*Official* Denon AVR 1909/789 Thread - Page 108

I have an HD cable box, but using the coaxial type cables that go to the TV.

I am going to get the 789 / 1909. Thenerds.net has it for 456 plus shipping. Any other recommendations on better price or vendor?

I should be receiving the 789 tomorrow, and I have a couple of quick questions:

1. What does "HDP" stand for?

2. Why does it appear with "DVD" as "DVD/HDP" on the remote?

1. "HDP" - High Definition Player
2. The DVD and HDP are actually separate HDMI inputs

Anyone at all know anything about audio drop outs?

Lesson one is IGNORE THE INPUT LABELS for HD/digital sources. just reassign everything how you need it once it's hooked up.


Because Denon hired a bunch of morons to design their current slate of remotes.

My gut feeling was they did it to save costs so they could use the same remote components between lower end models (1709/1609) and the 1909/2309. On the 1709/1609, the HDP/DVD input is ONE input, on the 1909/2309 they have separate HDMI inputs (one labeled DVD and one labeled HDP). Then, they can use the same remote button and just have it toggle on the 1909/2309 models. Cheap bastards.

generally, audio drop-outs could either be the cable box's fault (i.e. dropping the signal) or some kind of HDMI handshake issue between stb/avr/tv. Since you are not using HDMI, it's probably the cable box. What happens when it drops out? Can you see the display of the Denon flicker as it drops/gains the signal?

It's definitely not Audyssey's fault.

Sometimes the display WILL change for a second, sometimes NOT.

What's interesting is aside from my receiver, I made NO changes to the setup, and I never had drop outs ever with my Sony that preceded it.

I'll try an HDMI cable, though I heard from others in these forums that it doesn't do the trick.

A little frustrating since it's quite an expense for me, and I feel the need to change models or brands unless someone whose had this exact thing can direct me to the culprit.

Thanks for any advice.

Get the 1909 and and get scared again!!

You really need to closely observe the display on the front of the receiver. The input shows on the left; the output on the right. As Batpig asked, what do you see when the audio drops out? Does the left side go black - or the right side? If it's the left side, the problem lies with whatever source is connected when it happens.

Dana

Okay, I'll check. But as I said before, most of the time there IS no change on the display when it happens.

25% off Receivers @ 6th Ave Electronics
Using coupon code AFLAUD25 you can receive 25% off select receivers.

Search for that thread at Slickdeals.net (I can't post links since I don't have 3 posts)

I am looking at getting the 1909 from there as I haven't found a lower price anywhere. Free shipping for about the same price.

I get a brief audio drop-out at least once a day. In my case, it is the cable box. It happens using both component and HDMI (my Motorola DVR sends all video signals out simultaneously). In every case, the DVR is losing Dolby Digital and switching to Pro Logic. I have no idea why and haven't really investigated it much. Your situation may be different, but it sounds quite similar, so thought I would chime in.

You are not the first person to incorrectly state that MCACC does NOT work in the time domain, doesn't account for reflected sound, and is just a static EQ based on single reading of a test tone to adjust for frequency response. This may be true of early renditions of MCACC from 5 or 6 years ago, but Pioneer didn't stop the development there as some would like to believe. They have continued to improve MCACC. The Advanced MCACC used for at least the last 3 years (maybe longer), and the newer version of Advanced MCACC in the VSX-1018 and current Elites today applies "time axis" calibrations that distinguish between the direct sound of the speakers and the room reverberation to produce a more accurate sound. See this graphic from Pioneer.

Advanced MCACC Working in the Time Domain:



Regarding MCACC using a whole lot less filters, you are not the first person I've heard state or imply that MCACC just uses a "few parametric EQs." According to information from Pioneer, the fine resolution standing wave calibration used by Advanced MCACC states that it uses dozens of band pass filters just for that one function of MCACC alone. See this graphic from Pioneer.

Pioneer Band Pass Filters Used for Standing Wave Control:




Here is an advanced MCACC presentation which shows some of the different things Advanced MCACC does:
http://www.pioneer.co.uk/files/eur/MCACC/index.html

When speaking of the supposed advantages of Audyssey over MCACC, I would recommend at least making sure you were not providing downright inaccurate information about one or the other.


