The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK] - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 6,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCONKLIN1 View Post

Yeah, I agree with you on this! It seems he is fixated on the DAC's used but if he can't tell the difference between the lossy codecs and the lossless ones.....

I've also not seen any rigorous testing that demonstrates the ability to reliably distinguish between lossy and lossless on a BD. I read an article some time ago that said the sound editors are quite aware of the greater bandwidth available to lossy codecs on BD and that if you could tell the difference between lossless and lossy the sound editor/engineer hadn't done their job correctly.
bodosom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 02:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post


You buy a higher end car for higher end build quality. The same should hold true for higher end AVRs.

AJ

Not really, it's like anything with technological advances, today's $1 DAC can probably compete with $10 DACs from years ago. Since the high rez codecs & HDMI 1.3 came in I've heard some $500 receivers that sounded far better as pre-amps than I would have imagined, no doubt due in part to that fact.

The 4311 will probably end up street-priced around $1600 after a few waves of sales, so it's not what I'd consider a "higher end" AVR - more of a middle of the road unit price wise.

Besides, it's like the old saying; "Don't bleed until you're shot!"... Denon is in the habit of using Burr-Brown DACs through their line up so IMO it's probably a much higher possibility that that's what they'll be using than the others.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #453 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 02:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Eldiablos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Pjonkeer....

I have a solution to your weight concern.... strap a 15 lb traveling Elf on top. Weight means nothing, except for possibly a power supply and heat sinks. Modern amps are often more efficient. Now I like big fat overbuilt amps with all the weight but honestly you can't judge the 3803 vs the 4311 on weight, that's silly. As also noted room EQ is "da bomb" and can improve poor rooms just as well as perfect theaters.

Having said all this. If you have pre convinced yourself none of the new features mean anything to you. You are making the right call for you... I think I can say for everyone here, be happy with what you got. Drilling down to two inconsequential things, weight and a single type/brand of DAC parts is not though a good reason to say no to an upgrade. This type of thought is classic behavioral psychology stuff.

Since the banter has gone off track....anyone actually got an ETA on either model?

I really don't think that is truly inconsequential. The Denon 4810 weighs 42.2 lbs and the 4311 weighs 38.2 and both are 9 channel. Where did they save the 4 lbs at? Where I understand the point that weight does not equate to better sound, I think a lot of us believe that if they trimmed off the weight then they replaced it with cheaper parts that may reduce the life of the receiver. I am sure a lot of us find it hard to swallow cheap parts when we pay 2k for an item to replace another item that lasted us 10 years. I do like that they have a 3 year warranty which is nice they at least back up their product.

Eldiablos is offline  
post #454 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldiablos View Post

I really don't think that is truly inconsequential. The Denon 4810 weighs 42.2 lbs and the 4311 weighs 38.2 and both are 9 channel. Where did they save the 4 lbs at?.

Probably in using an E transformer instead of a toroidal one - and the reality is that's not something you can hear, it's just part of changing A/C to D/C.

Sorry, but the only true consequence weight has, (besides being a marketable feature for some unknown reason) is that it adds to shipping costs.

Oh, and I forgot it's also a smaller chassis - an inch shorter and half an inch less in depth....

....and it's eating right and exercising.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #455 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Sorry, but the only true consequence weight has, (besides being a marketable feature for some unknown reason) is that it adds to shipping costs.

No, I would expect that the biggest difference in weight would be in the power supply (transformer). I'd be willing to bet that the 4810 can put out more power than the 4311. Or said another way, the 4311 is going to be more strained at a given output level than the 4810.

My dual Rythmik Servo sub project (actually quad now, need to update page)
HDM format neutral thanks to the pricing wars of the '07 xmas shopping season :)
Darin is offline  
post #456 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 02:50 PM
Member
 
bob98102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[QUOTE= I have been tentatively planning on upgrading my old Yamaha to the 4311 to run 5.1 M&K 4 ohm speaker system. (Waiting for some pro test publications first to ensure that the 4 ohm speakers wont be a problem, especially if i add some H + W speakers which i am tempted to do).

I have my AVR2805 running analog for 7 M&K 750thx (all 4-ohm) plus 2 powered M&K subwoofers. I can play it louder than anyone can stand for as long as I want and the amp isn't more than warm to the touch. I realize amps are not as well made today as they were in the vintage of my AVR but if the 4311 can't run 5 channels of surround sound using 4-ohm speakers then it really is a piece of junk.

