[gtommers]

I purchased Denon's 1940ci DVD/CD/SACD player recently, largely because the advertised burr brown PCM1738 looked pretty good spec wise:

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3560.asp (click on detailed specs)

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/pcm1738.html


A couple days ago I stumped upon a review of the 1940ci on Amazon where it was mentioned that the 1738 wasn't even used. Out of curiosity I opened up the cover and discovered that it uses the DSD1608 instead (which spec wise doesn't seem as impressive)!

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/dsd1608.html


I emailed Denon support and their response was basically "tough luck pal".

Am I justified in being annoyed by this?

 

[WilliamZX11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by gtommers /forum/post/16862746


I purchased Denon's 1940ci DVD/CD/SACD player recently, largely because the advertised burr brown PCM1738 looked pretty good spec wise:

Was it largely the DAC, or was it the $80 price tag?


I purchased the 1940ci (two actually) fully aware of this, and it didn't bother me a bit. I think people focus a way too much on what chip is used.


Both chips spec well beyond the abilities of human hearing. No way you would hear a difference between them.

 

[gtommers]



Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 /forum/post/16863077


Was it largely the DAC, or was it the $80 price tag?

It was both the DAC and the price. I don't know whether I could hear the difference, but it's frustrating that they publish inaccurate specs and aren't willing to correct them.

 

[Chu Gai]

Looking at the spec sheet you linked to, it makes no mention of PCM1738.

 

[WilliamZX11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/16863286


Looking at the spec sheet you linked to, it makes no mention of PCM1738.

They must have corrected it. It did say PCM1738 earlier when I first clicked on his link. They seem to have corrected the DVD-758 (same player) as well. Maybe they did pay attention to his email.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well, that's what I call a damned quick correction then! Either way I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[gtommers]

Wow, they did correct it already! I wasn't expecting them to do anything based on their response.

 

[sivadselim]

Thanks for the heads-up. I guess.....................


I recently purchased one, too, and assumed that it did incorporate the DACs that Denon claimed. And I, too, had printed out the specs at the TI site for the DACs used in my player and my AVR (of course, they were meaningless to me). I even found an article which mentioned that the 1738 used in the 1940ci was the same chip that Krell used in their something-or-other. So, I felt all warm and fuzzy about using the player's analog stereo outs and have, in fact, been doing most of my 2-channel listening that way, lately. And enjoying it.


I have always been one to say that the DACs used are, essentially, irrelevant as there are other factors involved and doing a fair comparison of DACs is almost impossible. That even if one could discern a difference, they would be hard-pressed, given a variety of listening material, to determine which they really found preferable. And that even if they did have a preference, attributing that preference solely to the DACs would not be possible.


Now, knowing that my player has inferior (?) DACs to those in my AVR, will I be able to practice what I preach?

(I'm amazed that they corrected it, too, btw. Good job!)

 

[Chu Gai]

Now the seed of doubt has been planted.

From my admittedly cursory reading of the spec sheets, the 1738, which TI says is NOT RECOMMENDED for new design and has been replaced by the 1796 (wonder why?), is a stereo DAC while the 1608 is a multiformat. The former would need to be interfaced to a DSD decoder for SACD while the latter doesn't appear to require this. Further, the former being stereo would require additional chips to give you multichannel playback while the latter wouldn't. That should simplify things for the manufacturer. In the end though, it's one of those things I wouldn't worry about.

 

[Denophile]

was this also true of the 1930?

 

[sivadselim]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Denophile /forum/post/16864973


was this also true of the 1930?

I would think that it is likely. If you open it up, please report your findiings.


I replaced my 757 (supposedly equivalent to 1930) with a 1940. The units are very similar but there ARE some differences. Namely, unlike the 757, the 1940's 2-channel outputs are not bass managed identically to the front L/R channels of the 5.1 output cluster. With the 757, if the front channels were set to SMALL, the player's crossover was also applied to the 2-channel outputs. I always thought this was pretty silly as it disallowed using the 2-channel outs as full-range outputs if the front channels were being bass managed for my multichannel analog output. I didn't realize this was a difference when I replaced the player with what I figured would be an almost identical unit. But it is a something that I am really appreciating. It allows me to very easily listen to the 2-channel tracks of SACDs and DVD-As in full-range, 2-channel only, with no subwoofer; something I like to do. With the 757, in order to do this, I would have had to go into the player's setup menus and change the front speakers from SMALL to LARGE. I guess it is possible that the 757/1930 does have the 1738 DACs and what I am describing is a fortunate consequence of what Chu Gai said, above.


BTW, the main reason I replaced the 757 with what is an almost identical player was mainly for the PAL capability. I was also hoping that the transport might be quieter than my 757's, which was terribly loud. And it IS much, much quieter. I was also hoping that there might be an outside chance that the 1940 didn't have the bass management flaw exhibited by the 757 with multichannel DVD-As. Unfortunately, as best I can tell, it has the same flaw.