thoughts on denon?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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?!

someone has target in life to own Rolex and someone quite satisfied with Timex.
what i trying to say is that with present technology even mid class audio gear
absolutely sufficient for their purpose and everyone can chose pretty good audio
system for their priorities and budget. there isn't necessity to go broke, just because
some equipments is well known brand and to some degree is mainly used as a Rolex just
to show their social status :)
 
The Denon struck me as brighter than previous JVC, Pioneer, Proton and Marantz amps.

Audyssey was certainly my friend on the AVR 3806; the soundfield improved immensely and I NEVER touched channel balances after that. The AVR 2112 setup (Nov 2011) routine came back sounding good but with the rears too loud. I put all channels to zero for now. That setup is for Saturday Night Live and occasional movies so not exactly sweating it at the moment. The AVR 990 setup did something similar; I set the channels to 0 and it's sounding good. Since this system is reference for mixing I will tinker with it considerably in the next week or so to get what I had with AVR 3806. The mics and setup did change between these....

It sounds like you think Yamaha is higher in the food chain and the decision is already made!
 
someone has target in life to own Rolex and someone quite satisfied with Timex.
what i trying to say is that with present technology even mid class audio gear
absolutely sufficient for their purpose and everyone can chose pretty good audio
system for their priorities and budget. there isn't necessity to go broke, just because
some equipments is well known brand and to some degree is mainly used as a Rolex just
to show their social status :)

really?! Wow! That's an analogy I never expected.. You really think people aspire to have a great big black hulking lump of equipment like a Denon or Yamaha receiver in their homes as some kind of lifestyle statement!?

If I wanted a pretty system to show off it's looks and attain some uber cool status, I'd get a Bose or a Bang & Olufsen..!! Then suffer a 10-fold dent in my wallet only to discover that it looks nice but more than likely doesn't sound better (or possibly as good!) as a Denon!

Also in a fair few peoples' home theatre installations they hide their (mostly pretty industrial, boxy, kind of ugly) kit away! Why then buy a "Rolex" receiver if nobody ever sees its outer casing sparkle? :eek:
 
The Denon struck me as brighter than previous JVC, Pioneer, Proton and Marantz amps.

Audyssey was certainly my friend on the AVR 3806; the soundfield improved immensely and I NEVER touched channel balances after that. The AVR 2112 setup (Nov 2011) routine came back sounding good but with the rears too loud. I put all channels to zero for now. That setup is for Saturday Night Live and occasional movies so not exactly sweating it at the moment. The AVR 990 setup did something similar; I set the channels to 0 and it's sounding good. Since this system is reference for mixing I will tinker with it considerably in the next week or so to get what I had with AVR 3806. The mics and setup did change between these....

It sounds like you think Yamaha is higher in the food chain and the decision is already made!

Ah! Thank you! At last! Some clarity based on experience and not just conjecture or fluff about fancy watches!

So, I deduce that if the Denon sounds brighter in your opinion then I can't be alone in feeling that not all receivers sound alike!?

Oh no! I certainly don't consider Yamaha to be above Denon. Don't get me wrong, I had some fun with my Denon in the couple of years I had it (despite the bad effect Audyssey had on the sound & soundfield, for me) until I got the Yamaha and heard stuff I'd been missing (and then some! Oodles of detail and presence without sounding harsh or forward!).

My experience is based on the nature and quality of sound I encountered and lived with over prolonged periods listening and playing with settings between one manufacturers' receiver and another.

I do suspect my dislike for the bog standard Audyssey MultEQ (which I also felt introduced some weird compression & pumping type stuff going on along with the awful rolled off high frequencies and O.T.T. lows!) has a fair bit to do with my Denon issues, not just the basic amplification of each brand... but still even without Audyssey enabled, I found the Denon to sound a bit cold and underpowered. Straight out of the box the Yammy was less forward, fuller sounding and just more my cuppa tea ultimately I suppose!

Once i'd got it properly setup and now I've tweaked and fiddled with it, I love it even more and would only consider another upgrade if/when I could afford a substantially more powerful & superior (pre/power perhaps) setup, or if Hdmi were to be replaced with another type of connection (along the lines of Apple's "Thunderbolt" port, say) or if something like 4K video were to take off (or some other unforeseen future technology) and I felt the urge to get on board and replace it.