I read somewhere in the Denon literature a brief statement affirmatively addressing this issue. No such note in the 33ll literature, btw.

From the abysmal reliability record of the 4310 one might wait to see if the 4311 does't self destruct before buying one.
bob98102 is offline  
post #457 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 03:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

No, I would expect that the biggest difference in weight would be in the power supply (transformer). I'd be willing to bet that the 4810 can put out more power than the 4311. Or said another way, the 4311 is going to be more strained at a given output level than the 4810.

More weight does not always equal more power or headroom. There's more than one way to engineer an amp section.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #458 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

More weight does not always equal more power or headroom. There's more than one way to engineer an amp section.

No, but a higher power input rating on the back panel is an indicator of how much power output you can get. I'm suggesting that the higher power rating and the higher weight are likely not coincidental. I think you will find a similar trend with other products.

My dual Rythmik Servo sub project (actually quad now, need to update page)
HDM format neutral thanks to the pricing wars of the '07 xmas shopping season :)
Darin is offline  
post #459 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 03:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
krholmberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodosom View Post

A couple days ago I said end of month. Specifically my dealer said Denon told them the 27th.

Thank you

Krister
krholmberg is offline  
post #460 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

No, but a higher power input rating on the back panel is an indicator of how much power output you can get. I'm suggesting that the higher power rating and the higher weight are likely not coincidental. I think you will find a similar trend with other products.

Possibly I'm not sure about that. But I think it's still splitting hairs - when you factor in what you actually need in a normal room with normal speaker loads.

Most people would be shocked if they new how little power is actually required for their apps.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #461 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 04:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Possibly I'm not sure about that.

I would say very highly likely, rather than possible. What are the heaviest substances in a receiver? Iron, and copper - the primary components of a transformer. You need more copper to handle more current, and you need more iron to prevent saturation. A bigger power supply is going to weigh more. Whether or not an individual needs that much power is irrelevant. The point remains that additional weight probably means more than just higher shipping costs. YOU may not need all that power, or you may not be able to perceive that distortion is increased at higher loads in units with lower rated power supplies, or you may not be able to draw a reliability correlation between heavier and lighter units. But the weight differences in units likely are a result of heavier duty components, rather than just happenstance, or manufacturers putting lead in for no other benefit than marketing heavier weight.

My dual Rythmik Servo sub project (actually quad now, need to update page)
HDM format neutral thanks to the pricing wars of the '07 xmas shopping season :)
Darin is offline  
post #462 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 04:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Eldiablos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

No, I would expect that the biggest difference in weight would be in the power supply (transformer). I'd be willing to bet that the 4810 can put out more power than the 4311. Or said another way, the 4311 is going to be more strained at a given output level than the 4810.

And that is the whole point to me. Everyone that counters about the weight seems to stress about the sound of the two being the same or they added some new space age alloy that saved weight. My point is if a part is cheaper or smaller (amp or power supply) and is more strained, how long will the unit last under the strain? I see the weight on the 4311 lower than the 4810. I see the 4311 has a 780W draw and the 4810 has 9.5 amp draw. You put the weight and power differences together it points to lower grade either amp or power supply, yet the same claimed 9x140 watts. I just worry they are trying to squeeze too much from one receiver and sacrificing quality parts (durability) for the ability to say 11.2 channels and other features all for under 2k.

I know that companies are jamming more parts and features into one small box so the chances of things failing have increased. I just don't want the parts they get cheap on are two of the most important, power supply and amps

Eldiablos is offline  
post #463 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SeattleHTGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Puget Sound, WA
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

I would say very highly likely, rather than possible. What are the heaviest substances in a receiver? Iron, and copper - the primary components of a transformer. You need more copper to handle more current, and you need more iron to prevent saturation. A bigger power supply is going to weigh more. Whether or not an individual needs that much power is irrelevant. The point remains that additional weight probably means more than just higher shipping costs. YOU may not need all that power, or you may not be able to perceive that distortion is increased at higher loads in units with lower rated power supplies, or you may not be able to draw a reliability correlation between heavier and lighter units. But the weight differences in units likely are a result of heavier duty components, rather than just happenstance, or manufacturers putting lead in for no other benefit than marketing heavier weight.

