The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK] - Page 16

I've also not seen any rigorous testing that demonstrates the ability to reliably distinguish between lossy and lossless on a BD. I read an article some time ago that said the sound editors are quite aware of the greater bandwidth available to lossy codecs on BD and that if you could tell the difference between lossless and lossy the sound editor/engineer hadn't done their job correctly.

Not really, it's like anything with technological advances, today's $1 DAC can probably compete with $10 DACs from years ago. Since the high rez codecs & HDMI 1.3 came in I've heard some $500 receivers that sounded far better as pre-amps than I would have imagined, no doubt due in part to that fact.

The 4311 will probably end up street-priced around $1600 after a few waves of sales, so it's not what I'd consider a "higher end" AVR - more of a middle of the road unit price wise.

Besides, it's like the old saying; "Don't bleed until you're shot!"... Denon is in the habit of using Burr-Brown DACs through their line up so IMO it's probably a much higher possibility that that's what they'll be using than the others.

I really don't think that is truly inconsequential. The Denon 4810 weighs 42.2 lbs and the 4311 weighs 38.2 and both are 9 channel. Where did they save the 4 lbs at? Where I understand the point that weight does not equate to better sound, I think a lot of us believe that if they trimmed off the weight then they replaced it with cheaper parts that may reduce the life of the receiver. I am sure a lot of us find it hard to swallow cheap parts when we pay 2k for an item to replace another item that lasted us 10 years. I do like that they have a 3 year warranty which is nice they at least back up their product.

Probably in using an E transformer instead of a toroidal one - and the reality is that's not something you can hear, it's just part of changing A/C to D/C.

Sorry, but the only true consequence weight has, (besides being a marketable feature for some unknown reason) is that it adds to shipping costs.

Oh, and I forgot it's also a smaller chassis - an inch shorter and half an inch less in depth....

....and it's eating right and exercising.

No, I would expect that the biggest difference in weight would be in the power supply (transformer). I'd be willing to bet that the 4810 can put out more power than the 4311. Or said another way, the 4311 is going to be more strained at a given output level than the 4810.

[QUOTE= I have been tentatively planning on upgrading my old Yamaha to the 4311 to run 5.1 M&K 4 ohm speaker system. (Waiting for some pro test publications first to ensure that the 4 ohm speakers wont be a problem, especially if i add some H + W speakers which i am tempted to do).

I have my AVR2805 running analog for 7 M&K 750thx (all 4-ohm) plus 2 powered M&K subwoofers. I can play it louder than anyone can stand for as long as I want and the amp isn't more than warm to the touch. I realize amps are not as well made today as they were in the vintage of my AVR but if the 4311 can't run 5 channels of surround sound using 4-ohm speakers then it really is a piece of junk.

I read somewhere in the Denon literature a brief statement affirmatively addressing this issue. No such note in the 33ll literature, btw.

From the abysmal reliability record of the 4310 one might wait to see if the 4311 does't self destruct before buying one.

More weight does not always equal more power or headroom. There's more than one way to engineer an amp section.

No, but a higher power input rating on the back panel is an indicator of how much power output you can get. I'm suggesting that the higher power rating and the higher weight are likely not coincidental. I think you will find a similar trend with other products.

Thank you

Possibly I'm not sure about that. But I think it's still splitting hairs - when you factor in what you actually need in a normal room with normal speaker loads.

Most people would be shocked if they new how little power is actually required for their apps.

I would say very highly likely, rather than possible. What are the heaviest substances in a receiver? Iron, and copper - the primary components of a transformer. You need more copper to handle more current, and you need more iron to prevent saturation. A bigger power supply is going to weigh more. Whether or not an individual needs that much power is irrelevant. The point remains that additional weight probably means more than just higher shipping costs. YOU may not need all that power, or you may not be able to perceive that distortion is increased at higher loads in units with lower rated power supplies, or you may not be able to draw a reliability correlation between heavier and lighter units. But the weight differences in units likely are a result of heavier duty components, rather than just happenstance, or manufacturers putting lead in for no other benefit than marketing heavier weight.

And that is the whole point to me. Everyone that counters about the weight seems to stress about the sound of the two being the same or they added some new space age alloy that saved weight. My point is if a part is cheaper or smaller (amp or power supply) and is more strained, how long will the unit last under the strain? I see the weight on the 4311 lower than the 4810. I see the 4311 has a 780W draw and the 4810 has 9.5 amp draw. You put the weight and power differences together it points to lower grade either amp or power supply, yet the same claimed 9x140 watts. I just worry they are trying to squeeze too much from one receiver and sacrificing quality parts (durability) for the ability to say 11.2 channels and other features all for under 2k.