Phew!
 
First, the watch analogy was a good one. Otto is right in that any of these receivers would be adequate.

Most people who pop for a flagship receiver aren't doing it for the cool factor. As someone who has sold both Bose and B&O, I see woefully few similarities. They are both far from the best value. However, B&O is superbly crafted, great performing gear, where Bose is not, IMHO. IMHO, if people are buying Bose for the cool factor, they don't know much about hifi.

About those receivers: higher line receivers will provide more features and flexibility. Significantly higher will provide higher performance. Like sportscars, the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Every miniscule amount of additional performance past a certain point will require lots of $$$$. The next higher receiver in anyone's line might only provide 1-2 more features and no more than 1 1/2 times the wattage. That increase in wattage means virtually nothing in volume level, although the additional headroom may be significant.

As to separates or those flagship receivers, they will offer more headroom, better fidelity, more features and likely a wider dynamic range than the lower or midline receiver will. That is what one buys when stepping up to higher price ranges. None of that comes cheap. It isn't for everyone, even if they can afford it. Again, its the law of diminishing returns. Through a set of budget speakers, that flagship receiver may only sound sligtly better. Through a more substantial set of speakers, it may sound hugely better. It can also play significantly louder and offer lots more headroom.

As to why there are so many receiver brands with similar chipsets inside, my recommendation to fredblue is to write whichever manufacturers he deems unnecessary, and kindly request that they cease business operations immediately. Perhaps they'll oblige. Or, they may decide that they're profitable enough to ignore his request and decide to stay in business.
 
First, the watch analogy was a good one. Otto is right in that any of these receivers would be adequate.

Most people who pop for a flagship receiver aren't doing it for the cool factor. As someone who has sold both Bose and B&O, I see woefully few similarities. They are both far from the best value. However, B&O is superbly crafted, great performing gear, where Bose is not, IMHO. IMHO, if people are buying Bose for the cool factor, they don't know much about hifi.

About those receivers: higher line receivers will provide more features and flexibility. Significantly higher will provide higher performance. Like sportscars, the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Every miniscule amount of additional performance past a certain point will require lots of $$$$. The next higher receiver in anyone's line might only provide 1-2 more features and no more than 1 1/2 times the wattage. That increase in wattage means virtually nothing in volume level, although the additional headroom may be significant.

As to separates or those flagship receivers, they will offer more headroom, better fidelity, more features and likely a wider dynamic range than the lower or midline receiver will. That is what one buys when stepping up to higher price ranges. None of that comes cheap. It isn't for everyone, even if they can afford it. Again, its the law of diminishing returns. Through a set of budget speakers, that flagship receiver may only sound sligtly better. Through a more substantial set of speakers, it may sound hugely better. It can also play significantly louder and offer lots more headroom.

As to why there are so many receiver brands with similar chipsets inside, my recommendation to fredblue is to write whichever manufacturers he deems unnecessary, and kindly request that they cease business operations immediately. Perhaps they'll oblige. Or, they may decide that they're profitable enough to ignore his request and decide to stay in business.

I don't understand how the watch comparison works? A Tag Heuer's internals are not the same as a Seiko, a Seiko's are not like a Rolex, a Rolexes' are not like a Cartier.. and on and on! The basics may be based on the same kind of engineering etc but there have to be differences. If we're talking some cheap bit of digital schlock then fair enough but with something more precision-engineered, if every wristwatch was the same inside there'd be no point choosing beyond the cosmetic. Would there!? I don't know if I'm missing a trick here!?

By the same token if every receiver sounded the same, why do magazines and publications (What Hi Fi here in the UK for example but there are others who go into even greater depth) go to great lengths to review several receivers side by side in test round-ups, pretty regularly and always, always comment on their perceived sound quality findings, even often going so far as to explicitly say one amp sounds "warm" and another "neutral"..??

