, but never liked it as much as the NAD gear. I also think that as systems become increasingly digital, there won't be the need for expensive stuff like the Denon. In theory, if a transition to digital speakers is made, NAD could replace the analog out card with a digital speaker card. That has a strong appeal for me as there is no doubt that the next jump in speakers *has* be digital. They just have to figure out how to sell it to the population or wait for them to demand it.

Not really. It's my belief that they only play one side of the fence, that being mid-fi, not that there's anything terribly wrong with that. I just don't like difficult to use products with too many unneeded features. I have to read a manual to operate a Denon product. I don't need to do that with the stuff I sell.

Features do not associate with one "side" or the other since they are features that one can use if they want to or need to. So you so not like denon based on your inability to operate the unit?

and an upgradable modular chassis.

I doubt they will do this but I guess we will have to wait and see.

And i'd rather give my business to deserving American companies than European or Asian companies, especially when I believe they are *more* deserving. Everything I sell is from a US or Canadian company. I've always been disappointed in the end by every European company or Asian company I've sold or tried (except JVC projectors).

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/systems/psb-alpha-t-system.html

So how much of the NAD equipment is made in china?

Sorry "Doug", I took Zissou's advice. Too much argument on the forum as is.

Sorry "Doug", I took Dizz's advice. Too much argument on the forum as is.

Alright but you said you do not like to buy/sell anything that is made in china yet it looks like some or most of the NAD electronics are made in china and I juat wanted to find out how much of it is.

Personal opinion: Made in China is no problem at all, as long as the most stringend standards the designer/buying company sets (can be located worldwide, as in NADs case) are adhered to. Personally I prefer made in Japan, and above that made in Germany, as you all will prefer made in the USA. That is almost a normal human behavior these days.....Looking at salary rises in China maybe one day we all see the opposite to happen and companies to come back......maybe not. We'll see.....

Which one is he? :eek:

Edit - I took a wild guess ;)
:)

John,
Does NAD still break a lot or have they gotten past that? And have they gotten better at staying up with technology? They always struck me as a day late and a dollar short...introducing new models that are missing important features and capabilities. By the time they can say "me too" everyone else has moved on and they're left trying to sell yesterday's news. Also their prices have always struck me as a little on the high side compared to other mid-fi product. But when they work, they sound pretty good.

The above paragraph reflects a viewpoint held by not a few audio mavens. It probably has little factual substance, but I'm guessing you have to deal with it from time to time. It's not unlike the conventional wisdom you've been parroting about Denon. It's completely wrong, but it's what you believe and you make a living telling customers what you believe. Most dealers I've talked to admit that customers just want to be told what to buy by someone who seems authoritative. You guys are sort of like shrinks. Dealing with peoples' insecurities and doubts all day long; giving them the courage and conviction to buy brand A or product X. You definitely have your spiel down on NAD vs. Denon. And the people at NAD are YOUR shrink...reasuring you, making you feel important and connected.

But NAD doesn't make anything like the Denon AVP, so the AVP must be off the mark. You have likened the AVP to a sheep in wolf's clothing...even though you have never experienced one first hand. And you substantiate your remarks with impressions, beliefs, past experiences -- anything but facts, measurements, critical listening, and/or accurate comparitive analysis.

I've given up trying to convince you that the AVP is really cool and deserving of your consideration. Your notion of what is self-evident just won't allow that to happen. Too bad. You would probably get off on it if you could get past your hangups.

Does NAD still break a lot or have they gotten past that?

Dramatically better. Except for an accidentally bricked unit, these new ones are 100%. They know that reliability has bit them badly before and have done a huge amount of work and thought on these units.

And have they gotten better at staying up with technology? They always struck me as a day late and a dollar short...introducing new models that are missing important features and capabilities.

A day behind, but I wouldn't call it a day late. Besides, in this case, the price is $5000 short of the Denon. How many units have a truly modular chassis? It's not just there to put on the marketing brochure like, let's say, balanced outs.

By the time they can say "me too" everyone else has moved on and they're left trying to sell yesterday's news. Also their prices have always struck me as a little on the high side compared to other mid-fi product. But when they work, they sound pretty good.

Maybe, but I bet the T175 is in the marketplace and updated long after this current Denon is out of date and people are in the position of selling it to try to keep up.

The above paragraph reflects a viewpoint held by not a few audio mavens. It probably has little factual substance, but I'm guessing you have to deal with it from time to time. It's not unlike the conventional wisdom you've been parroting about Denon. It's completely wrong, but it's what you believe and you make a living telling customers what you believe. Most dealers I've talked to admit that customers just want to be told what to buy by someone who seems authoritative. You guys are sort of like shrinks. Dealing with peoples' insecurities and doubts all day long; giving them the courage and conviction to buy brand A or product X. You definitely have your spiel down on NAD vs. Denon. And the people at NAD are YOUR shrink...reasuring you, making you feel important and connected.

