When do the 2013 Denon's come out? Any new features we should expect? - Page 23

Ebay. Better hurry, as the xx13 are out now, lots of people will be dumping older models, driving prices even further down.

The lack of old-style analog inputs and outputs on the upcoming models is why I purchased a new (one of the last available) 5308A with the 3D (and more) upgrade. Every manufacturer, not just Denon, seems to be eliminating the analog outputs and I wonder if the motivation isn't just making the AVR less complicated. Of course, certain (not all) content providers would be really pleased if there were no analog outputs on the back of an AVR. Of course, that is just speculation on my part.

What isn't speculation is that HDMI is fully backwards compatible. It isn't forwards compatible but is certainly backwards compatible. If I purchase a new receiver, all of my older HDMI-based equipment will still work with that new receiver. Same thing if I purchase a new 3D TV. All of my older equipment still works.

Now, for HDMI 1.4a (and 1.3c and 1.3a and 1.3, etc) if I want the *new* capabilities, my entire HDMI chain must be compatible with the newer HDMI format. This is because only one audio and one video stream is included in the HDMI signal at any given time. So the audio and video have to be compatible with everything in the chain. This is the lowest common denominator principal. While it makes things more difficult for upgrading, it also (most of the time) ensures that every device will have video and audio that is usable. This was true with the deep color option and remains true today with 3D and 4K and ARC and a few other things.

So, while we might not like it, it is for backwards compatibility reasons that HDMI is that way. If you would like to complain that HDMI isn't forwards compatible, that would be accurate although I know of no digital interface that is forwards compatible. You could claim that old-fashioned analog RCA inputs were backwards and forwards compatible but that goes back to my first point.

I just sold my Denon 3310 on craigslist. You can also use Audiogon but I didn't want to have to ship anything. Ebay would be an option but they take almost 10% of your money (at least they did when I sold my iPhone 4). There is also a classified section on AVS.

craigslist
ebay
amazon
audiogon

i have had pretty good luck selling here... patience and "correct" pricing usually does the job... i have moved some rather expensive (although not ungodly expensive) equipment using the avs classifieds...

keep in mind that lower to middle msrp priced items (especially when they are already heavily discounted new) need to be priced appropriately... if something msrp's for 5, streets for 4, you aren't going to get 3 for it...

audiogon used to be useful for this as well... sadly, no more...

Nevertheless it is inferior. At least to my ears, there's more directionality from an HD Audio track. I consider the first 10mins of Top Gun one of the must robust tracks in lossless. The lossy track does not have as much directionality in the swirling of the wind and the location of the jet engines but it does still sound pretty awesome at 0dB.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or is it just the "plecebo effect"?

^^^

the few "real controlled tests" that have been done would indicate that it's placebo...

to be honest, that would be one of the least likely places for you to notice a difference...

You should think better in advance. With electronics, like cars, you get hit ad soon as you leave retailer premises. So expect at least 30% loss on your 2112. If you bought it in local store, ask them if they have upgrade option. It could save you some money. Other than that, e-bay is your option.

^^^

So what you're saying is that a more quiet track with birds chirping and flys buzzing would be better then? If so, I can see that.

This is one of those really good history/math/engineering lessons on compromises.

You really have to go back to Dolby Surround to understand why these codecs are the way they are. Old two-channel Dolby Surround attempted to create a rear channel for the theaters by encoding that rear channel into the front 2-channel signal. The first attempts were not very directional and trying to extract a center channel was not very pleasing at times either. Dolby Pro Logic improved on this but this was still a matrixed setup with the limitations inherent in two channels become five channels.

The next big improvement was AC3, which the marketing folks renamed Dolby Digital. Dolby Labs knew that for AC3 to catch-on, it had to be compatible with the film industry which they were already involved with because of Dolby Surround. This was also at the beginning of the "let's make everything digital" era in audio. So they came up with a method to encode 5.1-channels onto as large of a bit-rate that could fit on a film soundtrack. In order to do that they used a scheme called perceptual encoding, which tries to eliminate sounds that the listener would not normally hear and occasionally compromises on channel-to-channel differences (less directional). A very soft sound in the middle of a jet take-off would be an example of what gets eliminated. Given the timeframe and the bitrate available, they did quite well really. It wasn't transparent (nor was it expected to be) but it provided 5.1-channels of digital sound in less than a single CD channel of bitrate.

DTS took this a step further and came up with a scheme to encode the 5.1-channel audio onto a CD (two full CD channels) and provide a synchronization scheme with the film. First Dolby and then DTS moved into home entertainment. Dolby Digital because a semi-standard on later LaserDiscs and then there were a few with DTS. But DTS made headway into the home with DTS music discs which were very close to transparent except for mid bass (which never seems accurate to me).

So, they were all compromises based on the idea that you won't miss some of the sounds that are eliminated. If you really want to do a comparison, take some audio, run it through an encoder, convert back to PCM and subtract the encoded PCM file from the original PCM file. You'll see what was left out. Dolby Digital has issues with spikes. Any large increase in volume overshoots and actually creates too high of an amplitude, just like you would expect an underdamped control system to generate.

The later Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio outputs are actually lossless compressed versions of the original PCM. Once decoded you are guaranteed that the output is exactly the same as the original file. So really LPCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio all generate the same output. You can't have a more accurate output than any of those three choices. The benefit of one over the other is in the "extras" (like downmixing and bitrate) that each provides.

Just confusing things more is that with each media the bitrates of Dolby Digital and DTS have increased. Dolby Digital Plus is an improved version of the original AC3 and is much more like DTS sound than it is like AC3 sound.