I know that companies are jamming more parts and features into one small box so the chances of things failing have increased. I just don't want the parts they get cheap on are two of the most important, power supply and amps

Ok guys, I am not one to sweat 6 lbs and just chalk it up to more power for the heavier one, but even if I did what's the big deal? A 3 to 5 lb difference in a transformer is not going to have any material affect over 9 channels driven. The Denons bow out of this with a current limiting function anyway; as do the Onkyo's. The modern receivers of these and other brands do skimp on amp sections. Yes, not that many people need this type of capability. Solve this with an External Amp. The good thing is you can try the unit as is and add an amp if you want extra headroom for all music or explosive above reference rock. The Denon will just loaf around if you pull the need to drive your fronts.

I have 400 lbs of external amps. My room does sound better at all sound levels and simply unbelievable at reference db then again, I'm not very stable when in comes to amps. I live for Tim the Tool man. more power....ugh....ugh....ugh...

I called back to make sure I was on pre-order for the A100 and I was told for that Nov 1st. 4311 ??

And that is a nice selling point for the 4311. The preamp mode!

I'm not here to say it will or won't, I'm simply saying that these issues aren't as irrelevant as many seem to make it out to be. Everyone seems to WANT to think that none of these "quality" factors matter... as long as it has the list of features we want, that's all that matters. But if that's what everyone thinks, the trend that manufacturers have of adding more labels to the front of the unit, while cutting costs on the guts, will continue. I'm not going to lie, I'm here for the features like everyone else. But I'm not going to pretend that none of these quality issues matter. $2000 does not seem to buy as robust of a product as it did a few years ago. $2000 is the new $750, but with more features. I'm not picking on Denon; Onkyo too, and I'm sure others. But I have to ask: If the 4810 is current limited to 31wpc with 7 channels driven @ 4 ohms, what's the 4311 going to be? I'm just glad I have a small room, and will be powering two pairs externally. Someone with a large room and power hungry speakers may be finding the pre-amp mode handy.

I couldn't agree more. Features don't excite me. Flat out quality does. Adding more and more features make it easy for these manufactures to charge more for one model against another. 5+ years ago you would buy an AVR mostly based on it's quality but now that has changed during this technical and feature rich age the industry is going through with networking, 3d, bluray, internet, etc etc... Give me an AVR that focuses on audio processing and power before all these silly features and I would be sold!

The thing is the majority of these features are software based now - it's all about computing power & moving bits about. Amplifier technology is, by comparison, ancient.

Right. But all that software tech in there is expensive to develop so they are goin the cheap route on that ancient amp section by throwing in junk power supplies and transformers. Plus to get up to 11 channels jammed in to an AVR something has to be compromised in terms of size and weight.

To Denon and every other company out there it's much easier for them to up sell more channels, more features, more garbage we don't need instead of trying to duke it out with Pioneer about quality of our sound and reliability. The other interesting fact is nobody has mentioned video processing yet...I have yet to see an expensive AVR with video processing worth even mentioning let alone pay for.

Well that's a bit condescending isn't it...

For what it's worth, right now I am running an AVP A1HD pre amp and I run a PS Audio GCA MC which puts out 500wch into 8ohms and 1000w/ch into 4ohms for my mains in an acoustically designed & treated room powering a Paradigm Signature speaker grouping with an infinite baffle sub.

On my travels to get to that gear I've had everything from $500 receivers to full fledged flagships and pre-amps from a variety of manufacturers. I've bi-amped, used external amps with receivers and used receiver amps obviously.

Believe me, I know what distortion is, what headroom is and what hype is.

Weight simply isn't a guarantee of quality, an neither is lack thereof automatically a detractor. There's far too many variables in play.

Well, it's more about format conversion than actual processing... for most people anyways.
Most displays and PJ's have had excellent VP's on board since 1080p became the norm so having it in an AVR is redundant.

My 7x125W AVR weighs 51 pounds and wants 12A. All these Denon AVRs are lightweights.

What AVR do you own?

Bill

I think we should withhold judgement on the DACs in the upcoming AVR-4311CI until we've heard the implementation. It is more about implementation then it is about what DACs are in a component. I've heard great implementation of bad DACs (specs) and poor implementation of better DACs (specs).


Willie

I suspect that Anchor Bay, Sigma, IDT and STM would beg to differ. In my personal experiece the VRS and REON are clearly the equal of whatever solution lives in my Kuro. Now, as previously mentioned, Denon may choose to block access to VRS features as opposed to more enlightened companies like Anthem but that's not the fault of Anchor Bay.

That one is a B&K.