Perhaps, but my customers know that we're fully plugged in and can handle their issues if they come up. Now, sure, you can say that my upper mid-fi opinion of even expensive Denon is a bit harsh, as would be picking on NAD because of past reliability issues, but that's the way it is. It's how it's handled that counts. We get a *lot* of people trading Denon for NAD. Our competitor almost never gets our electronics or speaker customers. We've had *so* many Denon people come in and tell us that the $300 NAD DVD or CD they bought for a second system sounded so much better than their $1000+ Denons on the analog outs that they ended up being big NAD fans. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard people complain about CD sound on a Denon. I had another customer that had an over $1200 Denon receiver that couldn't drive his new NHTs without it shutting down on action sequences, but the $700 one I tossed in drove them fine.

But NAD doesn't make anything like the Denon AVP, so the AVP must be off the mark. You have likened the AVP to a sheep in wolf's clothing...even though you have never experienced one first hand. And you substantiate your remarks with impressions, beliefs, past experiences -- anything but facts, measurements, critical listening, and/or accurate comparitive analysis.

Perhaps, it's just *long* term exposure to their products. What can I say? Again, for $5000 more, one would expect better sound, but I doubt you'd get more than a tie. And the NAD Audyssey curve is just better, as is the modular construction design. Denon will be glad to sell you a "2" next year though for probably $8K or $10K. How do you know the NAD doesn't sound *better* than the Denon? You're holding it up as some sort of standard, but nothing in my experience that Denon has produced would quality as that kind of gear. Could this be the first exception? Maybe. Not counting on it. I'm sure it's good enough for most people who want that feature set though.

I've given up trying to convince you that the AVP is really cool and deserving of your consideration. Your notion of what is self-evident just won't allow that to happen. Too bad. You would probably get off on it if you could get past your hangups.

Took you long enough ;) If the Denon were $2K or $3K, it might actually worry about it a bit, but at $7K, it's just an expensive mass market design that may *also* sound sufficiently good, but it would be a tough thing to sound equal to or better than an NAD. And while it will *sell*, it's not the kind of piece that most of my customers would seek. Our stuff may be affordable, but there's little that's mass market about it and our customers largely aren't into that kind of product. It would be cool on a high-end install where you're spec'ing in a piece, but even then, we prefer the simplicity of the NADs and the fact that we can talk customers through the menu over the phone when needed, even when I'm sitting at a restaurant with a beer in my hand. It reminds me of the rice burner mags that always are eager to compare Japanese models to the BMWs and declare victory. At best, the big news here would be "wow, Denon finally made something that sounds as good as an NAD, but with more features at 3.5 times the price and the wife still can't use it" and single Denon owners would finally feel good or something :confused: :) :D

Maybe we can get AVS to open up an "Ultra Mid-Fi" forum though ;) Hehehehehehe

John,
Does NAD still break a lot or have they gotten past that? And have they gotten better at staying up with technology? They always struck me as a day late and a dollar short...introducing new models that are missing important features and capabilities. By the time they can say "me too" everyone else has moved on and they're left trying to sell yesterday's news. Also their prices have always struck me as a little on the high side compared to other mid-fi product. But when they work, they sound pretty good.

The above paragraph reflects a viewpoint held by not a few audio mavens. It probably has little factual substance, but I'm guessing you have to deal with it from time to time. It's not unlike the conventional wisdom you've been parroting about Denon. It's completely wrong, but it's what you believe and you make a living telling customers what you believe. Most dealers I've talked to admit that customers just want to be told what to buy by someone who seems authoritative. You guys are sort of like shrinks. Dealing with peoples' insecurities and doubts all day long; giving them the courage and conviction to buy brand A or product X. You definitely have your spiel down on NAD vs. Denon. And the people at NAD are YOUR shrink...reasuring you, making you feel important and connected.

But NAD doesn't make anything like the Denon AVP, so the AVP must be off the mark. You have likened the AVP to a sheep in wolf's clothing...even though you have never experienced one first hand. And you substantiate your remarks with impressions, beliefs, past experiences -- anything but facts, measurements, critical listening, and/or accurate comparitive analysis.

I've given up trying to convince you that the AVP is really cool and deserving of your consideration. Your notion of what is self-evident just won't allow that to happen. Too bad. You would probably get off on it if you could get past your hangups.

A great post. Except I'd say that Alimentall doesn't actually believe all the stuff he posts here or tells his customers. He just professes to believe.

A great post. Except I'd say that Alimentall doesn't actually believe all the stuff he posts here or tells his customers. He just professes to believe.

I don't think this is a fair statement. I live in the same town as John. I have bought gear from him and his "competitor". Despite Johns apparently harsh comments and view points towards gear I won and have owned, we get along very well. I think John just has a different priority than many on the board and especially this forum.

I don't want to speak for John, but he seems very sincere in the fact that he is really into getting his customers into the best sounding, affordable gear. In this financially challenged town, that is a commendable goal.

