Denon avr-1713 Denon avr-1712 or Marantz nr1403? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 08:06 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
I am currently trying to decide between these three receivers. From a sound quality/ sound features standpoint, which one is the best choice?

I dont care about any networking, streaming or airplay. I simply want the best sound quality and sound related features. The finalist will be hooked up to a 3.1 setup consisting of two pioneer sp-fs52 tower speakers, the pioneer sp-c22 center speaker and the pioneer sw-8mk2 subwoofer.

If going by the spec sheet, the 1712 would be the clear winner, due to its 90 watt per channel output (80 for 1713 and 50 for nr1403) and support for more codecs than the other two candidates. However, I have been reading rave reviews regarding the marantz nr1403, with all reviewers stating that the 50 watt output of the marantz is an afterthought after listening to it. The marantz offers audyssey multieq technology while the denon alternatives offer the more sophisticated multieq xt.

As mentioned before, I want to purchase the best sounding receiver out of the three candidates, even if the difference between the three is just a hair.

Any and all help is highly appreciated!
makaveddie81 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 01:13 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Anyone?
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #3 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
I would get the 1712 if that has all the features you need. MultEQ XT is a definite improvement over it's little brother MultEQ.
duc135 is offline  
post #4 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 02:37 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

I would get the 1712 if that has all the features you need. MultEQ XT is a definite improvement over it's little brother MultEQ.

So the 1712 and 1713 "should" sound better than the Marantz because they have MultiEQ XT while the latter has MultiEQ?
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #5 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 02:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 389
^^^^

Yep. the Marantz isn't that powerful either. Only a 50W receiver. Will still probably be good for a small room though.

I'd only recommend the small Marantz if you need a slimline receiver due to space, otherwise I'd buy a full size receiver.

Afro GT
afrogt is online now  
post #6 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 03:15 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Thanks for the help fellas. I'm gonna go ahead and go with the 1712. I want to purchase a receiver that's within my budget that is best at performing its primary function. All the smart features are just unnecessary bells and whistles. I have a Pioneer Kuro and, although it doesn't have any Smart capabilities or bells and whistles, it is the best at performing the primary function of a TV, which is to display images.

Compared to the 1712, it seems to me that Denon skimped out on some sound related features and performance on the 1713 in order to squeeze in the smart capabilities. They dropped the total wattage, removed support for 6 codecs and downgraded from 7.1 to 5.1 channels. Tells me all I need to know.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #7 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 254
^I have a 1712 and think it's what you're looking for.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #8 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 389
Quote:
They dropped the total wattage, removed support for 6 codecs and downgraded from 7.1 to 5.1 channels. Tells me all I need to know.

What 6 codecs are you talking about? I have the Denon 1613 and Denon 989/2809 and they both handle the same codecs so the 1713 should not be any different.

Afro GT
afrogt is online now  
post #9 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 05:43 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt View Post

What 6 codecs are you talking about? I have the Denon 1613 and Denon 989/2809 and they both handle the same codecs so the 1713 should not be any different.

http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers/denon-avr-1712/4540-6466_7-34647680-4.html

Not sure how accurate CNET's specs are.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #10 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 07:22 PM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 44,476
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1023 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
The codecs that were "dropped" only apply to a 6/7 CH AVR. The 1713 has only 5CH.

---------------------------------
"JD" –
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Mon - Fri: 10am – 10pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing on Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Parasound
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is offline  
post #11 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 09:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 389
^^^^
Yep and the CNET article is not quite accurate.

The 1713 does not have
Dolby PLIIz
Dolby PLIIx
DTS-ES Matrix
DTS- ES Discrete
Dolby Digital EX

Those are all 6.1 or 7.1 codecs so the 1713 would have no reason to have those available since it is a 5.1 unit.


But it does have DTS:Neo:6 as I am using it right now on my 1613.

