The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK] - Page 572

Just reading up on this, this thread goes back to 2010. Does Denon not do annual upgrades to their models? Just wondering how the avr is still so relevant.

Denon do annual upgrades of most lines, but they didn't do one for this last year.

The new roadmap announces that it will get an update this year. It's coming out a little later than the other units, though. I think sometime in September or October.

Also, it will be replaced by a unit with a slightly different numbering system, so it won't be a 4313, but something else.

I forget what it is to be called, no doubt someone else will chime in with that.


HTH

I think the tsunami and earthquake in Japan last year also delayed Denon's plans somewhat.

The 4311 is still so relevant because it is still a great product. Even nearly two years after it was introduced, it's one of the most capable AVRs on the market, and it's been available at remarkable good pricing.

Tandy's recent post reminded me that I've posted on this on various threads, but perhaps not so recently here, so here's a brief summary of XT32 vs XT detailing my understanding of the "why" XT32 sounds better:

One, it's not just the sheer greater quantity of filters but the smarter, more precise filtering implemented by the more sophisticated algorithm present in XT32 courtesy of a programming breakthrough allowing more clever use of available DSP. The fuzzy logic samples the room and then prioritizes allocation of filter points to fix the worst problems detected.

Two, XT32 in the 4311 has SubEQHT integrated into it which improves the SQ and ease of setup when using more than one sub. Unlike XT, which requires manual level-matching of subs and works best when subs are equidistant from MLP, SubEQHT first pings each sub for level and distance. It then pings them together, taking into account their interaction with each other and the room, and applies the added filter power and smarter logic of XT32 over XT mentioned above.

Three, that same exact greater filter power and smarter implementation that XT32 offers in the sub channel is also present in each of the satellite channels. The usual result is a prioritization of filters to fixing the bass problems not fixed by EQing the sub channel-those from the xover up to the Schroeder Freq. Those issues have to be fixed by EQing the sat channels and XT doesn't have what it takes qualitatively and quantitatively. Those two things combined in both the sub and sat channels account for the frequent reports of smoother, tighter, more impactful bass with XT32.

In addition, many folks, myself included, hear very significant improvements with XT32 in fine detail/ambiance, imaging, surround bubble, and improved intelligibility of dialog on film. As I've reported, these are as good or better than any special DAC/prepro/direct analog path I've tried in my room. IMO much of this is doubtless because better bass is better precisely because one has cleaned up a lot of extraneous reflection and bloated freqs in the room-and this can improve the overall SQ throughout the entire freq spectrum. I agree with those who speculate that one of the reasons some audiophiles disdained Audyssey is because prior versions including XT were simply not powerful and accurate enough. One way to think of that was that it wasn't good enough to effectively fix problems and leave what is really good alone. That seems to have been solved.

yup, she is...


yup, we've always got room for one more.... i'm eagerly awaiting your measurements...

even if someone doesn't use the pro kit, there's much good info in that thread about how to interpret measurements, and one of the big "tweaks" that gets used (distance settings for subs) is applicable for "non-pro" users...

Just wanting to chime in here for those on the fence. XT32 is amazing. Prior to it, I was running an integra dtc 9.4 and had parametric eq for my subs. Now, surround envelopment is waaaay I mean waaaaaay better, dialog is crystal clear (wife never asks me to put on subtitles), and bass seems tighter. Level of improvements are in that order for me. And to caveat that, I'm hard to convince regarding audio improvements, same speakers for the last 8 years, but the 4311 is worth every penny.

LPF on LFE channel question....lots of opinions on what the proper setting should be. I currently am using 120Hz mainly because the Audyssey guide said to set it and forget it. Then I start reading the Audyssey thread and the number of people saying to use 80Hz instead
I only have one subwoofer in my system, so should I just be using 120Hz then? BTW, I run my speakers "small" LCR crossed at 80Hz and RS/LS at 100Hz.

Yeah, you can really hear improvement from the dialog/center channel. Since XT32 is so good (i.e. is transparent, to my ears), you can also use Dynamic Volume and EQ, which also helps with dialog. Not all movies require full dB range, plus my little one is usually sleeping. So, Evening setting on the Dynamic Volume is a really nice thing to have for many movies.

When I had regular XT, the processing just was too colored for me to be able to enjoy DynEQ/Vol.

I feel the same way. I've had my speakers for 12 years and after running Audyssey on my new 4311 it's a whole new system. Had I done this before ordering new speakers it's likely I'd keep them for another 12.

