thoughts on denon?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
the funny thing is that today the soundwise there no difference between all those brands.
difference mainly in extra features supposedly for user's convenience.
so perhaps you should do your choise mainly based on those extras, such like availability of
phono stage, analog multichanel interface, multichannel pre-out, multizone, supported formats, etc.
and of course your funds for such purchase. so in general all comes to "how many extras i'll get for my buck"
 
I have to disagree, in my experience they don't all sound the same!

I went from a Denon receiver (AVR1910) to a Yamaha (RXV-2067) and the difference is night and day!

Admittedly the Denon was a low-mid range receiver (£500) and the Yamaha a mid to higher end (£1,000) so not a direct comparison, in fairness you'd expect the more expensive model to be better spec'd and have more watts per channel etc than the Denon.. but even factoring in the price difference (and with experience of my neighbours' Denon 3310 which was disappointing and why i pursued an alternative when it came time to upgrade) in every regard the Yamaha wipes the floor with it my old Denon!

The Yamaha sounds so much warmer and smoother yet still sounds accurate across all the mids, highs and lows.

plus I prefer Yamaha's YPAO room EQ and parametric EQ
to the Denon's Audyssey (which always gave me bloated bass and rolled off high frequencies no matter how many times I calibrated it!) and Denon's graphic EQ was pretty useless too.

To top it all off the Denon remote control was totally terrible, a two-sided affair where the simplified side had too little control and the main side was a cluttered mess of teeny tiny buttons! On the other hand in this regard the Yamaha receiver is great and even comes with two remotes! One little remote control for basic everyday volume/input changes, the main chunkier one has its own LCD display and plenty of buttons (some less used functions are hidden under a flap) for tweaking and everything else.
 
I've generally been disappointed in modern receivers compared to my vintage marantz quad amp, but if you want modern surround decoders and hdmi connections, it's a necessary evil. One of my biggest disappointments with the Denon I picked up is I went out of my way to get a model that has a multi-channel analog input, only to find out that none of the EQ settings can be applied to this input at all, making it useless unless I pick up some external equalizers. So, I'll never use it now, and can't listen to any quad materials on my main system anymore, only conversions. I'm often tempted to set the marantz back up and just hook the oppo up directly to that, but it would make everything else such a pain in the ass...
 
one thing I do agree with is the bang for buck!

The Denon had 3 hdmi's, no pre outs, no GUI or hdmi onscreen overlay.

Whereas the Yamaha has 8 Hdmi in's, 2 Hdmi out's (so I can drive my Projector and TV at the same time), 7.2 pre out's
and a lovely colourful comprehensive full GUI that overlays via Hdmi.

Oh and the more expensive Yamaha also has Ethernet connectivity for streaming music files from the PC, Internet radio and the ability to bitstream DSD direct from my SACD player.
 
Many have weighed in already. There is some truth to what everyone has said. Admittedly, I haven't shopped for a receiver in years, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with specific models currently available. Otto has a great point. Although I don't believe all brands are the same, all the major brands are very good. Denon/Marantz (same brand today), Yamaha, Onkyo/Integra and Pioneer, you won't go wrong with any of them. As someone who sold hi-fi in both the Quad and modern eras, here's what you should consider:

1- Your price range. Based on the Denon AVR 1910, I'd assume under $600.
2- Connectivity. Exactly what/how many devices do you intend to hook up? What do you intend to add in the future? 6ch analog inputs?
3- Features. What's important to you? Surround/decoding/synthesis modes? Multi-zone? Ease of operation? Remote control layout?
4- Sound. You need to LISTEN and COMPARE. At the same store, with the same software, same speakers, same tone settings (neutral or bypassed), and at the same volume level, switch back and forth. Do you hear a difference? If so, what appeals to you. Use music as your demo. A very well-recorded modern recording is preferable. If you listen to any amount of classical music, use that as your demo, since it is acoustic music that will more easily reveal the accuracy and flaws (or lack thereof.)
5- Buying gear on-line sounds like a great proposition, but exchanges and tech support become dicey. Personal service can be a worthwhile value-added benefit. Many people use stores as the demo center for the on-line retailers. I question the ethics of this method. A great independent retailer is a Godsend, if there is such a thing in your area.

