Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Anyone using the Denon 3808CI and M80’s yet?

Here I go again…..

I believe I’ve narrowed down my choice for the next audio processor to the 3808CI. Before I buy one, I’d like to know how well it plays with the M80’s. And none of that half watt talk Mojo!!

This receiver sounds too good to be true. I just spent the better part of the AM scanning user posts at AVS and there are very few, if any issues being reported. The few that have been reported have been addressed with a recent firmware update too.

Other receivers I have been looking at are:
Onkyo 905
Integra 8.8
Yamaha 3800

It would appear the 905 and 8.8 have a more robust power supplies, but they’re crippled with numerous issues that I don’t care to deal with.

The 3808 is lacking THX Ultra (or any THX cert for that matter).

The 3808 has what appears to be a pretty slick GUI that overlays onto HD video. No others have this.

The 3800 lacks Audysey, and I’m an Audysey junky. I wasn’t too impressed with Yamaha’s room EQ.

The 8.8 and 905 incorporate the Reon chip, but that’s a non issue for me. I’ll keep my external Video Processor in the chain.

I thought you had the A1400-8 on layaway?

The half watt is a limitation imposed upon me by the rest of the family. When they're away, the room gets quite a bit hotter than that .

Mike, clearly the folks at Denon are unaware of your interest. Given your track record, I wouldn't consider selling you any of my products if I were in their shoes. Seriously, what's the upside for them?

OTOH, if Denon were to enlist your help as a product tester, and you provided a passing grade, they could be relatively certain that the unit would not spontaneously combust for other users.

I'll look forward to your review/story posted here, if I don't see it on the CBS evening news first.

No Rob, I came to my senses the last day of the pre-order sale and decided against spending three grand on a 1400 watt amp for my huge, 12 X 16 room.

Good to know you give that volume knob a twist Tex. We all need to stress the auditory senses from time to time.

OK Tom.. Enough out of you buddy. Go to your room and take a time out.

……if I do buy one, or any other processor, I’ll do another ‘mini’ review with pictures and smoke.

My stupid Marantz that Marantz sent me to replace the defective one has a problem that requires it to be... in their words “evaluated” for possible repair (doubtful) or replacement….again. If they replace it, they have to replace it with the model (8002) because they don’t have any 8001’s in stock. So here I go again, buy another receiver to tide me over while this one gets ‘evaluated’. This time I’m keeping whatever I buy to tide me over and peddling whatever Marantz sends back to me.

Mike, being a Denon fan that would be my choice since that's the unit that has everything you want, I've owned 3 Denon receivers and never had a single problem with any of them, My old 3805 drove the 80's without breaking a sweat.
Besides us Denon owners on the board need a guy with your technical expertise to get one.

Seeing how the only thing you haven't blown up so far has been the Rotel that should be telling you something

Yeah, I'm going with Wid. Let's see... you've blown up an H/K, a Denon (right?), a Marantz, a Yamaha (or is that one ok?)... that leaves Rotel, Outlaw, NAD, Parasound, and some other esoteric brands.


Or you could try Sony, maybe.

EDIT: Yes, I know they've blown up on you, not you've blown them up. Funnier my way.

The 3808 is the receiver that I've also been keeping an eye on, probably not seriously 'till after winter though. Looking forward to your reviews and thoughts whenever you take delivery of your 3808 here in a couple of weeks Mike.

My little 1804 drives the M80s extrememly well and I have even had that 3ohm load VPM194 hooked up toit and had it cranked up pretty good, no smoke and no clipping. I couldn't imagine a better power supply than the ones Denon is using.

You may want to hold out for the yet to be released Sherwood Newcastle R872 or R972, as they appear to be going with the Reon as well; and Axiom sells S/N so you know they will work with the M80s. Everything else about the S/N's I have found looks to be similar if not taken from (or vice versa) Denon.

You said the 3808 lacks Audyssey yet I see it listed on the product sheet.

I am thinking about getting this receiver too... probably sooner rather than later. not sure though.

Let me know what you think if you pick it up

Yeah, but Mike doesn't care about the Reon chip because he has an external video processor.

I'm going back to "time out" now.

Mike, if the 3800 is out because you want Audyssey, and the Reon on the 905 doesn't have a special attraction because of your separate video processor, that leaves the 3808 and of course there's no reason why it wouldn't be excellent with your M80s; no opinions needed. You might keep in mind though that the Sherwood Newcastle 972 which might be out in about three months will have a version of the Trinnov audio processor.

