The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK] - Page 493

Wow! How it compares to my 3808ci? I love it

As long as it's before the next iteration of Pioneer's SC Elites. I have to maximize my sales value for my 57 and flip it to the right Denon LOL....

It is a really good receiver Steve and the little things like having the volume displayed on the screen really have me all the way over to the dark side. My Elite isn't going anywhere though, just somewhere else in the house. Having owned Marantz, Pioneer, and Onkyo receivers in the last 3 years I have to say I really like how the 4311 sounds. Time to add some speakers and an amp - I want to go wide and high.

You can add me to that list as well-moved the SC-05 upstairs and swapped it for a 4311 and noticed an immediate improvement.

How do I turn off Airplay functionality on the Denon so it's not accessible to ipad/iphone/ipod type devices? I have network standby to off but if the AVR is on the denon is accessible through the network Iphones in the house.

Every post I have read so far seems to detail getting it working but my issue is I want if off so others don't accidentally use it. I hope I don't have to try to block ports on my denon through my wireless router.

I suspect your only recourse to disable network functions (not just AirPlay) is to use a "firewall" or "disable" the network interface. E.g. use an address that incompatible with your household.

Wow that seems drastic though so far I have found nothing either. I can't believe Denon never thought about a simple Airplay On/Off setting, then again I would think they would have a better system for controlling what devices can and can't connect (passcode/pin?).

Update - I just wanted to say that I didn't mean to criticize Denon in the above line, I was a bit tired and meant to say I'm more used to Denon giving one the ability to control features on it's receivers and was surprised how Airplay is done.

It's not just Denon - I think it's a general Airplay issue because the same thing happens with my Pioneer that has Airplay.

I wish I understood Airplay better before I installed, I might never have installed it knowing what I know now. I just am shaking my head at how this is setup and that to stop it I have to disable all network functionality for the unit.

Update - When I said shaking my head I meant it as in shaking my head trying to figure out a way to do what I want and not coming up with anything so far.

The airplay protocol does include support for passwords. At least XBMC has a config field for a password for airplay access. Maybe denon has it somewhere in the web gui and just did a poor job of labeling it. I'd take a look at mine for you except it is still in transit from the retailer...

If you mean Denon's implementation of AirPlay sure.

Yes, but it's up to the end-node to require a password. E.g. Apple devices support passwords, Denon -- not so much.

Denon doesn't require authentication for network access. I would surprised if many AVR vendors put their web interfaces behind TLS protected credentials.

The same people that can stream AirPlay to your AVR can connect to its web interface and stream to the DLNA renderer, turn it on/off, change the inputs, etc. etc.

Unfortunately the reality is that these companies are stuck in a mindset that they sell hardware - and even more stuck in business model that is built around shifting large hunks of metal that are given a new name and a new badge annually.

To them you are not the customer - BestBuy, J&R, MediaMarkt, Dixons etc is their customer. And those customers require half-azzzing the product, so that there is something "new" on a regular 9-12 month cycle.

But a software mentality, constant functionality upgrades ala Google Chrome etc? Not here. Not ever. If there was a chance we'd be seeing it in flagship AVRs and so far the signs say Denon and their competitors are incapable of this.

True there's an enormous amount of code in a modern feature laden AVR but it doesn't work the way you appear to be suggesting. A convenient example is AirPlay. Denon buys a complete solution and integrates it (weakly) into their product. Another annoying example: the MediaTek part in the Oppo -83 is responsible for an enormous amount the processing but Oppo has nothing to do with it or fixing the bugs in it. Likewise the DSPs that do much of the heavy lifting on the audio side. These are self-contained solutions that come with some API glue. If Freescale (nee Motorola) screws up the OEM is on the hook and even a largish company like DMH may not have enough juice to get something fixed.

assuming his router will handle it, couldn't he just put the avr on a different subnet?

I do not fully agree with this statement. A great example is Sonos. Yes, they sell hardware but the hardware is really just your cost of entry into the Pretty cool world of Sonos. Huge upgrades occur often on the software side and all they pretty much do on hardware is rename the boxes and add an occasional new player/speaker unit.

I also believe I kind of want the AVR Companies to be a bit hardware focused. I would hate to think that Denon would become so software fixated that they ignore utilizing better DAC's solid bindings, good power supplies, and decent cooling features. PC's are all about the software and their idea of improving audio channel components is adding a sticker of a Warcraft babe to the side of the GPU as well as flame stripe stickers and a lot of Blue LED's. I want an AVR to switch, process, connect, power,and possibly distribute Audio Video using the best parts and software they can muster.

I will also repeat again, there are many other really inexpensive devices that get you the content. There are far fewerdevicesthatcan do what the 4311 can with sound and video.

