or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The **OFFICIAL** DENON AVR-4520CI thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The **OFFICIAL** DENON AVR-4520CI thread - Page 201

post #6001 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Other than sighted listening tests between the two units, how did you discover this?

Steering and panning cues are embedded in the original sound codec and spatially located by the Mixer when he created the track - are you asking us to believe that Unit A will 'interpret' DTS HD MA 5.1 somehow differently to Unit B and will therefore reproduce sounds at different spatial locations?

I am not sure how anyone can do these tests blind when you have to swap like a tonne of interconnects (11.3) between the two.

 

If listening tests aren't done blind, level matched to +/- 0.5dB, with instantaneous switching, they have no value. Well, they're not 'tests', they're just subjective opinion and as such are subject to all the effects of expectation bias, placebo etc etc.

 

Quote:

 FWIW I have lived with the 4810 for an extensive period before switching to the 8801. I was not expecting this improvement. I was merely expecting to lower the noise coming from centre speaker which was driven by a monoblock hooked up to the 4810 using a long RCA interconnect, when I have the airconditioner unit on. Looking back, it makes sense as the improvement in imaging is something you get when moving from integrateds to pre/power combos.

As for the interconnect issue, I have mentioned this before. When I was using cheap optical interconnects and then swapping them to pricier ones - no difference with DTS/DD bitstream but there was an improvement with PCM data.

 

Not according to all the known science. Again, without objective tests, there's no point discussing it. You believe you heard a difference and I am sure you did hear a difference. But the difference was caused by the flawed 'test' method used (no level matching, no instantaneous switching, sighted) and not by the cables.

post #6002 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

^Agreed, Woof, it is quite time-consuming and complex to A/B processors for subjective SQ and still control for auditory memory.  One really has to have quality switching box to do more rigorously controlled A/B testing .  Very, very few people do this.  So almost ALL reports we have are not controlled in this way, though admirably some reviewers like Kal Rubinson have used such a box.  In addition, almost no reports use level-match to control for another common testing error.  And almost no tests reported here are done listener blind, much less double-blind.  In fact most hobbyist  reports don't even mention use of any controls.

 

Exactly. Which is why, of course, such 'tests' have no real value. It's just someone saying "I bought the XXXX cable/amp/gizmo and installed it and the treble opened up and the soundstage was much more defined and the space between notes was darker etc etc". Mumbo jumbo. It doesn't really help anyone and it's dangerous because some people might believe these reports and spend money based on them. There's no place for them on a science forum IMO.  Every piece of scientific evidence points to cables making zero difference to the sound, so long as the basics of resistance, inductance and capacitance are all within tolerances, which they are in every cable Monoprice sells for a few dollars. Every $ spent above the Monoprice dollar is a wasted dollar in terms of SQ and it does nobody a service when people swear they can hear all these differences from 'exotic' or expensive cables. They CAN hear differences of course - but the differences aren't caused by the cables - they are caused by imperfect testing methodology, such as you describe above.

 

 

Quote:

 So I ALWAYS take subjective hobbyist reports, including my own, with a grain of salt. :D

 

Wise move. So do I. Mine I mean, not yours. Well yeah, yours as well. LOL!  In fact I prefer not to post subjective views on sound quality at all anyway.

post #6003 of 7730
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Most blu ray discs do NOT have a stereo track...of JUST the film anyway. DTS HD MA for instance is the lossless track with a lossy core, there is no stereo track 95% of time...at least. 19 times out of 20 the stereo track that does exist on the disc is the director/producers/actors commentary. This quickly becomes obvious to someone when they rip a few hundred blu rays onto an HDD.

That is not actually accurate. While there is not a separate selectable stereo track, all HD audio tracks are configured with built-in legacy stereo support. This is accomplished through the decoder and is standard functionality. Dolby TrueHD for example is constructed as a stereo mix with "extensions" for the additional 3.1 or 5.1 channels. If the player is set to stereo output (e.g. when connected to a TV) the decoder will automatically play the hi-rez 2.0 PCM downmix. Any Blu-ray player will have the ability to natively decode HD audio tracks to 2.0 PCM stereo output.

I believe you about the WDTV, but I think overall (outside of some exceptional cases like that device) it's something which is not of any practical concern for 99% of users. Again, all Blu-ray players, DVD players, cable/sat boxes, video games systems, Roku, ATV, etc. can be configured for 2.0 PCM output.
post #6004 of 7730
^ What I said (and you quoted) was and is 100% accurate and you're word-maneuvering (or simply misinterpreting) what I typed and creating a needless strawman.