CNET did comparisons of a Denon 3806 using Audyssey to Pioneer's MCACC, and stated, "by contrast, the Denon AVR-3806's autosetup program is far more complex and time-consuming, though no more accurate." I've also heard other complaints from people about Audyssey leaving the bass too flat or making the surrounds too loud, etc. I've seen people talking about "tricking" Audyssey by lowering the bass on their BFD's or SMS before running Audyssey, then adjusting it back up to compensate for Audyssey's adjustment. Are you kidding me? It would be a lot easier if they just allowed multiple custom manual EQ adjustments (like Pioneer with MCACC) while not giving up any Audyssey features.

Well the manual doesn't just say that you can't adjust them, it says they can't even be turned on. I haven't seen anything to confirm your comment that adjusting tone controls before enabling Dynamic EQ will result in the same tone adjustment with Dyanamic EQ enabled. It's not that I don't believe you, but it doesn't seem like anyone has actually tested this, and it's not documented in the manual.


That's not a good excuse. Everything else could remain dynamic and still let me give it a boost of bass or treble. But ultimately, I would just prefer to give it a more precise EQ adjustment as with MCACC, and like is possible with the Audyssey Pro kit, although not nearly as easily as I would like it to be.


And as I pointed out to Gary, he was posting false information about the current generation of MCACC.


Thanks. And no one should be upset. But I did want to point out the inaccuracies posted here about MCACC as not to mislead anyone else who might be reading that doesn't know any better.

I bought mine from authorizedelectronic.com. This is the second receiver that I've bought from them. No problem what so ever. Free shipping.

I do appreciate and actually enjoyed reading your views (not being facetious, I genuinely mean that), but most of us on the *Official* Denon AVR 1909/789 Thread already have our 1909 (or 789) and are quite pleased with it. We, too, did a lot of research and bet on Denon. And while you were probably only attempting to point out what you believe may be inaccuracies made by others, some may feel you are attacking our receiver in doing so - surely not your intention, but thought I would put in my two cents.

Thanks Guys

I'll go through the FAQ's meanwhile could any one suggest to me some real basic books which I could read so as to better understand whats being discussed in these Forums!!

Murli

I love the sound of the 1909 but totally agree that some moron designed this. One of the HDMI inputs is labeled "VCR". I've never seen a vcr with HDMI...well who knows, maybe Denon was supporting the one and only JVC DVD recorder/Vhs combo that has an HDMI output. I won't go on about how the engineers continue to give us black remotes with lettering no one can read. Oh well, time to be grateful again for what we do have.

I connect my STB to the 789 with component/toslink, then connect the 789 to the tv via hdmi. I also connect the stb to the tv directly using hdmi. This is to allow watching tv without turning on the 789.

I could just use hdmi from the stb to the 789 then hdmi from 789 to tv. By using the hdmi/cec function I would not need to power on the 789. My question is, would the pic/sound quality be improved using hdmi from the stb to the 789 as opposed to component/toslink ? Would the analog upconvert for component/analog make a diff?

Point taken. I certainly am not trying to attack the receiver. I look at it as more of a desired feature to make a good receiver and nice room & speaker calibration system even better.

If you are going to quote me please use the quote function and not just make them up.


I'll take a pass on the Pioneer links but would like to see the CNet comparison if you have a link. The search function on CNet did not turn it up.

The bottom line is most people are interested in using Room EQ to create a flat frequency response that duplicates the mixing studio recording in the home environment, not distorting that curve to suit one particular preference.

As has been stated on these threads many times, most TV's do as good or better job with upscale/conversion PQ than the Denon. I have seen little PQ difference with HD in my own comparisons using attuverse DVR to my Samsung 4095. The sammie is not so good with SD so the Denon is actually a little better in that case, but I use component from cable box to Denon more to avoid HDMI "handshake" issues than PQ.

You could try the A/B comparison for yourself, but pay careful attention to your cable box settings and the Denon video settings.