10 years ago, when I sold surround, I sold all the aforementioned brands. Although I use B&K seperates for my main system, I own both Denon and Onkyo surround receivers. I also own an old Marantz Quad amp. The old Quad gear had a better build quality than the lower priced (under $1000) modern receivers, though they have limitations and may not be well suited to today's digital world. Modern equipment incorporating multi-channel analog inputs can do any of the old Quad formats, with the proper tape equipment, decoders, and/or demodulators attached to it. That is the best of both worlds.
 
I have done all the R&D regarding avr's. the absolute best for the money are Onkyo's. mid-level start with pre out and multi channel analog inputs. Higher level with burr-brown dacs all with on screen gui. higher leverls also incorperate the qdeo-marvell chip for video prosessing.I used to love Dennons until I got a Intengra. Been running this thing 12 yrs now without it ever being pulled for service. I will admit the higher level Dennons are terrific though.
Bottom line is the advice QL gave.
 
I have to disagree, in my experience they don't all sound the same!
I went from a Denon receiver (AVR1910) to a Yamaha (RXV-2067) and the difference is night and day!

i have both brands, Yamaha and Denon and can assure you, in the pure direct output, when digital processing isn't involved,
there absolutely no difference in the quality of the sound. those features, which let you tweak the sound nothing but an extra
and varying from the model to model even within one brand.

I've generally been disappointed in modern receivers compared to my vintage marantz quad amp, but if you want modern surround decoders and hdmi connections, it's a necessary evil. One of my biggest disappointments with the Denon I picked up is I went out of my way to get a model that has a multi-channel analog input, only to find out that none of the EQ settings can be applied to this input at all, making it useless unless

that's intentional with purpose to deliver unaltered audio stream to end of the system chain - speakers.
in your case you cannot blame amplification but source of the sound, which is dull enough and in needs EQ
tweaking to be improved in accordance to your preferences. there are numerous titles issued in HiRes which
freq.wise balanced very well and sounds incredible good in direct mode without use additional EQing.
i have bunch of antic amps and receivers and none of them can beat, from the view of sound reproduction,
modern amplification.
 
Onkyo appear to be good value for money and they generally garner good reviews for their sound and features but they seemingly have a terrible reputation for reliability. Just search on avs or av forums for owners' threads (so many horror stories!) and you'll see what i mean.

Sony receivers are reportedly only worth considering at the very top end of their range. I had a mid range Sony a few years ago and it was dreadful, crucially particularly lacking for music.

Anecdotally Pioneer do not appear to have as flat/neutral a sound as most of the competition and only their latest range is well-specced in number of Hdmi inputs, features etc.

Unfortunately Integra do not feature in the UK, nor H/K very much and Rotel seem not to have updated their receiver line for some time, so despite Rotel's great sound quality for the money, if you need newer features such as 3D etc, you can discount them.

As a safe bet, unless you can audition (or better still try components in your own home) if you have to blind buy I'd choose a mid to higher end Denon, Marantz or Yamaha over any but the most expensive Onkyo or Sony receiver, or go for Pioneer if you like a brighter, more forward sound.
 
If you insist there's no difference in the unadulterated "pure" sound between Denon and Yamaha just on the basis of the sonic signature of their amplification thats your call Otto, i don't agree but still i respect your opinion.

Crucially, where EQ and DSP are concerned (in effect the sound delivered to the speaker system after processing) thats the killer blow for me in a shoot out between my Denon and Yamaha, not least because Pure Direct is something I seldom use for multi channel music or movies because I find it too limiting.

My biggest bugbear with Denon is that they use Audyssey which I find too inaccurate, resulting in boomy low end and lacking treble detail. Plus you can't tweak Audyssey MultEQ after its calibration set up has given you the room correction results.

Conversely the YPAO of Yamaha does allow you to use the systems set up findings as a base to then tweak the sound output to your liking. Also the YPAO on my higher end Yamaha features Subwoofer calibration which my old Audyssey featured Denon did not.
 
If you insist there's no difference in the unadulterated "pure" sound between Denon and Yamaha just on the basis of the sonic signature of their amplification thats your call Otto, i don't agree but still i respect your opinion.

