Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Why Denon Receivers?

I've been comparing the current receivers from Pioneer, Yamaha, HK, and Denon. For a given price point, it seems that Denon doesn't provide as many features (or bells and whistles) as Pioneer and Yamaha. For example, for $1300, the Yamaha RX-V2600 and Pioneer VSX-82TXS/VSX-72TXV look better on paper than a Denon AVR-3806. Yet, a previous poll about which brand of receivers people on this forum owned showed Denon ahead of everyone else. So, what about the Denon receivers led people to buy them? Are they more reliable, use better electronic components, provide cleaner power, etc? Or has Denon been on the scene longer and built up a larger user base?

I don't want this to turn into a flame thread of Denon vs. other brands. I'm just curious what I'm missing when I compare these different brands on paper. I've seen all these different models in the local Fry's and Tweeter, and they all look very aesthetic pleasing and well-built. Thanks.

Hey Dennis,

I'm not sure what "Bells & Whistles" the other models have over the Denons? Most AVR's in the same price range are fairly comparable. Sure, one manufacturer may call their technology something different (for ex. YPAQ, AutoSetup/RoomEQ, MCACC, etc). For the most part they do the same thing. They all handle the same surround decoding for the most part: DD, DTS, PLIIx, DTS Neo, etc... They may have their own unique built in DSP options: Widescreen, Concert Hall, Stadium, etc.... however, in my experience I don't use those features anyway.

Many people that have 4ohm speakers like the m80ti's like to use Denon, HK, NAD, Onkyo, Seperates, etc...this is because they have been proven to have no issues driving a 4ohm speaker.

Historically, the "Guts" of the Denons have been very beefy and they are a High Current Full Bandwidth design. However, many other receivers like Onkyo are also very well built and use top quality amps, for example.

I think some of the newer high end Pioneers and Yamahas may now have no problems either, but there was a time when people had issues, especially when trying to drive 4 ohm speakers.

If your talking about 80watts versus 100watts, that really is not a issue either.

I would say purchase an AVR that is in your budget, and has the "Bells & Whistles" you think YOU need, and you'll be fine.

If you get a chance to do any In-Home demo's in your area, that is even better. Check the audition thread in the "Hearing Things" section to see if anyone will help ya out....

I think Randy covered it well. HK and Denon (along with Rotel) have always tended to have beefier power supplies and power amplifier stages -- not necessarily more watts, but more "headroom" at the same wattage and more ability to drive that wattage into difficult loads -- rather than spending $$ adding features.

One way to put it is that HK, Denon and Rotel receivers have been felt to be a bit closer to the construction and design you would get with separates. Some people believe this makes a difference in sound quality under certain conditions (the beefier power supplies etc, not the "separate"ness) while others believe that is just placebo effect, and nobody knows for sure.

In the last year or so Pioneer seems to have been making some really nice receivers -- the 1015 was the first to get noticed -- and the latest crop of Yamahas are rumored to behave better with 4 ohm loads, so in some cases it would be fair to say the gap is narrowing.

My personal view is that Pioneer, Yamaha and Sony all offered a couple of different ranges of products, where the top range was pretty good and the bottom range had lots of features but often very lightweight amplifier design, whereas Denon and HK took a different approach, where their low end products had fewer features and less advertised power but maintained the design quality and would often seem to outperform units which appeared much better on paper. As a result, people who were really into audio tended to spend their money on the HK and Denon products, even if they got fewer features they felt they were getting a better designed product.

As Randy said, once you get into the upper midrange receivers the difference in features at a price point pretty much goes away. It's only at the low-midrange price points where you trade off features for "beefiness".

Well, this post should upset just about everyone on the board somehow. I hope it helps answer your question

SirQuack and Bridgman, thanks for your answers. That was the kind of info I was looking for. What I meant by bells and whistles is that, as a whole line, the Yamaha and Pioneer receivers appear to have more features on paper. For example, their high-end receiver lines are THX Select2, have more HDMI inputs (on average), have video scalers, etc. compared to the similarly priced Denon or HK receivers. I'm not arguing about whether these features are desirable or useeful, as different people have different needs. Rather, I had noticed that, despite these additional features, people on this forum still seemed to prefer Denon and HK, so I was wondering what I wasn't seeing by looking at the receivers on paper.

When I was shopping for receivers (and before finding these boards) I found that H/K offered the most features for the price, and Denon was pretty far behind that. I don't know if that's changed recently, but I know what you mean.

Personally, I would not purchase a Denon, after trying to work with one (and understand the manual) a few times. No offense intended to those who have them and like them.