Afro GT
afrogt is online now  
post #12 of 45 Old 07-23-2013, 10:12 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
I didnt know those codecs were strictly for 6/7 channel receivers. So the marantz was the first one off the list due to it lacking audyssey multieq xt and being underpowered at 50 watts. I then eliminated the 1713 from the list due to the reasons I mentioned earlier (though i made a mistake with the codecs). The 1712 is 7.1 ready in case I decide to go in that path in a few years and I believe its audio features/capabilities will hold me down for a long time. As a current ps3 owner and future ps4 owner, that device will always anchor the "smart" portion of my home theater setup. No need to have multiple smart devices IMO.

Thanks for the help guys. I was really close to buying the marantz just because of the rave reviews I had read. Happy I ended up buying the best receiver for my needs.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #13 of 45 Old 07-24-2013, 02:57 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 44,476
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1023 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Note that the wattage difference between the two models (1712/1713) is a moot point (in fact unless you want raise the roof volume levels, so would the difference between the 1403 and these models as most speakers generally only use <5W/CH). The benefit of the newer 1713 (as a networking model) is that it can receive any mfr firmware updates directly in your home rather than having to go to the shop for the update (although at this point there are not likely to be anymore updates for the 1712) and it can be controlled from anywhere in the house that a smart phone has access to the home's Wifi router.

---------------------------------
"JD" –
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Mon - Fri: 10am – 10pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing on Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Parasound
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is offline  
post #14 of 45 Old 07-24-2013, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

...most speakers generally only use <5W/CH).

I think I would have to disagree with this over generalization. Most speakers are not that sensitive. Especially in the OP's case. His speakers are 84dB @1W/1m. Assuming he, like most people, will be at least 2m from his speakers, he will need ~256W per channel to hit peak reference levels. I don't know how loud the OP likes his music/movies, but I'm guessing power consumption approaching 50W/CH will be used easily in his situation during peaks. I'm not even talking about reference levels here. The lower his crossover point the worse it gets.

I do agree with you that the difference between 50W/CH and 90W/CH is minimal though. That's less than a 3dB difference in headroom.
duc135 is offline  
post #15 of 45 Old 07-24-2013, 08:50 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Note that the wattage difference between the two models (1712/1713) is a moot point (in fact unless you want raise the roof volume levels, so would the difference between the 1403 and these models as most speakers generally only use <5W/CH). The benefit of the newer 1713 (as a networking model) is that it can receive any mfr firmware updates directly in your home rather than having to go to the shop for the update (although at this point there are not likely to be anymore updates for the 1712) and it can be controlled from anywhere in the house that a smart phone has access to the home's Wifi router.

So if the wattage difference is a moot point, which of the three models will give me the best sound quality and performance (even if it is by a hair)?
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #16 of 45 Old 07-24-2013, 08:54 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

I think I would have to disagree with this over generalization. Most speakers are not that sensitive. Especially in the OP's case. His speakers are 84dB @1W/1m. Assuming he, like most people, will be at least 2m from his speakers, he will need ~256W per channel to hit peak reference levels. I don't know how loud the OP likes his music/movies, but I'm guessing power consumption approaching 50W/CH will be used easily in his situation during peaks. I'm not even talking about reference levels here. The lower his crossover point the worse it gets.

I do agree with you that the difference between 50W/CH and 90W/CH is minimal though. That's less than a 3dB difference in headroom.

My couches are approximately 14 feet from my display. I went with the higher wattage because I want the "size" of the sound to match the size of my 70 inch display. What difference in wattage will be noticeable to the ears then? If there is almost no difference between receiver that can pump out 50 Watts and 90 Watts, then why bother purchasing one that can pump out 120 Watts when a 90 Watt option will provide essentially the same performance?

