or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK] - Page 13

post #361 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerCaniac View Post

Interesting. FWIW, under the "Detailed Specifications" tab on Denon's product page the 4311ci is listed to have "AKM Semiconductor 24-bit/192-kHz AK4358B" DACs. It also lists AL24+ processing for all channels just a few spots above. Perhaps the listing for the A100 at Crutchfield is not completely correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

According to Denon's spec sheets, the 4311 and 3311 both use the same 8 channel DACs (AKM AK4358) vice the Burr Brown DACs in the A100.

Good info. The "Detailed Specifications" link on the 4311CI page must have gone live in just the past few days.

Anyway, the AKM AK4358 DAC listing is disconcerting. If true, it is the same monolithic 8 channel DAC as in the 3311CI. And it is Denon being chintzy.

I hope that this is not a trickle across effect from Marantz. Marantz has commonly used higher end Cirrus discrete stereo DACs in its universal DVD players but lower end Cirrus monolithic 8 channel DACs in its AVRs, even in its high end AV8003 pre/pro, as if analog connections from player to AVR are more important than digital room correction.

That said, I question the AK4358 listing, as a monolithic 8 channel DAC will not cut it for the 13 channels of D/A conversion that the 4311CI requires for 11.2 channel operation.

AJ
post #362 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

THX comments. Don't care. Many of these features are redundant to Auddysey. It's only a marketing certification.

THX is not "only a marketing certification," it is a multichannel post processing suite. W/ the Audyssey curve, true, THX Re EQ may be redundant. But many other processes are unique to THX. And, while you may not care about its inclusion, others do. Regardless, at the $2000 level, THX should be standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Balanced outputs. Really, for a 2 ft to 4ft run? This is the deal breaker?

Try 20 ft runs across the room or under the floor to external amps for the surrounds at the back of the room. Additionally, balanced XLR outputs almost always have higher output levels (than the unbalanced RCA 1 V pre outs on many AVRs these days) that may jive better w/ external amps w/ lower input sensitivities.

AJ
post #363 of 23136
I have been driven to doubt by the detailed specs which call out THX-U2 (but there's no THX in the manual), AL24+, Advanced AL24 multi-channel and HDMI 1.3a.
post #364 of 23136
PCM1791A 192kHz/24-bit digital-to-analog converters, if this DAC is true then I will consider the A100.
post #365 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

That said, I question the AK4358 listing, as a monolithic 8 channel DAC will not cut it for the 13 channels of D/A conversion that the 4311CI requires for 11.2 channel operation.

If the DACs are identical between the 3311 and 4311, yet the 4311 can handle DSD over HDMI while the 3311 cannot, is Denon simply disabling that capability in the 3311 or are there other components necessary to make DSD over HDMI possible that the 3311 does not have?

There are some small discrepancies when looking at the product comparison between the 3311 and the 4311 compared to the detailed specifications tab for the 3311. Specifically, the detailed specifications for the 3311 lists the DAC as the AK4358VQ but the ADC as the AK5358B whereas in the product comparison, the VQ and the B are reversed to match the 4311 specifications (AK4358B and AK5358VQ). Probably a simple error on Denon's part.


Josh
post #366 of 23136
why are you guys finding the detailed spec on the a100..in terms of DACs etc..
post #367 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerCaniac View Post

If the DACs are identical between the 3311 and 4311, yet the 4311 can handle DSD over HDMI while the 3311 cannot, is Denon simply disabling that capability in the 3311 or are there other components necessary to make DSD over HDMI possible that the 3311 does not have?


Likely disabled just as some of the features of the ABT 2015 video chip (PReP, mosquito noise reduction, edge enhancement) are disabled in the models using the 2015 chip (2311/891/3311/991/4311).
post #368 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

As far as Onkyo goes, go ahead and buy it if you want. I want my H + W. In fact, I have enjoyed it and can recommend the experience. Thus, Denon.

SeattleHTGuy,

If I'm not mistaken I believe the new Onkyo TX-NR3008/5008 can do H + W at the same time. However, my eyes are fixed on the AVR-4311CI. The Onkyo's seem to be fine units, but I personally can't get past how hot those units get, which probably has nothing to do with its long term performance.


Willie
post #369 of 23136
Is PReP disabled in the denon 4311? It's a feature I'm interested in due to the crappy deinterlacing of my iptv box.