Ok guys, I am not one to sweat 6 lbs and just chalk it up to more power for the heavier one, but even if I did what's the big deal? A 3 to 5 lb difference in a transformer is not going to have any material affect over 9 channels driven. The Denons bow out of this with a current limiting function anyway; as do the Onkyo's. The modern receivers of these and other brands do skimp on amp sections. Yes, not that many people need this type of capability. Solve this with an External Amp. The good thing is you can try the unit as is and add an amp if you want extra headroom for all music or explosive above reference rock. The Denon will just loaf around if you pull the need to drive your fronts.

I have 400 lbs of external amps. My room does sound better at all sound levels and simply unbelievable at reference db then again, I'm not very stable when in comes to amps. I live for Tim the Tool man. more power....ugh....ugh....ugh...
SeattleHTGuy is offline  
post #464 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 04:18 PM
Member
 
kee68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Pjonkeer....

I have a solution to your weight concern.... strap a 15 lb traveling Elf on top. Weight means nothing, except for possibly a power supply and heat sinks. Modern amps are often more efficient. Now I like big fat overbuilt amps with all the weight but honestly you can't judge the 3803 vs the 4311 on weight, that's silly. As also noted room EQ is "da bomb" and can improve poor rooms just as well as perfect theaters.

Having said all this. If you have pre convinced yourself none of the new features mean anything to you. You are making the right call for you... I think I can say for everyone here, be happy with what you got. Drilling down to two inconsequential things, weight and a single type/brand of DAC parts is not though a good reason to say no to an upgrade. This type of thought is classic behavioral psychology stuff.

Since the banter has gone off track....anyone actually got an ETA on either model?

I called back to make sure I was on pre-order for the A100 and I was told for that Nov 1st. 4311 ??
kee68 is offline  
post #465 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 04:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Eldiablos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Ok guys, I am not one to sweat 6 lbs and just chalk it up to more power for the heavier one, but even if I did what's the big deal? A 3 to 5 lb difference in a transformer is not going to have any material affect over 9 channels driven. The Denons bow out of this with a current limiting function anyway; as do the Onkyo's. The modern receivers of these and other brands do skimp on amp sections. Yes, not that many people need this type of capability. Solve this with an External Amp. The good thing is you can try the unit as is and add an amp if you want extra headroom for all music or explosive above reference rock. The Denon will just loaf around if you pull the need to drive your fronts.

I have 400 lbs of external amps. My room does sound better at all sound levels and simply unbelievable at reference bhp then again, I'm not very stable when in comes to amps. I live for Tim the Tool man. more power....ugh....ugh....ugh...

And that is a nice selling point for the 4311. The preamp mode!

Eldiablos is offline  
post #466 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Ok guys, I am not one to sweat 6 lbs and just chalk it up to more power for the heavier one, but even if I did what's the big deal? A 3 to 5 lb difference in a transformer is not going to have any material affect over 9 channels driven.

I'm not here to say it will or won't, I'm simply saying that these issues aren't as irrelevant as many seem to make it out to be. Everyone seems to WANT to think that none of these "quality" factors matter... as long as it has the list of features we want, that's all that matters. But if that's what everyone thinks, the trend that manufacturers have of adding more labels to the front of the unit, while cutting costs on the guts, will continue. I'm not going to lie, I'm here for the features like everyone else. But I'm not going to pretend that none of these quality issues matter. $2000 does not seem to buy as robust of a product as it did a few years ago. $2000 is the new $750, but with more features. I'm not picking on Denon; Onkyo too, and I'm sure others. But I have to ask: If the 4810 is current limited to 31wpc with 7 channels driven @ 4 ohms, what's the 4311 going to be? I'm just glad I have a small room, and will be powering two pairs externally. Someone with a large room and power hungry speakers may be finding the pre-amp mode handy.