I reckon I opened myself to all this..... Abuse!!!

I’d love to have Rotel, or NAD even, but unfortunately they do not have any HDMI audio processing. I’m really irritated with NAD in that regards too… They delayed release of their latest and greatest processors to incorporate HDMI 1.3 verses 1.1, to only enable Multi Channel PCM processing. They have no plans to decode the bitstream formats from BR or HD. And Rotel is one step further back than NAD. They just switch HDMI….. No, the only three choices I have are Denon, Onkyo/Integra and Yamaha (and I ain’t even considering another stinking Marantz, so that’s not an option).

The S/N 972 continues to get pushed back. Now their talking second quarter of 08 and they can’t even make up their mind what VP to use….

And for the record Rick / Ken….. I didn’t blow any up. We just have had, er…. Uh… disagreements. I think they should work as advertised, and they don’t. So you two just join Tom in ‘time out’. No dinner for any of you smartasses.

Too late, I'm eating now. Neener neener.

I had to take advantage of a sale occurring now for the Denon 3808CI, but ending at 8:00 PM tonight at 6th avenue electronics. $1099 and free shipping (well not to Alaska or Hawaii anyway). You have to call them and ask for the special price. http://www.6ave.com/shop/home.aspx

The games begin in about four days….

I sure hope I have better luck with this one.

is 6th ave an authorized denon dealer?

They are listed on Denon's site as being authorized

good, I just made a purchase for the 3808 from 6ave. Thanks mdrew for pointing that out! The cheapest price I had seen was for 1299 somewhere else.

I couldn't resist saving money so I bought it. I just need some speakers now...

I am about to have a $1100 hdmi switcher for a month or so until I get my axioms!

That's why I bought it too... I have not seen it that low from an authorized dealer before. At that price, I can't be worse off than I am now.

Anyone want a Marnatz? LOL

Well, if you're just giving it away...

Hey guys...been a long while.

I also got a new 3808...and it's been quite good so far. Gotta love HDMI...the one cable solution.

Now, the one question I have...since the 3808 is compatible with 1.3a, is it worth it to get HDMI cables that support that bandwidth as well? They are not that much more at monoprice, so, I figured it might be worth a question, before I make the purchase.

Hope u like the receiver mdrew...I know I do, so far. Though, since my wife and I just moved to Florida (back in June), it's going to take some time to get the new room setup.

I have heard that the new 1.3a cables are just marketing gimmicks...however, I could be wrong, I do know that normal HDMI cables have the bandwidth to carry most of the 1.3a specs, if not all of them.

I say go for the 1.3a if you have a 1.3 compatible display.

I will have to check the specs for the TV...but, I do know that the receiver accepts 1.3a signals.

I doubt that the Direct TV receiver, although an HD receiver, can pass out 1.3a signals...but other devices, such as HD-DVD players, the PS3, etc. are all 1.3a compliant.

No matter what player outputs 1.3a HDMI, your display has to be a 1.3a display, or the 1.3a is useless.

Cool...thanks. I guess that's the answer I was looking for. So, it's all about the display...for the most part.

double post

The 1.3 spec allows for a much higher bandwidth capacity than 1.1, but from my understanding, that is mostly in regards to deep color because 1.1 can accommodate 9 channels of un-packed high rez PCM, which is a lot more information than DST-M and DD True HD in bitstream format (which 1.3 supports over 1.1 and 1.2). Deep color however, (again to my understanding) will most likely not ever happen. So I wouldn’t get all fired up to swap out cables just because you have a 1.3 receiver in the loop now. Where I’ve seen complaints with HDMI cables failing, is where folks have unusually long runs in excess of 35’ and they installed some cheap first batch 28 ga cables. I would suggest to anyone running cable, to just get a good 22 (or 24) gauge cable and that should be adequate. If deep color actually starts to show up, then I reckon it might be time to rip everything out and start all over with some new and improved media transfer system…..

So how’s the GUI working out for you? Any issues with that?? That’s probably what I’m looking forward to more than anything else.

Yeah, content that's natively Deep Color seems unlikely. However, I could see color upconversion at some point, where the player or display intelligently smooths out the gradation. If bandwidth is really an issue with Deep Color, then I imagine all of that video processing would end up in the display rather than the player. Native Deep Color? Maybe with holographic media, ultra high-def, and the successor to HDMI.

