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

It's designed for someone that wants the better audio fidelity, but doesn't need a 7.1 AVR.

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...

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...

Aha, now that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

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

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

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.

So my original question still stands, then.

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.
Edited by jdsmoothie - 6/18/12 at 9:15am

 

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).

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!

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).

^^
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.

 

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. :)

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
This from one of the worst typists/proofreaders around here . . . (me)

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

Which models are you referring to..

Just my $0.02...

^^
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

i am sure the 1712/13 will be plenty of power for a bedroom unless it is auditorium sized.

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).

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

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...

Ok...the entry level model used CS, which ones exactly used TI?????