Actually, I'm not sure I would purchase a H/K again, either... Maybe I'm just picky.

Bridgeman,

I thought that was a great summary. For me it was a close call between Yamaha and H/K but I ended up going with H/K for some of those reasons. The Yamaha did seem to have more "bells and whistles" and more advertised wattage. I think what did it was that the H/K had more digital inputs and a good reputation amonge music lovers. I enjoy the Logic 7 processing for music. It gives electronic music a great ambiance in my opinion. Very happy with my purchase.

Cheers,

J

I have a very strong opinon that your audio receiver just doesn't need to perform video functions!!!! Let your video gear do video functions and save a few $$$$.

My Sony SXRD just doesn't need an audio receiver to do any video scaling or adjusting.

As for HDMI, I just have to wonder when they will finally establish a version that "really" works???

For a regular TV a receiver handling video might not be necessary, but for those with or who plan to get projectors it can be a big help. WAF might not allow 3-4 sets of cables running 20-30', but one small hidden HDMI cable may not be a problem. Otherwise I agree, I want my video to be as pure as possible from source to output device.

As far as HDMI, it still has its quirks but if you get devices that all support at least 1.1 or later there shouldn't be any problems. The majority of the headaches comes from older devices like cable boxes that 'support' HDMI but haven't had any firmware or hardware revisions since the format was first released.

Hey Dennis,

There are many Denon models that carry THX certification also. However, I would not get all caught up in the THX thing. Manufacturers have to pay extra to have THX give them that certification. Most good receivers without THX, will give you just as good performance. I think the ones that have it may offer a few extra technical features or bells and whistles, but I would not lose any sleep over it. Evan the ones that don't carry the badge, most likely are capable, the mfg. just wants to keep the prices down.

Also, the HDMI or Component conversion is nice if you have lots of equipment to make use of it and combine into one cable to your TV or projector. Lets say you only have a DVD player and/or sattelite, not sure it would be worth the extra cost to get this feature. If you have say 3-5 video products, then it might make sense to combine into one channel.

Hey man, we need to talk about speakers for you, not AVRs.

I'll second the THX thing. It's great to have a standard for sure, and it's a good standard to reach for. But the fact is that most quality receivers match that standard even if the manufacturer won't pay the price to have their receivers certified. Some manufacturers feel they need to pay the price on the theory that they will recoup their investment due to whatever marketing cache THX gives them. Just like the iPod accessory vendors that pay Apple for the right to put the "Made for iPod" logo on their merch.

Really, all you have to do is read about the THX specs and compare them to the specs of the receiver(s) you are
considering. That will tell you what you want to know.

As far as video switching, I like it. Do I need 3 or 4 HDMI inputs? Considering I have no components that push HDMI, no. When HD-DVD has more than 2 available titles and there are more than a handful of HD channels on air I will start to worry about HDMI. Right now I don't feel it necessary. I don't want to be a "bleeding-edge" guinea pig paying the early adopter tax on tech that just doesn't deliver the variety of content my current setup can. Not that it what's available doesn't look great, but there's not enough available to make the kind of capital expenditure it would take to update my entire setup.

Thanks to everyone for their input so far. I've already come to the conclusion that THX Select2 isn't a big deal to me, since it partly depends on whether a company chooses to pay for the certification process. I can see why some companies may not choose to pursue it for their midrange receivers, even if they might qualify. I've noticed, though, that everyone goes for the Ultra2 certification for their high-end receivers, but those are well out of my price range anyways.

The main feature I'm trying to decide on is whether I want/need the AV receiver to have video upscaling. While many DVD players have their own scalers, a significant portion of my media time will be spent video gaming, and the PS2 and GC only output at 480i/p. So, the Pioneers and Yamahas look appealing b/c they provide upscaling in the $1500ish price range, while Denons and HK's don't (as best as I can tell).

Quote:

---

Hey man, we need to talk about speakers for you, not AVRs.

---

Unfortunately, as I've mentioned in other threads, I'm in the process of building a house and probably about 9 months away from buying any speakers. So, I'm passing the time by trying to learn about different aspects of mid/high-end A/V equipment since I've never owned any. I've been reading a ton on this and other sites, though I post some of my questions here b/c some forums can be a little immature at times (without naming any acronyms ...)


In terms of speakers, I've narrowed my choice down to either Axioms or Rockets. From what I've read, I'm sure I'll really like both brands, but I'll have to wait until I can audition them in my own house. So, I can't contribute much to the speaker discussions since I don't own any good ones. It's also why I'm posting questions and starting threads, I hope it doesn't become too annoying.

