Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,444 Likes: 16 |
The question was specific to SQ improvement with one Denon receiver verses other Deonon receivers. This string immediately derailed to the never ending wpc debate, which has little to nothing to do with SQ.
You most likely would not notice any difference between all the models you are considering, provided that they are all set up identically.
I would concentrate on each model’s functions and compare them. One may have features that appeal to you more than others.
For example, if one has independent crossover adjustments, and one has a basic global adjustment, the one with independent may very well improve overall SQ as you will be able to tailor each channel how you prefer.
Compare the features and forget about WPC. If you find that you need more power, stop looking to receivers to supply that and look at external amplification. You will have to spend a lot of money on a receiver to get you in the 200 WPC range, which is where you will start to notice a difference.
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 12:08 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
SirQuack
|
04/03/09 02:27 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
lhulls
|
04/03/09 03:03 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/03/09 05:46 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 07:26 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/03/09 07:31 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
SirQuack
|
04/03/09 07:32 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 08:16 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 08:19 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
MarkSJohnson
|
04/03/09 08:34 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Ken.C
|
04/03/09 08:47 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
MarkSJohnson
|
04/03/09 08:52 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 10:51 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 11:11 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/03/09 08:53 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/03/09 09:31 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
SirQuack
|
04/03/09 09:39 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/03/09 11:08 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
doormat
|
04/04/09 12:27 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/04/09 01:29 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
doormat
|
04/04/09 03:45 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/04/09 04:12 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
jakewash
|
04/04/09 08:55 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/04/09 01:19 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/04/09 01:33 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/04/09 04:05 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
JohnK
|
04/04/09 02:26 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/04/09 07:52 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
fredk
|
04/04/09 08:22 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/04/09 11:06 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
michael_d
|
04/05/09 01:40 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 38
|
chesseroo
|
04/05/09 08:26 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/05/09 01:37 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
fredk
|
04/05/09 03:17 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
fredk
|
04/05/09 03:36 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
SirQuack
|
04/05/09 08:08 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
JohnK
|
04/05/09 02:23 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
fredk
|
04/05/09 03:15 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/05/09 09:35 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
MarkSJohnson
|
04/05/09 09:43 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/05/09 10:02 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
MarkSJohnson
|
04/05/09 10:18 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Adrian
|
04/05/09 10:41 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/05/09 11:58 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
lhulls
|
04/06/09 01:48 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/06/09 02:36 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
lhulls
|
04/06/09 03:32 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
davekro
|
04/06/09 02:03 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/07/09 12:02 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
lhulls
|
04/07/09 07:34 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
lhulls
|
04/07/09 08:30 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
Zimm
|
04/07/09 09:00 PM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
JohnK
|
04/03/09 03:02 AM
|
Re: From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.
|
alan
|
04/03/09 05:23 PM
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,489
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
1 members (rrlev),
1,544
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|