Denon AVR-4810CI/AVR-4810 w/ 9.3ch, Dolby PLIIz/Audyssey DSX, October 09- - Page 53

Hi synerg - Most definitely. Just dig back through this thread and you'll see that a LOT of us are using external amps, though probably in addition to some onboard amps, depending on the number of channels used.

Is this the link you are using (from the USA Denon product page)? Works fine for me. I get all 145 pages (just tried it again). The issue may be on your end.

I haven't used the internet radio a lot, but the higher bitrate stations like Radio Paradise sound very good. I have the Rhapsody trial in effect, but have only used it once. Sounded good though.

Hey houseofg thanks. I tried it on my Windows computer and low and behold it works. I can not get it to download on my Mac for some reason (I know it is a conspiracy Just kidding, hey and computers are going to make everything paperless too correct) but it did on my Windows computer.

Thanks.

Heh...well, I've now downloaded it on both my Mac and Windows computer!

I'm just glad that I finally did it so that I could put the paper version away. I always read at least half of a manual intently and then just lose all will to finish!

I actually use a Tag McLAren av32r bp 192 as preamplifier for music and HT.
The AVP-A1HD is very expensive, too for me, but it seems to be very good. So my thinking is : my Tag is very good but old. Maybe receivers like the 4810 have evolved to a point that they are able to compete with such good old preamplifiers.I don't know.

If someone has made a comparison between a good preamplifier and the 4810 or a similar product, i am interested to read its comments.

S.

synerg,

I think you are wanting to compare very different animals. The 4810 is a deep, somewhat complex, do it all HT control unit - plus decent power. I have played the unit in simple 2 channel stereo, being driven by Emotiva monoblocks and I can say quite firmly that the noise floor is extremely low and the 4810 does a great job on the pre-side. I am powering B&W 803S's and it sounds great. I'm not talented about rhapsodizing with terms such as soft, sweet, airy; or for that matter tangy, with a touch of cherry and a slow finish of nutmeg. The Denon does its Pre functions well...... That's it. It has a high quality DAC and all the really well regarded internal components. Many of us (I am just now attempting FLAC files, it's USB functions, and radio internet) are spending most of our time just playing and slowly getting though all this beast can do... This thread is great for giving me ideas and things to try next. Really I won't have receiver upgradeitis for a long time. All I have to do is go read the manual and discover a bunch of other things I want to try.

Having said all that, if you want a really good 2 channel pre - be it vintage or other, I'd say just go get one. It's all very subjective if a seperate elegant pre is better but I'm not so sure you will find deep reviews of a high quality two channel vs the 4810. To me, the 4810 does stereo proud; but it's not really purpose built for this... I know the Tag Mclaren does other functions than simple stereo but it's known for its DAC and analog signal path. Still think the 4810 is very, very nice...

Anyone else think I'm off here? I'm ok if I'm wrong.

SeattleHTGuy I think you pretty much summed it up, this receiver looks to be a very powerful, feature rich and excellent sounding receiver! It's to bad that receiver manufacturers do not place much consideration for finely tuned analog pathways like pre-amp processors. If you desire ultra high-end 2CH analog performance it's better to buy something dedicated to 2CH listening. I am coming from a Denon AVR-5700 THX Ultra receiver that I've had for ten years powering 4 ohm speakers on the LCR channels and 8 ohms in the two rears. I bought the Denon DVM 3700 DVD changer with this receiver costing $1299.99, I sold it one year ago for $100 dollars! Ouch!

So you own a 4810, now ? Can you tell me more about the differences you have heard ?

I believe the 5700 is the US reference of our european AVC-A1D.
I own this model ... one week. I found it so boring when watching movies i had to send it back to the seller. (98% of the reviewers were very happy with it)
My Sony STR-DB 925, that is was supposed to replace (the first sony receiver with DTS decoder), was the 8th wonder in comparison.

This is why i have so many doubts with this brand. But it was nearly 10 years back.

S.

I plan on getting the 4810CI, I still use the 5700. I can't speak to the european version of the 5700, but I will tell you when the 5700 was ($4800 dollars) reviewed by many highly respectable home theater magazines rated the 5700 as sounding equal to high-end (separates) pre-amp processors! I guess Denon isn't very popular in the UK, but here in the states Denon is considered one of the best manufacturers of AV receivers and the Denon DVD-A1UDCI $4500 dollar Blu-ray player sound quality is currently unmatched! The engineering costs went without any consideration in designing the Denon DVD-A1UDCI Blu-ray player, the 7.1 multi-channel and the XLR 2CH analog outputs sound better than any HDMI processor to date! The DACs were extremely expensive, so good in fact that CDs sounded like a high resolution format! I am shocked by the fact that you found the 5700 so boring when watching movies! There must be some mistake, are you 100% sure were talking about the same model?