My goal is to get the best gear I can afford. This isn't the same as Johns goal. We both realize we have different goals and can exchange views over a beer. We don't always agree, but exchanging the differing views are part of the fun.

BTW, John has an excellent ear, and is more open minded than you think. He actually has sat and listened to my B&W speakers for a few hours without taking an ax to them. :D

I think its great that people here debate back and forth, but I think its unfair and incorrect to say John doesn't believe the stuff he tells his customers. Unless you have been a customer or have heard him discuss gear with his customers, it just irresponsible to say things like that.

Regards,
Darrell

It reminds me of the rice burner mags that always are eager to compare Japanese models to the BMWs and declare victory.

This is not a fair comparison, Japanese model cars may not be as fun to drive as the German ones but they are much more reliable. It is a trade off. This is also comparing the mechanical design of these products and not the electronics.

Another comparison: Look at consumer and professional camera equipment. Canon and Nikon are both trouncing Zeiss and Leica. Both Zeiss and Leica still make great optics but they fall behind in the overall design which combines electronics and optical design. Note: Zeiss only makes lenses for other camera manufacturers. I would say that Japanese optics are equal to the German ones but they are far ahead in electronics. The combination of autofocus and image processing of the Nikon and Canon cameras are truly impressive. This is an example of the Japanese manufacturers being ahead in electronics.

The same can be said for hifi. There is no reason the Denon would not be better than any smaller company such as Nad etc. There is just so much software programming in todays designs that it can be overwhelming for smaller companies to compete. The times have changed. The best way to compare is to take measurements from both units.

I don't think this is a fair statement. I live in the same town as John. I have bought gear from him and his "competitor". Despite Johns apparently harsh comments and view points towards gear I won and have owned, we get along very well. I think John just has a different priority than many on the board and especially this forum........

Thanks Darrell. This is indeed true, if I didn't believe it, I wouldn't say it. i believe what i believe and I also respect that others believe differently (most of the time, anyway). i can accept that many will consider the Denon to be high-end and the NAD to be mid-fi because we have *different* definitions of what that is. I respect Darrell's opinions a lot and hope he can respect mine because it's an open forum. People don't typically hold back on their opinions, so I don't hold back on mine. If you think high-end is purely subjective, then there are millions of answers to the same question, each one personal and each one only valid if people did a fair, open-minded comparison. if it's objective, then we can only get one source to measure both pieces and hope one of them measures equal or better in every way. And then there are many other ways of interpreting things.

I have no doubt that Darrell's minimum standard required balanced outs or he would have at least given the NAD a whirl. And while i think balanced outputs don't help performance at all except under very extreme circumstances or with very extreme and costly designs (maybe), some find it to be a mandatory minimum because their amps have it if nothing else.

Now all I have to do is get him to replace those B&Ws with those nifty Revels I brought in ;)

This is not a fair comparison, Japanese model cars may not be as fun to drive as the German ones but they are much more reliable. It is a trade off. This is also comparing the mechanical design of these products and not the electronics.

Another comparison: Look at consumer and professional camera equipment. Canon and Nikon are both trouncing Zeiss and Leica. Both Zeiss and Leica still make great optics but they fall behind in the overall design which combines electronics and optical design. Note: Zeiss only makes lenses for other camera manufacturers. I would say that Japanese optics are equal to the German ones but they are far ahead in electronics. The combination of autofocus and image processing of the Nikon and Canon cameras are truly impressive. This is an example of the Japanese manufacturers being ahead in electronics.

The same can be said for hifi. There is no reason the Denon would not be better than any smaller company such as Nad etc. There is just so much software programming in todays designs that it can be overwhelming for smaller companies to compete. The times have changed. The best way to compare is to take measurements from both units.

Ah, but this is simply a difference of semantics. My opinion that high-end is a way of designing things, vs just the sonic status of a piece of gear. For instance, by *any* measure, the world's best speakers are low-fi compared to a $50 CD player. But we describe relatively horrible $100K speakers as 'high-end' because they have so much attention to sonic detail and a serious attempt to further the state of the art. Now, high-end has always been used to describe a product who's main goal is sonic performance. if we expand that definition to a product who's main goal is extreme levels of advanced technology, then, yes, that makes the Denon very high-end. A Sonos music system would be high-end. A $100 HD-DVD player would be high-end and a $10,000 DVD player would be low-end or mid-fi. But typically, we call something 'high-end' when it is lower in frills and more performance oriented. A Porsche is more high-end than a BMW, which is more high-end than a Lexus, which is more high-end than my Mazda, which is more high-end than a Dodge Caravan. If technology is 'high-end', than a Prius is more high-end than all of that.

I have no doubt that Darrell's minimum standard required balanced outs or he would have at least given the NAD a whirl. And while i think balanced outputs don't help performance at all except under very extreme circumstances or with very extreme and costly designs (maybe), some find it to be a mandatory minimum because their amps have it if nothing else.