Dennis, possibly a major factor in the popularity of the Denons(not for Ken, though)is the challenge of attempting to actually put the provisions in the Denon manuals into effect. For those who appeciate such challenges, although most manufacturers attempt to supply it, it's generally recognized that Denon reigns supreme.

As to the upscaling, keep in mind that fixed pixel TV displays have to scale incoming material to fit their "native resolution". Unless the scaling done by a player or receiver is visibly better than that which the display itself does(no rule of thumb available), that feature in a player or receiver doesn't bring any real advantage in picture quality.

JohnK, yeah, I was glad to find out that other's share this opinion about the Denon manuals. I tried downloading one off their website to figure out if the receiver had upscaling, and I thought I was just in over my head b/c I had trouble understanding it ...

The reason the Pioneer Elites are appealing is b/c a couple of them have the Faroudja scaler, which I've heard lots of good things about. While the projector I'm interested in, the Panasonic AE9000U, does have a built-in scaler, that feature isn't touted in any way, so I assumed it might not be as good as the Faroudja.

>>I've narrowed my choice down to either Axioms or Rockets. From what I've read, I'm sure I'll really like both brands, but I'll have to wait until I can audition them in my own house.

Bingo. Note that the Axioms and Rockets do have somewhat different characteristic sounds, so people do tend to have fairly strong preferences for one or the other.

I’m in agreement with Bug…

Knowing what I know today, which is very little actually, but still more than what I know three years ago, I’d stick with separates and keep the video processing out of the audio gear.

I’d look at the mid-fi lines such as Rotel, Nad and Parasound. I’d buy the pre amp / processor that fit my needs and then buy two amps. One five channel amp with around 50 watts / channel and one two channel amp with around 200 watts / channel. Or, buy a lower priced AVR with the bells / whistles I’m looking for and use an outboard two channel or three channel amp for the mains and center. The back and surround channels don’t need much, so the cheap AVR would probably drive them just fine. Some of the Yamies, Pioneers and HK’s would work just fine for this.

I’d also make sure that the pre/pro had NO video processing / switching and I’d put my money into a good external video processor. Within the next six months there will be many new video processors on the market as the big three chip manufactures are all running to release their new chips. No AVR, DVD player, TV, or Projector can compete with the stand alone VP’s. They all get second, third or fourth generation chips. Another good reason to wait and keep the video processing out of the AVR is that HDMI 1.3 is just now hitting the streets. 1.3 is the newest, latest greatest standard and with it comes with a lot improvements over 1.1. Some of the new VP’s already have it, but again, it’s still new so many do not.

Denon - Axioms - Rockets. Sounds like an equation more profound than E-MC2. No downside at all.

As a Denonite (is that a word?), I had an 1803, and have a 1905 and 3803. While I agree with John's assessment (I always do ) about the Debnon manuals, they stop short of being life-threatening.

Once you sit down and take it in sips, you'll be OK. Otherwise, it's like drinking from a firehose. In general, they are robust, dependable and hve all the toys/tweaking you'll need. If you have a MX-850 remote, there is also a stunning array of commands that can be used.

Enjoy the hunt.

>>Otherwise, it's like drinking from a firehose.

A firehose I can handle. Try a couple hundred feet of the cheapest thinwall 1/4" tubing, dumped in a heap in a closet under a dripping sewer pipe for a couple of years, then offered to you after several attempts to untangle it just made the knots tighter...

... when what you really NEEDED was a firehose.

I really like Denon receivers, but the manuals are terrible.

Axiom and Denon sound a bit biological in the same sentence, reminiscent of axion and dendrite. BRAINS!!

I guess I could be called a Denonite also, I've got five pieces of equipment from them, the more expensive units seem to have the most confusing but still usable manuals, as far as build and performance goes, I couldn't ask for anything more, and I have never had the slightest problem with any of them. I would also have to agree with Ray that a good universal remote makes things much easier.

I'll agree with my esteemed colleagues.

My Denon stuff has always been very reliable, of high quality, and completely unintelligible. I don't think it's just the manuals. I think it's the remote and the rest of the user interface. Denon stuff just doesn't make "sense" to me in the same way some other products do.

I'd check out the manuals online for products you are considering. Don't forget HK, Onkyo, Yamaha. Unless you're trying to drive M80's to insane levels, any of those brands will likely suit you just fine. Find the one that hits your sweet spot relative to price and features.

Hi Dennis,

This has been well-covered by most everyone here, but it all began some years ago when Axiom got reports of certain brands of AV receivers shutting down (or overheating or going into "current limiting", which limits output power into low impedances) when driving the Axiom 4-ohm M80 tower speakers.