I have owned a AVC-A1D and remember it as good, better than the Sony and Yamaha (don't remember the models) I compared it with, but I had it for ca. 1.5 year and then I traded in /upgraded to AVC-A1SE (later upgraded to KAVC-A1SE). Today I have a AVP/POA combo and as you can see, since my AVC-A1D I have never left Denon

Deck

I'm still evaluating the Denon 4810CI and the 4310CI. It appears that though there are a few features that are different (and about 8 pounds), they are very similar. The main difference, though, appears to be in the number of discrete amplifiers (9 versus 7, respectively). If I don't have the need for the extra channels, could someone provide some solid rationale to spend 50% more for the 4810?

Thanks for any enlightenment.

Anybody try this receiver with 4 ohm speakers? I am eyeballing some Dynaudio speakers and the manual only talks about going to 6 ohm speakers. I don't know if the amp section is up to driving 4 ohm speakers. Any thoughts or experience?

I will soon...

I've been driving 4 ohm speakers for 10 years with my AVR-5700 140 watts x 5 channels without issue. I'm pretty sure amp technology has greaty improved in 10 years.

Height and width speakers to go with your 7.1 speakers which I might add does sound better with height speakers! These speaker don't need to be equal to you surround or main L/C/R speakers.

musical, There are many, many differences between the 4310 and the 4810. Clearly 2 additional amps is the biggie. However, it's what you can do with the amps that matters. Free-Assign, Zone 4 Optical (Tre,s optical out doesn't have diddly to do with amps - but it's another add to the 4810), Heights + Wides DSX, Full and highest quality DACs on all channels. Better components, better connectors.

I suggest you go look at the 4310 and 4810 to just see a few of the upgrades. It is far too simplistic to say it weighs 8 lbs more and has 2 extra channels. You can compare the two but there is a rather large uptick between the two.

I also have some concerns with driving 4 ohm speakers. Denon does not even attempt to sway anyone to try. 6 ohms is as low as they recommend. Many of us here would argue that the newer Denon amps skimp a bit here. For some, this may be a deal breaker. Just be aware that 4 ohm loads are not supposedly recommended. Buyer beware!!!

The 4810 is definitely a step up in build quality but, assuming a specific budget, if you will never venture beyond a 7-channel setup and you are going to be driving 4-ohm speakers, I might take a 4310 + Emotiva XPA-5 for the same total $$$.

Forgive this question if I'm breaking some movie accuracy rules here but I was wondering if there's any way to send some additional center channel information to the left and right speakers?

My new 4810 is fantastic and the new Monitor Audio RX-6 fronts, RX-Centre, R90HD sides, and R90HD backs are all wonderful. But when watching movies (Batman, Soloist, so far) the center isn't quite wide enough. Hard to explain but if some of the center would also go to left and right then that would "fatten" it up nicely.

Yes, I could turn on the DSP's Multi Channel Audio and everything goes to all the speakers. But I'd like to stay mostly true to the discrete mix if at all possible.

I've also tried simply increasing the volume for the L & R channels but that didn't help enough. It just increases the non-center sounds they're already getting.

Oh, and yes I did the Audyssey XT -- awesome process and amazingly accurate.

There is no variable adjustment for this--nothing along the lines of "Center Width" as in PLII Music mode. One "brute force" option is simply to have a speaker configuration with no center speaker. Then it feeds all C to L/R as phantom C.

This may not be the effect you're after, nor very convenient if you don't have the option for multiple configs (some prepros do this). So you're stuck fiddling with the speaker setup menu. But it might be worth it just to see if this is what you are really seeking.

You might find that a pure phantom C signal sounds no wider/fatter than the real C signal (in the center seats, anyway). And if not, then it might help you think more about what shortcoming you are really perceiving and how to address it.

I've also gone through that debate before deciding to go with the 4810 even if I only use a 5.1 setup + one extra zone...

The main deciding factors for me were:

• The Wifi connection
• An extra 10w per channel
• The Advanced AL24 processing as opposed to AL24+ (from what I read somewhere at the time, the difference is that Advanced will upconvert to 24bit/192kHz while Plus will only upconvert to 24bit without touching the sample rate...)
• future upgradability to 11.1, width+height etc, later down the road...