Now all I have to do is get him to replace those B&Ws with those nifty Revels I brought in ;)

Actually, I would have given the NAD a try if I had known it had a working HDMI implementation.

While I think that balanced connections generally allow for a lower noise floor, the reason I wanted balanced outs, is that one of my amps has a hum if I use the unbalanced connections. It's perfectly fine when I use the balanced inputs.

Let me know when you have the NAD, Revels, and a high res source ready to demo. I'll come give it a listen.

Darrell

Actually, I would have given the NAD a try if I had known it had a working HDMI implementation.

I told you it did :) Well, I can't say it was 100% until last week as they just figured out an incompatibility between it, my NuVision, the InFocus PJ and 1080/24p. Worked fine in 1080i and even 1080p/60 with the Nuvision, but didn't like 1024p until v1.16.

Let me know when you have the NAD, Revels, and a high res source ready to demo. I'll come give it a listen.

I do, though just in 2-channel at the moment. Gotta save big$$$ for the Voice2, subwoofer and some inwalls to match. I'm not quite feeling so secure that I can spring for 4 Gem2s at the moment :eek:

Maybe we can get AVS to open up an "Ultra Mid-Fi" forum though Hehehehehehe

John, I think even with those desparate words and desire of yours, there is not chance that A.G. will give you your wanted "NAD/NXT" forum in here....with you being Mister Midfi Supermoderator....sorry to say :D:D:D


PS: I have nothing against NAD. If somebody calls them midfi with the same prejudism and no substance argumance we have encountered from John on the Denon, I would indeed ask him to proof it via measurements or A/B comparisons!

Ah, but this is simply a difference of semantics. My opinion that high-end is a way of designing things, vs just the sonic status of a piece of gear. For instance, by *any* measure, the world's best speakers are low-fi compared to a $50 CD player. But we describe relatively horrible $100K speakers as 'high-end' because they have so much attention to sonic detail and a serious attempt to further the state of the art. Now, high-end has always been used to describe a product who's main goal is sonic performance. if we expand that definition to a product who's main goal is extreme levels of advanced technology, then, yes, that makes the Denon very high-end. A Sonos music system would be high-end. A $100 HD-DVD player would be high-end and a $10,000 DVD player would be low-end or mid-fi. But typically, we call something 'high-end' when it is lower in frills and more performance oriented. A Porsche is more high-end than a BMW, which is more high-end than a Lexus, which is more high-end than my Mazda, which is more high-end than a Dodge Caravan. If technology is 'high-end', than a Prius is more high-end than all of that.

OK, without getting too confusing with analogies, what I am simply saying is that the Denon could be the best sounding unit available. Since, I am only interested in performance, I would be interested in this unit barring what anyone labels it. Call it a tomato if you like :D

I am also saying that some components which some consider as high end units might actually perform worse than the Denon. With the complexities of the new audio standards, the so called high end manufacturers are being left behind.

I'd say that Alimentall doesn't actually believe all the stuff he posts here or tells his customers. He just professes to believe.

I don't think this is a fair statement.

Possibly I was unfair in assuming that he tells his customers the same BS that he posts here on AVS. Do you think that a bad assumption?

As for what he posts here, could anyone as technically knowledgable as he is actually believe that, as he posted on the Revel thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13355503#post13355503, "anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy"? Was his statement and its repeated defense perhaps influenced by the amplifier lineup he carries at the moment?

Does a statement like his make sense when you consider that he carries the Revel Ultima2 line, which includes the 86.4dB/1W/1m efficient Salon2? Let's be generous and assume 300W peak output instead of the 200W that Alimentall is talking about. At 12 ft listening distance and with 3dB of assumed room gain (it could be much less if the speakers are well away from walls and the room well-damped), with 300W you get 106dB peaks from a pair when listening to stereo music, whereas "John Atkinson measured, from a normal audience position, the peak level produced by a small symphony orchestra in a concert hall. He measured peaks of 109dB to 110dB. One of the top recording engineers in the world, Tony Faulkner, regularly measures 113dB to 116dB peaks from large symphony orchestras. Rock music is even louder." (source: Musical Fidelity) I've read elsewhere that rock concerts can reach 130dB peaks, though I don't think I or many other people here would want to actually go that high.

OK, without getting too confusing with analogies, what I am simply saying is that the Denon could be the best sounding unit available.

Could be! So could the NAD or the Onkyo or maybe it's the 861 for all anyone *really* knows. Do we have a big blind A/B test or just keep guessing based on the brochure? :)

Possibly I was unfair in assuming that he tells his customers the same BS that he posts here on AVS. Do you think that a bad assumption?



A) In your previous post, you did not say that he tells his customers the smae BS that he tells people here. You said he tells customers things that he does not believe himself.