My dual Rythmik Servo sub project (actually quad now, need to update page)
HDM format neutral thanks to the pricing wars of the '07 xmas shopping season :)
Darin is offline  
post #467 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 05:14 PM
Member
 
pjonkheer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

I'm not here to say it will or won't, I'm simply saying that these issues aren't as irrelevant as many seem to make it out to be. Everyone seems to WANT to think that none of these "quality" factors matter... as long as it has the list of features we want, that's all that matters. But if that's what everyone thinks, the trend that manufacturers have of adding more labels to the front of the unit, while cutting costs on the guts, will continue. I'm not going to lie, I'm here for the features like everyone else. But I'm not going to pretend that none of these quality issues matter. $2000 does not seem to buy as robust of a product as it did a few years ago. $2000 is the new $750, but with more features. I'm not picking on Denon; Onkyo too, and I'm sure others. But I have to ask: If the 4810 is current limited to 31wpc with 7 channels driven @ 4 ohms, what's the 4311 going to be? I'm just glad I have a small room, and will be powering two pairs externally. Someone with a large room and power hungry speakers may be finding the pre-amp mode handy.

I couldn't agree more. Features don't excite me. Flat out quality does. Adding more and more features make it easy for these manufactures to charge more for one model against another. 5+ years ago you would buy an AVR mostly based on it's quality but now that has changed during this technical and feature rich age the industry is going through with networking, 3d, bluray, internet, etc etc... Give me an AVR that focuses on audio processing and power before all these silly features and I would be sold!
pjonkheer is offline  
post #468 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 05:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjonkheer View Post

I couldn't agree more. Features don't excite me. Flat out quality does. Adding more and more features make it easy for these manufactures to charge more for one model against another. 5+ years ago you would buy an AVR mostly based on it's quality but now that has changed during this technical and feature rich age the industry is going through with networking, 3d, bluray, internet, etc etc... Give me an AVR that focuses on audio processing and power before all these silly features and I would be sold!

The thing is the majority of these features are software based now - it's all about computing power & moving bits about. Amplifier technology is, by comparison, ancient.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #469 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 05:37 PM
Member
 
pjonkheer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

The thing is the majority of these features are software based now - it's all about computing power & moving bits about. Amplifier technology is, by comparison, ancient.

Right. But all that software tech in there is expensive to develop so they are goin the cheap route on that ancient amp section by throwing in junk power supplies and transformers. Plus to get up to 11 channels jammed in to an AVR something has to be compromised in terms of size and weight.

To Denon and every other company out there it's much easier for them to up sell more channels, more features, more garbage we don't need instead of trying to duke it out with Pioneer about quality of our sound and reliability. The other interesting fact is nobody has mentioned video processing yet...I have yet to see an expensive AVR with video processing worth even mentioning let alone pay for.
pjonkheer is offline  
post #470 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

YOU may not need all that power, or you may not be able to perceive that distortion is increased at higher loads in units with lower rated power supplies, or you may not be able to draw a reliability correlation between heavier and lighter units.

Well that's a bit condescending isn't it...

For what it's worth, right now I am running an AVP A1HD pre amp and I run a PS Audio GCA MC which puts out 500wch into 8ohms and 1000w/ch into 4ohms for my mains in an acoustically designed & treated room powering a Paradigm Signature speaker grouping with an infinite baffle sub.

On my travels to get to that gear I've had everything from $500 receivers to full fledged flagships and pre-amps from a variety of manufacturers. I've bi-amped, used external amps with receivers and used receiver amps obviously.

Believe me, I know what distortion is, what headroom is and what hype is.

Weight simply isn't a guarantee of quality, an neither is lack thereof automatically a detractor. There's far too many variables in play.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #471 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 05:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjonkheer View Post

The other interesting fact is nobody has mentioned video processing yet...I have yet to see an expensive AVR with video processing worth even mentioning let alone pay for.

Well, it's more about format conversion than actual processing... for most people anyways.
Most displays and PJ's have had excellent VP's on board since 1080p became the norm so having it in an AVR is redundant.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #472 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 06:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 6,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 22
My 7x125W AVR weighs 51 pounds and wants 12A. All these Denon AVRs are lightweights.
bodosom is offline  
post #473 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 06:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 11,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodosom View Post

My 7x125W AVR weighs 51 pounds and wants 12A. All these Denon AVRs are lightweights.

What AVR do you own?

Bill

My SACD collection, watch it grow and my wallet shrink ;-).

