Denon 4311 or 3312?

Disregard the watts and figure if all the additional bells and whistles the 4311CI would be something you would be using. Well don't completely disregard the watts, but really make sure of the efficiency of the speakers your driving. AVRs are a great all in one solution with alot of features that most people may not use. I actually was on the fence on both AVR-100 and 4311CI that are pretty much the same model, however one big thing I wanted is a little bit better control over the true watts per channel. Both of these 100/4311 have the ability to basically turn the AVR into a preamp. I kept them in contention, but most people still are of the opionion that its still not a true preamp. I wanted my power to be consistant and not variable which comes as part of an AVR. 100, 120 or 140 is peak its not a constant. A good amount of AVRs at any particular moment will have varying wattage coming out. There are some AVRs that can seem pricey due that you loose items like network, dual hdmi outs, amount of hdmi ins... etc.. NAD makes some nice AVRs that push out 60watts. That is 60 watts full time, but at the loss of the mentioned features. There is plenty of fairly efficient speakers and most current AVRs will drive the typical speaker without a problem. The investment I just made on a new setup was something I wanted to make sure was driven properly. One thing to keep in mind is that the 4311CI is on the declining part of its life cycle. The 3312 while having less features is on the top end of its life cycle. In the end I decided to go with seperates for about 700 bucks more than the 4311ci. Below is a comparison of features between the the 4311 and 3312.

http://www.denonblog.com/compare-den...2ci-vs-4311ci/

Disregard the fact that the 3312CI is newer than the 4311CI as they are both HDMI 1.4 rated. If the 4311CI is in your budget, it is a level above the 3312CI in both features and audio fidelity as well as being designed to work with 4Ω speakers without having to use an external amp. 4311CI/A100 owners who have upgraded from an Audyssey XT AVR to the XT32 in the 4311CI have posted with a noticeable improvement in audio fidelity. As a 9.2 AVR it is also capable of powering Zones 2 and 3 internally without adding an external amp. If you never expect to expand beyond a 5.1 setup, don't expect to need a Zone 3, don't need to add an external amp to power low ohm speakers, and if your budget is tight (as the 4311CI generally sells for 2x the 3312CI), then go with the 3312CI, otherwise the 4311CI beats the 3312CI hands down.

Its not so clear cut. Even if you have all the cash in the world, you really have to have very specific needs to justify paying double the price for the 4311.

Why? Look at amplification for example
- 2-channel difference 15 watts difference is nothing in real life.
- in 5 channel the difference is 3 watts
- if you dont have 9 speakers what does the 2 extra channels matter

There are a bunch of really small stuff like zone 2 volume control etc. You really have to be very unique in needs for this.

IMO the real difference between these two units is the room correction. MultiEQ Xt or the XT32. I've never seen a proper objective blind comparison of these (ie about the result not the specs), but even if we take Audyssey's word that one is better, we are still asking ourselves if we want to spend double the price for a "better" room correction software.

Again not saying that no one will find these small things valuable, but they are just that small things. The idea that one of these two units is massively better is not really true. Which is not surprising as the rule of thumb in the audio world is that once you hit a certain level you start paying huge price jumps for very marginal differences that may not even be detectable if you close your eyes and cant see the price tag.

Here's another way of looking at it then .. rule of thumb is to split your budget 1/3 on the AVR and 2/3 on the speakers/sub. So if your Klipsch budget is $3K or more than get the 4311CI, otherwise if its only $1500 or less then get the 3312CI.

^^^

let's de-fuzzy it then...

do you have speakers/subs already?

if so, what do you have?
if not, what is your total budget for the system?

What does the AVR-4311 have over the AVR-3312
Performance Convenience
Made in Japan
9 channels instead of 7
Pre Amp mode
11.2 channels Pre outs
140 watts @ 8ohms instead of 125
9 Channel Mono amp construction
4 Ohm load guarantee mode
2 x 32bit SHARC DSP s instead of 1
Audyssey MultEQ XT32 instead of MultEQ XT
 16,000 samples instead of 8,000
 Improved filtering for Satellite speakers
Multi Sub calibration
Dolby Volume
Advanced GUI (Graphic User Interface) Upgraded Back lit Remote control
Denon Link 4th Edition
Rear USB option
3 x Component inputs instead of 2
Zone amps can still be used when in Preamp

Good sumnary That said, I would add that
- the GUI is not any different
- in tests both amps actually have roughly the same power into 5 channel
- 4311 remote only has a couple buttons more, is backlit partly and honestly is embarrassing for a flagship product

I pulled that info from a Denon product brochure.

I won't consider the 4311 the "flagship". High-end, definitely. The 5308CI is still the flagship

The days of extra fancy remotes are long gone. I'd be interested to know what percentage of people even use the receiver's remote to control the device. Certainly way less than even 10 years ago. You can tell that remote development is going into Denon's iPod/iPhone app, as opposed to a hardware solution.

Personally I think its embarassingly bad on an industrial design level. Never mind whether its silver plated. Or has curved lines. It is poorly thought out and ergonomically mediocre. And the supposed backlight really does not make the remote fully usable in low light.

I really cant see the point of having a different remote from 4311 to 3331 when both are so mediocre. Is the remote supposed to differentiate these products or isnt it? If it is, then by golly lets see some effort put in. Otherwise dont bother. Because all you're doing is wasting money with multiple SKus of mediocre remote control accessory that you have to make and inventory manage.

Also delivering ones own product with a junk quality control device supplied by you basically says you have no pride in your own brand and you're just treading water. A well-designed remote control can be done at low cost. You just have to actually care. Its not a matter of money at all.