B) I think it is bad (extremely bad actually) to attack someones intregrity based on an assumption. If you attack someones integrity, you'd better have the facts straight. IMO

Darrell

Let's just get back on topic.....

In your previous post, you did not say that he tells his customers the smae BS that he tells people here. You said he tells customers things that he does not believe himself.

The precise wording I used was "doesn't actually believe all the stuff he posts here or tells his customers."

But what are you saying now, exactly? That Alimentall doesn't tell customers the same stuff he tells us? That he is honest with his customers, but dishonest with us on the forum (some of whom are customers, like you, or potential customers)? If that is what you are saying, does it make him a better person?

If one of his customers wanted the Salon2, and wanted to listen at 12 ft to classical music at mid-hall-realistic levels, what do you think Alimentall would tell him, anyway, regarding a choice of amplifier? "Anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy" which is what he posted on AVS and I have a very hard time thinking he actually believes. Or, "why don't you visit my competitor and buy some powerful monoblocks?" which would make him a total hypocrite for posting one thing for us, and telling customers something else in person.

Could be! So could the NAD or the Onkyo or maybe it's the 861 for all anyone *really* knows. Do we have a big blind A/B test or just keep guessing based on the brochure? :)

We use independently measured test results such as that from a Stereophile review. Or we could measure it ourselves. I would use test tones to measure spurious non linearities, jitter, as well as noise floor. This should accurately tell us how the combined digital and analog stages were designed. Digital modes can also be tested one at a time with this method. Note that I am only referring to testing the prepro which has a very well defined load to drive.

The precise wording I used was "doesn't actually believe all the stuff he posts here or tells his customers."

But what are you saying now, exactly? That Alimentall doesn't tell customers the same stuff he tells us? That he is honest with his customers, but dishonest with us on the forum (some of whom are customers, like you, or potential customers)? If that is what you are saying, does it make him a better person?


I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. Your putting words in everyones mouth. I won't even try to answer the jibberish above. :rolleyes:

You knocked John's integrity based on an assumption of yours. I don't think you should questions someone's integrity without data/facts.

If you don't like someone's view on things debate the views, not the persons integrity.

Darrell

BTW, Does anyone have the latest date on the Classe SSP-800, or the Krell S-1000 with the HDMI upgrade?

Hopefully, most people here will agree these are considered High End.

I don't think you should questions someone's integrity without data/facts.

It is factually true that Alimentall posted "anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy" and then repeatedly defended that position.

Whether he would say the same to a customer in his store, I admit is an assumption, and I apologize if that assumption offended anyone. But if he would say something different to a customer in his store, then he is being dishonest with someone - either us on AVS, or his customer
.

How about the time he [Alimentall] deleted all (meaning 100%) of the postings that he made on the NHT web forum. The reason that he gave was that he was "upset" that NHT would not pay him for all the time it took him to post the great news about NHT speakers.

Enough said.

It is factually true that Alimentall posted "anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy" and then repeatedly defended that position.So what? Maybe that's wrong. Big deal. What does that have to do with his integrity? Being wrong isn't the same thing as lying you know.Whether he would say the same to a customer in his store, I admit is an assumption, and I apologize if that assumption offended anyone.That sounds nice, but...But if he would say something different to a customer in his store, then he is being dishonest with someone - either us on AVS, or his customer....then your apology falls flat. You should have quit while you're ahead. I encourage you to do so now.

Heaven knows I've had my share of quarrels with John. And there have even been some integrity issues involved in the distant past as well. But you and a couple others in this thread are really coming off like the losers here, and you really need to give it up.

I encourage everyone to move on and avoid moderator intervention

"anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy"? Was his statement and its repeated defense perhaps influenced by the amplifier lineup he carries at the moment?

he carries the Revel Ultima2 line, which includes the 86.4dB/1W/1m efficient Salon2?

Let's be generous and assume 300W peak output instead of the 200W that Alimentall is talking about. At 12 ft listening distance and with 3dB of assumed room gain (it could be much less if the speakers are well away from walls and the room well-damped), with 300W you get 106dB peaks from a pair when listening to stereo music.


Drrr.... never mind. math was way off. Point below is still valid though. In reality, what is percieved is needed is FAR FAR greater than what is required.

So while i would (almost always) argue with Johns phrasing, the plain reality is that in the VAST MAJORITY of applications in the home, over 200 watts is just not needed since it is just not used. i am not a proponent of lets all get 50 watt amps, but the reality is that is all we need in almost all cases. pro world is very different. Hey, it sounds great to say i have 1.21 gigawatts of sound, but in reality i will never use more than a few hundred in a 7.1 application. (subs notwithstanding.)

I think you might be missing something, Dizz... to increase volume by 3.01dB you have to double the power. So if you have 80dB at 1 watt of power, you need 2 watts for 83dB, 4 watts for 86dB, etc. For 120dB you need 10,000 watts.