^^^

it's not too late to have dennis divert shipment of your phil's to new jersey...

it's relevant because it's still unmatched in terms of features it offers, and now that the "street price" has dropped 35%+ below msrp it's just given the model more legs as more and more folks can afford it.

also, even without the tsunami issue, Denon generally doesn't do annual upgrades to their high end models. They tend to release high end models with a full pack of cutting edge features and then supplement with firmware updates (and occasionally upgrades) to keep it relevant for 2-3+ years.

For example, at the 38/43xx level there was a 3803, then a 3805, 3806, then a 3808ci, and then the 4310 and 4311. It's even slower with the higher end stuff (48xx or 5xxx especially). So skipping a year isn't abnormal.

i generally leave it at 120hz... there has been some suggestions from "reliable sources" that for some material (mch music), it's beneficial to set it to 80hz... i can't really comment on that, as i haven't really spent much time playing with it...

keep in mind that the "lpf for lfe" ONLY applies to the .1 channel... it does not effect anything redirected from the main speakers...

leave it at 120hz unless you have a specific reason to change it. All the "specific reasons" you could potentially have were discussed in the Audyssey thread in the discussion you referenced, I'm not sure what more could be added here.

There is no better summary than these two Roger Dressler posts:

this one: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post20023203
and this one: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post20835805

bottom line: 120Hz is the "correct" setting for movies, period, because setting it any lower will cause you to lose some of the LFE in the 80-120Hz region. However, it may or may not be correct for other stuff depending on the whims or competencies of the mixer. So if you are like Roger and listen to a lot of non-film content (esp. multich music) and are annoyed by the "slop" that ends up in the LFE channel above 80Hz with these other types of content, you are totally justified turning it down to 80Hz. The result will be that your film LFE content will no longer be technically "correct" because you will be rolling off 80Hz-120Hz more steeply than the mixer intended, but you are unlikely to hear much difference in real world use.

I have setup my receiver (4311) as 2-zone with main zone obviously HT and the second zone to a couple of outdoor speakers. Whenever I attempt to turn on the second zone the reciever will go into protection mode.

I've had the reciever in for service to check on this and they came back with nothing. Based on all their tests there is nothing wrong. It has been suggested that there may be a short in the wire. These are all newly installed wires, mainly monster cables (overkill, yes I know) but from the wall to the speakers outdoor they are small gauge wire (installed by an electrician).

The second zone worked fine for one summer.

Any thoughts on other things to check besides replacing the smaller gauge wire? I am not an audiophile (obviously) but thought some of the experts here could lend some good advice.

If you want to hear every bit of what's in the LFE ch in a film soundtrack then LFE LPF=120 is the correct choice. Film soundtracks are reasonably standardized and there should be no problem with that setting. Our own resident expert, FilmMixer, has stated that 120 is the setting he uses in his 4311. OTOH, some time ago I played several LFE-heavy film passages. I could not distinguish between 80 and 120 with repeated A/B listening tests of Master & Commander cannon fusillade, Iron Man Cave scene, etc. It seems there is not much audible content from 80-120Hz in the LFE ch of most films- and that's why I think this setting is a pretty minor issue when it comes to film.

Now, when it comes to TV broadcasts and MC music with an LFE track, whatever standards may be in place irt LFE content are erratically followed. This can lead to xs content in the LFE channel, and that yields bloated bass. Setting to 80 rather than 120 fixes much of that.

Combining all that above, along with the fact I don't want to hassle with changing it back and forth, is why I keep mine at 80.

the suggestion they gave you is almost certainly correct... somewhere along the line, you've got a short... it is possible something has gnawed on your outdoor wires...

Hehe, I just love how helpful you are! Ain't gonna happen though

I spent a lot of time last night comparing sound quality of 2 channel music. While it wasn't instantaneous A/B comparison where possible I would play 15 seconds from one source and switch to another that was delayed 18 seconds (to accommodate for delay in source switching). The sources were all level matched:

Denon 2930CI, DL3 as transport (physical disk)
Logitech Squeezebox touch, coax (flac)
Denon Net from shared drive (flac)

Physical media via DL3 won over in the Squeezebox in sq by a tiny margin, not enough to fret over, certainly the convenience of streaming trumps this small increase. Both were very pleasant.

Unfortunately Denon network stops when you switch sources, it was the hardest to compare. However, with every track the sq was different - fuller, perhaps richer midrange but muddier. The other two produced quite a different and clearer sound. Why is this? Wouldn't the same digital to analog processing occur?

TIA.

I won't be like one of those guys telling you "all amps sound the same", but the you heard most likely could be due to level matching. Even digital inputs can have difference levels. The bits you compared really should be the same, in this case.