DolbyTrue HD or DTS soundtracks are not "constructed" as stereo mixes with extensions. Please show me such an assertion ANYWHERE in either specification where that is the case...or find a studio mixer attest to such a claim. They are DISCREET mixes that are not necessarily more "constructed" around any one channel than the next. "Downmixes" incorporate mutlichannel audio into a reduced package...it's not just a left and right channel sum. This is inherent to the very term. Again, there is no stereo track "embedded" anywhere within the multi-channel codec...the player (or tv) is downmixing the mutlichannel content...which is a pretty straightforward process (this is the "support", I suppose rolleyes.gif), but an important distinction, nonetheless. Call Dolby, DTS, Oppo or whomever you wish to confirm.

But I'm not going to argue about it. It won't be an issue for most as I've already noted and you reiterated.

James
post #6005 of 7730

Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA have nothing at all to do with 5.1, 7.1 or stereo. They are codecs. Ways to compress and uncompress content. 

post #6006 of 7730
My referral to them (the two codecs) above is pretty clearly (or so I thought) alluding to the mixes bearing their respective logos. When one alludes to their "soundtracks" I think it's reasonable to infer that some one is speaking about what is within/on that particular track not that there is some necessary direct correlation. My pointing out of the spec of either not containing such a connection is also an acknowledgment that such a relationship does not exist.

James
post #6007 of 7730
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA have nothing at all to do with 5.1, 7.1 or stereo. They are codecs. Ways to compress and uncompress content. 

Sorry Keith, I disagree. We are wading deep into pedantic stuff here but they clearly have SOMETHING to do with the number of channels of content. Although it's analogous to something like a ZIP file in the sense that it compresses data to reduce file size, they are, inherently, codecs with specifical functional structures to accommodate delivery of multiple channels of content.

For example, a DTS-MASTER 7.1 mix will contain specific downmix coefficients for the surround channels to allow playback in 5.1 while preserving the mixer's intended spectral balance. There are even options for "remapping" the physical location of channels.

Obviously you could choose to use a codec to encode a 2.0, 3.1, 5.1, 7.1, or whatever channel soundtrack. But it's not just "dumb" compression where it is simply taking data and compressing it with no regard for what type of content is in the file. It is compression with a specific structure, that structure being designed specifically to accomodate multiple channels of audio.
post #6008 of 7730
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

DolbyTrue HD or DTS soundtracks are not "constructed" as stereo mixes with extensions. Please show me such an assertion ANYWHERE in either specification where that is the case...or find a studio mixer attest to such a claim.

Quoting from a Dolby white paper, with my bolding for emphasis: http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/white_papers/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf
Quote:
Dolby Digital Evolves into Dolby Digital Plus

Dolby Research and Technical Development engineers were challenged to find a way to bring these new channels to home theaters of the future, yet to do so in a manner that would maintain the utility of the tens of millions of digital 5.1-channel home theater systems, all of which support Dolby Digital decoding. From its inception, Dolby Digital was not bound to any prior channel extension methodology, and could therefore benefit from the subsequent developments of other multichannel codecs.

One example of a channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels, as shown in Figure 1. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”). The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.” So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.

The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations. Figure 2 shows how these substreams are used to construct the various presentations. If a listener desires a stereo presentation, the decoder plays only the two-channel downmix, thereby minimizing DSP resources for the simplest hardware products—a useful idea. If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it by rematrixing the above reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two-channel extension B substream.

(snip....)

Due to the substream structure of Dolby TrueHD, a single Dolby TrueHD program can be used to deliver a two-, six-, or eight-channel presentation, each with precise control over the presentation as defined by the content producer. This means that an HD player only needs to decode the number of channels it can output, thus enabling more economical DSP decoder designs.