If they were talking garbage and all receivers sounded the same, they'd have zero credibility and not have lasted over 30 years..!! If its all just smoke and mirrors, "the emperors' new clothes", if you will, designed purely to sell identikit a/v & hi-fi to "gullible idiots" then clearly we've all been had for many, many years.

Ah now, don't get me wrong, Bose are a pile of junk! Pretty and dinky but sound like dreck! I just talked a customer (who I installed a home theatre for last month) out of Bose and into "real" A/V.

As for B&O, I'm not knocking them at all. I'm a fan and I've owned a fair few bits of theirs over the years, including a BeoCentre system, an Avant TV, BeoLab speakers, etc.. However, I do have to say they do not represent good value for money, nor the very best technical quality. Yes B&O are solid, mostly well-engineered and gorgeous-looking but the £1,600 BeoLab speakers I bought over 5 years ago are absolutely trounced by my cheaper, more flexible, more feature-laden separates gear (comprising £500 main speakers and a £1,000 amp..!!).

I don't deem any of the big receiver manufacturers as unnecessary at all because I believe they are all different, all have their niche in the market and all have something different to offer. They all look different and operate differently, offering different sets of features and options.. but I also deem them all necessary because they sound different.

Competition is healthy isn't it!? The more, the merrier I say! The number of different brands keeps the prices of these receivers much lower than if there were only 1 or 2 manufacturers.

Might I ask you QuadLinda, I'm interested to know if your feelings have changed about the 'across the board' sound quality of amps?

I'm sure I'd read that you no longer sell equipment of this nature, apologies in advance if I got my wires crossed.. so I was wondering did you feel that in days gone by when you were selling all this stuff there really was a difference? Or did you always have the notion you were just selling the same equipment just in different boxes even then?

Also, is the lack of difference in sound quality something you consider a good development because solid state amps have been refined and improved so much that they're all perfect now, with perfect frequency responses, silent noise floors, ultra low harmonic distortion, etc..? Or is it a far cry from when you used to sell gear where there was a marked difference and now they are all just rather average and samey?
 
sorry if somehow my reply offended you. that's wasn't my intention.
as for the watch analogy - either of them has purpose to show the time and cheap Timex
complete this task in same way like expensive Rolex.
now back to our sheep. as you already mentioned "solid state amps have been refined and improved
so much that they're all perfect now, with perfect frequency responses, silent noise floors, ultra low
harmonic distortion, etc.
." same applied practically to all those receivers in any given average household.
as i said before - main objective for manufacturers was to acheive flat characteristics of the amplified signal
and mainly it's was done. today any decent receiver has option to output pure signal which is not been
altered by the additional processing or by distortions due to imperfection of amplification circuit.
that's the main similarity of any present brand and if you will compare different brand in this configuration,
you'll find no difference in the sound. if you can't stand such direct sound, all manufacturers do offer built-in
an additional processing and here, as i can see, you gave preference to Yamaha over Denon and it is your
personal choice. someone will prefer Pioneer or HK, etc.
as for those HiFi magazines, i wouldn't buy much what they says. you know - who pays for music - says which
tune should be played. i hope you understand that those publications isn't philanthropic acts :)
 
I didn't take Otto's watch comparison to mean that the innards of all watches were the same. Simply that there are different price points offered, and that part, not all, of the difference was the wow factor. Good analogy on those levels.

Regarding amps, I believe that they all sound different. Since I've been out of the business for 10 years, and am not in the market for a receiver, I haven't auditioned them lately. IF they all use the same IC packages as amplifiers, it is possible that other circuitry might change their sound, even in the "direct" mode.

In the old days, every amp or receiver sounded different, including some by the same manufacturer. Total harmonic distortion, IM distortion, TIM distortion are but a few of the differences. I believe that transistors are better in that they can better dissipate heat, regardless of how large a heat sink you attach to an IC. Tubes have a warm sound, although they are not always linear in frequency response. Although I've sold tube gear, I only owned them in the '60's, when they were the only game in town. I'd rather not bother with replacing, baking and all the other complications involved with tube gear. If that and the cost weren't an issue, I would own tube gear.