I agree with SoundofMind, go back to page 1 and read: Q. Does the AVR 1909/789 screw up the video at all?

Thanks for the reply. I plan to try this, if for nothing else than to have only one HDMI cable in to TV. Also will watch utility bill to see if extra 30 watt for HDMI/CEC is a problem.

The thing that concerned me was the 789 upconverts the 1080i from the STB to 1080p using the components. While the 789 just passes along the 1080i when using HDMI. The Samsung will always display 1080p (native rate), so who converts better Samsung or 789? I guess only my eyes will tell.

I believe elsewhere on these threads someone did the calculation on electricity costs for the 30 watts and it is negligible. But I guess I'm not that "green" cuz I don't even shut my computer down most nights and I don't unplug my toaster, etc.

Gary,

No offense, but I only quoted you two times in my post, and I used the "quote" feature of AVSforum which did a direct copy and paste of the information which was inaccurate to which I was responding with my follow-up comments.

It appears you are referring to my comment that you are among those who have "stated or IMPLIED" something, which is NOT the same as a quote, and I'm sure you know the difference. I don't know how many times I've had people twist my words around to mean something completely different. I didn't think my "implied" comment was far off, because what you actually stated was:


The information I responded with applies exactly the same, because MCACC is clearly much more than that, as well as much more than stated in your comments about MCACC's supposed inadequacies in which I had quoted you "word for word" in my previous response to you using the quote function. I just wanted to get the facts out about the current generation of Advanced MCACC vs the MCACC myths I keep seeing propogated in the forums. I think that by posting the graphic representations from Pioneer, it's more likely to get the point across and stick in someone's mind.

Here is the link to CNET information, and remember, both systems have had time to mature since this review. Go to this link, simply do a "find" on Denon, and the second instance will show the quote I copied in my previous post comparing it to MCACC.
http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers...-31612930.html

Again, I'm not trying to bash Denon or Audyssey. From a purely automated standpoint, after digging into the true capabilities of both systems, I haven't seen any evidence which makes me conclude one is better or worse than the other. I think they are likely both fine, yet not flawless, but I am looking ahead to what I see as improvements to the overall system by being realistic and without being "too high tech" in my desires. Not all content is EQed well when it's mastered, or there are EQ issues when the content is transferred from one media type to another. Automated systems don't always get it right (as shown from plenty of feedback from Audyssey users, and those using "tricks" to try to improve the calibration as I mentioned in my previous response to you). And then, I could also link to scientific studies that show that not everyone has the same hearing curve, and there is normally a shift in that curve as people age. No purely automated system can account for that either. And actually, Audyssey admits that from a purely automated standpoint, it's not necessarily perfect and may need tweaking. Hence,their Pro Kit features. So I'm not sure why anyone would be resistant to the added feature which would allow multiple custom EQ presets without losing any Audyssey features.

Yes I see the quote, however...


this is what I am looking for.



I am sure with that as with most added features would come added cost so, for the third time, I believe most people are interested in Room EQ to provide a flat frequency response to duplicate the mixing studio recording in the home environment more than added features that deviate from that goal.

Rex - I appreciate the info on MCACC, I wasn't aware of all of that as I've never researched the Pios much at all.

I'm not sure that anyone is resistant to the features you describe, per se. But I think most folks are of the "set it and forget it" variety, and aren't going to constantly twiddle with manual EQ's. I think, in this instance, Denon/Audyssey strive for simplicity. It corrects for your room, gives you a nice flat response, and then you can make gross adjustments with the tone controls and channel levles to tune the sound a little. I think for most people that is plenty of "tweakability". The fact that Pio gives you more tweakability is great, and that's why it's great for consumers to have options -- for you it's perfect, for others it's unnecessary complexity.

Like with TV's, some models (Samsung) give a ridiculous amount of user control over grayscale, gamma, noise reduction, full color management for primaries/secondaries, etc. For the video tweaker who loves to calibrate their set, it's a boon to have this flexibility. For the other 99% of home consumers, it's a headache and a lot of "what the heck does THAT control do?" and they just click it on "Standard" picture mode and move on with their lives.