However, for a practical data point, many of us on this forum have experienced OB's system, which uses speakers with 95dB/W/m sensitivity (Wilson Alexandria 2) that are driven by 18wpc amplifiers (Lamm ML2). That combination can provide nice high volume levels without effort at the seating position. To get the same volume levels with an 86dB/W/m speaker would require 143wpc.

My suspicion is that OB's system would never hit 120dB continuous under any circumstances. But does it need to? Seems to me that's serious overkill in practice. Peak power for home theater, and even then for lower bass, perhaps; but not for critical music listening.

I think you might be missing something, Dizz... to increase volume by 3dB you have to double the power. So if you have 80dB at 1 watt of power, you need 2 watts for 83dB, 4 watts for 86dB, etc. For 120dB you need 2^(40/3) watts, or about 10kW.

However, in practice, you and I have experienced a system with 95dB/W/m speaker sensitivity driven by an 18wpc amplifier, and it can crank just fine at the seating position. To get the same volume levels with an 86dB/W/m speaker would require 144wpc.


:)

to increase volume by 3.01dB you have to double the power. So if you have 80dB at 1 watt of power, you need 2 watts for 83dB, 4 watts for 86dB, etc. For 120dB you need 10,000 watts.

And that's at 1 meter. 40,000W at 2 meters. 160,000W at 4 meters.

Fortunately, most speakers are more than 80dB efficient! Plus, you can throw in 3dB for a second speaker, and maybe 1-3dB for room gain.

We use independently measured test results such as that from a Stereophile review. Or we could measure it ourselves. I would use test tones to measure spurious non linearities, jitter, as well as noise floor. This should accurately tell us how the combined digital and analog stages were designed. Digital modes can also be tested one at a time with this method. Note that I am only referring to testing the prepro which has a very well defined load to drive.

Well, that would determine whether it's well-engineered for sure. Some day, well engineered and high-end may be the same thing in an all digital world. We're just kind of splitting hairs based on personal definitions and I'm okay with that. Like I said, some people wouldn't think the NAD T175 is high-end and I'm okay with that too.

BTW, here's an interesting paper on the subject of peak SPLs at live concerts:
http://www.baua.de/nn_53260/en/Topics-from-A-to-Z/Noise/pdf/Presentation-Safe-Sound-2007-03.pdf
I read the graph at the bottom of the page to indicate that measured 25 meters from the front of the stage, the QUIETEST of 70+ measured concerts had peak SPL of about 108dB. The AVERAGE concert had peak SPL of perhaps (eyeballing it) 117dB.

Mind you, I'm not talking about listening at average levels of 108-117dB, which would clearly be harmful to one's ears, but rather having the capability to reproduce realistic or at least near-realistic short term peaks.

Anything over about 200W/ch is a complete waste of energy"
This is not a comment on John's or your assessment. However, if the speaker exhibits dynamic compression at such dB or it begins to distort, then it is irrelevant that the speaker is not reaching the decibels you argue are necessary. It is one thing to argue that orchestras can hit a peak fo 117 dB, it is quite another to argue a speaker would be able to reproduce it for a listener seated 12 ft away. Moreover, the experience of 117 dB peak will not necessarily be the same in a concert hall as it would be in one's listening room.

if the speaker exhibits dynamic compression at such dB or it begins to distort, then it is irrelevant that the speaker is not reaching the decibels you argue are necessary. It is one thing to argue that orchestras can hit a peak fo 117 dB, it is quite another to argue a speaker would be able to reproduce it for a listener seated 12 ft away.

Agreed that speaker capability is a major factor too. In fact I was once thinking of smallish monitors like the NHT Classic 3 or Focal Solo6 Be, but moved on once I looked into SPL issues. If I decide that a Revel Studio2 isn't going to cut it, I may yet turn to Genelec 1034B or Dynaudio AIR 25 or the like.

Moreover, the experience of 117 dB peak will not necessarily be the same in a concert hall as it would be in one's listening room.

Perhaps so, but provided that there isn't obvious distortion, I'd much rather have a system capable of 110 or 115dB peaks, than one capable of only lesser peaks, and I think that dynamic peaks are part of the reason that live performances sound "live".

This is not a comment on John's or your assessment. However, if the speaker exhibits dynamic compression at such dB or it begins to distort, then it is irrelevant that the speaker is not reaching the decibels you argue are necessary. It is one thing to argue that orchestras can hit a peak fo 117 dB, it is quite another to argue a speaker would be able to reproduce it for a listener seated 12 ft away. Moreover, the experience of 117 dB peak will not necessarily be the same in a concert hall as it would be in one's listening room.

I guess we're talking about high-end 7-ch amps now? ;)

And that's at 1 meter. 40,000W at 2 meters. 160,000W at 4 meters.Actually, that was already at 4 meters, per Dizzman's calculations. But the rapid increase from 10kW on up works both ways: it decreases equally as rapidly as you boost speaker efficiency or reduce the target peak dB level. So for example, if you boost speaker efficiency from 86dB to 95dB, and reduce your target peak SPL from 120dB to 114dB, you now only need 312.5W to reach that, down from 10kW.Mind you, I'm not talking about listening at average levels of 108-117dB, which would clearly be harmful to one's ears, but rather having the capability to reproduce realistic or at least near-realistic short term peaks.Then we're not talking about average power, but peak power.