That's just a stab in the dark after zero research whatsoever.

The GUI is pretty neat. Much better than the crappy one on the HK Avr-7300 which I sold. No good POC!...hehe. It's actually set up pretty nice, and once you figure out how to naviate through it, it becomes much easier to use. I like it...but, ymmv.

I tell ya, I am glad that the Denon is Made in Japan...their workmanship is SO much better than the stuff made in China. No offense to anyone, but, that's just my take on it. I am sure there are some components in the 3808 from China, but the majority of it is Japan. I know the 'remote' is MIC...but, I think the rest of the receiver is all Japan. Of course, I would have to inspect all the chips, to see the truth.

Just tried to look up the specs on the TV...but, the only thing I could find is that the LCD has HDMI with HDCP. Not sure if it's 1.3a...as I couldn't find the specs, even on the manufacturers' site.

Hmmm....

Oh, and as for HDMI cables...I only have the two so far...one for the DTV box to receiver and one for the receiver to the TV. Never had HDMI cables before, since the HK never accepted those types of connections.

I'd also like to throw out a 'thank you' to mdrew for the head's up about the special on the Denon 3808 from Sixth Ave. I saved a load of $$ compared to the price I would have paid here. I'm in Canada and they don't ship here, so I had it shipped to a postal service in Neche ND. I'm going to drive down and pick it up when it arrives.

If there are any other Canucks from Manitoba out there that are a reasonable distance from Neche and want info on the postal service, just PM me.

Good Stuff... I've been all over the place on what AV to upgrade to, but the 3808 has been on my short list.

I thought that I had to settle on the M60's though I really wanted the M80's. I did not want to turn my decision into a long math problem, but if the 3808 will drive the M80's without issue then it makes the journey easier.

My little 1804 drives the M80s to very loud volumes, don't fret over the 4 ohms.

JakeWash--- If your 1804 drives your M80's to very loud volumes, the I feel really really solid about my choice of a Denon 1804 thru 3808... Done deal! Thanks for the feeback!

So now my concern is which model from 1804 - 3808. Which is a fun problem to have....

That new GUI on the 3808 looks to good to pass up if you can afford it. The lower series do not have this.....yet. The few extra watts of power and a few more bells and whistles doesn't hurt either. I am lookin at nothing less than the 2308 and up as they have the HDMI upconversion from all input sources.

The 3808 is $1199 at "The New Connection".

http://shop.thenewconnection.com/viewite...sion&amount=.75

Back surround speaker channels re-assignable for bi-amping front left and right speakers!

So 260W/channel up front guys. Rock on!

Is that enough head room for you above the 1/2 watt nominal?

I've driven my 2105 well beyond its rated spec of 90W/channel with no issue.

And last week, I drove M80s/M60s/M22s/M3s/Bose601s...all in parallel at the same time .

No, still a mere 130 watts, Mo.

How's that, John? The rears have their own 130W output stages. So that's 130W for each front and 130W for each rear. What am I missing?

Sending the same amount of power through two sets of output transistors rather than one doesn't double the power or increase it by any other amount.

Although you cant really tell in the pictures. I think the new denons are HIDEOUS! The knobs are really the worst thing about them, Picture some cheesy walmart boombox, They have gone and stuck the knobs from one of those onto it. I was really dissapointed with the build quality of the 4308CI i was working with the other day. Everything about it just seemed cheap. The build quality was really no different than the 1508.

John,

The rear channels are 130W each. The front are 130W each. The speaker system consists of bass and mids/highs. 130W to the bass and 130W to the mids/highs = 260W for the speaker system.

This particular amp and I believe one of the THX-certified Onkyos have this capability unless I am missing something fundamental. This flexible assignment of channels is something that could have been done a long time ago and I don't understand why it's coming of age now.

Now it's not only BrotherBob, Wid and MarkStephenJohnson that can blow their brains out. We all can...on the cheap .

No, the output transistors have no power of their own and as you know they simply serve as valves to measure out the required amount of power from the power supply section to the speakers. Any 130 watt amplifier sends 130 watts to the bass section and 130 to the mid/high section. Only 130(nominally), not 260 watts are available; funneling through two sets of output transistors doesn't change that. No "biamping" is involved.

John,

I think the point that is being missed is that this particular Denon has four separate amplifiers that can be dedicated to the front speakers.