/Per
post #370 of 23136
Quite honestly, if the onkyo's (3008 and 5008) could do 11.X, they'd be an easy choice for me, what with the superior DAC's (arguable sig bene, I realize), a VP at least on par with the Denon's ABT 2015, THX Ultra II cert (again perhaps a marginal bene, especially for those like me who use external amplification), and an extra HDMI input, I really see no upside to the Denon's, other than the ability to run digital inputs to the Z's 2 and 3, and again of course the 11.X Audyssey.

Last, the prices on the 3008 and 5008 are nearly unbelievable, to boot.

Still, this will be a lasting purchase for me, and I just don't seem to be able to give up my surround backs for the maginally better DAC's, THX cert, and the extra HDMI input with the Onk's.

James
post #371 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by pludder View Post

Is PReP disabled in the denon 4311? It's a feature I'm interested in due to the crappy deinterlacing of my iptv box.

/Per

It's "not implemented" in the 4310 (and below) as well as the 3311 (and below) so no reason to believe it will be "implemented" in the 4311.
post #372 of 23136
Splitting hairs.....

When you are writing firmware for control of a DSP or other type of silicon device, you don't "disable" some feature, you just don't implement it.
post #373 of 23136
Oh disappointment, I also looked in the 4311 manual, and no mention of PReP at least
I was hoping to find a nice receiver for my upgrade that had AB tech with PReP and XT32 correction. That certainly takes away one of my + points for the denon vs onkyo 3008.

/Per
post #374 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerCaniac View Post

are there other components necessary to make DSD over HDMI possible that the 3311 does not have?

In my direct experience DSD decoding is stand-alone function (good thing since mine is borked).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

It's disabled in the 4310 (and below) as well as the 3311 (and below) so no reason to believe it won't be disabled in the 4311 as well.

While I can understand the vast majority of VP knobs being hidden from the consumer hiding PReP is ... annoying. Of course my BD player also hides the PReP knob, but they have it turned on.
post #375 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by pludder View Post

Oh disappointment, I also looked in the 4311 manual, and no mention of PReP at least
I was hoping to find a nice receiver for my upgrade that had AB tech with PReP and XT32 correction. That certainly takes away one of my + points for the denon vs onkyo 3008.

/Per

The Denon manuals or spec pages don't even mention using an ABT chip period. The focus of AVR selection should usually be for it's "audio" processing cabilities, for if "video" processing is not being handled well enough by your HDTV or BDP, then look towards a dedicated "video processor" (eg. DVDO Edge) for a higher quality video solution.
post #376 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakerwi View Post


SeattleHTGuy,

If I'm not mistaken I believe the new Onkyo TX-NR3008/5008 can do H + W at the same time. However, my eyes are fixed on the AVR-4311CI. The Onkyo's seem to be fine units, but I personally can't get past how hot those units get, which probably has nothing to do with its long term performance.

Willie

It appears the 5oo8 can do H + W however, according to page 51 of the Onkyo manual you then lose the rear surrounds. This is confirmed in troubleshooting Page 100. The fact it only has 9 pre-outs also leaves me doubtful. Clearly, I could be wrong about this but that's what it says. The ability to play real 11 speaker configurations is the primary reason I have gone with Denon. Please feel free to tell me I misinterpret the capabilities of the Onkyo.

This one, rather huge difference kills my interest in the Onkyo.
post #377 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

The focus of AVR selection should usually be for it's "audio" processing cabilities, for if "video" processing is not being handled well enough by your HDTV or BDP, then look towards a dedicated "video processor" (eg. DVDO Edge) for a higher quality video solution.

I'll disagree with this. My current AVR exposes a (small) number of REON knobs (the only ones I use are calibration patterns, zoom and aspect ratio controls) and the level of software effort/support is low (compared say to the DSP). It's silly to spend $1,000 just to get PReP and AR controls since I have to buy a collection of ports and features I don't need along with the couple I want.

If you call it an AVR then make video management as good as audio management.
post #378 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

No, the 4311CI does not process L/R sub outputs. The dual sub outs are separately EQ'd but monophonic.

AJ

AJ -- why are you so hung up on stereo sub outs? The 4311 has essentially state-of-the-art dual subwoofer correction, who cares if the sub channel is mono? What actual benefit would one get from stereo sub outs? Is that really a needed feature?