Pardon my newb questions, as this is my first "separates" set up. I've been using soundbars and sound projectors until I decided to take on this project.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #17 of 45 Old 07-24-2013, 09:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Power by itself is not an indicator of the size of the sound you will get. Your speakers, their placement and your room's effect on sound will be by far the most influential on the size of the sound. Of your three choices, I'd still go with the 1712. It's probably the least expensive of the three and fulfills your needs. Rule of thumb is that if power is not your limiting factor, it will take double the power for most people to hear a difference. The extra power is for:

1. Bragging rights - increased sales. The general public will see receiver A has more power than receiver B so it must be better.
2. Marketing - increased sales. The general public does not know that there is no audible difference between 90W vs. 120W. This is just an increase of 1dB. I believe the majority of the population won't notice any difference until it reaches 3dB. I'm not perfectly sure on that 3dB number though.
3. Headroom - extra reserve in power for those rare occasions that there is really a heavy demand on multiple channels. Headroom is only necessary if the next step down is too close for comfort. Think of it this way. You need to take your friend to the furniture store to pick up a coffee table. May fit in your station wagon, might not. So you borrow a compact truck. Most likely it will fit, but some coffee tables can be quite big so you borrow a full size truck. Definitely will fit with room to spare in case he wants to get a matching end table. That extra space is headroom. Good to have, but not entirely necessary.

Just a note, "separates" actually refers to having a separate processor and amplifier unit. So a receiver with built in amps is not really what people are talking about when the use the term separates.
vifferfun likes this.
duc135 is offline  
post #18 of 45 Old 07-24-2013, 10:01 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

Power by itself is not an indicator of the size of the sound you will get. Your speakers, their placement and your room's effect on sound will be by far the most influential on the size of the sound. Of your three choices, I'd still go with the 1712. It's probably the least expensive of the three and fulfills your needs. Rule of thumb is that if power is not your limiting factor, it will take double the power for most people to hear a difference. The extra power is for:

1. Bragging rights - increased sales. The general public will see receiver A has more power than receiver B so it must be better.
2. Marketing - increased sales. The general public does not know that there is no audible difference between 90W vs. 120W. This is just an increase of 1dB. I believe the majority of the population won't notice any difference until it reaches 3dB. I'm not perfectly sure on that 3dB number though.
3. Headroom - extra reserve in power for those rare occasions that there is really a heavy demand on multiple channels. Headroom is only necessary if the next step down is too close for comfort. Think of it this way. You need to take your friend to the furniture store to pick up a coffee table. May fit in your station wagon, might not. So you borrow a compact truck. Most likely it will fit, but some coffee tables can be quite big so you borrow a full size truck. Definitely will fit with room to spare in case he wants to get a matching end table. That extra space is headroom. Good to have, but not entirely necessary.

Just a note, "separates" actually refers to having a separate processor and amplifier unit. So a receiver with built in amps is not really what people are talking about when the use the term separates.

Exellent and very informative response. I eliminated the marantz 1403 very early in my research process due to it not being equipped with audyssey multieq xt. It is only because of the rave reviews that I read that it made its way back to my short list.

My budget was $300 and the three candidates were refurbs. The 1712 was the least expensive of the three.

I always thought separates meant non HTIB systems lol.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #19 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 01:40 AM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 44,476
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1023 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by makaveddie81 View Post

So if the wattage difference is a moot point, which of the three models will give me the best sound quality and performance (even if it is by a hair)?

The models with the higher version of Audyssey ... ie. 1712 or 1713.

---------------------------------
"JD" –
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Mon - Fri: 10am – 10pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing on Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Parasound
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is offline  
post #20 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymantle View Post

My suggestion is to go with the Marantz NR 1403.
http://www.squidoo.com/the-marantz-nr1403

Care to share the reasons why you think the marantz is superior to both Denons?

The article you reference praises its multieq capability and the fact that you can connect multiple devices to it. Not sure if the author realizes that you can connect multiple devices on all receivers, not just the marantz. The Denons use multieq xt, which is superior to the multieq used by the marantz.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #21 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 02:13 PM
585-645-1006
 
jdsmoothie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 44,476
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1023 Post(s)
Liked: 1506
Yup .. which is why you would be better served going with either the 1712 or 1713 for that very reason. wink.gif

---------------------------------
"JD" –
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - Authorized dealer AVRs, Speakers, etc. 

Mon - Fri: 10am – 10pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)
Call for pricing on Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Parasound
** Think the AVR is defective?  Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times. 
jdsmoothie is offline  
post #22 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by makaveddie81 View Post

Care to share the reasons why you think the marantz is superior to both Denons?