The point, albeit pedantic, is that the "player" isn't providing the "downmix" as some sort of bonus technology. The downmix is delivered through functionality inherent to the HD audio decoder itself. Any device which is capable of decoding DTS-HD/MA or Dolby TrueHD sould be able to do it if they have implemented the decoder as designed. I guess it's arguably a "distinction without difference" since the end result is the same.... but the broader point (with which you seem to agree) is that it's simply not going to present an issue in the context you originally presented (the end user being screwed because 2.0 PCM isn't available) because stereo legacy support is mandatory on all Blu-ray players and I assume all cable/sat boxes as well.
post #6009 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

My referral to them (the two codecs) above is pretty clearly (or so I thought) alluding to the mixes bearing their respective logos. When one alludes to their "soundtracks" I think it's reasonable to infer that some one is speaking about what is within/on that particular track not that there is some necessary direct correlation. My pointing out of the spec of either not containing such a connection is also an acknowledgment that such a relationship does not exist.

James

 

I was just clarifying that codecs are codecs. Not disagreeing with you.

post #6010 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA have nothing at all to do with 5.1, 7.1 or stereo. They are codecs. Ways to compress and uncompress content. 

Sorry Keith, I disagree. We are wading deep into pedantic stuff here but they clearly have SOMETHING to do with the number of channels of content. Although it's analogous to something like a ZIP file in the sense that it compresses data to reduce file size, they are, inherently, codecs with specifical functional structures to accommodate delivery of multiple channels of content.

 

No bp, DTS HD MA and Dolby True HD have absolutely nothing at all to do with the number of channels. They are simply codecs. Nothing more and nothing less. They just take the original content, whatever it is, and compress it. It is later uncompressed by the player or the AVR and, once uncompressed back into LPCM, then that is where the channel information is held. You could use either codec to compress a 5.1 channel track, or a 7.1 channel track, or a 9.1 channel track or an 11.1 channel track or even a 2 channel track.  They're just two different compression methods, each with their merits and demerits in terms of efficiency etc, but nothing to do with channels.

 

Quote:
 For example, a DTS-MASTER 7.1 mix will contain specific downmix coefficients for the surround channels to allow playback in 5.1

 

Nope. The original uncompressed master will contain that information. DTS-HD MA is just the compression method used to squish it onto a Bluray disc.

 

 

Quote:
 Obviously you could choose to use a codec to encode a 2.0, 3.1, 5.1, 7.1, or whatever channel soundtrack. But it's not just "dumb" compression where it is simply taking data and compressing it with no regard for what type of content is in the file. It is compression with a specific structure, that structure being designed specifically to accomodate multiple channels of audio.

 

Nope. Not in my understanding of it. I agree it ain;t dumb - it's pretty clever in fact. But True HD and DTS HD MA aren't concerned with the 'structure' of the track.  They have no idea what is in the content of the original and nor do they care. That's why they yield identical sonic results. They no more care what is in the content than ZIP or RAR care what is in the Word document, or how many pages it is, or how it is formatted, or what font is used etc.

post #6011 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

DolbyTrue HD or DTS soundtracks are not "constructed" as stereo mixes with extensions. Please show me such an assertion ANYWHERE in either specification where that is the case...or find a studio mixer attest to such a claim.

Quoting from a Dolby white paper, with my bolding for emphasis: http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/white_papers/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf
Quote:
Dolby Digital Evolves into Dolby Digital Plus

Dolby Research and Technical Development engineers were challenged to find a way to bring these new channels to home theaters of the future, yet to do so in a manner that would maintain the utility of the tens of millions of digital 5.1-channel home theater systems, all of which support Dolby Digital decoding. From its inception, Dolby Digital was not bound to any prior channel extension methodology, and could therefore benefit from the subsequent developments of other multichannel codecs.

One example of a channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels, as shown in Figure 1. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”). The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.” So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.

The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations. Figure 2 shows how these substreams are used to construct the various presentations. If a listener desires a stereo presentation, the decoder plays only the two-channel downmix, thereby minimizing DSP resources for the simplest hardware products—a useful idea. If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it by rematrixing the above reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two-channel extension B substream.

(snip....)

Due to the substream structure of Dolby TrueHD, a single Dolby TrueHD program can be used to deliver a two-, six-, or eight-channel presentation, each with precise control over the presentation as defined by the content producer. This means that an HD player only needs to decode the number of channels it can output, thus enabling more economical DSP decoder designs.


