AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been having some problems with my old Pioneer VSX-52tx so I decided to give the Denon 4308ci a try.


It sounds like crap in comparison with the Pioneer. Specfically in the bass department, with a lot of muddying of the mid-bass. I also notice a lack of bass extension, even though I am running twin Infinity subs. Everything sounds equalized even when running in Direct stereo. Voices have a "whispy" sound, almost raspy. There just is no life in the mid-range. It sounds flat.


Dynamics are the one high point here. It must have good amps. But the processing for 2 channel is a joke in my opinion.


I'm running b&w cdm1 bookshelf mains with twin subwoofers for 2 channel with 80hz crossovers.


I have alot of experience with home audio, and I know that I've got everything setup properly. I am just so baffled that you can pay that much money for sound that's surpassed by a unit costing less than half.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I would love to hear such a dramatic difference by switching receivers. It would be a new experience for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by evac311 /forum/post/17017322


I have been having some problems with my old Pioneer VSX-52tx so I decided to give the Denon 4308ci a try.


It sounds like crap in comparison with the Pioneer. Specfically in the bass department, with a lot of muddying of the mid-bass. I also notice a lack of bass extension, even though I am running twin Infinity subs. Everything sounds equalized even when running in Direct stereo. Voices have a "whispy" sound, almost raspy. There just is no life in the mid-range. It sounds flat.


Dynamics are the one high point here. It must have good amps. But the processing for 2 channel is a joke in my opinion.


I'm running b&w cdm1 bookshelf mains with twin subwoofers for 2 channel with 80hz crossovers.


I have alot of experience with home audio, and I know that I've got everything setup properly. I am just so baffled that you can pay that much money for sound that's surpassed by a unit costing less than half.

Did y use Audyssey EQ at all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,815 Posts
In 6 years there have been a lot of changes in AVR's. What worked for your Pioneer is prblably very different in the Denon. I also would tend to doubt that the Pioneer would sound so much different than the 4308CI. Maybe you need to try out one of the new Elites from Pioneer instead brand jumping. You seem to have an "aquired" sound from the brand differentials that no one else has. Send it back while you can and try out the SC07/SC05 or one of the other Pioneer Elite models. Nothing to lose and everything to gain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,007 Posts
Sounds like a setup issue. And definitely mess with Audyssey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
No audessey engaged at present moment. Maybe I overstated the difference, but the difference is there. In reference to the poster who doesn't hear much diff btw receivers, I would tend to agree. I even tried running the Pioneer as a pre/amp and tried out a new 100 watt 2 channel Rotel, and I heard very little difference. I think it is related to the processing.


I beleive that I am being shorted by the Denon because I can't run it in direct mode for stereo listening because I run subwoofers. The Pioneer lets me run my subs in direct mode. Anyone know if the newer Pioneers do this also?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by evac311 /forum/post/17019825


I beleive that I am being shorted by the Denon because I can't run it in direct mode for stereo listening because I run subwoofers. The Pioneer lets me run my subs in direct mode. Anyone know if the newer Pioneers do this also?

You should be able to engage the subs in stereo mode.

Have you tried that as opposed to "direct'?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
One concept that confused me about your post was 'a lot of muddying of the midbass'. I can't fathom anything that would cause that in a receiver. Muddying would imply distortion. And midbass would imply excessive distortion in that region. Receivers have pretty low measured distortion. They clearly distort or the THD+N would be 0, but .01% THD is supposed to be nearly inaudible for example.


It's odd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
I have alot of experience with home audio, and I know that I've got everything setup properly. I am just so baffled that you can pay that much money for sound that's surpassed by a unit costing less than half.

You could actually just like the way the old system created a flawed sound. There are many, many "experts" that have actually never heard an accurate solution.


If you have never measured your system and found out the truth then you really do not know if you like accuracy or are just used to something flawed over the years.


btw, its okay to like flawed sound. You just need to realize that there are improvements over the years and if you did EQ your new setup I would bet its more accurate then the old one.


Conclusion is that people should never equate the sounds your ears/brains like to better Qualtity if there is no reference point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/17020831


One concept that confused me about your post was 'a lot of muddying of the midbass'. I can't fathom anything that would cause that in a receiver. Muddying would imply distortion. And midbass would imply excessive distortion in that region. Receivers have pretty low measured distortion. They clearly distort or the THD+N would be 0, but .01% THD is supposed to be nearly inaudible for example.