That is something I am looking into.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about AVRs specifically, not products like Sonos or Apple TV or the CE space in general. A "content box" only has the goal of providing a great experience with streaming / playing content, so they are "specialist" devices... unlike the "everything but the kitchen sink, with half-ass implementation of peripheral features" that we get with AVRs, which are "generalists".

Frankly, I agree with you that it's better to leave that content to the specialty devices and just have the AVR perform the "core" features of processing/amplifying audio and video switching, and do it right. Most people would be better off pretending that the AVR's network streaming options didn't exist and just using a dedicated device (whether Sonos, ATV, PS3, Boxee, HTPC, etc) for content.

When it works correctly -- and can be password-enabled -- Airplay is convenient. The rest of the network streaming functions can be left to your Oppo:-)

Yes, I was speaking about AVRs specifically. Fact is that no one should need a squeezebox or a Sonos or WD player. That functionality by all rights should be a core element of the receiver.

Amplification? Core, yes but - that stuff is pretty well worked out - high quality amplification is very straightforward to make and its commoditized even - we're talking chips, standard methods and heat sinking here.

It's things like networking and streaming that a device like the 4311 should be outstanding at. But isnt. Which is why Sonos and Squeezebox exist. And WD and Apple TV and so on. And that is about software and interface design. Which is frankly not what AV receiver companies are good at. I

Remember also that going forward, the content streaming is going to be increasingly 'baked in" to the smarter TVs. That itself is a function of declining value in vanilla panels/monitors plus a shift from disc-based content to digital streaming, for both convenience and DRM reasons. So for newer TV owners, yes this isnt needed.

But there is still a huge installed base of people with "older" TV's, which the receiver manufacturers should be aiming to serve by making content/network streaming more available. After all, whats the point of an expensive AV "receiver" or "processor" that leaves you still needing yet another box. That sentiment will only get stronger over time, as people grow accustomed to IP-based content eg Netflix, as primary content source.

So receiver makers dont have a choice, they must address this and particularly the so called flagship models like this 4xxx series. Companies like Denon do have to take this on become more software and interface design oriented - and more adept and connecting with consumers & designing to their needs.

But IMO there wont be a future market for mainstream "high end" receivers that dont get really good at those things. I mean think about the young men of today who are 30 and under. These are the customers of tomorrow for very expensive receivers. Is there really any question about whether they will view these kids of things are "core" functionality they will expect if they pay money for an expensive receiver. IMO no question at all...of course this is core stuff going forward.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Given how quickly streaming services are changing, new formats are coming along, etc., I DO NOT WANT this functionality handled exclusively by a $2000+ (MSRP) device and consequently be forced to buy a new one every year to keep up with the latest content. I'd much rather be replacing a separate box every year that only costs a few hundred bucks or so each time.

And by your logic, the receiver should also have room for a bunch of hard drives to hold all your media files. And a Bluray drive. And TV tuners (for OTA, CableTV, and all the various satellite TV services). That's just for starters if you don't want to have another box in your system. Obviously, I'm taking this to an extreme, but hopefully it illustrates my point that it just isn't practical to do everything in 1 box.

A receiver should provide switching for various sources, process audio and video, and provide amplification. AM/FM tuners are fine since they've traditionally been a receiver feature and aren't going to change much at this point. Anything else is a bonus if you choose to use it, but I really don't want to see the manufacturers switch to making these core features that have a big impact on the MSRP (making the product more expensive) because I'd rather use devices of my own choosing for those functions.

^^^

agreed... i'd much rather have a standalone media box (any number of competent devices are available for less than a c-note) than have them clutter up an avr with those functions...

switch/do dsp magic/amplify... that works for me...

+1 and then some. apple TV not much money, Roku even less, WD Live, not a lot either. Messing up my AVR with tons of junk "Opposite of priceless" also, BP, I know I spoke of streaming devices, which is my point. They work better and you agreed. Finally Sonos is pretty much unique in controlling material listened to, zone, and the most important volume. Nothing else works as well and I know of no AVR capable of scaling up to 32 zones. Heck I have 6 zones and want more.

I believe that in 5 years or so, AVRs will be obsolete. Everything will be run from an HTPC-like device with scalable, updatable software and upgradable hardware. You could just run it as a pre/pro and would also serve as a DVR/tuner, BD player, etc. Or you could add amplifier modules (which are already available for PCI slots) to also drive the speakers. This could be done today if there were available input/output PCI or PCIe cards supporting multiple HDMI passthrough, RCA line level outs, ect.

I'll go back to the point again of thinking software, not hardware. And to the point that a flagship AVR should be adding value by doing things bigger and better than a NMT created by 5 guys in a shack in Shenzen.