You seem to be the only person (at least on this thread) beating that drum...
post #379 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

The focus of AVR selection should usually be for it's "audio" processing cabilities, for if "video" processing is not being handled well enough by your HDTV or BDP, then look towards a dedicated "video processor" (eg. DVDO Edge) for a higher quality video solution.

I also disagree with this notion. The whole point of an AVR is that it's an all in one solution. At $2K, I think it's reasonable to want some extra features. Some of the competition is doing it, the components that are installed are capable of it, so why NOT include the capability? The three year old product I will be replacing this with has some of this functionality. Moving to a newer, even more expensive unit, you would think it'd be able to have it. Besides, one of driving factors for upgrading to a new AVR is for HDMI 1.4. How many video processors at this point are 1.4 compliant? It's bad enough that we have to upgrade the AVR just for a new HDMI revision. I'd hate to add more components into that cluster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

You seem to be the only person (at least on this thread) beating that drum...

I can't personally vouch for any differences one way or the other, but in the stereo audio world, there are many who claim summed bass to be evil. There is some logic to that thought: summation would necessarily, electrically, cancel any out of phase content. Reproduced discretely all the way to the speakers, not necessarily so, given the complex nature of waves emitting from different points within a room.

I think the point (in both cases) is that these would be relatively easy and inexpensive to implement, so why not in a product of this class? Of course, the potential answer is always: to save something for higher end units.
post #380 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

I can't personally vouch for any differences one way or the other, but in the stereo audio world, there are many who claim summed bass to be evil.

Um, I tend to think summed bass is sub-optimal but for the audiophile the correct solution to that isn't stereo sub-woofers. It's decent fronts. At present I only send LFE to my sub. Of course I listen to a lot of chamber music.
post #381 of 23136
Regarding the sub issue. This appear to be a classic case of a feature (onkyo's) searching for a problem. Riddle me this.... How is it necessary to have discrete stereo sub output for signal that does not exist to ears that can not discern directionality of that level of frequency? My guess, is that since there is no solution to fix, Denon chose not to add this.

I also, don't get the THX EQ, DAC configuration, blah, blah blah argument. If a competitors receiver does not do 11 channel DSX and I want that feature, it's game, set, match. Vs the comp. As cost goes, how much money is saved by, well, er, not putting in 11 channels, 11 pre outs, and the ability to defeat an amp section? Man, I hate this victory by spreadsheet argument. Doesn't anyone ever use this stuff?

If we all bought autos like some people compare specs on receivers, we'd all be driving fully loaded Kia's. Hey, the Kia has two extra upholders, comes in purple, has a Bluetooth sync feature, the fuel cover cap has a cool manual key. Damn, that Aston Martin lacks a cup holder. the Kia must be better. Well, the Kia lacks the V12. I want the V12. The 4311 does 11 channels, the Onkyo.... Not so much. The comparison ends for me at this point. If you want purist pre sections, neither of these two companies would do well. They are deep into the nuclear arms race of features.

I have owned THX EQ stuff before, I find it heavy handed. I can't tell the difference in DAC's, my gut tells me neither can others, the sub argument is way beyond practical and deep in to goofy.

Finally, since this thread has gone all Onkyo vs Denon and people are trying to make decisions on value and what to buy. The 3008 costs $2k, the 5008 $2.7k, the 4311 $2k. I own the 4810. It has been troublesome, to say the least but Denon took it back, customer service has been exceptional, and I am satisfied with how they have treated me. Try and find someone in camp-onkyo who can say that. From what I've read ownership is not always a happy experience.
post #382 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodosom View Post


Um, I tend to think summed bass is sub-optimal but for the audiophile the correct solution to that isn't stereo sub-woofers. It's decent fronts. At present I only send LFE to my sub. Of course I listen to a lot of chamber music.

Great point, there is another argument I alluded to earlier. I challenge anyone to find music content that actually plays stereo below 40hz. Even symphony music with canon fire usually involves but one cannon. How do you fire two cannons in stereo? This is crazy. I am not an engineer but I stick with the challenge. Give us all any content that has in it's signal stereo uber deep bass. If it's a live recording, do we have a piece with two battling timpani players, playing at opposite sides of Carnagie Hall, while only smacking the biggest drum? Is there a dueling single note tuba battle royal out there to be listened to?