Crucially, where EQ and DSP are concerned (in effect the sound delivered to the speaker system after processing) thats the killer blow for me in a shoot out between my Denon and Yamaha, not least because Pure Direct is something I seldom use for multi channel music or movies because I find it too limiting.


sound reproduction by amplifying of fed to amps signal is a main purpose of amps/receivers.
inspite of different brands, the principal schematic is very similar and often uses same components
from single supplier. main objective of ideal sound re-creation is to deliver the sound to the speakers
in maximum possible flat condition with none (or minimum) distortions and coloration by the circuit of
amplification. and all modern gears from mid to top class doing today this job just perfectly.
use of build-in decoders, DSP, EQ, calibration systems has another purpose and, as i mentioned above,
may differ pretty significant between brands and even models of the same brand.
thus i believe today quality of the sound more rely on those, who did recorded/mastered sound, than
on the hardware amplification
 
sound reproduction by amplifying of fed to amps signal is a main purpose of amps/receivers.
inspite of different brands, the principal schematic is very similar and often uses same components
from single supplier. main objective of ideal sound re-creation is to deliver the sound to the speakers
in maximum possible flat condition with none (or minimum) distortions and coloration by the circuit of
amplification. and all modern gears from mid to top class doing today this job just perfectly.
use of build-in decoders, DSP, EQ, calibration systems has another purpose and, as i mentioned above,
may differ pretty significant between brands and even models of the same brand.
thus i believe today quality of the sound more rely on those, who did recorded/mastered sound, than
on the hardware amplification

if, as you suggest, all modern receivers feature the same amplifier stages and hence sound the same, what's the point of all these brands even existing?!

Beyond maybe their individual DSP implementation, or feature count, or even aesthetics.. what's the point if a major part of all their guts is the same and sounds the same??

I accept that often there's many, great similarities these days between Denon & Marantz receivers, they are one and the same now they're D&M Holdings and tech specs in many models of Denon & Marantz kit are identical, so that I would concede.

However I can't believe that a Pioneer receiver with, say, ICE amplification can/will sound just like the Class D amps in a Rotel receiver, or the A/B amplification in another manufacturers' receiver. Flat response/distortion levels etc, whatever.. These differing technologies have their own particular sound qualities even before you go into what DAC's a receiver has, or even before those amps have been tuned by the receivers' designers & engineers.

I'm sure all the receiver manufacturers would have something to say (much more eloquently and hopefully technically accurate & factual than I can muster!) on the matter that the internals of their receivers are just the same as their competitors!!!
 
I went from a Denon receiver (AVR1910) to a Yamaha (RXV-2067) and the difference is night and day!

I went from a Yamaha RX-V1800 to a Denon 4310, and my experience was that any sonic differences were too subtle for me to perceive. However, the Denon did have several features that I wanted, and I've been extremely pleased with it.
 
Wow, just found this thread, this is the best argument for separates. A preamp/processor with all the inputs and processing you might want, with good analog outs; driving monoblocks, stereo, or multichannel power amps, or the power amp stage of 2 or 3 stereos, a quad receiver, or modern receiver. This way we could separate (mostly) the sound quality from the functionality. That said, I don't have a dedicated pre/pro myself, but that's a cost decision.
 
I've used separates for nearly 35 years. If you're willing to devote the extra space and $$$, it IS the way to go. Even as used gear, somehow I don't think separates are going to hit that $600 price point.

Wow, just found this thread, this is the best argument for separates. A preamp/processor with all the inputs and processing you might want, with good analog outs; driving monoblocks, stereo, or multichannel power amps, or the power amp stage of 2 or 3 stereos, a quad receiver, or modern receiver. This way we could separate (mostly) the sound quality from the functionality. That said, I don't have a dedicated pre/pro myself, but that's a cost decision.
 
I'm a Denon man having owned 7-8 of them, I also own Marantz 4140, Proton D940 etc for reference.

The living room system (less critical) now has the AVR-2112CI; I was able to score one for little more than the AVR-1912 was going for. The main rig in my office is an AVR-990 (same as AVR-3310CI less Zone 3). This model retains 7.1 Ext In *and* provides HDMI 1.3 + HD Radio...