That's when at Axiom, we went through a number of brands at our factory (and owned by myself and Axiom colleagues) to determine which models would drive the M80s and which ones would not. The winners were H/K, Denon, Rotel, Outlaw Audio, Arcam, and B&K.

The losers at that time included Onkyo, Yamaha, Pioneer, Kenwood, Sony, etc.

I also avoided recommending some AV receiver brands that in my experience as an editor of AV magazines for many years, had quality control problems in the past (Onkyo, NAD, Kenwood) or had been disappointing in one respect or another (Sony).

As the years have passed, some brands like Pioneer have introduced certain models with MOSFET output transistors (the VSX-1015) which, although inexpensive ($499) will drive the 4-ohm M80s. That's true as well of entry-level models from Denon and H/K.

I can't help you out on the Pioneer Elite models, but any that advertise MOSFET output sections should not have any trouble driving lower impedances. There is a more recent Pioneer (the 1016) which has HDMI switching but does NOT have the MOSFET output section, so don't get that one if you plan on using 4-ohm speakers.

As always, Alan sums it up nicely.

I am adding my two cents and can recommend Outlaw Audio. I've just set up a 990/7125 prepro/amp with my Axiom Epic 80/500 system. The Outlaw receiver, the 1070, gets rave reviews and, for its price, is a giant-killer.

Like Axiom, Outlaw offers a 30-day trial period and sells only over the net.

Again, thanks for everyone's input so far. As more people mention separates, I'm starting to look at them also ... argh! The last thing I need is more choices and decisions!

As I alluded to in other posts, this will be my first foray into a real home theater setup. I don't know if my ears would notice the difference between a receiver and a prepro/amp, but my wallet certainly would. I realize that statement is a broad generalization, though it seems hard to put together a prepro/amp combo that beats a receiver in terms of price and features. Performance is a different story, but again, I don't know if I'd appreciate the difference enough to justify the cost for me.

I'm looking at the M60's b/c my room isn't THAT large (about 3000 cu ft), nor would I play my music that loud. From what I gathered, most of today's receivers at $1000 and up should be able to drive those speakers (along with the VP150 and QS8's) without a problem. At the same time, I'm also going to use the HT setup for video games (can't wait ...), and the PS2 and GC both output 480i/p. So, I'm interested in a video upscaling to 720p, which some receivers do, but I'm not aware of any reasonably priced prepro doing it. A separate video processor is probably overkill for my needs (and wallet).

Just sharing my thoughts as I re-read people's posts ...

Hmmm ... maybe I've confused my terms ...

My understanding of "upscaling" is taking a signal and increasing its resolution, like 480p to 720p or 1080p. I believe it also include deinterlacing, 3:2 pull-down, and other video processing chores. This is what I want, b/c I'm taking mostly 480i signals from the game consoles and displaying them with a 720p projector. As best I can tell, only higher-end receivers and pre/pro have this capability, otherwise one has to rely on a dedicated vido processor (like the DVDO products). Depending on how well the receiver or pre/pro upscales compared to the how well the TV or projector upscales, there may be an improvement in image quality.

As I understand it, "upconversion" is taking a composite or S-video signal, and outputting it through a component or HDMI cable. The signal's resolution and whether it's progressive vs interlaced is unchanged. So, a 480i composite input upconverted to HDMI output would still be 480i. As you mentioned, it's convenient for decreasing the number of cables between the receiver and display, but doesn't improve image quality. Most decent receivers can do this, either to component or HDMI.

If I'm barking up the wrong tree, someone please tell me ...

It's probably me mashing up terms-but even deinterlacing is nothing more than a parlor trick. I would equate it to ripping an MP3 at 96k mono and then burning that MP3 to CD. Sure, you can play it in your CD player, and maybe you even get some pseudo stereo added in with the decompression engine, but the quality can't possibly get any better than the source 96k mono mp3.

I resreve the right to be called clueless with regards to this, I'm just going on instinct. I've never seen a real benefit from 3:2 pulldown for video (stills are another story) and I've seen the impact of trying to push a 480i signal to 720p and I'd usually say that it gets worse rather than better.

Here we go again again...

Dennis, the significant flaw in your discussion is the "increasing its resolution" statement. The resolution can't be increased beyond its native content(e.g. 480), but in order to be shown on 720 or 1080 displays the 480 input has to be scaled to 720 or 1080 by mathematically calculating extra pixels and interpolating them between the "real" ones. The display device has to do this if it hasn't been done previously by a player or receiver. As was said before, unless the player or receiver does a visibly better job of it, using the processing there brings no advantage in picture quality.