How many units have a truly modular chassis?

Well we will have to see if NAD follows through on this, did NAD try this once before an never did follow up on it or am I thinking of another company?

Maybe, but I bet the T175 is in the marketplace and updated long after this current Denon is out of date and people are in the position of selling it to try to keep up.

Keep up to what? We just started on new hi def DVD's and not have lossless audio but already you are saying this.

And the NAD Audyssey curve is just better, as is the modular construction design.

Better in what way? Why not go with the pro install and get a curve that is adjusted exactly for your room.

but there's little that's mass market about it and our customers largely aren't into that kind of product.

Mass markert? Most everything in the NAD is mass produced.

Are you quite done? :D

BTW, Does anyone have the latest date on the Classe SSP-800, or the Krell S-1000 with the HDMI upgrade?

The Classe SSP-800 is scheduled for end of May (i.e. June) and appears on target. NB it does not support the HBR decoders on the initial release. The Krell S-1000 HDMI upgrade was scheduled for late April or early May (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13092875#post13092875).

Krell is going to be more along the lines of later May I think. Depends on the launch of the EVO707 which should be this month.

Richard

Thanks Richard.

Oh and Classe is apparently taking preorders now if you want. So is Emotiva of course, but wrong forum for that one :)

Actually, that was already at 4 meters, per Dizzman's calculations.

Sorry, I missed that part.

But the rapid increase from 10kW on up works both ways: it decreases equally as rapidly as you boost speaker efficiency or reduce the target peak dB level. So for example, if you boost speaker efficiency from 86dB to 95dB, and reduce your target peak SPL from 120dB to 114dB, you now only need 312.5W to reach that, down from 10kW.

I do understand the math, and that's one reason I'm focusing on the Studio2 over the less-efficient Salon2. BTW IMHO getting very high efficiency by going to horns involves a tradeoff in fidelity, so I doubt I'll end up with horns.

Then we're not talking about average power, but peak power.

Yes I think my posts repeatedly referred to peak power, and that's why in my example I assumed 300W instead of the 200W amp that was claimed to always be enough in any situation.

Anyway, as Dizzman indicated we have probably strayed too far OT for too long.

A poster over on the Denon AVP thread mentioned a review in a UK mag, Home Cinema Choice, of the AVP and matching amp:

...the reviewer really can't speak highly enough of the pair, and it awards top marks in every category. When compared against it's quoted manufacturer's output, on a range of channels, driven at various loads, they say that, "the Denon performs well above spec. Measured power, fidelity, firewall, distortion and signal-to-noise figures are amazingly impressive".

Also wins their 2008 "Special Reference Status Award" with the comment that "this duo will set standards for years to come."

full post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13592014#post13592014

A Denon AVP user comment:

...this is about one of the best products I have owned in quite a few years. I have owned this product for about 3 weeks, all I can say,,,, it is brilliant. My last 3 pre/processors have been the Theta CB II, Lexicon MC12B and the Halcro SSP100. The Denon is the best sounding (for both 2-channel pre and High Def movie) out of all of them in my system. I am tickled that I now can sell my 2-channel pre amp (sim audio P5.3) and use the Denon,,, it greatly simplifies my system. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13597045#post13597045

Well, Alimentall, if the Denon is a mid-fi product, what does that make the Theta, Lexicon, and Halcro?

A poster over on the Denon AVP thread mentioned a review in a UK mag, Home Cinema Choice, of the AVP and matching amp:

...the reviewer really can't speak highly enough of the pair, and it awards top marks in every category. When compared against it's quoted manufacturer's output, on a range of channels, driven at various loads, they say that, "the Denon performs well above spec. Measured power, fidelity, firewall, distortion and signal-to-noise figures are amazingly impressive".

Also wins their 2008 "Special Reference Status Award" with the comment that "this duo will set standards for years to come."

full post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13592014#post13592014

Be very careful there. I used to have that mag sent out to me.

It doesn't really deal with high end equipment often and very little that would belong in this forum. When I does, it uses very cursory reviews that lack depth and detail. It very quickly becomes readily apparent that the reviewers are also lacking in knowledge and are frequently in error. I no longer get this rag.

"What Hi-Fi" suffers the same issues. They are both basically J6P mags that NEVER offend an advertiser.

They are both basically J6P mags that NEVER offend an advertiser.

Thanks for the tip. BTW, what does "J6P" mean?

Be very careful there. I used to have that mag sent out to me.

