or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Why does the Denon 1713 have Audyssey MultiEQXT but the 1913 does not
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why does the Denon 1713 have Audyssey MultiEQXT but the 1913 does not

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Seems a little odd to me. Please explain why?
post #2 of 47
Thread Starter 
Anyone?
Edited by Semp1 - 6/17/12 at 4:58pm
post #3 of 47
It's designed for someone that wants the better audio fidelity, but doesn't need a 7.1 AVR.
post #4 of 47
Multi-EQ-XT requires more DSP power...
And since the 1913 is 7.1, it has no reserve DSP resources available..
Whereas the 1713 being 5.1 has some reserve DSP resources available, note that the 1713 & 1913 use the same TI DSP..


Just my $0.02... wink.gif
post #5 of 47
Sorry to be a thorn, but these reasons don't really explain it. The 1712 has MultEQ XT but the 1912 does not. And both are 7.1, right?
So it must be something else.
post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Sorry to be a thorn, but these reasons don't really explain it. The 1712 has MultEQ XT but the 1912 does not. And both are 7.1, right?
So it must be something else.

Yup...
But neither the 1712 or 1912 had Audyssey Dynamic Volume or Dynamic EQ..

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
post #7 of 47
Aha, now that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
post #8 of 47
Thread Starter 
So do you consider the 1713 a better purchase for someone with only a 5.1 set up?
Edited by Semp1 - 6/17/12 at 8:05pm
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

But neither the 1712 or 1912 had Audyssey Dynamic Volume or Dynamic EQ..

 

The 1712 has both as does the 1912 (I believe). Strictly a marketing decision is my guess. The 1713 being the high-end 5.1 which allows for XT... frankly I wouldn't be too concerned as I couldn't tell the difference between MultEQ and MultEQ XT.


Edited by Charles R - 6/17/12 at 7:56pm
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

Yup...
But neither the 1712 or 1912 had Audyssey Dynamic Volume or Dynamic EQ..
Just my $0.02... wink.gif

Every Denon AVR that offers any version of Audyssey since the XX09 models also features both Dyn Vol and Dyn EQ.
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1 View Post

So do you consider the 1713 a better purchase for someone with only a 5.1 set up?

Although a better choice audio fidelity wise, as Charles R notes, depending on the quality of your speakers there may be very little improvement from MultEQ. Is it worth the extra $50 increase in MSRP over the 1613? Definitely. In addition to the better version of Audyssey, you get an extra HDMI, Zone 2 pre-outs should you ever want to place speakers on the patio or another room, and the capability to SAVE the config file to a PC in case you have to reset the microprocessor and then won't have to setup the AVR from scatch again. smile.gif
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Every Denon AVR that offers any version of Audyssey since the XX09 models also features both Dyn Vol and Dyn EQ.

So my original question still stands, then.
post #13 of 47
The 1712 was first set up to offer XT and not networking for those that wanted better audio fidelity with no networking capability. The feature was passed on to the 1713 although it now also features networking, but does not have some of the features offered by the 1913 (7.1, video chip, Spotify, analog-->HDMI upconversion, Front Height speakers). Make your AVR model selection based on the features/inputs/outputs you need and you'll be good to go. smile.gif
Edited by jdsmoothie - 6/18/12 at 9:15am
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post


So my original question still stands, then.

 

It will until you get an answer out of D&M... good luck with that. :)

 

As I guessed before it's all about marketing. Now that all of the receivers offer networking (outside of the kid's model) the 1712 (carrying over to the 1713) would steal too many sales from the higher end models. It probably did lasst year. Now anyone wanting 7.1 can't drop down to the 1713. So they can keep offering XT with it and use it as an advantage against other 5.1 receivers (and other low-end 7.1 receivers used for 5.1 or less).

post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

It will until you get an answer out of D&M... good luck with that. smile.gif

Well, some of you guys appear to have so much inside info that I figured you'd have the scoop on this as well. I'm disappointed! wink.gif

You're certainly right that it's a marketing call. It just seems a little strange to me. Why not get rid of the 1712/1713 all together and just have the 1912/1913 have MultEQ XT?
IMO they have too many models. But I'm an outsider looking in, and I don't have access to their marketing data or their strategy meetings.

jdsmoothie, thanks for the reply as well. I just bought a 1712 on closeout (because I wanted to try out MultEQ XT on my 2.0 system). I'm still getting familiar with it (and right
now I'm on vacation and not at home, so I didn't challenge the claim that it lacked Dyn EQ or anything).
post #16 of 47
^^
A marketing decision to be sure as the 1712 is not offered outside the US with the non-USA 1912 featuring XT, while this year, the 1913 is not offered.
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post
I just bought a 1712 on closeout (because I wanted to try out MultEQ XT on my 2.0 system).

 

I have 2.0 in my Den and have used...

