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 - Page 2

post #31 of 47
6/19/12 at 6:22am
As has been pointed out by JD..
In their 2nd generation HDMI 1.3 and next their HDMI 1.4 AVRs, Denon uses the ADI Sharc DSPs. Their 1st generation HDMI 1.3 AVRs Denon (like Onkyo, Yamaha, Pioneer, HK) used the TI (DA7xx) as it was the 1st and only DSP @ the time with the HD audio certifications by Dolby & DTS..

Just my $0.02... wink.gif
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 47
6/19/12 at 6:51am
Right.....so no recent model (since 2008) with TI...

Thanks...
Edited by darthpaul - 6/19/12 at 7:00am
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 47
6/19/12 at 6:59am
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?

Just wondering - why are you replacing your Onkyos?

Especially the 7-series ones that compare to Denon's 33XX series...
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 47
6/19/12 at 7:09am
Thread Starter 
I'm replacing the 707 because it has the no sound issue. And when onkyo repaired did a cheap temporary fix instead of replacing the hdmi board. Now it's completely out of warranty and they won't fix their mistakes. I really don't understand why a class action suit hasn't been brought against them yet. I don't want to replace the 709. I want to move it. I can predict that every model until at least this year will have all the same issues that the 707 series had simply because it took 2 years on average for faulty HDMI boards to start to fail, and Im sure these same HDMI boards went into every model afterwards. Clearly the same terrible QC has. So I think I should take strain off the 709 and put that in the bedroom where it will get a lot less use. To say the denon 3313 is on par with the 7xx is generous at best by the way. The new 717 had Audyssey MultiEQXT taken out as a feature and had it's fake ONKYO MSRP raised $100 over last years 709. The Denon 2313 has only 5 less watts than the 709/717 but the Denon still has XT. The 2313 is the model that compares to the 7xx line. The 3313 compares closer to the 8xx line. Plus Denon seems to be much better when it comes to QC. For example someone's Hyundai might have a feature my Mercedes doesn't have but in the end it's a Hyundai. That's how I'm starting to feel about Onkyo. Looks nice but in the end it's a badly built Onkyo. Who cares how affordable it is you get what you pay for. And in this instance you get a company, Onkyo, that for the last three models has put out clearly defective products. Like the new 2012 line that can not power on with the remote, and is already showing signs of faulty HDMI boards. So basically a little more $$$ gets you a much better experience that will last more than 2 years and that's what I'm looking for because I'll bet anything the 709's start to fail next year in the same fashion the 707's did in 2011.
Edited by Semp1 - 6/19/12 at 7:26am
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 47
6/19/12 at 7:49am
Cool. Sorry to hear about your Onkyos. Onkyo has scared me into Denon/Marantz's arms too, unfortunately. :-)
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 47
6/20/12 at 9:33am
Thread Starter 
To me it seems like for a 5.1 setup the 1713 is better than the 1913 considering it has the XT. Does anyone else agree. Can you really warrant the difference in price just for 15 more watts more per channel because every other feature is exactly the same. Opinions?
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 47
6/20/12 at 9:40am
If you don't need the additional features of the 1913 (analog--> HDMI conversion, Spotify, component input, upscaling to 1080p, powered Zone 2), then yes, the 1713 would be the better buy as the power difference is moot.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 47
6/20/12 at 10:09am
What he said.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 47
12/12/12 at 9:21pm
What is the zone 2 difference? If I wanted to run a set of speakers out to my patio for music, which would work better? Thought I read where 1713 needs an amplifier for zone 2. Not sure how that would work.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 47
12/13/12 at 2:17am
The 1913 is a 7.1AVR so you can have a 5.1 setup in the main zone, and still have 2 channels left to "power" the Zone 2 (patio) speakers, whereas, the 1713 is only a 5.1 AVR so you would have to connect an external 2CH amp to the Zone 2 pre-outs to power the Zone 2 (patio) speakers.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 47
12/13/12 at 6:12am
So now my dilemma is to choose between the 1713 and the 1913. Seems like the plus for the 1713 is multieqxt. With my consumer level speakers, is the multiegxt more beneficial over the 1913's multieq? I also have a wii to hook up which may be easier with the 1913.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 47
12/13/12 at 4:54pm
Your choice as you can always just use a Wii2HDMI with the 1713.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 47
12/13/12 at 5:06pm
I guess the trade off is 7.1, analog to Hdmi conversion and powered zone 2, but foregoing the multieqxt in the 1713. Ponderous decision.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 47
12/13/12 at 5:09pm
You can't go wrong either way as either version of Audyssey will be an improvement over whatever you've used in the past. wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 47
12/14/12 at 9:52am
Ive decided to go with the 1913. It's on sale and is only $80.00 more. I couldnt hear any difference between the multieq and the multieqxt. I like the 7.1 and the powered zone 2. My son likes the spotify.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 47
12/15/12 at 2:13am
Again, good choice either way. smile.gif Note however, that unless you brought both models home to test MultEQ vs. XT, you most likely didn't hear the differece because Audyssey was not enabled as stores (eg. Best Buy) generally don't enable the Auto EQ on their demo models as it could only be used with one set of speakers and they want the capability to demo with multiple sets of speakers without giving an advantage to any specific set by using the Auto EQ (eg. Audyssey).
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 47
2/9/13 at 8:50pm
Activating this old thread, I have also been thinking about Multeq vs Multeq XT for the last couple of weeks. My setup is a 5.1 setup with Infinity P363 fronts, Infinity PC351 center channel and Infinity bookshelfs as sorrounds. Also, a set of speakers on my patio for zone2. Although 1913 would suffice my needs, it lacks Multeq XT that 2113 has. And as many have pointed out on this forum, 2113 is a better value with only 70 bucks difference between 1913 and 2113 at MSRP.

But currently, the best deals on both are - 1913 for $329 and 2113 for $519, a difference of almost couple of hundred bucks. As I mentioned, my only criteria of looking at 2113 over 1913 is Multeq XT. So is it worth spending $190 more to get Multeq XT ?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Why does the Denon 1713 have Audyssey MultiEQXT but the 1913 does not