Its these kind of things that devalue the experience of owning these devices. And thats partly why these folks all struggle with margins. They dont pick up on the easy smart things and they invariable struggle to consider about value management in a holistic sense.

I'm all for accountants or MBA's running companies. But when you look at things like this it becomes clear that the accountants dont actually know what questions to ask the product management - and the product management themselves dont have a clue. Companies do not lose money for no good reason. Even external trends are not an excuse. The rot begins within.

Sorry for the diversion, but my own experience with evaluating these two products for purchase led to to see this company in a different light. These guys spent more time figuring out how they could superficially "differentiate" these products and milk one set of customers than they spent thinking how could they deliver real value and delight the customer with BOTH.

And personally I'm one of the few folks who would like to support Japanese made products.

I completely disagree with you.

I'd much rather see R&D dollars spent on an iOS or Android app than a fancy metal, programmable remote. The flexibility of a "soft" remote is tremendous, and many younger people are considering it "essential" when making a major CE purchase. Eventually, CE devices may not even come with remotes. An iOS or Android device is going to have more functionality and better ease of use.

All my OEM remotes are just dumped in a big box. I don't care if they have thorns on them, I may go a year or more before I actually need to pull one out.

^^
Denon has already taken steps to move in the direction as the current Denon remotes provided with the new XX13 models no longer come preprogrammed with other mfr device codes.

But you two are only underlining my point. There is no such thing as being being "half-pregnant".

If you bother to put a remote in the box at all, then you must at least max out on the possibilities - the value delivered - within the cost you are spending.

The remote they are throwing the box is in no way the best you can do even on a budget. Its not about throwing more money at it - its about putting a creative and customer-oriented person to design it within that budget.

The above clearly was not done. So said "cost cutting" exercise" is in fact a false door, as
- the money that IS being spent on the remote is actually wasted through a lack of fundamental grasp of design and ergonomics
- and cost is being added by fielding two "different" remotes which barely differ and both suck

So it really becomes laughable when we as consumers are asked to believe the remote control in the 4311 for eample as a upsell point. No you cant - it's a utter joke. And a rather expensive joke for both the consumer and Denon.

Thats my point.

That was done last year ... from the President on down to the Customer Service Manager.

Must have hired more of the same dross then. I see no evidence of a difference in their thinking. At least its not apparent in the product. Which is where it must show up.

The "upsell" for Denon is an iOS interface. Not one or two half-assed remotes. Who cares if they're wasting money on a junk remote. It's just something they throw in the box now to meet the bare minimums.

The dual remotes on the higher-end units will probably go away soon.

I don't agree that they need to max out the capabilities of whatever they throw in the box. I don't care how bad the ergonomics are, as I'm just going to use my Harmony One, or iOS remote... which is probably what 80%+ of all buyers are going to do anyways. The trend here is clear. It would be like complaining that car manufacturers are really cutting down on cassette deck features in the car.

The only purpose of the remote in the box is to teach a Harmony any functions that logitech may have left out.

If that's the claimed excuse for including a crap remote, I'd classify this as management incompetence. Would be more efficient to publish the codes and Harmony can input them at their own cost, leaving the Denon customer less work to do and Donom can eliminate the production and design cost.

Sorry to be so blunt, but let's call a spade a spade. Incompetent product design cannot be excused as "cost saving or "product differentiaton"".

This is not 1995. IR remotes are on the way out. When >50% of your customers are clamoring for iOS/Android integration vs. traditional remotes, you put resources towards that.

Your point would make sense...except that well, Denon DID spend money (that is what you mean by "resources") to develop and put an IR remote control in the box.

My question is: why did Denon not get the best value possible out that money they spent on the remote - especially as they seem to expect the consumer to view it as value added?

You and others seem to bend over backwards to avoid the hard question. I wonder if you don't understand the question or just aim to shield the harsh truth: incompetence.

I don't give a rat's @$$ if the included remote controls other devices and never did. These things never could adequatelly control other brands. I must have at least 10 "programmable" remotes in a box that cannot control all devices in my system. I'm glad they're going away as I'd rather get a remote that can control all my devices.

Such a remote happens to cost $200 to $400 and Denon's not going to jack the price of the receiver to put a truly programmable remote in with their AVR's. This is a wise business decision. With network connectivity of devices and apps for mobile phones here now to control devices I'm sure that logitech is concerned about their Harmony product being crushed.

Not all devices are network able yet as some of us have legacy product but it's coming. There will be a day and it won't be long when a remote is an option. This is just the way it is.

The consumer sees it as little value add, I don't think most care enough to opine if it was the best "value".


I think you're the only one who considers it incompetence. Maybe you could find a different brand that has remote control features more geared towards your priorities?

If you're going to bitch about the remote as a justification to purchase one model or brand over another you're either new to HT or just bitchy in general. What device has a remote that is satisfactory to you? Perhaps you should go to that forum instead - if you can find one. News flash - they all suck.

I have a drawer full of remotes, and this is the way it will always be because of this wonderful little marvel of innovation, the universal remote.

Having owned Denon products for over a decade I was relieved, pleased even with the 4311 remote. It will be a backup to my Harmony, much faster accessing functions than the Harmony and it can control everything in my theater but my Logitech Squeezebox. The remote is fine.

I'd rather see manufacturers spend money where it counts. A world class remote ain't it.

You too are spewing but havent answered the question.

I'll ask it to you directly: that remote that sucked and you threw away.....well it cost Denon money. Is that what you consider to be "spending money where it counts"? Or is that actually....throwing away money?

And if the remote sucks, how then is it supposed to it help differentiate these two products. By its lousiness?

Clearly some people struggle with simple logic.