I would tell you that the obvious difference is between the base-midline Denons and the middle/high-end amps labelled DDSC is significant. Denons are generally bright and thus a good match to Advent, Cambridge Soundworks neutral sounding speaker systems.

Opinions? Everybody's got one.
 
Wow, just found this thread, this is the best argument for separates. A preamp/processor with all the inputs and processing you might want, with good analog outs; driving monoblocks, stereo, or multichannel power amps, or the power amp stage of 2 or 3 stereos, a quad receiver, or modern receiver. This way we could separate (mostly) the sound quality from the functionality. That said, I don't have a dedicated pre/pro myself, but that's a cost decision.

agree with you completely!

I would have gone down the pre/power route if it weren't so expensive and didn't take up so much room! processors here in the UK that get well-reviewed and recommended start in the thousands of pounds and are huge behemoths built like tanks plus there often a bit feature-light!

I've had my eye on a Rotel pre/power combination for some time but i've read there have been a fair few teething troubles with Hdmi and other firmware problems on those models and of course lack of 3D video implementation.

I guess the alternative is to get a multi channel power amp and use my Yamaha receiver purely as a pre-amp. That said I'm not sure how that'd work out, as I've seen a fair few reports of people moaning that the pre-out's on the Yamaha Aventages' are only rated at 1V, whereas the accepted norms 2V. What that would mean in real-world terms I've absolutely no idea as I've always been an integrated amp and receiver man the last nearly 20 years but until I either try something like an affordable (i.e. NAD or Rotel) M/C amp with my Yammy as the pre-amp, who knows?! It could be brilliant, it could be a let-down..!

Meantime I'm happy with it as it is and regardless of manufacturer, going from a low to mid range receiver (the Denon) to a mid to higher one (Yamaha) has (in my personal experience) brought sonic improvements as well as many more useful features, greater ease of use and an indisputably superior user interface.
 
I would tell you that the obvious difference is between the base-midline Denons and the middle/high-end amps labelled DDSC is significant. Denons are generally bright and thus a good match to Advent, Cambridge Soundworks neutral sounding speaker systems.

Opinions? Everybody's got one.

I guess that bears out that the higher end ranges of any of the big manufacturers should be superior to their cheaper offerings, which, Denon vs Yamaha business aside, has been my experience. Why pay more for just features? They must sound better or the manufacturers would produce smaller ranges with no differences in their amplification circuitry across the range if that were the case, surely!?

What is curious is your findings that Denon's are bright-sounding.

Two follow-On's from that:

1.) Are you using Audyssey MultEQ and still finding the sound bright? With my Denon, Audyssey bloated the bass and cut back the treble at its uppermost audible reaches (audible to me at any rate, about 16k), resulting in a boomy sound, lacking in detail and top end sparkle.

2.) if a Denon's bright, is a Pioneer brighter? Or a Denon duller sounding compared to an Onkyo? Not being facetious at all, just curious as to your point of reference as you have had 7 or 8 Denon's. Is it bright compared to your Marantz, or your other system?
 
just to add, I also found that Audyssey resulted in some pretty horrible changes to the actual sound field and placement of sounds in lots of discrete music and so to my ears altered the sound balance of any mix I put through it.

Of course this was at the time only compared to my first Audyssey-less Yamaha but going from the first Yammy playing SACD's & DVD-A's via 6 channel analogue in's with an unadulterted signal, then to the Audyssey-tinkering of the Denon was quite a shock!

Apart from the chronic MultEQ problems, no matter how many times i re-ran the setup, there were often noticeable Rear speaker sounds that bled into the front channels. Why not turn off Audyssey, I hear you cry!? Well without it, the sound was lacking, too lean and really quite anaemic, no matter what volume level i played back, or tone control fiddling I did.

Going back to an Audyssey-less Yamaha (for receiver number 4) whether via analogue or Hdmi I found the steering of channels to be great once again, with no filtering of sounds from one channel to another and the sound field was just as authentic, natural and un-futzed with as I remembered from my old Yammy. I can't explain it but in 10 years+ of tinkering with multi channel music playback, I just never warmed to my Denon receiver the same way I did with my old Yammy and do now with my newer one!
 
Back
Top