Wasn't intended to be at all. I was simply replying to your post that suggested that the weaker power supply isn't an issue, because we don't need that much power. All I said was YOU may not need that much power, or the benefits that come along with a beefier power supply, but others may. It comes down to the efficiency of your speakers, the size of your room, your listening habits, and if (and how many) channels you choose to amplify externally. You're trying to tell us we don't need it anyway, but you can really only speak to your needs.


Which begs the question: why? The 4311 is rated at 780 watts input. Factor in typical class A/B amp efficiency of 70%, and a little bit of power draw for the DSPs and other components, and you're looking at less than 60wpc, all channels driven. If there's no benefit to more than that, why did you spring for so much more power?

I agree weight isn't a guarantee, but given the conventional technology used in these units, the amount of copper and iron and heat sinks needed does require some amount of heft for a certain amount of power. If you were to compare products, I bet a correlation would be found between weight, and units that had good power reserves. No, it's not a guarantee, but it can be an indicator.

And again, I'm not suggesting this is a major issue with the 4311. I'm simply saying that there are benefits to beefier power supplies.

Agreed, implementation may be just fine. But the potential use of cost cutter parts sends a troubling message.

Onkyo/Integra is willing to spend $1.98 per DAC channel for the (32 bit) PCM1795, and Yamaha is willing to spend $1.48 per DAC channel for the PCM1796, and Denon has in the past been willing to spend $1.13 per DAC channel for the (lowest of the three) PCM1791A.

If Denon is no longer willing to spend even $1.13 per DAC channel, does that speak well to Denon's commitment to high quality components in a $2000 AVR?

AJ

Geez, still on a part. There has to be more to your life than this damn thing. I mean this respectively but if you are so passionate about this issue, start another thread. Write a 100 page "white paper"' get it published in popular science but let it die on the Denon 4311 AVR100 thread. We get your opinion loud and clear. If you are a Burr brown sales guy, I understand your desire to support the thing but give iit a rest.

Last try on our fixation with weight here.

1) If weight were the goal, there would be no Carbon Fiber Sports Cars. Heck, a 4 ton Dusseldorf would still rule the racetrack.
2) Weight through a larger power supply, transformers, array of heavy duty capacitors and humongous heatsinks can work wonders for a Class A or Class AB amp section. But, weight and big power supplies are not necessarily required for many of the newer and hybrid amps out there today. Since Denon is using a new amp of some sorts in the 4311' until it's bench tested no one knows. Even the 4810 can produce da power, it just has limiters.

Darin is pretty spot on regarding the Max power idea on the back panel and I'm not here to defend any of the modern mega-multiple channel amps for total RMS output all channels driven. This need with 9 internal amps isn't all that helpful. The Heights and Rear Surrounds don't get that big a work out even at reference.

3) weight, just does not flat out have some linear relation to quality. Period. This argument can be seen in publications going back 30 years. There is always a subset of audio video enthusiasts who gravitate to poundage. I remember the days of the 1500 lb turntable base. So, I give you a few examples of weight. Granted you may not like the sound of these examples, but in their time and at their price points, they were revolutionary.

Carver Cube..... That would be my personal way back machine.
The First Magnepans (hey where's the driver?)
Now for today.... specs 1st.

500 W 8 ohms... 1000 W 4 Ohms....peak output current 45 amperes... 120 Db dynamic range. THD nonexistent. It does however handle 1500 W Max. Total weight....... Wow, it must suck....... 18 lbs. It's also loony expensive and looks like modern art. mono block so you need, 11 of them potentially so the weight of each box does add up. Anyone wish to guess the manufacturer and cost?

My point here is weight just can not be directly correlated to quality, performance, and cost. The difference between all the major receivers in weight is just not very relevant. Again, classic behavioral psychology, as The DAC battle. People want tangible, simple correlations to complex technology. hey, it weighs more, hey these guys are using a Burr Brown vs some other piece or part, hey this ones got gold feet inlays, hey this ones got some other measurable difference. Never mind the measurement is only a very small part of the whole component. Some people need very simple differentiators so they can justify their own decisions and more importantly skewed beliefs.

I'm just more up front about being quitecskewed. As stated, I think Onkyo stuff looks like junk on a shelf. I've got a feeling that I don't like it. That's all. I am not however going to spend a great deal of time trying to find little goofy shortcomings of another receiver to justify in my head my rather subjective dislike of all things Onkyoey. Even if I loved the stuff, it doesn't do 11.2 so again the comparison ends.

you want weight, buy a rock. If weight is totally related to quality, go back in a cave and pound a rather heavy rock. There is no need for a tool. Heck, the tool weighs less.

This in all in fun but can we get back to trying to understand the two receivers involved in this thread.