I would think the same, but for the fact that my meter read identically for all three sources (although I will acknowledge room for error here) and even turning up the source for CD or the Squeezebox still provided better, clearer sound than Denon Net's streaming.

The Denon's Net streaming could be truncating some bits, or putting them in some weird buffer. I don't even consider it as a real "source", because it is so much more difficult to navigate in vs. a Squeezebox.

Jitter (aka phase noise). The audible manifestation of jitter is often less clarity, wooly bass/mids, imprecise treble. Fidelity of digital audio is NOT just the data stream being "bit perfect", but the clocks being time perfect as well. Jitter introduced into a data stream by a source will adversely affect D/A conversion regardless of the quality of the DAC itself.

http://www.audiophilleo.com/definitions.aspx?jitter

Thnx for the report. Were these the exact same passages, ripped from your shiny disc? That would be best.

I consider eyeballing a meter close enough level-matching for home A/B. What I then do is turn up the inferior-sounding source by 0.5-1dB just to be sure the difference cannot be accounted for by tyhe louder=better psychoacoustics rule. I consider 15 secs an acceptable gap irt acoustic memory though that long does strain my concentration.

For these sorts of tests I listen to the same short passages (20-30 sec) of familiar high SQ nuanced recordings of acoustic guitar, acoustic bass, cymbals, closely mic'd vocals (Alison Krause, kd lang, sara k., Patricia Barber), etc. I listen to the whole, then focus in on stuff like individual instrument clarity/detail, imaging, room ambiance (reverb), soundstage width and depth. It is convenient to use the beginning of songs, or set the player to repeat the short section.

Thanks. I was inclined to believe that it might have something to do with data buffers from the ethernet port, but the packets should have been reassembled before passing on. Jitter makes more sense, and the description is spot on with what I heard. Why would internal clocks not be in sync though?

Sam - yes I agree that the local network features are rudimentary. The Android app controlling the Squeezebox is the only way to fly.


The exact same passages from the exact same shares.

Both by ear and meter volume was the same on all sources.

I played several passages, the majority was from a live acoustic show by Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds with several nuances. I particularly listened to finger pressure on strings. Dire Straits and Michael Jackson were also used, as well as Wagner's The Ring, Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade and Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2 rounded out the test on the classical side for complex transients.

Once I ruled out that a few seconds delay was happening from changing sources the 15 second rule worked well. I was impressed that DL3 proved to be the winner, but more so that the squeezebox was so close in quality, 'cause this is my preferred method.

Nice report! I am not surprised at DL sounding so good for you. In fact, I'm hoping I can get near to my current exc shiny disc SQ via DL once I start playing files stored on my HD and your report sounds hopeful.

What is the highest Res you tested and was any of this MC HiRes? I believe DVDA is easily ripped. But I believe a problem I'll face is ripping my fav SACDs and in addition I'm unsure if coax has limitations on HiRez with MC.

I appreciate all the input...

I am looking at the higher-end speakers in Klipsch's Reference line. Basically the same setup at the recent poster who reported a hiss from his speakers when paired with the 4311. That makes me nervous.

I have a pair of RF-52iis connected to my 2112 on the first floor and love the way they sound.

I need speakers that can fill a LARGE room easily.

How many cubic feet is your LARGE room?

Approximately, 15,000 cubic feet.

Ranch with a large footprint. Basement is one finished room the same size at the footprint (minus the garage). Not ideal for theater, but it works.

Wow huge room! Well just be aware that consumer Audyssey baked in to the 4311 may not be optimal for a room that large, and that a pro calibration (extra money) may be better suited to such sizes. Upgrading to Pro in my 5,500 cubic feet room was critical for me to get great sound from my 4311. Additional reading here and here.

Many on this forum have reported absolutely no issues with SQ in very large rooms, and some will go so far as to say Audyssey's own recommendations on this topic are nonsense, but that has not been my experience. Not discounting their findings, either, as I'm sure other factors beyond room size alone are driving this conclusion (i.e. distance between MLP and main speakers, listeners' sensitivity to HF, room construction & treatments, etc.)

Point is, going with the 4311 is really the best of both worlds because if your XT32 calibration sounds great out of the box, you're all set, and if not, you can enable pro as funds allow. Best of luck!

I have a 4311 and I was curious if anyone can tell me if/where the settings are to completely disable any and all image enhancements through the receiver off? I would basically like to use my receiver as a central hub that will of course do all the audio processing and then pass off the video signal to a Lumagen without any modifications. This would go for all video sources weather hdmi, component, etc. I can't remember where I heard or read it, but I thought for the on screen display to work that some image tweaks had to be left on.