The point, albeit pedantic, is that the "player" isn't providing the "downmix" as some sort of bonus technology. The downmix is delivered through functionality inherent to the HD audio decoder itself. Any device which is capable of decoding DTS-HD/MA or Dolby TrueHD sould be able to do it if they have implemented the decoder as designed. I guess it's arguably a "distinction without difference" since the end result is the same.... but the broader point (with which you seem to agree) is that it's simply not going to present an issue in the context you originally presented (the end user being screwed because 2.0 PCM isn't available) because stereo legacy support is mandatory on all Blu-ray players and I assume all cable/sat boxes as well.

 

 

All that channel information - what sound gets reproduced by what speaker and so on is put there in the original track in the mixing studio. No compression needed. But it won't fit a BD disc so we have to compress it, which is where these two codecs come into it. Otherwise, we'd have to receive our movies on hard drives - just like the cinemas do. And I know you will agree that the cinema soundtracks contain all the necessary channel information :) And they don't go within a zillion miles of DTS HD MA or True HD.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 10/15/13 at 3:11pm
post #6012 of 7730
Thread Starter 
I'm sorry Keith but you're wrong. It's not just a simple data compression. It's compression with a STRUCTURE designed to accomodate delivery of multiple channels of content.

Look at it this way -- if the codec didn't have ANYTHING to do with the number of channels, why is standard DTS or DTS-HD limited to 5.1 channels? Whereas DTS-HD Master Audio is required to support 7.1 discrete channels? If all it was doing was squishing the data, why would it care what the data was? Clearly the number of channels has a FUNDAMENTAL structural connection to the design of the codec.

For example, from this DTS white paper: http://www.opusproductions.com/pdfs/DTS_HD_WhitePaper.pdf
Quote:
3.0 DTS Core Plus Extension Data Structure

Fundamental to the original DTS Coherent Acoustics system is the core + extension architecture, shown below. It is this structure that ensures full backward compatibility with all decoders, no matter the enhancement, present, or future. Simply stated, the core contains the Coherent Acoustics 5.1-channel 44.1 or 48 kHz data stream, which any DTS decoder can process. Extensions to the core contain other data: additional channels, data for higher sampling rates or enhancements not yet devised.

So it's not simply "take data, squish it, call it day". The WAY the data is squished is fundamentally aligned to the structure of the multi-channel audio content.

I don't see how you can dispute this after reading the quotes I noted above from the TrueHD whitepaper. For example look at this sentence describing how the CODEC works to support different channel deliveries: "The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations." This implies clearly that the channel struture is PART of the codec. Not just simple data squishing.
post #6013 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I'm sorry Keith but you're wrong. It's not just a simple data compression. It's compression with a STRUCTURE designed to accomodate delivery of multiple channels of content.

Look at it this way -- if the codec didn't have ANYTHING to do with the number of channels, why is standard DTS or DTS-HD limited to 5.1 channels? Whereas DTS-HD Master Audio is required to support 7.1 discrete channels? If all it was doing was squishing the data, why would it care what the data was? Clearly the number of channels has a FUNDAMENTAL structural connection to the design of the codec.

 

It's 5.1 because that is what the original content was mixed in. IDK why 7.1 is DTS - maybe it's a licensing thing? But the number of channels is nothing to do with how the data is compressed. The number of channels is embedded in the original, uncompressed content, clearly. 

 

 

Quote:

 For example, from this DTS white paper: http://www.opusproductions.com/pdfs/DTS_HD_WhitePaper.pdf
Quote:
3.0 DTS Core Plus Extension Data Structure

Fundamental to the original DTS Coherent Acoustics system is the core + extension architecture, shown below. It is this structure that ensures full backward compatibility with all decoders, no matter the enhancement, present, or future. Simply stated, the core contains the Coherent Acoustics 5.1-channel 44.1 or 48 kHz data stream, which any DTS decoder can process. Extensions to the core contain other data: additional channels, data for higher sampling rates or enhancements not yet devised.

So it's not simply "take data, squish it, call it day". The WAY the data is squished is fundamentally aligned to the structure of the multi-channel audio content.

I don't see how you can dispute this after reading the quotes I noted above from the TrueHD whitepaper. For example look at this sentence describing how the CODEC works to support different channel deliveries: "The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations." This implies clearly that the channel struture is PART of the codec. Not just simple data squishing.

 

Of course the original 5.1 data is 'contained' in the TrueHD/DTS 'bucket'. But it could just as easily be 9.1 or 11.1 - once studis get around to making original content with that number of channels.

 

Why would the WAY the date is squished matter?  All the channel info is in the original PCM content. It's like saying that ZIP is fundamentally aligned to the content of a Word document.