One of the biggest issues of amplifer design is switching time, i.e. how quickly it can go from idle to passing a signal. The quicker the amp switches, the more realistic it sounds. Many things low in the mix get buried in the "mush" with a slow switching amplifier. A quality power amp will switch rapidly, and can offer class A (non-switching) operation at low volume levels. At high volume levels, it offers ample power and headroom. Therefore, the only compromise is lack of class A operation at high listening levels. Even then, it likely switches so quickly that the difference is negligable. Even in this realm, they all sound different. The exact amp may also sound different when warned up and/or broken in. Please don't say that solid state gear powers up instantly, therefore it sounds the same whether or not warmed up. Many pieces have a significantly different sound to the critical ear when warmed up. Although there are many other performance differences with large amps, especially separate power amps, this is the crux of why they're better.

In proving my points, I fear that I've taken this discussion in directions that would be of little or no help or interest to someone looking for a reasonably priced system. $600 receivers perform INCREDIBLY well for what they do. That extra smidgeon of performance is what adds greatly to the expense, for those who have had their consciousness raised, and are willing to cough up the $$$.

You'd have a hard time convincing me that every amp, or at least every one within the same power range, sounds the same. Yamaha will sound different from a Denon, although the differences would be far more subtle than 20 or 40 years ago. I believe that if you A/B the $500 receiver to the $1500 receiver from the same manufacturer, you WILL hear a difference at the same volume level. It might be great, or subtle, but it will be there. Comparing a top of the line Denon or Yamaha to Krell separates or tube gear, there would be a significant difference. If anyone cares to prove me wrong, go LISTEN.

I don't understand how the watch comparison works?

By the same token if every receiver sounded the same, why do magazines and publications (What Hi Fi here in the UK for example but there are others who go into even greater depth) go to great lengths to review several receivers side by side in test round-ups, pretty regularly and always, always comment on their perceived sound quality findings, even often going so far as to explicitly say one amp sounds "warm" and another "neutral"..?? I also deem them all necessary because they sound different.

Might I ask you QuadLinda, I'm interested to know if your feelings have changed about the 'across the board' sound quality of amps?

I'm sure I'd read that you no longer sell equipment of this nature, apologies in advance if I got my wires crossed.. so I was wondering did you feel that in days gone by when you were selling all this stuff there really was a difference? Or did you always have the notion you were just selling the same equipment just in different boxes even then?

Also, is the lack of difference in sound quality something you consider a good development because solid state amps have been refined and improved so much that they're all perfect now, with perfect frequency responses, silent noise floors, ultra low harmonic distortion, etc..? Or is it a far cry from when you used to sell gear where there was a marked difference and now they are all just rather average and samey?
 
sorry if somehow my reply offended you. that's wasn't my intention.
as for the watch analogy - either of them has purpose to show the time and cheap Timex
complete this task in same way like expensive Rolex.
now back to our sheep. as you already mentioned "solid state amps have been refined and improved
so much that they're all perfect now, with perfect frequency responses, silent noise floors, ultra low
harmonic distortion, etc.
." same applied practically to all those receivers in any given average household.
as i said before - main objective for manufacturers was to acheive flat characteristics of the amplified signal
and mainly it's was done. today any decent receiver has option to output pure signal which is not been
altered by the additional processing or by distortions due to imperfection of amplification circuit.
that's the main similarity of any present brand and if you will compare different brand in this configuration,
you'll find no difference in the sound. if you can't stand such direct sound, all manufacturers do offer built-in
an additional processing and here, as i can see, you gave preference to Yamaha over Denon and it is your
personal choice. someone will prefer Pioneer or HK, etc.
as for those HiFi magazines, i wouldn't buy much what they says. you know - who pays for music - says which
tune should be played. i hope you understand that those publications isn't philanthropic acts :)

Oh no! I wasn't offended at all..! Just a bit bemused maybe :eek:

I must say Otto (and especially Quad Linda!) have both put forward some fascinating food for thought on the whole situation - you're right Otto, the magazines may have axes to grind, if say Pioneer advertise heavily one month you might well find rave reviews for Pioneer kit the next month. Bit naive of me to just believe what they say and take it as gospel.

