The **OFFICIAL** DENON AVR-4520CI thread - Page 86

Perhaps I missed it but oddly enough I didn't see any ratings with 5 channels driven into 8 ohms (to essentially see what the multiplier is over its 8 ohm capability - JD's estimate for 8 ohm performance could be right on the money). It's funny that so many seem to be lamenting the decline of amplifier sections since in this review they mentioned that the 5803 shut down under 4 ohm loads and there was nothing they could do to revive it! In fact they cautioned the use of speakers with a nominal impedance below 6 ohms.

I know this is getting off topic but I frequently see suggestions that efficiency for AB amplifiers is in the 50-70% range. However, looking at some reviews on Home Theater suggests some may be in the 85 - 90% range - e.g. their test of the Denon 3312 with a 670w power supply resulted in 80wpc with 7 channels driven at 0.1% distortion for a grand total of 560w or 84% of 670w. Is there more to a calculation of efficeincy or has technology advanced significantly?

It looks like you beat me to the punch.

Hello,
When preforming MultEQ yesterday, Audyssey set my Martin Logan Vantages (Mains), Vista (Surrounds) and even Stage Center Channel to Full Range. This is somewhat surprising as when using XT32 with my Onkyo TX-NR3008, if memory serves at least the CC was set to 60hz.

Regardless, I changed all crossovers to 80hz and brought out my SPL Meter and adjusted all channels and none of this caused Audyssey to be disabled. As was mentioned by other posters, is it possible you did not save the initial MultEQ Settings?
All the best,
AD

I suspect that the power supply ratings are not hard limits, but rather are conservative values provided for the various regulatory agencies. You probably can squeeze more power out of them, but if that causes them to go up in smoke, it's your fault, not theirs.

the technology hasn't, class AB are still in same range of about 50% (40-60% depending on the point where bias changes from A to B). what has most likely changed is the basis for the measurement. increasingly you'll see these either with the freq range un-reported or @ 1Khz and not the full 20-2K Hz. or using a higher THD, instead of 0.05%, you'll see 0.1% and even up to 1% (clipping). certainly the term RMS has disappeared from most of the reviews

also, the transformer rating (power supply rating) may be given but not the capacitors. with enough capacitors you can store brief peaks that will exceed just taking the power supply / # channels. at least, this is how I've come to look at some of these ratings. keeping in mind, that in real world, power demands are not equally divided between all channels.

I think this is another valid point.

 

Changing crossovers to 80 Hz--good.  Using an SPL to adjust channel trims set by Audyssey--not so good.

It's a bit more of an Audyssey question, but if the calibration is accurate, why the need to set all the surrounds to small and change the crossovers. If everybody with a sub is supposed to do it, why even have an option? Seems like either poor programming of Audessey or perpetuated mis-information.

Your right, it's more of an Audyssey question and has been answered many times. You probably know that though.

Hardly misinformation. Rather simply that all Audyssey does is pass the -3db roll off point to the AVR and "the AVR" makes all the remaining settings (ie. LARGE/SMALL and speaker (distance, crossover, trim level)). If Audyssey had their way the mfr's would allow it to set all FL/FR speakers that are capable of going below 80Hz to SMALL/80Hz at the completion of the Audyssey process.

Ok I was able to set it this time with no effect on Audyssey thanks for everyone's help and encouragement. I was nervous since this happened on my first 4520, as soon as I set front large to small I lost the Audyssey and yes it was saved but that unit was dropped. This time everything was fine.

Audyssey sets large for my fronts and 40hz on the rest with sub at 120hz. What are you all setting your crossovers to not sure if I like audyssey's setup??

The AVR is making those settings (not Audyssey) based on how your speakers are reacting in your home theater environment. Where you decide to set the crossovers in the end is based on personal preference.

Denon does not specify "Maximum" power consumption so we don't know if the 3312's 670W is "maximum" or defined in a certain way. HK does specify maximum power consumption. Some Yamaha models provide both "power consumption" and "maximum power consumption". It is hard to compare when there are no rigid/mandatory standards for them to follow, in specify power consumption.

Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable explanation.

I see - these numbers make more sense in that light.

Thanks, those are some Interesting points. I'm not sure if HT tests from 20-20 or 1Khz but I did see that they are reporting RMS with 2/5/7 channels driven. As for distortion levels, I'm not well versed, would an amp with max power consumption of 500w be able to push 700w at a higher distortion level?

In any case, for information purposes this is from HT's site regarding their testing procedures:

"We measure and publish RMS continuous amplifier output with a specified number of channels driven in phase. This is in the spirit of the original 1974 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mandate that standardized amplifier measurements in an effort to protect consumers from misleading audio power specifications. Here lies a point of contention that’s been brewing in our industry for decades: movies and music are unlikely to ever make such brutal demands on an amplifier as our test signals do, so why engage in such unmitigated torture of innocent semiconductors? This is what’s known as a synthetic test, in that it doesn’t represent the demands of real-world program material. But it does generally give insight into the total capabilities of the oh-so-important (and relatively expensive) power-supply section hidden inside. We can’t unequivocally state that your enjoyment of a given movie will be diminished if you use an AVR that has no more total power available when continuously driving seven channels than it does when driving two, for instance. However, we do know we’d be much less concerned about getting our money’s worth when such a condition arises with a budget AVR than with a top-priced model."