In my real world experience, I have two B&W 803S's. With Audyssey EQing, the process shows these speakers as being capable of "full". I normally override this to 60 hz. When I played many pieces recorded by Peter Gabriels studio via Flac file format, I have never actually gotten the subs to get anything but very minimal content. This has been tried with deep rock to symphony to jazz. Same result. People buying $2k receivers normally have decent fronts. So, I don't seem stupid, yes I set the stereo content to go through the sub, not just LFE. Now LFE content is another beast. Let me know when they make stereo, or heck 11 channel discrete LFE content. Now that would be one pile of subs.... (kidding)
post #383 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

AJ -- why are you so hung up on stereo sub outs? The 4311 has essentially state-of-the-art dual subwoofer correction, who cares if the sub channel is mono? What actual benefit would one get from stereo sub outs? Is that really a needed feature?

Darin provided an excellent answer, took the words right out of my mouth....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

There is some logic to that thought: summation would necessarily, electrically, cancel any out of phase content. Reproduced discretely all the way to the speakers, not necessarily so, given the complex nature of waves emitting from different points within a room.

If you listen mostly to manufactured audio (e.g. studio pop/rock, movies), then summed bass may be completely benign, as those sources likely contain little or no phase differences at bass frequencies. Conversely, large scale orchestral recordings (or anything recorded w/ spaced omni mics in a large venue) can most certainly contain phase differences between channels. For example, if the timpani is 40 ft from the L omni and 50 ft from the R omni, then bass from the timpani will arrive at both mics approximately equal in level but 9 ms later at the R omni. As 55 Hz has a wavelength of 20 ft, that 10 ft or 9 ms difference between the mics means that 55 Hz sound from the timpani will arrive at the L omni in phase and at the R omni 180° out of phase (i.e. one half wavelength later). That bass does not cancel in the hall. It does not cancel on the recording. But it does cancel in playback if bass management electrically sums all channel bass frequencies below the crossover point. Separate L/R bass management, however, can at least partially preserve that phase difference in the listening room.

Finally, the Yamaha A3000 is a $1900 competitor to the Denon 4311CI. The A3000 offers separate L/R (or even front/surround) bass management, showing that such can be implemented in a product priced even less than the 4311CI.

AJ
post #384 of 23136
Oddly enough, I was already writing an example using the timpani while you posted your questions. See below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Regarding the sub issue. This appear to be a classic case of a feature (onkyo's) searching for a problem. Riddle me this.... How is it necessary to have discrete stereo sub output for signal that does not exist to ears that can not discern directionality of that level of frequency?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Great point, there is another argument I alluded to earlier. I challenge anyone to find music content that actually plays stereo below 40hz. Even symphony music with canon fire usually involves but one cannon. How do you fire two cannons in stereo? This is crazy. I am not an engineer but I stick with the challenge. Give us all any content that has in it's signal stereo uber deep bass. If it's a live recording, do we have a piece with two battling timpani players, playing at opposite sides of Carnagie Hall, while only smacking the biggest drum? Is there a dueling single note tuba battle royal out there to be listened to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

For example, if the timpani is 40 ft from the L omni and 50 ft from the R omni, then bass from the timpani will arrive at both mics approximately equal in level but 9 ms later at the R omni. As 55 Hz has a wavelength of 20 ft, that 10 ft or 9 ms difference between the mics means that 55 Hz sound from the timpani will arrive at the L omni in phase and at the R omni 180° out of phase (i.e. one half wavelength later). That bass does not cancel in the hall. It does not cancel on the recording. But it does cancel in playback if bass management electrically sums all channel bass frequencies below the crossover point. Separate L/R bass management, however, can at least partially preserve that phase difference in the listening room.

Thus, there need not be two timpani or two tubas at opposite sides of the hall. Stereo differences come not only from differences in instrument placement but also from differences in mic placement.

AJ
post #385 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

It appears the 5oo8 can do H + W however, according to page 51 of the Onkyo manual you then lose the rear surrounds. This is confirmed in troubleshooting Page 100. The fact it only has 9 pre-outs also leaves me doubtful. Clearly, I could be wrong about this but that's what it says. The ability to play real 11 speaker configurations is the primary reason I have gone with Denon. Please feel free to tell me I misinterpret the capabilities of the Onkyo.

This one, rather huge difference kills my interest in the Onkyo.