Got to say Quad Linda your knowledge is absolutely outstanding!! Why did you leave the business!? You're clearly incredibly more savvy on all of this than most!

I feel a bit guilty now for steering off topic.. sorry :(
but that wasn't my intention at all. Believe it or not I was trying to be helpful by relaying my experience. Yikes! I'll know better in future! ;)

For what it's worth, my bottom line to the original poster would be to try and hear a few receivers for yourself, even if in the less than ideal surroundings in a store's demo room, it's better than nothing!

Better still if you can get a receiver that's within budget and has the necessary specs & features you want, get one and try it at home. If you hate it, send it back and try another one! It is a bit cheeky.. but ultimately where's the harm in that if the dealer offers you the opportunity to test a receiver out in your own four walls and return it?

I never got to audition my Denon and later regretted it but learned to live with it as the dealer I bought it from folded soon after! I'd heard a lower range Yamaha and liked it, the more expensive model I eventually got turned out to be even better! Woo! Win win! :sun
 
Although I don't believe that every hifi review in the mags is dishonest, they aren't going to say that an advertiser's piece is total crap. Fortunately, most pieces are far from total crap.

Once again, it's simple: USE YOUR EARS!! And you can't do that with an on-line retailer. Speaking frankly, it's the people who use bricks and mortar stores as a reference facility, and then buy on line, that keep people like me out of the business. It's nearly impossible to earn a living!! Sadly, they screw themselves as well, since they don't have the luxury of a knowledgable person who would be willing to visit their home, if necessary. I've done that more times than I could count. Or the ability to pick up the phone and get an intelligent answer to a question or problem. This mentality is why so many economies have tanked, and the unemployment rates are high: people that want everything for FREE, or nearly FREE. Corporations that care only about the bottom line, and are atrocious corporate citizens. It's also why the build quality on most consumer goods, including electronics is such crap. And why even the biggies like Apple find that their goods are made in sweat shops that trounce on human rights. I apologize if this borders on politics. Jon, you can dump this paragraph if I've crossed the line. Enough opining!!

Thank you for the compliment, Fredblue. After 10 years, I exited retail in the early '80's when I got married, although I stayed in the hifi biz. Repped and was sales mgr for a distributor in the '80's. Got drafted into the computer business in the '90's and was sales mgr. there. I was also President of a not-for-profit. In '99, I was going through a divorce and rejoined several friends from the old days in retail/custom home theater. In the last five years, I became President of another not-for-profit in an attempt to make the world a better place. I've been involved in not-for-profits as an officer or board member for over 20 years. This has absolutely nothing to do with receivers or normal QQ business.

Got to say Quad Linda your knowledge is absolutely outstanding!! Why did you leave the business!? You're clearly incredibly more savvy on all of this than most!

I feel a bit guilty now for steering off topic.. sorry :(
but that wasn't my intention at all.
 
Last edited:
Although I don't believe that every hifi review in the mags is dishonest, they aren't going to say that an advertiser's piece is total crap. Fortunately, most pieces are far from total crap. Once again, it's simple: USE YOUR EARS!! And you can't do that with an on-line retailer.

Thank you for the compliment, Fredblue. After 10 years, I exited retail in the early '80's when I got married, although I stayed in the hifi biz. Repped and was sales mgr for a distributor in the '80's. Got drafted into the computer business in the '90's and was sales mgr. there. I was also President of a not-for-profit. In '99, I was going through a divorce and rejoined several friends from the old days in retail/custom home theater. In the last five years, I became President of another not-for-profit in an attempt to make the world a better place. I've been involved in not-for-profits as an officer or board member for over 20 years. This has absolutely nothing to do with receivers or normal QQ business.

It may not be related to receivers or QQ but fascinating nonetheless! Thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond so fully.

Would you say the A/V worlds a tougher place (or even potentially less interesting place, as technology has progressed and solid state and digital have narrowed the gulf between cheap and premium gear!?) now than when you were in the business?
 
Please reread my last post, which I've added to.