My point: On these matters AVR needs to move more towards a PC type of model that allows for more flexibility and upgrading. At one time, I used to watch AV files. Today its is mvk and Mp4. No, I didnt need new hardware to do it.

So IMO, yes this is what should be integral to the AVR - and the AV makers need to step up to the plate. Do this stuff too, do it better -and make it look pretty as hell. That's about software.

Anyone can do amps - if they want to. And HDMI switches are are cheap. A flagship AVR is going to have to do better than just cobblng up elementary amps to a forty buck HDMI switch and duplicating the upscaling that my Disc player, TV and projector can already do just as well. You strip that away and we are looking at 1-2 thousand bucks of DTS/Dolby surround processing - on a chip that gets cheaper by the week and the AVRmaker didnt design anyway. That's simply not a sustainable markup or a reason for a product to exist in the long run.

Side point to grs's reply. No, the content source is always going to be elsehwere. Its either in the cloud a al Netflix or on a separate local server in the form of your PC. So not sure why my point would be extended to saying you should have hard drive onboard. No, my point is the receiver has to be a better media PLAYER.

Yes, at least if we restrict an AVR down to it's core functionalities of amplification ans switching, we won't have go upgrade so often. Because fortunately things like HDMI standards rarely change. Oh, wait...

I think it's going to be a long wait before any manufacturer releases and AVR that eliminates the need to buy another of their AVR's.

As far as the PC model, most of us update PC's about as frequently as AVR's so not sure that helps make your case. Your model of adding amps to the PC only transfers cost from the AVR purchase to the PC purchase, so again, no net gain. And every time the PC bus changes, the old amps are rendered useless.

As others have mentioned, I prefer well worked out devices and the only way to achieve that reliably is to not pile too many eggs in one multi function basket.

This argument has been made for a good decade now. I don't see it happening. First off, as mentioned PC manufacturers are notoriously bad at building, designing, or otherwise making high quality audio video devices. The whole open architecture scheme plays against locking down a stable audio video path. There are many reasons for this but one need just begin with licensing. WMC does not natively support many codecs. This is not because it can't, it is because Microsoft won't pay for all the licenses required. I know people at Microsoft who make these decisions and it's a non-starter. Then you've got the whole quality parts argument I just made on top of that. Then you've got the whole amplification/speaker issues to deal with.

Also, as you may know, Kodak just filed bankruptcy. Could it possibly been foreseen that at some point 35 mm was destined to go away. Should not Kodak's management moved much sooner to downsize/close/radically alter their business model? I argue, yes they should have but they were entrenched with a bias to protect their own fiefdom and jobs as well as they perceived the world through their eyes. AVR makers are no different, they perceive their business as one built on making devices that switch, process, and amplify media. The streaming stuff is just extra. WD Lives team perceives themselves in the business of streaming content and filing media. I am quite sure no one at their firm is saying "Gee, let's add amplification, customized volume control, pristine digital conversion, etc.. As their core competency. I believe some able Blu Ray and TV manufacturers may develop great solutions that come closer to a one box solution. Even they don't consider real high quality solutions for audio though. we are in TBD land here.

find me a company that is even trying to get to a one box does it all solution? In short, 5 years from now, I believe we will still have AVR's, clunky PC's, Blu Ray players with streaming and file management (Oh wait, these already work). I do not believe a single high quality HTPC device plus amplification will be on the market and if someone tries this again (it's failed in various iterations already) it will command miserable market share. There have been several attempts to build an HTPC with built in amplification but the manufacturers are more interested in adding really, really, really powerful 10WPC 5.1 digital Amps in a small HTPC box. Then they wonder why I don't buy it to drive my 803S's. PC guys don't live audio, therefore they don't design correctly for it.

I will eat these words if anyone can find me a 100WPC 7.1 PC or device either being sold now or in development. I need to add it has to be multi channel expandable as well with built in EQ capabilities and must be plug and play ready.

Seattle,
Excellent points, all. OK, forget the amps. Too big to fit in the box anyway. Forget the BD player. Plenty of outboard ones to do that. How about a HDMI switching box that let's me upgrade the number of channels I can reproduce, update the software such as Audyssey, based on how many filters I want to pay for, and change the number of HDMI/RCA inputs/ouputs as I see fit by allowing me to buy expansion cards etc?

I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said the AVR makers are no different than Kodak. 5 years.

This upgradable processor with HDMI switching does exist, Theta Casablanca III. Depending on options, it's 15k+ though. I'm sure upgrades are expensive enough that you're still better off buying a 1-2k receiver or pre/pro and getting a new one every several years.
For me, I think I'm going to get an AVR with a minimum of features (Anthem) and get an Oppo to deal with streaming and network media playback, etc. Still <1.5k for the combo.