 

I can't argue with your quote but I don't have the context to help me.

 

Perhaps we should invite Roger Dressler in to arbitrate?

post #6014 of 7730
Thread Starter 
Just to be clear, my quibble is with your use of the word "nothing". Clearly is has SOMETHING to do with with the number of channels. That's impossible to deny given the quotes from the white papers above.

Quote:
It's like saying that ZIP is fundamentally aligned to the content of a Word document.

Not at all. Because a ZIP file can be used to compress a Word document, an Excel file, a TIFF image, a CSV file.... anything at all. The DTS-HD codec can ONLY be used to compress multichannel digital audio. So, again, clearly, there is SOME relation.
post #6015 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Just to be clear, my quibble is with your use of the word "nothing". Clearly is has SOMETHING to do with with the number of channels. That's impossible to deny given the quotes from the white papers above.
Not at all. Because a ZIP file can be used to compress a Word document, an Excel file, a TIFF image, a CSV file.... anything at all. The DTS-HD codec can ONLY be used to compress multichannel digital audio. So, again, clearly, there is SOME relation.

Guys.....I'm reading all this via airplane WiFi while I'm on the way to LA on business. No offense, but isn't this pedantic, although entertaining argument completely OT? This would make a good thread elsewhere, though.
post #6016 of 7730
Thread Starter 
Very much so Stu smile.gif
post #6017 of 7730
I disagree with the idea of blind tests because of the time constraints and often because of lack of familiarity with the system and source material in most of the tests conducted.

It is only when you live with the same gear over time that you have a better understanding of how it performs.
post #6018 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Just to be clear, my quibble is with your use of the word "nothing". Clearly is has SOMETHING to do with with the number of channels. That's impossible to deny given the quotes from the white papers above.
 
Quote:
It's like saying that ZIP is fundamentally aligned to the content of a Word document.

Not at all. Because a ZIP file can be used to compress a Word document, an Excel file, a TIFF image, a CSV file.... anything at all. The DTS-HD codec can ONLY be used to compress multichannel digital audio. So, again, clearly, there is SOME relation.

 

Stu is right - this is the wrong place to discuss it. I am happy to be proven wrong on this batpig - I'll ask Roger if he would mind giving us his view. If anyone can be the definitive arbiter of this, it is Roger.

post #6019 of 7730

Keith, I agree.  The part of this pedantic HD audio discussion I liked most was that it effectively kept us from yet more pedantic subjective listening vs objective measuring, scientific vs not scientific, valid vs worthless, audio tests discussion.  :D

 

Now, may I suggest again that the latter be taken to other more appropriate threads if anyone cares to hash it out yet again?  I offered a specific DenonLink/jitter thread link for that discussion and there are similar threads for BAB, cables, etc. :) 

post #6020 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

Keith, I agree.  The part of this pedantic HD audio discussion I liked most was that it effectively kept us from yet more pedantic subjective listening vs objective measuring, scientific vs not scientific, valid vs worthless, audio tests discussion.  :D

 

Now, may I suggest again that the latter be taken to other more appropriate threads if anyone cares to hash it out yet again?  I offered a specific DenonLink/jitter thread link for that discussion and there are similar threads for BAB, cables, etc. :) 

 

:)  I agree.

 

The only bit I am not sure whether I agree or not is whether the discussion on Denon Link is OT in a Denon thread. And, of course, once the issue of DL is raised, then it raises the question as to what problem DL aims to solve and this in turn raises the problem of whether jitter is audible. Some of us will take the view that DL is a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist; others will say the opposite. And this then leads into who is right and who isn't. Those who can support their view with scientific evidence will take that line and those who cannot will be forced to rely on subjective waffle. And this then leads to a discussion as to which of these two camps is right or not :)

 

Everything is connected. But yes, it has been aired now and can be put to one side. I'll get my coat:D 

 

Actually, I am not sure that the discussion on which is more useful - subjective waffle or objective fact - falls under the heading of "pedantic" but it is perhaps pedantic to say so :)

post #6021 of 7730

^He-he. Sir, I'll get my coat as well and we can take a nice stroll down Pedantic Lane.:)

post #6022 of 7730
What is the deal with buying the 4520 and the 3313?

Where does one find it and what is the total cost?