Independent hifi stores, high end manufacturers, and esoteric hifi stores have gone out of business in droves. The big manufacturers have created the illusion that their gear is as good as anything. IT ISN'T!! Yes, there is some damn good gear for cheap. It isn't anywhere near state of the art and, in my opinion, it never will be. Perhaps I'm getting snobby and on my high horse. If all this mass produced gear did everything possible, people wouldn't be plunking down the kind of money that Music Direct and its' suppliers purvey. There aren't that many stupid or egotistical people out there.

The hifi business has been as decimated as the record business has. They go hand in hand. Most people simply burn or get free downloads of what they want. It's only the idiots like me who want album art (which can be downloaded, too), are willing to support the artist and respect their intellectual property. We've become a world full of whores, and we're beginning to reap the consequences of those actions. I'm done now and feel better having vented.

It may not be related to receivers or QQ but fascinating nonetheless! Thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond so fully.

Would you say the A/V worlds a tougher place (or even potentially less interesting place, as technology has progressed and solid state and digital have narrowed the gulf between cheap and premium gear!?) now than when you were in the business?
 
I appreciate all your venting and agree with pretty much everything you voiced!

The times they are a-changing..

Shame that as somethings progress, others almost regress, to the point where now Lo-Fi is the accepted norm and anything else in the pursuit of quality is seen as geeky/nerdy/niche/obsessive*

* Delete as applicable to how you've been perceived over the years. Very few seem to get my passion for great sound, great production and engineering, resulting in lovely mixes of beautiful music, all with great care lavished on them.

A bygone era for the most part.. sigh!
 
:mad:@:My $10 computer speakers and $2 earbuds sound as good as anybody's stereo system, don't they? Who needs surround sound anyway. You only have two ears. lol!! :mad:@:

hahaha!! when musicians and producers and engineers work so hard to put out their music and go to so much trouble through the whole process, this iPod generation and just that attitude really P me off..!! :mad:
 
I would add that in addition to the differences in the gear itself, another component that adds confusing is the marketing. BOSE is a good example of that. The mediocre to so-so is positioned in such a manner that it snags people who don't do their homework quite easily. It's not always price and there are smaller companies who innovate faster to provide more bang for the buck, so the consumer has to *really* study the playing field littered with ho-hums and dogs dressed up for the big show.

Speakers are probably the WORST category because it takes time and effort to sort out the real from imagined performance. Do the $15000 Snark Snootstein 1000s really outperform the $6000 Polk Audio xxx1s? The prestigious hi fi magazine that charges vendors exorbitant rates to advertise wouldn't lie to me would they?

At the end of the day, you buy what you can afford that still puts a big goofy surround grin on your face.

BTW - I've had a couple stints at selling gear but the scars don't show. :)
 
Several people I sold hifi alongside referred to Bose as "better sound through marketing." Another famous quote is, "no highs, no lows? Must be Bose."

With all the online information sources we have today, so many people don't bother. A GF of mine who has a wave radio said, "Bose is supposed to be the best." :yikes
...another component that adds confusing is the marketing. BOSE is a good example of that. The mediocre to so-so is positioned in such a manner that it snags people who don't do their homework quite easily...
 
Several people I sold hifi alongside referred to Bose as "better sound through marketing." Another famous quote is, "no highs, no lows? Must be Bose."

With all the online information sources we have today, so many people don't bother. A GF of mine who has a wave radio said, "Bose is supposed to be the best." :yikes

I'll have to remember those quotes the next time someone asks me about Bose...pretty much says it all....
 
my main gripe with Bose "Lifestyle" 5.1 systems is that they comprise tiny little satellites and a sub that don't integrate with one another!

those dinky wee speakers could never hope to physically produce anything beyond shrill mid & treble..

and that ugly hulk of a sub/amp unit, that if you were to sit down blindfolded you could pinpoint exactly where it's located in the room because it's so bombastic, inaccurate and results in sounding nothing like a proper sub/sat system should..

which all completely goes against the grain of real home theatre, with seamless subwoofer integration in a correctly calibrated 5.1 system, using something like THX's 80hz crossover as a guide to tailor the bass to suit your listening room.

I wonder what the crossover of one of those Bose systems is set at!? 200hz? 250hz? Higher maybe!?
 
Back
Top