Grab an oar, as we are likely in the same boat. Just a few posts above yours, I left the following which I believe is 100% accurate:

"Quite honestly, if the onkyo's (3008 and 5008) could do 11.X, they'd be an easy choice for me, what with the superior DAC's (arguable sig bene, I realize), a VP at least on par with the Denon's ABT 2015, THX Ultra II cert (again perhaps a marginal bene, especially for those like me who use external amplification), and an extra HDMI input, I really see no significant upsides to the Denon, other than the ability to run digital inputs to the Z's 2 and 3, and again of course the 11.X Audyssey.

Last, the prices on the 3008 and 5008 are nearly unbelievable, to boot.

Still, this will be a lasting purchase for me, and I just don't seem to be able to give up my surround backs for the maginally better DAC's, THX cert, and the extra HDMI input with the Onk's."

James
post #386 of 23136
Flac Support
Can anyone clue me in as to the differences the way Denon is giving support to Flac vs. the SC-37 which has a featured built in "FLAC Decoder". I would like to understand the ease of streaming to one or the other
-Dave H
post #387 of 23136
Ok AJ,I think I follow your argument with your timpani exercise. But again, if only marginal signal is going to my sub, remember fronts. Can anyone tell? One 55 hz signal from one timpani recorded in a concert hall with 1000 + people in it and a mic that's only 16 feet across.... Can you now tell the difference? Seriously, can you tell this stuff? Do you ask the sound engineer for music hall utilization of fabrics and what studies have been assigned to the use of popcorn ceiling material?

I could also probably show that a Sorrento given the right circumstances might beat the Aston Martin off the line if external temperature is +- 3 degrees Celsius, in a snow storm with an ice base.... Again, my point is can you tell that you created a small null point at 55 Hz given a mic 20 feet apart? Sounds like theoretical book trumps real world listening here, or a verifiable needed receiver function? Put another way, how many of us are listening with bookshelf fronts in stereo with 2 subs? I see this beast as a media front end with minimal aspirations for playing dual subs and micro monitors.

Again, Onkyo 9.2 max. Denon 11.2. Onkyo costs more. Give me an onkyo that can do 11.2 and perhaps we can all buy that non-existent receiver.

I find it interesting that the comments keep getting deeper in technical thought but do not answer the base questions. Do these difference amount to anything of real value?

Is the sub issue even discernible for practically any content. Or put another way, should I now request mic schematics for all my music in the event my receiver destroys the signal? Can we make a button or macro for that?
Do you or anyone have ears good enough to tell the two different DAC parts?
Does THX offer anything over the Denon's processing set, other than it's THX?

I usually make decisions on practical stuff not unusual circumstance theoretically explained by where a mic is placed.

Oh, did I mention 11.2? Doesn't that cost something? Why not comment on the lack of this (I guess should cost nothing) feature.
post #388 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleHTGuy View Post

Again, Onkyo 9.2 max. Denon 11.2. Onkyo costs more. Give me an onkyo that can do 11.2 and perhaps we can all buy that non-existent receiver.

I don't see why this has to be an Onkyo vs. Denon argument. To me, it's product X vs. product Y, and Z, and whatever else. Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, whatever, they all have their pros and cons. No need to assume that just because someone is interested in certain features, that it's because of the name on the front of the product that has some of those features. Like you, I'm more interested in 11.x than stereo subs, so the 4311 is it for me. But I certainly don't discount the interest others may have in other features.

Quote:


I find it interesting that the comments keep getting deeper in technical thought but do not answer the base questions. Do these difference amount to anything of real value?

But I thought spending lots of money for traits that may not be discernible is what HiFi was all about? I can tell you that LONG before these products were even thought of, the benefits of stereo bass have been proclaimed by many. There is some sound reasoning behind it, but it's not something I have any interest in chasing myself. But more power to those that do... chasing perfect reproduction is major factor of what this hobby is.
post #389 of 23136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kee68 View Post

So I am no longer wondering which is best or what is what I bought the A100 and I'm NOT looking back. Wish me the best and I want to thank all of you who take the time to research the ins and outs of Denon. I'll keep you posted. Bob

I joined you..
post #390 of 23136
good argument guys - since we are doing comparisons:

what about the 4311 vs 3311 vs 2311

I don't care about 11.1 or 9.2, or really 7.2... I will (at least for the foreseeable future) only be running 5.1

Apart from the power differences with those 3 amps is there anything of any real significance that I should be paying attention too.. EQ XT32 looks good, but do I really need it? especially if I am only running 5.1...

I just want good stereo sound and good HT features...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK]