I recently upgraded my HT, I picked up the denon 4200 for $800 it worked and sounded great until I tried to update the firmware. It got stuck in a loop and long story short denon customer service said that I should return it. When I did I my sort of a spur of the moment decision to pay an extra $200 and get the marantz 6010 instead of a replacement 4200 because I've always heard that marantz is better for music. My question is, did I make a bad decision? After doing some reading I found out that the marantz has 24bit DAC compared to the denon 32bit.
Yeah, you might have. The Marantz SR6010 is actually based on the Denon X3200 I believe. One model down from the Denon X4200. Marantz offers things like HDAM pre amp circuitry , lower models with phono pre amps , multi channel analog inputs and pre amp outputs in lower models than Denon usually does. It's geared towards their more musically inclined AV receiver enthusiasts.
The obvious answer is: He won't truly know. Reliable audio memory begins to degrade after only 0.2sec and is effectively gonski by 4 - 5sec. In the days between Denon FUBAR and Marantz hookup, he is no chance.
I recently upgraded my HT, I picked up the denon 4200 for $800 it worked and sounded great until I tried to update the firmware. It got stuck in a loop and long story short denon customer service said that I should return it. When I did I my sort of a spur of the moment decision to pay an extra $200 and get the marantz 6010 instead of a replacement 4200 because I've always heard that marantz is better for music. My question is, did I make a bad decision? After doing some reading I found out that the marantz has 24bit DAC compared to the denon 32bit.
Doing a "network reset" as listed in post 5 of the 2015 Denon AVR Owner's thread would have resolved the loop issue and allowed the AVR to successfully install the update.
Bigger numbers must be better right? Not necessarily.
32-bit resolution is one of the biggest audio reproduction "gotchas" of the last decade, IMO. The sole purpose of 32-bit resolution in consumer electronics is to lure the unsuspecting buyer towards higher priced ("profit leader") units by providing a "feature" that costs almost nothing to implement. In Marantz' case, the SR7010.
24-bit is already 20dB (100 times) better than the generally accepted maximum "real world" signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 124dB (~21-bit), so 32-bit is just more money for old rope for manufacturers. Check out the audio section SNR specs of the X4200W and the SR6010... I'll bet they're around 100 - 105dB (~17-bit).
For comparison, 16-bits of capture offers a signal to noise ratio (the difference between the signal and background noise) of 96.33dB, while 24-bit offers 144.49dB, which exceeds the limits of hardware capture and human perception. So your 32-bit DAC is actually only ever going to be able to output at most 21-bits of useful data and the other bits will be masked by circuit noise. In reality though, most moderately priced pieces of equipment top out with an SNR of 100 to 110dB, as most other circuit elements will introduce their own noise.
Bigger numbers must be better right? Not necessarily.
32-bit resolution is one of the biggest audio reproduction "gotchas" of the last decade, IMO. The sole purpose of 32-bit resolution in consumer electronics is to lure the unsuspecting buyer towards higher priced ("profit leader") units by providing a "feature" that costs almost nothing to implement. In Marantz' case, the SR7010.
24-bit is already 20dB (100 times) better than the generally accepted maximum "real world" signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 124dB (~21-bit), so 32-bit is just more money for old rope for manufacturers. Check out the audio section SNR specs of the X4200W and the SR6010... I'll bet they're around 100 - 105dB (~17-bit).
Not only that, AFAIK no sound reproduction device has gotten beyond the 20 bit enob (effective number of bits) barrier (in other words, I don't know any receiver with more than 122dB signal to noise ratio).
Thanks for the comments! The whole reason I switched to the Marantz was for better performance and sound for music, which is most important to me. I was just hoping that I didn't give up too much in the movie department.
The info given about the DAC was very helpful, that was my main concern.
I liked the Denon while I had it and had no complaints, it sounded great. I don't really need all the features it provides as I live in a small house so I highly doubt I will expand to 7.1 but I would like to give ATMOS a try in the near future and a phono is a must.
I did try the network reset several times and called Denon support just never could get it to connect back to the internet
Don't sweat it. I've been through my share of AVR's and now currently using the 6010. My main reason for the purchase was for 2.1 music. For my small music/theater room (12 x 24) the Marantz has a ton of muscle (love the Fusion 8's) to drive the db meter over the top. The added benefit of Atmos and DTS:X has changed our movie watching experience. Best advice, don't get caught in the specs and let your ears guide you.
Marantz units have always been more expensive then their comparable sister Denon model, generally as a result of having pre-outs at lower levels, multi-analog inputs, and their own unique HDAM pre-amps which are superior to the Denon model for music listening.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!