It's odd.

I would never tried to make a scientific judgment on a subjective term like muddy



more or less unless he posts measurements his explanations are going to mean almost anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by evac311 /forum/post/17019922


Anyone out there sell one? Or do I have to go with a multi-channel preamp to get bass management?

You could buy a Behringer 2310 or similar and run your main speaker pre-outs to it then to your mains and your subs it will handle all the crossovers for you very well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Agreed that descriptors aren't the same as numbers, but just because somebody tries to describe something without numbers doesn't mean it's not real. I mean, I'd rather have somebody say "it's an oval shape" than give me the formula that describes the shape. The math, in that instance would be meaningless. While I agree that words are less precise, I think they have meaning and are useful. It is obvious folly to suggest that somebody can't say they hear a difference unless they conduct adequate measurements to prove it. Otherwise, I can't state that Audyssey improves my sound, or that dynamic EQ makes things sound fuller, because I have not measured the differences in my room.


BTW to me "muddy midbass" indicates something more like a frequency response aberration - - boosted levels in a relatively narrow band can make things less clear in the bass region generally. It either is, or is related to, masking, I suspect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz /forum/post/17021595


Agreed that descriptors aren't the same as numbers, but just because somebody tries to describe something without numbers doesn't mean it's not real. I mean, I'd rather have somebody say "it's an oval shape" than give me the formula that describes the shape. The math, in that instance would be meaningless. While I agree that words are less precise, I think they have meaning and are useful. It is obvious folly to suggest that somebody can't say they hear a difference unless they conduct adequate measurements to prove it. Otherwise, I can't state that Audyssey improves my sound, or that dynamic EQ makes things sound fuller, because I have not measured the differences in my room.


BTW to me "muddy midbass" indicates something more like a frequency response aberration - - boosted levels in a relatively narrow band can make things less clear in the bass region generally. It either is, or is related to, masking, I suspect.

The problem with hearing a difference, they tend to equate it to better vs worse when its actually not. Its better or worse to them because they like a certain FR plot already....the new sound could be more accurate (hence generally better SQ) but we do not know until the measurements exist.


They can stand even just 1 foot of distance different and get nulls, that will create a different sound.


They can ignore level matching and get differences in the FR, that will create a different sound.


They are use to a specific sound and never realize that it has been inaccurate for years.


The ONLY way to really know is to just do the measurements. The equipment cost is below $200 and for all the $$$ spent on finding the best SQ I would think $200 is a no brainer decision.


To me 'muddy bass' speaks more about the room response and speakers then anything any AVR or amp would do so we all have a different idea of what the subjective word "muddy" means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by evac311 /forum/post/17017322


I have been having some problems with my old Pioneer VSX-52tx so I decided to give the Denon 4308ci a try.


It sounds like crap in comparison with the Pioneer. Specfically in the bass department, with a lot of muddying of the mid-bass. I also notice a lack of bass extension, even though I am running twin Infinity subs. Everything sounds equalized even when running in Direct stereo. Voices have a "whispy" sound, almost raspy. There just is no life in the mid-range. It sounds flat.


Dynamics are the one high point here. It must have good amps. But the processing for 2 channel is a joke in my opinion.


I'm running b&w cdm1 bookshelf mains with twin subwoofers for 2 channel with 80hz crossovers.


I have alot of experience with home audio, and I know that I've got everything setup properly. I am just so baffled that you can pay that much money for sound that's surpassed by a unit costing less than half.

What's the issue with the 52tx? I happen to have this receiver, and, after having tried the newer Pio's, would rather repair it than replace it. (Just me, of course, but I wasn't completely impressed with uncompressed DTS, etc and the 52 handles music, to my ears, really well using the "Game" mode -- sounds awesome to me and that particular DSP was not replicated in any other Pioneer, for whatever reason.) So I'm just curious what's going on with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtaylor0 /forum/post/17021685


What's the issue with the 52tx? I happen to have this receiver, and, after having tried the newer Pio's, would rather repair it than replace it. (Just me, of course, but I wasn't completely impressed with uncompressed DTS, etc and the 52 handles music, to my ears, really well using the "Game" mode -- sounds awesome to me and that particular DSP was not replicated in any other Pioneer, for whatever reason.) So I'm just curious what's going on with it.

The front two amplifiers shorted out, but it's still functional by using the b-speaker terminals for a 5 channel setup.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top