Two of these amplifiers are the usual front L/R and the other two are the rear L/R that can also be configured as fronts.

So the first two can be connected to the L/R woofers. The last two can be connected to the L/R mids/highs.

Each of these amplifiers has the capability of routing 130W to each channel. So the left channel will get 130W for the woofs and another 130W for the mids/highs. Ditto for the right.

Since each speaker can now get 260W, that's a total of 520W for the fronts. That would give me 30dB of headroom. And a full 24dB when I get crazy and decide to crank it to 1 full watt per side .

I believe John is saying that you can not add the 2 seperate powers supplies together to achieve the 260 watts for each speaker. He is saying the woofers are still only getting 130W and the mids/tweets are still only getting 130watts, you can not add those 2 together as if they had 260 watts of power to draw from as they don't, there is still only 130 watts of power to each binding post, which is not the same as 260W. The woofers will be drawing from 130W and the mid/tweets will be drawing from 130W, 2 seperate channels on one speaker.

What has happened in this formula is the load on each channel has dropped and you should be able to push each one a little harder before clipping.

Right. There will be a 130W reserve for the woofs and another 130W reserve for the mids/tweets - for a total of 260W per speaker .

It's different from what we have on our receivers, Jason. We have A & B channels but they are connected to the same amp that can only provide 90W for A&B together. A lot of newbies think that they can connect A to the woofs and B to the mids/tweets and bingo they've got twice the power. And we know that they don't.

But this Denon is part of a new generation where you can assign 4 separate internal amps to stereo.

Now come to think of it, we can bi-amp to 4 separate amps today using our Denons by using 7-channel stereo. I personally wouldn't do it but it can be done. Just wire the front two channels to the woofs and the rear two channels to the mids/tweets and set to 7-channel stereo for 90Wx2 to each speaker.

Heck, why stop there? Pull the cross-overs out of your 80s, cut the tracks that cross over to the tweets and connect your side channels to these tracks. Remove the clips from the binding posts, set to 7-channel stereo and you can have 90Wx3 for a total of 270W per speaker.

Mojo, I think everyone is well aware that the amplifiers are separate. There have been several receivers offering this feature for quite some time.

However, there are a few limitations. Those extra 2 amps are hooked to the same power supply as the other amps. But even if you had 2 physically separate 2 channel amps, you would not have a doubling in power; each amp can only send its maximum. That doesn't mean that they are additive.

Ken,

The power supply is fully capable of supplying the maximum power of all channels together.

My Denon for example is rated at 90W/channel x 7 channels. That's a total of 630W. In fact, it's capable of a lot more.

I can in fact pull out all 630W...and more. Don't let anyone deceive you by telling you that just because you have an integrated receiver rated at 90W/channel, you can only pull 90W out. No way! It's 90W x the number of channels.

Do you understand?

Tex,

Jason is right on this one. You will not get 260 watts to any part of the speaker when biamping in this manner. If you take your measuring equipment and check the power at each part of the binding post, with or without biamping, you will never measure 260 watts.

Do you understand?

No, I don't. I'm not trying to be difficult. I really don't understand what I may be missing.

Maybe I should post a block diagram so that we can discuss this more concretely. But that'll have to wait until after coffee, muffins and skateboarding.

There is no ground to measure to… You will not see 260 watts. Your effective current capacity is doubled, but not the voltage (I think).

Also, I may be incorrect, but I have always understood that receivers used one amp with taps off the amp’s windings to power each channel with its own capacitance. I do not think there are seven individual amps in a receiver.

OK, I’ll shut up now…

Mike,

Sorry buddy but I don't even know where to start with that one . Let me just say that there are indeed separate amplifiers for each channel. Once this is understood, what I've said above will click with everyone. I better post a block diagram because I can see everyone's very confused.

Mike that is why they specifically say discrete power, each channel has its own amp.

Tex, are you suggesting that the 3808 is capable of dumping extra power above the rated power into one of the channels? As far as I know the A1400-8 is the only one capable of adding extra power into any one channel. Each seperate channel in the receiver is not allowed to go that far above its rated power.