So what do you prefer?? I am just wondering what people are running, I used to run F-40hz C-80hz S-60hz, But I don't notice so much difference between this and F-large C-40hz S-40hz. I feel like it should be a more discernible difference between these two settings.

 

Audyssey set my towers and center crossovers to Large and 40Hz, respectively.  I changed everything to 80Hz because regardless of how capable the speakers are, my subs handle the low frequencies even better.  This should be a good starting point for you.  Leaving the fronts set to Large defeats bass management and should be avoided.

Thanks. That makes sense to have the sub deal with the lows. So you probably use LFE not LFE plus main, I assume. Do you happen to know why the sub has its own crossover setting? It isn't set to have the mains cut off at the same frequency where the sub is active. If you leave the sub set at 120Hz and the main crossovers at 80Hz then will there be overlap? Is this good? I thought that was the point of LFE+main vs.LFE settings to eliminate this overlap, but it still does it anyway unless you change those settings to not overlap??? Sorry for all of the questions just trying to get this cleared up in my head.

Thanks again for clearing that up twice now in the last few years with your handy guide...I learned this before but for some reason I forgot as I was getting caught up on this stupid setting that we are supposed to just leave alone, and yes I was confusing it for crossover freq.

Anyone using the 4520 as a dedicated preamp only? Anyone choose the 4520 over the 8801? My budget is about $6K for a SSP but I am thinking of getting the 4520 because the specs and features are fantastic. I like the fact that the Denon has AL32 processing and Denon Link HD, something the Marantz is missing.

Also, anyone paid for the Audyssey Pro upgrade? Does it work seamlessly with the 4520?

-Brian

 

I have been using the Pro kit for a number of years, with a 4308, a 4311, and now the 4520.  The Pro kit interfaces flawlessly with each of these AVR's.  I suggest you take a look at the Pro thread and read the FAQ that is referenced in the thread's first post.

Hi Brian,

I own an 11.2 installation since 3 years now. And to operate this context, I successively had an Onkyo 5007, 5508, Denon A100, 4311 and 4520 + Marantz 8801. Initially the 4520 amplified the 4 rear channels (SL/BL/BR/SR) and after some time, it was only used in processor mode only.

I was VERY pleased with the 4520 and singularly with the DTS Neo X 11 processing, which in my opinion is a step up over Audyssey DSX (which I was a huge fan of).

Now since @ 2 weeks, I have a Marantz 8801. I bought this processor - blindly - as it is based on the 4520's global architecture - with a high probability of similar sonic performances that I have been appreciating in the 4520... -, but with the 8801's added value (in my opinion) of an XLR connection.

So today and in my experience, in processor mode only (though with RCA connections), the 4520 is an exceptional performer.

And I preferred the 4520 over the 4311 as the 4311 didn't have the DTS Neo X processing which - in my opinion - is a must have when you own an 11.x installation. Besides this, I think that the video implementation is better made in the 4520, even though both the 4311 and 4520 where used with the video internal processing Off.

Anyway the conclusion of the (intensive ) use I have made so far, is that the 8801 - with an all XLR connections -, seems to be even better than the 4520 I had.

Why seems? Because - for the time being, a new FW is supposed to be scheduled for 2/5 - a DTS Neo X 11 bug in the 8801 prevents the activation of the W&H channels when playing DTS MA or Dolby TrueHD tracks... The DTS Neo X 11 processing I continuously used in the 4520...

So when everything will be fixed in the 8801, my opinion will be definitive. But what I can already say is that as far as the actual using goes and if you can afford it, yes, the 8801 is worth the price difference with an 4520.

Is it a Night and Day difference? No. As what I'm talking about here, are nuances in the global sound reproduction... So the evaluation of the $$ vs performance value is to be considered on a very personal basis and appreciation.

Hugo

PS: I forgot to indicate, but all the products I mentioned above have been / are Audyssey Pro calibrated (save obviously the Onkyo 5007).
Edited by Hugo S - 1/31/13 at 1:11am

Hello,
If I was not using Martin Logan electrostats, I would agree. However, they tend to measure funky with the Audyssey Microphone. The only adjustment I ever need to make is with the Surrounds as they consistently measure below 70db's.
Cheers,
AD

Brian,
That is exactly how I am using the 4520. I did give some thought to the 8801, but the juice was not worth the squeeze considering just how similar the two are.
Best,
AD

I'm using my 4520 the same way. No way could I afford the 8801.

 

To find out more about Audyssey you might care to check out the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature. At the very least it will help you avoid making assumptions and then drawing false conclusions.  

 

The relevant section of the FAQ to the topic under discussion is this:

 

c)2.   Why do I often see advice to raise the Crossovers to 80Hz?