Thanks

Custer
post #6023 of 7730

^The way to find out is to call AVS, for ex., jdsmoothie, for the info and a great deal:

"JD" - AVScience Sales, Direct phone --> 585-645-1006 

M-F 5pm - 9pm EST (nights/weekends when on line)

post #6024 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Custer View Post

What is the deal with buying the 4520 and the 3313?

Where does one find it and what is the total cost?

Thanks

Custer

They are available with manufacturer's warranty from any authorized D&M merchant, which includes AVS. Visit the Denon Web site to find a brick-and-mortar store near you. The Magnolia stores that are in some of the larger Best Buy stores are one option, although you'll probably get better service from smaller dealers. Bear in mind that authorized sellers are only allowed to publicly advertise what's sometimes known as the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Sales Price (MSRP), but if you call them on the phone or visit them in person, you'll be quoted a much lower price.

If you search the Web, you'll find resellers advertising prices which are much lower than MSRP, but they are unauthorized dealers. If you buy from them, you'll also have to purchase a 3rd party warranty. SquareTrade is a popular warranty source.

Edited to add:

The 4520 and 3313 were released in 2012, so they're actually last year's models. The 3313 was replaced this summer by the X4000. As a result, you're likely to very good pricing for the 3313. The flagship 4520 was not replaced, though. A newer version isn't expected until fall of 2014.
Edited by Selden Ball - 10/16/13 at 6:09am
post #6025 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

^He-he. Sir, I'll get my coat as well and we can take a nice stroll down Pedantic Lane.:)

 

:)  I just got back from a 60 minute walk down Soaking Wet Lane. It was so wet, my dog ran ahead for the entire walk and got home before me. Sometimes I wonder whose benefit he thinks these walks are for!

post #6026 of 7730
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Just to be clear, my quibble is with your use of the word "nothing". Clearly is has SOMETHING to do with with the number of channels. That's impossible to deny given the quotes from the white papers above.

 
Quote:
It's like saying that ZIP is fundamentally aligned to the content of a Word document.


Not at all. Because a ZIP file can be used to compress a Word document, an Excel file, a TIFF image, a CSV file.... anything at all. The DTS-HD codec can ONLY be used to compress multichannel digital audio. So, again, clearly, there is SOME relation.

Stu is right - this is the wrong place to discuss it. I am happy to be proven wrong on this batpig - I'll ask Roger if he would mind giving us his view. If anyone can be the definitive arbiter of this, it is Roger.

We'll be happy then because I already proved you wrong wink.gif the quotes and white papers I have referenced demonstrate unequivocally that the codecs have SOMETHING to do with the channel structure. But you are welcome to ask Roger.
post #6027 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

The 3313 was replaced this summer by the X4000. As a result, you're likely to very good pricing for the 3313.

I think the question was about DBT-3313UDCI, not AVR-3313CI.
post #6028 of 7730
So let me confirm. That deal with the Denon DBT-3313UDCI. That was legit???? REALLY???????
Edited by harrybnbad - 10/16/13 at 4:42pm
post #6029 of 7730
Yep
post #6030 of 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Just to be clear, my quibble is with your use of the word "nothing". Clearly is has SOMETHING to do with with the number of channels. That's impossible to deny given the quotes from the white papers above.

 
Quote:
It's like saying that ZIP is fundamentally aligned to the content of a Word document.


Not at all. Because a ZIP file can be used to compress a Word document, an Excel file, a TIFF image, a CSV file.... anything at all. The DTS-HD codec can ONLY be used to compress multichannel digital audio. So, again, clearly, there is SOME relation.

Stu is right - this is the wrong place to discuss it. I am happy to be proven wrong on this batpig - I'll ask Roger if he would mind giving us his view. If anyone can be the definitive arbiter of this, it is Roger.

We'll be happy then because I already proved you wrong wink.gif the quotes and white papers I have referenced demonstrate unequivocally that the codecs have SOMETHING to do with the channel structure. But you are welcome to ask Roger.

 

 

batpig, and everyone.... here is my dinner for tonight:

 

 

 

Roger has replied. I owe you an apology, batpig, and here it is. You were right, buddy, and I was wrong. Every one of my posts on this topic can be safely regarded as nonsense.  As my old grandaddy used to say, "We live and learn. But mostly, live..."  Well I have learned something new and I am happy to have done so. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The **OFFICIAL** DENON AVR-4520CI thread