DR Wolf, I can tell you that there IS a significant differance between watching a DVD on a standard progressive 480p player and a unconverting player like the Panasonic S97S at 720p or 1080i. Yes John is correct that your dealing with the 480i signal on the dvds, but depending on the scaler quality, the picture WILL be much better. Taking it to the next level, my HTPC with 6600GT Nvidia card scaled to match my Z2's 1280 x 720 native resolution, actualy blows my S97S out of the water on quality. Not to mention the TheaterTek DVD Software I use in combination. The picture is simply breathtaking.

ps: I think we should change the subject to speaker break-in. Your right Ken, here we go again on our own, going down the only road we've ever known.....

Since I'm much more familiar with computer stuff, I used "increasing its resolution" from the sense of increasing the resolution of the final image (i.e. more pixels with 720p than 480p). I didn't mean to imply that one can get more information/detail than the original image has. I realize that interpolation is no more than a extrapolation of what the image might've looked like if it had been recorded at a higher resolution, but it's nothing more than a "guess".

I wonder if I'm just overly fixated on the video processing, like what Faroudja or DVDO offer. Those products get very good reviews (and cost a pretty penny), so I assume that there's some merit to them. I guess it's also b/c I'm stuck with game consoles that I love but only output to 480i/p, so I'm trying to find a way to "spiff up" the output. I may also be biased b/c I have one of the earlier 19" LCD monitor (back when they cost >$700), which does a pretty crappy job of scaling anything that's not its native resolution. So, I try to run everything at its native resolution to avoid to monitor's internal scaler. Perhaps I'm making the same assumptions about 720p projectors, so that's why I'm trying to scale everything up to 720p before it's sent to the projector ...

Oh no, I think cables is due.

Quote:

---

Sure, you can play it in your CD player, and maybe you even get some pseudo stereo added in with the decompression engine, but the quality can't possibly get any better than the source 96k mono mp3.

---

I'm with DW and JohnK on this.
I've seen two "upscaling" dvdps and there was virtually NO change at all. The increased resolution pictures actually just looked more grainy like someone over applied sharpness in Corel Photopaint to an image and that is something which is not "better", different sure, but definitely not "higher resolution".

One cannot make more pixels out of less except by using algorithms to assume what might be in the missing pixel places. You can certainly "make up" the 720p from 480, but it is not going to look like a true 720 signal which has EVERY pixel filled in from the original visual source. Perhaps there is a DSP out there that really is good at this and i haven't seen it yet, let alone any good in-store demos where they "try" to show you this.

Until then, garbage in, garbage out applies.

Now upconversion with the receiver outs can be handy by plugging in 2 or 3 sources of component cable sources so you can switch b/w them using only the receiver.

Oh my!, I bet Ken's wife is holding him down right now from going Crazyyyyyy. "Old-Timers"? "Lets get ready to rumbleeeeeeeeeeeeee"

heck, I'm happy to have the discussion-I've always had my 'feelings' about things like video conversion and it is interesting to hear the opinions of others.

As far as the native resolution on LCD monitors vs a projector I think you are safe-but again, I'm not sure. Using other than the native resolution on an LCD looks bad because of how the image is displayed. It has a little widget for each pixel on the screen-so if you run in a differet resolution it has to scale the image appropriately. I don't think that projectors have to do this-I use them at work and so long as you don't go beyond the native resolution the image always looks accurate to me.

What you experienced on the LCD though might help show my point. The LCD has to take an insufficient amount of data to fill its screen when you run in a lower resolution. The same will be true when the receiver takes your 480i input from the PS2 and tries to turn it into a 720p output on the TV. The problem hopefully won't be as bad as the LCD-but, and I've never tried this and I will be soon, if the receiver takes a 4:3 image and stretches it to 16:9 to acheive 720p then the picture will not be accurate unless the game supports a widescreen video mode. Hopefully the receivers have a way to switch between 4:3 and 16:9 or I'm probably not going to be happy with the conversion.

I'll be going through this in a couple of weeks. I'd try it out now but all my spare cables are packed up for the move. I'll post back on how it goes.

Quote:

---

I bet Ken's wife is holding him down right now from going Crazyyyyyy.

---

Like Ken is resisting his wife holding him down eh?

Quote:

---

if the receiver takes a 4:3 image and stretches it to 16:9 to acheive 720p then the picture will not be accurate

---

Our Toshiba has 4 aspect ratios and inevitably one of them can make everyone's heads look like Stewie Griffin.