thoughts on denon?

[leevitalone1]

I'd heard Bose used to make decent stuff in days gone by, though they were never on my radar. It's sad they've more recently sacrificed fidelity for form.

ouch! thats fairly damning, leevitalone1..! cheap Sony speakers beat Bose! I've had three sets of Sony speakers over the years, one from a stereo system I got in the early 80's, another a 5.1 set from the mid 90's and the last a mini system about 10 years ago and they were/are all awful, with the eighties speakers being marginally better than the rest but still pretty poor, I wouldn't even say average. if they can beat Bose, then thats quite something!

I'm guessing Bose don't release their speaker systems' specifications because they're ashamed to admit how weedy they are (probably that they can't handle more than about 10 watts apiece and only of music recorded at 200hz upwards..!?)

Fact is they were very small bookshelf speakers he hooked up to the TV, as it had speaker level out clips. I take vback the "better" word after discussing it with my son, they sounded the same as the bose, the buyer was very satisfied with the sound and money he had saved. That was in 2002 or something close.

[Bleedink]

In the 600 series I think it's the mid range and bass that are treated with Kevlar and/or Kevlar alone. The tweeters are aluminum and the weak link. They are prone to indentations with slightest touch.

[fredblue]

Hmmm Some interesting differing opinions on here. I have some insight into this as I recently (2 years ago but that's relative) bought 5 B&W speakers and assumed the Pioneer I got (which was garnering 5 star reviews everywhere) would be just the ticket. It was around 500 bucks. It didn't sufficiently drive the speakers. Keep in mind here this was the start of my journey in terms of buying equipment and I was looking at commercial systems. I came across a Yammy that was 3x the price of the Pioneer. It was on sale for nearly the price of the Pioneer so I bit and am glad I did. There wasn't let us say a tremendous difference but it was clear. These were mostly in the transients and treble distortion. The bass was much better defined and at lower volumes was able to more clearly resolve what I was hearing. To compare I frequently use different connections with the Yammy and often use the DAC in my Oppo 93 to play music. To my ears the Yamaha (with 'inferior' DACs) is a much better unit to use as the DAC. I would say that most consider the Oppo to be a pretty good transport as well as a pretty good performer DAC wise. That said, I rarely find myself using the Oppo as DAC. The Yammy sounds that good. The differences are not huge. They are fairly subtle and again it's mostly about the harshness of certain sounds or muddied bass that show up. I am not going to say that there is a huge difference but certainly stepping up from a low-end AVR to a mid-to-high end AVR will provide those with sufficient speakers the ability to appreciate a difference. You get into the law of diminishing returns at some point in this equation. Some folks may even prefer the sound of the lower end AVRs--it seems at a certain level of financial commitment the AVR will no longer polish a turd so to speak and will present the said blob as it is. The lower end machine may make a lot more use of DSPs and such to produce a sound that masks some of the worst recordings. Also the lower end machines may not even have a direct mode to turn off all the extraneous stuff that can adversely effect the source depending on your equipment. Certainly some of these systems are designed to show off less than optimal speakers and less than optimal source material. GIGO IMHO is better than GI something way different on the way out. It seems that you have to pay for that transparency.

it's so encouraging to hear of another QQ-er who has found an improvement going from a cheaper AVR to a more expensive mid-to-high end Yammy. exactly my experience.

[fredblue]

B&W are teriffic speakers. The Brits have some marvelous speakers. Real, not flashy.

The bass could be cleaner for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be additional wattage/headroom. It becomes far less likely that the speakers will be damaged with the extra wattage, not the other way around, as many think. The better treble could be due to a number of factors. The better amplifier can yield a better speed, hence, a cleaner, more cohesive high end.

sounds bang on! I'd heard just the same from a few folks over the years, that more power from your amp than your speakers are rated as handling was often a good thing for most speakers and seldom ended up damaging them

[fredblue]

I was in love with the B&Ws from the moment I auditioned them. I was smart enough not to go into the room where the 800 series was being kept. In hindsight those few extra thousands probably was much better spent on other things! One thing I love about these is that they don't sound like they are trying to add something to the sound. They disappear like they are supposed to. They also are dynamite at providing some darn impressive phantom images. I have some quad and 5.1 upmixes that aren't readily distinguishable in terms of whether the center is on or off. Often the center isn't on and I would swear it was. Several times I thought I accidentally turned on the dolby DSP or turned off the direct mode by accident. It sounds like 5.1 from 2 speakers! That is one purchase I will NEVER regret making. I am hoping to be listening to these same speakers when I'm 64 (20 years!). With the Kevlar and all the other scientific sounding stuff they just might last that long!
The extra headroom in terms of amplification on the Yammy didn't hurt. It's 'rated' at nearly 40 extra watts. I know everything has an effortless feel that was sadly missing from the Pioneer. But in all fairness a Pioneer at the same price point might have blown the Yammy outta the water. Their good models rarely are on sale though.

very true, it may be that spending more on any brand amp would bring improvements over any brand cheap/entry-level one.. but the Pioneer amps I've heard over the years have all had a bright, upfront sound that just didn't do it for me. I'm not getting dragged into the "all amps sound the same" fiasco again, just my personal experience

[fredblue]

Fact is they were very small bookshelf speakers he hooked up to the TV, as it had speaker level out clips. I take vback the "better" word after discussing it with my son, they sounded the same as the bose, the buyer was very satisfied with the sound and money he had saved. That was in 2002 or something close.

oh yes! totally take on board if a set of speakers sound similar to lousy speakers but are much cheaper, it can make some of the pain go away knowing you've saved money!

but.. I'd still favour going for more expensive speakers, and budget for the best you can get, especially if for a stereo setup or the front 3 in a 5.1, you'll regret getting cheapies in the long run!

[fredblue]

In the 600 series I think it's the mid range and bass that are treated with Kevlar and/or Kevlar alone. The tweeters are aluminum and the weak link. They are prone to indentations with slightest touch.

some of the nicest tweeters I've ever heard were titanium jobbies on a pair of Mordaunt Short's back in the 80's. more fragile, yes, like the B&W's and as you say easily dented with little fingers but they sound particularly nice on brass/horns.