As for Frohlich's 4 ohm question, I currently run my system with 3x 4ohm M&K S-125's as my front speakers (and 2x 6ohm Tannoys as my surrounds) without problems... Although I should probably also mention that, living in an apartment, I hardly ever bring the volume louder than -30/-20db.

According to Audioholics: "In order to meet UL requirements, a receiver cannot be rated down to 4 ohms without having (an impedance selector)switch onboard. Receivers without this switch are usually rated down to 6 ohms. In most cases, well designed receivers can easily handle 4 ohm loads safely and efficiently."

For more info, read the whole paragraph over @ http://www.audioholics.com/buying-gu...s-buying-guide (near the bottom of the page)

Its a shame you can't configure Bi-Amp mode for the centre channel as well, that way you could have run two centres.

I went through the same evaluation and elected to go with the 4310. I will never implement more than the 7.1 in the setup we have (now using height speakers) and the other features some have mentioned were not enough for the extra investment (for me). I could afford the difference but did not see the value.


Can't speak for the 4810, but my setup for a 4310 (and the 4802 it replaced) has the L/R mains at 4 ohms and has not been an issue. If I had 4 ohm speakers all the way around it may have been different but most real life media (even action/adventure fare) rarely drives all channels all the time (but YMMV).

Hello All,
The 4810 replaced my 4802. At first I was a little disappointed with the weight difference. My old 4802 felt more substantial and with 2 more "channels" I would have thought it would be heavier. Not to worry, the internal amps sound very good.

I only use 4 of the 4810's internal amps and Emotiva amps for the rest of my 11.1/3.
I cannot comment on the 4 ohm speaker capability, but like Seattle, I would be a little leary of using 4 ohm speakers with the 4810 (Emo amps would cure this problem and a great sale going on right now)

I WILL say the 4810 is an Excellent Pre/Pro and to me sounds better than the pre amp
that I heard at "Emofest". I have Zero regrets on choosing it over the UMC-1, Onkyo 5507 and the Integra 80.1. I looked at all of these products and spent many hours debating the pros and cons of each....

I have auditioned systems that cost many times more than mine, and although they might have sounded better in some ways, I have yet to hear anyone's system that I like better overall.
When compared to my old 7.1 system that I have had for years;
the 11.1/3 makes a Huge difference in mutichannel stero and a more subtle difference when watching movies (but even with movies the difference is enough to make you smile).

When my wife first heard the new receiver, amps and additional speakers (height and wide), her eyes lit up and she said "WOW"! What more could a man ask for?
Blessings,
Brian

Duck05, Are you able to drive all 7 (F/C/H/Sur) without resorting to using an external amplifier? How do you like the height speakers?

I understand from Audyssey that Wides (should) make more of an impact than Height speakers...but I'm sure like most people, Wides are impractical unless you have a dedicated HT room.

Yes, I implemented the 7.1 using height speakers that were already in an ideal position (left over from a previous install) using only the Denon internal amps (no extra zones or outside speakers). The room layout (family room with a fireplace and open in the back into the kitchen) would not lend itself to "wide" speakers in my situation.

I have so far drifted more toward the Audyssey DSX doing the height channels versus the Dolby Prologic IIz and have enjoyed the effect on both music concerts and movies.

4810 amps -well, I had an NAD214 2 channel amp laying around that I hadn't used in a while. I had some free time tonight so just for fun I thought I would hook it up. I gotta say I like it better then the internal amps in the 4810 for music listening. For HT, I didn't really notice a difference but for those of you also into 2 channel music, I would recommend going with an outboard amp. Of course now I am thinking...wonder what it would sound with a nice 3 channel amp to run the front three speakers (left, center, right)

Thank you! I too am debating between the two models. Price is not that huge of a concern, but I don't need the Wifi. Well, back to reading the manuals of the two models. Thanks again.

Roger,

Curious why you didn't suggest he try PLII Music.

because the soundtrack in question was already multichannel -- PLII is only for upmixing a 2ch track to multichannel. The point Roger was making was that, with a track that is already mixed as a discrete multich source, you can't use any adjustable parameters as you would be able to with something like PLII Music matrixing 2.0 > 5.1. In a regular 5.1 movie soundtrack, it's already 5.1...

Did anyone ever figure out the mono block feature? Does each amp have it's own rectifier and filter cap(s)? I assume they are fed from a single shared transformer; if so it's not what I would call a true monoblock, but what do I know?