 

  • AVR-591
  • AVR-1611
  • AVR-1712
  • AVR-2112

 

and I wouldn't bet a penny I could tell them apart. However, I do like the Virtual (Audyssey) mode. Much better than what I could find with Pioneer and Yamaha... they at times would sound really bad using the best DSP (I could find to add a little dimension). If I had to come up with a difference I would guess the non XT models had a little more low-end kick (overly so). Although, I thought I saw that with the EQ on or off... I know all receivers sound the same. :)

post #18 of 47
Playing the role of a very slow echo from the days when Audyssey's CTO posted here daily: There is no "I" in MultEQ. That'll be $1.00, please . . . . Remit to ChriS K at Audyssey (or maybe send an IOU smile.gif
This from one of the worst typists/proofreaders around here . . . (me)
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

note that the 1713 & 1913 use the same TI DSP..
Just my $0.02... wink.gif

Denon hasn't used a TI DSP in any AVR for a few years....
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthpaul View Post

Denon hasn't used a TI DSP in any AVR for a few years....

Which models are you referring to..

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
post #21 of 47
^^
At least the last four model years. From Denon's website, with the exception of the lowest level models (1312, 1513), both the XX12 and XX13 series use the same Analog Devices ADSP 21487, the same company that is now providing the video chips in these models as well.
Edited by jdsmoothie - 6/18/12 at 6:02pm
post #22 of 47
Thread Starter 
A big reason why I posted this is I was looking for a competent receiver for the bedroom. I'm replacing my onkyo 707 but I think the 1713 might fall a little short. I kind of want to move away from onkyo though. Im keeping my eye on the 2313 for the living room which presently has an onkyo 709 in it. The bedroom will not be more than 5.1. So I don't really know if I need to go as powerful as the 707 but the 1713 might be a little under powered. What do you guys think. The Audyssey XT is important to me, but I would sacrifice for a slightly better receiver. I just think 80 watts might be a little too little coming from 110. Advice?
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1 View Post

A big reason why I posted this is I was looking for a competent receiver for the bedroom. I'm replacing my onkyo 707 but I think the 1713 might fall a little short. I kind of want to move away from onkyo though. Im keeping my eye on the 2313 for the living room which presently has an onkyo 709 in it. The bedroom will not be more than 5.1. So I don't really know if I need to go as powerful as the 707 but the 1713 might be a little under powered. What do you guys think. The Audyssey XT is important to me, but I would sacrifice for a slightly better receiver. I just think 80 watts might be a little too little coming from 110. Advice?

i am sure the 1712/13 will be plenty of power for a bedroom unless it is auditorium sized.
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semp1 View Post

A big reason why I posted this is I was looking for a competent receiver for the bedroom. I'm replacing my onkyo 707 but I think the 1713 might fall a little short. I kind of want to move away from onkyo though. Im keeping my eye on the 2313 for the living room which presently has an onkyo 709 in it. The bedroom will not be more than 5.1. So I don't really know if I need to go as powerful as the 707 but the 1713 might be a little under powered. What do you guys think. The Audyssey XT is important to me, but I would sacrifice for a slightly better receiver. I just think 80 watts might be a little too little coming from 110. Advice?

It depends on the efficiency/sensitivity rating of your speakers and if they are < 8 ohm impedance.

Note that on average, most speakers use < 5W/CH and that's at even at reference level volume so as long as you are using 8 ohm speakers with at least 87db+ sensitivity, any model will be sufficient (especially if the bedroom is small).
post #25 of 47
Thread Starter 
My bedroom is average. 14x13. So it's not big at all. My question is will I notice the 30 less watts of power to each channel?
Edited by Semp1 - 6/18/12 at 7:54pm
post #26 of 47
Nope, not if as I said, the speakers are 8 ohm and 87db+ efficiency. Or to put it another way ... it takes a 3db increase in volume for the average person to perceive there's been a change in volume. It takes 2x the power to increase the volume by 3db. So going from an 80W AVR to a 160W AVR would only provide for an increase in volume of 3db, so with a 30W increase in power. not even 1db increase.
Edited by jdsmoothie - 6/18/12 at 7:14pm
post #27 of 47
Thread Starter 
Ok. Thank you very much. Sounds good to me. Now hopefully Amazon will get it in stock some time soon. I might just replace my 709 in the living room with a Denon 2313/3313. Haven't decide and put the 709 in the bedroom. I think the 3313 would be better considering it would be a true upgrade to what I have.
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

Which models are you referring to..
Just my $0.02... wink.gif

All AVRs for the last 3 years have used Analog devices DSPs...
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthpaul View Post

All AVRs for the last 3 years have used Analog devices DSPs...

Incorrect..
Some models have used the Cirrus Logic (CS49704), as in China we have seen these being built @ the subcontractor...

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
post #30 of 47
Ok...the entry level model used CS, which ones exactly used TI?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Why does the Denon 1713 have Audyssey MultiEQXT but the 1913 does not