 

Denon 4311 (in preamp mode), Parasound 2100, Boston Acoustics A7200 amp, Oppo BDP-103, Consonance CD120, Panasonic TC-P60GT50 plasma, Panamax 5100EX, Salk Song Towers, Song Center, ADS 300C (surrounds) and two Rythmik F12SEs.
Bill Mac is offline  
post #474 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 06:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bakerwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Peach State
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjonkheer View Post

3803 owner here. I paid well under $1000 for it several years ago and my Denon has better DACs than their new $2000 4311??? I don't know what everyone else thinks but this makes it very difficult for me to justify buying a newer model. Yes I will get hdmi switching and a few other goodies but will it really sound better or at least as good? My 3803 also weighs in at just under 40lbs while delivering 110 watts/channel. I could take another step up and even pay more money to get the better DACs but now we're talking absurd money for an AVR and flat out beyond my budget! At what point do I bite the bullet and go with separates? I have a Paradigm Studio setup so I know my speakers will benefit but again that darn budget!

I think we should withhold judgement on the DACs in the upcoming AVR-4311CI until we've heard the implementation. It is more about implementation then it is about what DACs are in a component. I've heard great implementation of bad DACs (specs) and poor implementation of better DACs (specs).


Willie

Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD

Zektor MAS7.1

Classé CA-2200/CA-5200

Oppo BDP-105, Denon DVD-5910CI, Cambridge 752BD, Cambridge 640C V2

Paradigm Signature S8, Paradigm Signature ADP1

Paradigm Signature ADP3, Paradigm Signature C5

REL R-505 Sub (2)

Oppo BDP-93, BDP-103D, Pioneer BDP-320

Sony BDP-S790

bakerwi is offline  
post #475 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 06:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 6,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjonkheer View Post

I have yet to see an expensive AVR with video processing worth even mentioning let alone pay for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Most displays and PJ's have had excellent VP's on board since 1080p became the norm so having it in an AVR is redundant.

I suspect that Anchor Bay, Sigma, IDT and STM would beg to differ. In my personal experiece the VRS and REON are clearly the equal of whatever solution lives in my Kuro. Now, as previously mentioned, Denon may choose to block access to VRS features as opposed to more enlightened companies like Anthem but that's not the fault of Anchor Bay.
bodosom is offline  
post #476 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 6,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

What AVR do you own?

Bill

That one is a B&K.
bodosom is offline  
post #477 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Well that's a bit condescending isn't it...

Wasn't intended to be at all. I was simply replying to your post that suggested that the weaker power supply isn't an issue, because we don't need that much power. All I said was YOU may not need that much power, or the benefits that come along with a beefier power supply, but others may. It comes down to the efficiency of your speakers, the size of your room, your listening habits, and if (and how many) channels you choose to amplify externally. You're trying to tell us we don't need it anyway, but you can really only speak to your needs.

Quote:


For what it's worth, right now I am running an AVP A1HD pre amp and I run a PS Audio GCA MC which puts out 500wch into 8ohms and 1000w/ch into 4ohms for my mains ...

Which begs the question: why? The 4311 is rated at 780 watts input. Factor in typical class A/B amp efficiency of 70%, and a little bit of power draw for the DSPs and other components, and you're looking at less than 60wpc, all channels driven. If there's no benefit to more than that, why did you spring for so much more power?
Quote:


Weight simply isn't a guarantee of quality, an neither is lack thereof automatically a detractor. There's far too many variables in play.

I agree weight isn't a guarantee, but given the conventional technology used in these units, the amount of copper and iron and heat sinks needed does require some amount of heft for a certain amount of power. If you were to compare products, I bet a correlation would be found between weight, and units that had good power reserves. No, it's not a guarantee, but it can be an indicator.

And again, I'm not suggesting this is a major issue with the 4311. I'm simply saying that there are benefits to beefier power supplies.

My dual Rythmik Servo sub project (actually quad now, need to update page)
HDM format neutral thanks to the pricing wars of the '07 xmas shopping season :)
Darin is offline  
post #478 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 07:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WiWavelength's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post

I think we should withhold judgement on the DACs in the upcoming AVR-4311CI until we've heard the implementation. It is more about implementation then it is about what DACs are in a component. I've heard great implementation of bad DACs (specs) and poor implementation of better DACs (specs).

Agreed, implementation may be just fine. But the potential use of cost cutter parts sends a troubling message.

Onkyo/Integra is willing to spend $1.98 per DAC channel for the (32 bit) PCM1795, and Yamaha is willing to spend $1.48 per DAC channel for the PCM1796, and Denon has in the past been willing to spend $1.13 per DAC channel for the (lowest of the three) PCM1791A.