For my ears, if you ask me to listen carefully I can easily hear the differences in an AC3 soundtrack. For DTS, maybe occasionally (again in the mid bass) I might be able to hear the differences. Certainly with DTS you're getting to the point where the recording and the mix "issues" far outweigh those of the encoding. If you listen to Alan Parson's "On Air" 5.1-channel DTS-CD, you will not hear any artifacts throughout the entire recording even though 5.1-channels have been crammed into 2 channels.

There are other issues with AC3 that I didn't mention (such as the inability to properly mix the channels for a downmix). It isn't perfect but it was really good for the timeframe. Luckily with Blu-Ray Discs we don't have to worry about that anymore. Really the big user of AC3 is now ATSC HDTV and satellite distribution (although some of satellite distribution has gone over to 8 channel Dolby E).

Thanks. I knew that but maybe I do miss some of it as psychoaccoustics is an aggregate solution that works in the 99th percentile (3 standard deviations of the mean)? I do like the PCM and/or HD tracks better but it could be psychological and not real. When you go to a 7.1 (6.1 in the case of Top Gun) track though there is a difference to be noticed in the rear speakers.

That's probably separate from the AC3/DTS discussion. The one thing Blu-Ray brings is the ability to have a discrete 7.1-channel solution. DTS had 6.1 discrete channels max and AC3 never really got past 5.1 discrete channels. Of course both AC3 (with the EX flag set) and DTS-ES could be matrixed across the rear and surround speakers.

Thinking about it again, it's probably a combo of the ability to send 7.1-discrete channels and the increasing ability of the mixing/mastering people to properly use the back channels.

For instance if I'm mixing a jet flying over you, the simple solution is to pan the jet from the front to back. However, your ear picks that up as kind-of fake because as a real jet would fly-over the sound would get more diffuse and have more delays as the jet sound bounces off structures. If you try to do that with 5.1-channels, the jet just spreads out but never really flys over. With 7.1-channels, the individual channel delays give the jet a much more realistic sound during the fly over.

So I suspect you're just hearing the 7.1-channels of discrete sound coupled with better mixing/mastering tools - the foley artists have more tools at the disposal (and probably some psycho-accoustics - you know it should sound better, so it does).

No reason to believe it won't be as the 3312CI is only 7CH and the 4311CI is 9CH.

It is .... the 3803 went up to the 3808CI ----> 4310CI ----> 4311CI---> 4520CI. The 2809CI was replaced by the 3310CI ---> 3311CI ----> 3312CI ---- 3313CI.

The "Top Gun" BD contains two lossless tracks. Which one have you used as your reference? And you have compared it to which lossy track?

Also, FYI, the DTS-HD Master Audio track is from a DVD remix. As has often been the case with remixes used as demonstration pieces for DTS formats, the track has been heavily "goosed" (pardon the pun.)

AJ

Has anyone found a retailer selling the 1913 for any discount from MSRP? I'm having trouble justifying the $579 MSRP to myself vs the $399 closeout price for the 1912. The 1912 sold below MSRP when new (and the MSRP was lower)...

Keep in mind that although the 4311CI will do a much better job with dual subs as well as the speakers, you can still use dual subs with the 2112CI by simply using a RCA "Y" splitter from the 2112CI's sub preout. Level match each sub using the 75db test tone by running AUTO SETUP on each sub separately. Once they are level matched, reconnect to the "Y" splitter and run Audyssey again to EQ them together.

The 1912 shouldn't even be considered when the 2112 is barely more expensive. See the first few posts in the xx12 owners thread.

Remember that these models were just released. Once they become available from Internet vendors you'll see discounts. You will have to pick up the phone and call them though to get the discounted price.

The DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1 track.. I did not know this information about the "goosing" of the track.

I compared it to a DD 5.1 track that I had for a while (not saying where that came from!) due to the fact that my son would not give the disc back to me for some time.. so the DD 5.1 track may have been a poor downmix but it still sounded damn good. Just not as good as the DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1 track.

That's great info!

The Dolby Digital track was most likely not a "poor downmix." Rather, it was probably from a separate mix. If so, your comparison of lossless and lossy tracks is rendered spurious. And any differences that you heard could just as readily be attributed to different mixes.

AJ

^^^

yea...

not to mention our old friend (and constant bedeviler of the unwary), level differences...

Hmm I guess any remux/merge is possible. That said, it is possible to donwnmix an HD Audio track.

The 1913 *is* already available from online vendors, thus the question.
The 2112 is $650 from reputable vendors, so $250 more than a 1912, far from barely more.

Original question still stands. Anyone?

^^
A number of "reputable" and authorized Denon resellers (Electronics Expo, AV Science, J&R, etc.) have been selling the 2112CI for generally no more than $30-$50 more than the 1912 ever since they were released last summer. Give them a "call" and check for yourself as these resellers are often discussed in the Denon XX12 Owner's thread linked in my sig.

Before the xx13 releases were imminent, the 1912 was priced higher, from what I've been able to see, so the price delta between pre-closeout 1912 prices and more expensive models is a bit moot, especially now.

In any case my question was about the street price for the 1913. I'm not interested in any of the step up features of a 2112.

^^
You're not getting the point ... those resellers have been selling XX12 models at 30% discount off MSRP ever since those models were first released last year, ergo, the answer to your original question is to "call" those same resellers for the 1913.

If you're not interested in better sound quality and an extra year of warrantee for barely more money that's your loss.

JD, you're a far more patient man than I!

Thanks JD.