AVS Forum banner

Why does the Denon 1713 have Audyssey MultiEQXT but the 1913 does not

11K views 46 replies 11 participants last post by  suds2001 
#1 ·
Seems a little odd to me. Please explain why?
 
#6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22142419


Sorry to be a thorn, but these reasons don't really explain it. The 1712 has MultEQ XT but the 1912 does not. And both are 7.1, right?

So it must be something else.

Yup...

But neither the 1712 or 1912 had Audyssey Dynamic Volume or Dynamic EQ..


Just my $0.02...
 
#9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22142438


But neither the 1712 or 1912 had Audyssey Dynamic Volume or Dynamic EQ..
 

The 1712 has both as does the 1912 (I believe). Strictly a marketing decision is my guess. The 1713 being the high-end 5.1 which allows for XT... frankly I wouldn't be too concerned as I couldn't tell the difference between MultEQ and MultEQ XT.
 
#10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not/0_50#post_22142438


Yup...

But neither the 1712 or 1912 had Audyssey Dynamic Volume or Dynamic EQ..

Just my $0.02...

Every Denon AVR that offers any version of Audyssey since the XX09 models also features both Dyn Vol and Dyn EQ.
 
#11 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not/0_50#post_22142457


So do you consider the 1713 a better purchase for someone with only a 5.1 set up?

Although a better choice audio fidelity wise, as Charles R notes, depending on the quality of your speakers there may be very little improvement from MultEQ. Is it worth the extra $50 increase in MSRP over the 1613? Definitely. In addition to the better version of Audyssey, you get an extra HDMI, Zone 2 pre-outs should you ever want to place speakers on the patio or another room, and the capability to SAVE the config file to a PC in case you have to reset the microprocessor and then won't have to setup the AVR from scatch again.
 
#13 ·
The 1712 was first set up to offer XT and not networking for those that wanted better audio fidelity with no networking capability. The feature was passed on to the 1713 although it now also features networking, but does not have some of the features offered by the 1913 (7.1, video chip, Spotify, analog-->HDMI upconversion, Front Height speakers). Make your AVR model selection based on the features/inputs/outputs you need and you'll be good to go.
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22143642



So my original question still stands, then.
 

It will until you get an answer out of D&M... good luck with that. :)

 

As I guessed before it's all about marketing. Now that all of the receivers offer networking (outside of the kid's model) the 1712 (carrying over to the 1713) would steal too many sales from the higher end models. It probably did lasst year. Now anyone wanting 7.1 can't drop down to the 1713. So they can keep offering XT with it and use it as an advantage against other 5.1 receivers (and other low-end 7.1 receivers used for 5.1 or less).
 
#15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22143691


It will until you get an answer out of D&M... good luck with that.

Well, some of you guys appear to have so much inside info that I figured you'd have the scoop on this as well. I'm disappointed!



You're certainly right that it's a marketing call. It just seems a little strange to me. Why not get rid of the 1712/1713 all together and just have the 1912/1913 have MultEQ XT?

IMO they have too many models. But I'm an outsider looking in, and I don't have access to their marketing data or their strategy meetings.


jdsmoothie, thanks for the reply as well. I just bought a 1712 on closeout (because I wanted to try out MultEQ XT on my 2.0 system). I'm still getting familiar with it (and right

now I'm on vacation and not at home, so I didn't challenge the claim that it lacked Dyn EQ or anything).
 
#17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22143720
I just bought a 1712 on closeout (because I wanted to try out MultEQ XT on my 2.0 system).
 

I have 2.0 in my Den and have used...

 
  • AVR-591
  • AVR-1611
  • AVR-1712
  • AVR-2112

 

and I wouldn't bet a penny I could tell them apart. However, I do like the Virtual (Audyssey) mode. Much better than what I could find with Pioneer and Yamaha... they at times would sound really bad using the best DSP (I could find to add a little dimension). If I had to come up with a difference I would guess the non XT models had a little more low-end kick (overly so). Although, I thought I saw that with the EQ on or off... I know all receivers sound the same. :)
 
#18 ·
Playing the role of a very slow echo from the days when Audyssey's CTO posted here daily: There is no "I" in MultEQ. That'll be $1.00, please . . . . Remit to ChriS K at Audyssey (or maybe send an IOU


This from one of the worst typists/proofreaders around here . . . (me)
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22142400


note that the 1713 & 1913 use the same TI DSP..

Just my $0.02...

Denon hasn't used a TI DSP in any AVR for a few years....
 
#22 ·
A big reason why I posted this is I was looking for a competent receiver for the bedroom. I'm replacing my onkyo 707 but I think the 1713 might fall a little short. I kind of want to move away from onkyo though. Im keeping my eye on the 2313 for the living room which presently has an onkyo 709 in it. The bedroom will not be more than 5.1. So I don't really know if I need to go as powerful as the 707 but the 1713 might be a little under powered. What do you guys think. The Audyssey XT is important to me, but I would sacrifice for a slightly better receiver. I just think 80 watts might be a little too little coming from 110. Advice?
 
#23 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not#post_22145541


A big reason why I posted this is I was looking for a competent receiver for the bedroom. I'm replacing my onkyo 707 but I think the 1713 might fall a little short. I kind of want to move away from onkyo though. Im keeping my eye on the 2313 for the living room which presently has an onkyo 709 in it. The bedroom will not be more than 5.1. So I don't really know if I need to go as powerful as the 707 but the 1713 might be a little under powered. What do you guys think. The Audyssey XT is important to me, but I would sacrifice for a slightly better receiver. I just think 80 watts might be a little too little coming from 110. Advice?

i am sure the 1712/13 will be plenty of power for a bedroom unless it is auditorium sized.
 
#24 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1  /t/1416172/why-does-the-denon-1713-have-audyssey-multieqxt-but-the-1913-does-not/0_50#post_22145541


A big reason why I posted this is I was looking for a competent receiver for the bedroom. I'm replacing my onkyo 707 but I think the 1713 might fall a little short. I kind of want to move away from onkyo though. Im keeping my eye on the 2313 for the living room which presently has an onkyo 709 in it. The bedroom will not be more than 5.1. So I don't really know if I need to go as powerful as the 707 but the 1713 might be a little under powered. What do you guys think. The Audyssey XT is important to me, but I would sacrifice for a slightly better receiver. I just think 80 watts might be a little too little coming from 110. Advice?

It depends on the efficiency/sensitivity rating of your speakers and if they are

Note that on average, most speakers use
 
#26 ·
Nope, not if as I said, the speakers are 8 ohm and 87db+ efficiency. Or to put it another way ... it takes a 3db increase in volume for the average person to perceive there's been a change in volume. It takes 2x the power to increase the volume by 3db. So going from an 80W AVR to a 160W AVR would only provide for an increase in volume of 3db, so with a 30W increase in power. not even 1db increase.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top