It doesn't really deal with high end equipment often and very little that would belong in this forum. When I does, it uses very cursory reviews that lack depth and detail. It very quickly becomes readily apparent that the reviewers are also lacking in knowledge and are frequently in error. I no longer get this rag.

"What Hi-Fi" suffers the same issues. They are both basically J6P mags that NEVER offend an advertiser.

Probably reviewed with Bose AM5s which they all seem to think are quite good too ;)

I remember when Stereophile proclaimed that the Radio Shack portable CD player was high-end, as well as those dreadful LX speakers. They didn't convince me.

Joe 6 Pack (and we are not talking abs!)

Probably reviewed with Bose AM5s which they all seem to think are quite good too ;)

I remember when Stereophile proclaimed that the Radio Shack portable CD player was high-end, as well as those dreadful LX speakers. They didn't convince me.Nor me. :cool:

Joe 6 Pack (and we are not talking abs!)


I think Joe 6 Pack doesn't normally read audio/HT mags. He imho more often listens to his friends or goes to BB/CC/Costco/Walmart and buys a price and/or brand or listens to the salespeople. Then again, I guess we were talking about a UK rag, so maybe things are different over there.

Speaking of magazines and no offense to Kal, but I really do miss the old Audio magazine.

I think Joe 6 Pack doesn't normally read audio/HT mags. He imho more often listens to his friends or goes to BB/CC/Costco/Walmart and buys a price and/or brand or listens to the salespeople. Then again, I guess we were talking about a UK rag, so maybe things are different over there.

Speaking of magazines and no offense to Kal, but I really do miss the old Audio magazine.No offense taken because I, too, miss the old, old Audio magazine.

A Denon AVP user comment:

'...this is about one of the best products I have owned in quite a few years. I have owned this product for about 3 weeks, all I can say,,,, it is brilliant. My last 3 pre/processors have been the Theta CB II, Lexicon MC12B and the Halcro SSP100. The Denon is the best sounding (for both 2-channel pre and High Def movie) out of all of them in my system. I am tickled that I now can sell my 2-channel pre amp (sim audio P5.3) and use the Denon,,, it greatly simplifies my system.' http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13597045#post13597045

Well, Alimentall, if the Denon is a mid-fi product, what does that make the Theta, Lexicon, and Halcro?

Here's another quote from another user http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13615944&postcount=736

'I must say the denon A1 HD 5308 is an amazing piece of equipment. I had meridian separates that cost £15000!the denon sounds better for home cinema! Not just as good for music but not that far behind it.'

Note, though, that he is talking about the Denon receiver...the AVP prepro is a different (and better) beast.

So I guess I should modify the original question as follows: Well, Alimentall, if the Denon is a mid-fi product, what does that make the Meridian, Theta, Lexicon, and Halcro?

Syswei,

Are you smitten by John or something? You sure seem to worry a lot about what he thinks about your new Prepro. :eek:

I agree it is a nice Prepro, but John and others, will need time to get past the Denon name. We have to face it that lately, Denon has been considered mid-fi.

Until more people associated with Hi End gear, hear and report on the Denon, people will judge it primarily by it's name.

Darrell

Are you smitten by John or something? You sure seem to worry a lot about what he thinks about your new Prepro. :eek:

Actually I don't own the Denon AVP, nor any other Denon equipment, so I don't have an emotional ("I own Denon so you should too") attachment to Denon. I also don't have a financial motivation to promote particular brands.

Actually I don't own the Denon AVP, nor any other Denon equipment, so I don't have an emotional ("I own Denon so you should too") attachment to Denon. I also don't have a financial motivation to promote particular brands.

Uh, that really wasn't the main point, but ok... :rolleyes:

http://www.10audio.com/images/BAT_VK31SE.jpg

This is kind of what I mean about true 'high-end' - an almost absurd, over the top, whatever it takes approach with little to no excess and exotic parts. I could kind of understand the confusion if we were on the regular forum, but this *is* the over $20K forum, last I checked ;)

I got a Denon AVP-A1HDCI to evaluate for a week or so:

very nice unit with excellent sound quality (yes...sounds smoother and better to me than my MC-12) and a computer interface that makes it easy to set up the unit

figured I would post here before I got quoted from another thread :)

Mark,
that is very interesting infos, as I also kept looking at Lex, but after I left my MC-1 I was never tempted to go back. Did you post somewhere your equipment that I can look up ? Was that impression you had on the Denon vs. the MC-12 in "stereo pure" or all modes ?

Mark,
that is very interesting infos, as I also kept looking at Lex, but after I left my MC-1 I was never tempted to go back. Did you post somewhere your equipment that I can look up ? Was that impression you had on the Denon vs. the MC-12 in "stereo pure" or all modes ?

I just got the AVP yesterday but I heard the difference immediately: it is not a subtle difference (increasingly I found the MC-12 sound to be harsh especially in surround modes)

Amp is an Aragon 3005: 5.1 setup of JM Labs and Martin Logan Descent

so far listening in 5.1 surround modes