If Denon is no longer willing to spend even $1.13 per DAC channel, does that speak well to Denon's commitment to high quality components in a $2000 AVR?

AJ
WiWavelength is offline  
post #479 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SeattleHTGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Puget Sound, WA
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post


Agreed, implementation may be just fine. But the potential use of cost cutter parts sends a troubling message.

Onkyo/Integra is willing to spend $1.98 per DAC channel for the (32 bit) PCM1795, and Yamaha is willing to spend $1.48 per DAC channel for the PCM1796, and Denon has in the past been willing to spend $1.13 per DAC channel for the (lowest of the three) PCM1791A.

If Denon is no longer willing to spend even $1.13 per DAC channel, does that speak well to Denon's commitment to high quality components in a $2000 AVR?

AJ

Geez, still on a part. There has to be more to your life than this damn thing. I mean this respectively but if you are so passionate about this issue, start another thread. Write a 100 page "white paper"' get it published in popular science but let it die on the Denon 4311 AVR100 thread. We get your opinion loud and clear. If you are a Burr brown sales guy, I understand your desire to support the thing but give iit a rest.
SeattleHTGuy is offline  
post #480 of 23648 Old 09-17-2010, 09:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SeattleHTGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Puget Sound, WA
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Last try on our fixation with weight here.

1) If weight were the goal, there would be no Carbon Fiber Sports Cars. Heck, a 4 ton Dusseldorf would still rule the racetrack.
2) Weight through a larger power supply, transformers, array of heavy duty capacitors and humongous heatsinks can work wonders for a Class A or Class AB amp section. But, weight and big power supplies are not necessarily required for many of the newer and hybrid amps out there today. Since Denon is using a new amp of some sorts in the 4311' until it's bench tested no one knows. Even the 4810 can produce da power, it just has limiters.

Darin is pretty spot on regarding the Max power idea on the back panel and I'm not here to defend any of the modern mega-multiple channel amps for total RMS output all channels driven. This need with 9 internal amps isn't all that helpful. The Heights and Rear Surrounds don't get that big a work out even at reference.

3) weight, just does not flat out have some linear relation to quality. Period. This argument can be seen in publications going back 30 years. There is always a subset of audio video enthusiasts who gravitate to poundage. I remember the days of the 1500 lb turntable base. So, I give you a few examples of weight. Granted you may not like the sound of these examples, but in their time and at their price points, they were revolutionary.

Carver Cube..... That would be my personal way back machine.
The First Magnepans (hey where's the driver?)
Now for today.... specs 1st.

500 W 8 ohms... 1000 W 4 Ohms....peak output current 45 amperes... 120 Db dynamic range. THD nonexistent. It does however handle 1500 W Max. Total weight....... Wow, it must suck....... 18 lbs. It's also loony expensive and looks like modern art. mono block so you need, 11 of them potentially so the weight of each box does add up. Anyone wish to guess the manufacturer and cost?

My point here is weight just can not be directly correlated to quality, performance, and cost. The difference between all the major receivers in weight is just not very relevant. Again, classic behavioral psychology, as The DAC battle. People want tangible, simple correlations to complex technology. hey, it weighs more, hey these guys are using a Burr Brown vs some other piece or part, hey this ones got gold feet inlays, hey this ones got some other measurable difference. Never mind the measurement is only a very small part of the whole component. Some people need very simple differentiators so they can justify their own decisions and more importantly skewed beliefs.

I'm just more up front about being quitecskewed. As stated, I think Onkyo stuff looks like junk on a shelf. I've got a feeling that I don't like it. That's all. I am not however going to spend a great deal of time trying to find little goofy shortcomings of another receiver to justify in my head my rather subjective dislike of all things Onkyoey. Even if I loved the stuff, it doesn't do 11.2 so again the comparison ends.

you want weight, buy a rock. If weight is totally related to quality, go back in a cave and pound a rather heavy rock. There is no need for a tool. Heck, the tool weighs less.

This in all in fun but can we get back to trying to understand the two receivers involved in this thread.
SeattleHTGuy is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Audyssey , Denon Avr 4311ci 9 2 Channel Network Multi Room Home Theater Receiver With Hdmi 1 4a , Denon Avr A100 100th Anniversary 9 2 140w , Denon
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off