The article you reference praises its multieq capability and the fact that you can connect multiple devices to it. Not sure if the author realizes that you can connect multiple devices on all receivers, not just the marantz. The Denons use multieq xt, which is superior to the multieq used by the marantz.

He wasn't just referencing a random article. He was linking to his own review. wink.gif

Not that there is anything wrong with that.
duc135 is offline  
post #23 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 254
While it's true that the power ratings difference for the 1713 vs the 1712 are insignificant, keep in mind that those are ratings only at 8 Ohms.

The 1712 has a beefier transformer, larger filter caps, and a larger heatsink. Those *might* combine to make it able to drive lower impedance loads for longer without overheating or going into auto protect. I'd venture a guess that the 1712 has better ratings when measured at 4 Ohms than does the 1713.

Anecdotally, I've read that the 1713 shuts off more easily than the 1712 does when powering low impedance speakers at high volume levels.

I have no data to make that a real claim, so I'm trying to state it cautiously (before I get ripped!). I should also point out that in most use cases, it will not be an issue.
duc135 likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #24 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

While it's true that the power ratings difference for the 1713 vs the 1712 are insignificant, keep in mind that those are ratings only at 8 Ohms.

The 1712 has a beefier transformer, larger filter caps, and a larger heatsink. Those *might* combine to make it able to drive lower impedance loads for longer without overheating or going into auto protect. I'd venture a guess that the 1712 has better ratings when measured at 4 Ohms than does the 1713.

Anecdotally, I've read that the 1713 shuts off more easily than the 1712 does when powering low impedance speakers at high volume levels.

I have no data to make that a real claim, so I'm trying to state it cautiously (before I get ripped!). I should also point out that in most use cases, it will not be an issue.

Thanks for the info. I did not know that. Even more reason for the OP to choose the 1712 over the other two.
duc135 is offline  
post #25 of 45 Old 07-25-2013, 08:11 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

Thanks for the info. I did not know that. Even more reason for the OP to choose the 1712 over the other two.

Yup. I want the best sound quality / performance even if it's just by a hair. So glad I made the right choice with the 1712.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #26 of 45 Old 07-30-2013, 06:07 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
And, of course, accessories4less is providing free shipping on both the 1712 and 1713 the day my 1712 arrived. $250 for the 1712 and $270 for the 1713 (no tax) is a fantastic deal!
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #27 of 45 Old 08-03-2013, 12:17 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
UPDATE: I received the refurb 1712 from accessories4less and it is in deplorable condition even for a refurb. There is a crack on the botton right of the front panel and a huge scrqtch that is being masked with a sharpie marker among other noticeable scratches around the entire unit. Thankfully, I just scooped up a 1713 on clearance for 260 out the door from best buy.

The 1712 is going back and I am never purchasing anything from a4l. I still have to pay for return shipping... Anything to rid myself of the 1712.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #28 of 45 Old 08-03-2013, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Sorry to hear you had a bad experience.
duc135 is offline  
post #29 of 45 Old 08-03-2013, 01:35 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
makaveddie81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience.

had both units been brand new, i would have kept the 1712.
makaveddie81 is offline  
post #30 of 45 Old 08-03-2013, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by makaveddie81 View Post

UPDATE: I received the refurb 1712 from accessories4less and it is in deplorable condition even for a refurb. There is a crack on the botton right of the front panel and a huge scrqtch that is being masked with a sharpie marker among other noticeable scratches around the entire unit. Thankfully, I just scooped up a 1713 on clearance for 260 out the door from best buy.

The 1712 is going back and I am never purchasing anything from a4l. I still have to pay for return shipping... Anything to rid myself of the 1712.

That's pathetic on the part of A4L. Glad you found a good deal on a 1713 to make up for your bad experience!

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Denon Avr 1712 Receiver , Denon Avr 1713 Receiver , Marantz Nr1403 Slim Line Av Receiver
Gear in this thread - Nr1403 by PriceGrabber.com

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