I know what you are trying to say, as the same signal is now being amplified by the 2 seperate amps/speaker, the power should be doubled, but the problem is the power is still not doubled as each amp is supplying 2 different speakers(binding straps removed effectively makes 2 speakers out of one), so this splitting of speakers keeps that power seperated. You still have one amp supplying power to a pair of speakers just like you normally would, only 130 watts to the woofers and 130 watts to the mids/tweets, at no time can either speaker set(woofers or mid/tweeters) draw from the other for more power to get above 130watts. The upper frequency range is being amplified by the 130W and the lower range by 130W neither range has the ability to add amplification the other.

Now if we never took off the binding straps(you do have to remove the binding straps to run to 2 amps on one speaker right?) and ran 4 speakers across the front, all with 130w full range, the front channel now has 260 watts of amplified power/channel but still only 130 watts per speaker.

No, the 3808 is not capable of dumping power over and above what each channel is rated. Kudos to Axiom...the A1400-8 is the only one that can dynamically assign more power.

Your explanation in the second paragraph is absolutely correct. 130W to the woofs and another 130W to the mids/tweets. If the woofs need more than 130W, they can't draw from the mids/tweets. If you look at the speaker system as a black box, it has the potential of drawing as much as 260W .

Heh, heh...I was thinking of your last paragraph last night. I see absolutely no reason why you can't run the front and rear channels to a speaker with the binding posts on. That would permit 260W to be shared however the drivers see fit. The only time such a scheme would create problems is when the signals of the front and rear amps are of differing magnitudes and phases causing current to flow from one amp to the other. But this wouldn't be possible if the rears are also configured as fronts and set to the same channel levels.

As a matter of fact, even with our Denons today, if we configure the distances of the side and rear channels to be the same as the distances of the fronts and adjust the channel levels to be the same, we should be able to wire all channels to our fronts, put it in 7-channel stereo and send our families packing .

Jason, maybe you can try this today with your 80s. Like you said, it never ends .

Guys,

Do I still need to draw a block diagram? I'd rather play outside right now .

You would still only be getting 130 to any one point of the speaker the same as if you just ran them with 130 a side with the binding straps in place.

Well, I guess that answers my question about the block diagram .

Bring it on Mojo, I don't believe a word 'them' other guys are saying ... what do they know anyways?

I don't care about any stinking diagram. You are not understaning what everyone else is saying. It's not like you hooked up a RB1080 to the M80s and the speaker would be able to draw 300 watts to both the upper and lower half of the speaker. No matter how you connect the Dennon at no point could you ever measure 260 watts like you could the Rotel.

Damn you have a hard head.

Wid is speaking gibberish, he knows darn well he's sitting on 660 watts.

Wid,

Do you want to borrow my laptop chiller ?

Nah, I'm cool You still have a hard head

Rick, think of all those watts your wasting with that fancy rotel.

Tell him Randy .... all 659 an a half of 'em.

Sheesh.

Oh, I see. I seem to have hit a sore spot. Well Rick, if it makes you feel any better, you can do with 4 wires what I can do with 12 .

Mojo, I'm not sure what will convince you. While there might be 130 watts of head room (whatever that really means) per channel, per driver array, it's still only 130 watts. 130 watts whether you hook up to one amp, 130 watts whether you hook up to two amps. That's it, that's all there is.

It's not a sore spot Tex. I just don't want a newbee thinking he/she can double the available power to their speakers using the Denon in such a way when in fact they can't.

If the design is indeed different than past designs, then I guess I need to know WHAT that difference means.

Thing is, it's not. It's the same feature that Yamaha, Denon, whoever's been offering for the last few years or so. You just redesignate those back amps to the front speakers.

Mo ... if I went out and installed a second drive shaft from the transmission to the rear end of my Ford truck I would then be doubling the HP and torque value rating of my truck, right? 1,100 ft pounds of torque in a stock 3/4 ton pickup truck, wow.

Isn't this basically what you are saying?

You know what the caveat to this whole thing is? You can't exceed the maximum voltage of each amplifier. Since they're all connected in parallel, you can source three times the current but the rail voltage doesn't change. You'd have to find a very low impedance speaker to take advantage of the extra current. Having the current doesn't do any good if you experience voltage collapse.

The rail voltage of my Denon is about 35 volts. The A1400 on the other hand has a rail voltage of around 90V.

So why do they offer this then? Is it for low impedance speakers (like 2 Ohm) or is it so that you can double up on fronts?

Nope, it's marketing. Plain and simple.

From what I've read, the only real benefit to biamping comes with a) extremely high volumes and b) external, active crossovers, neither of which you will achieve with a receiver.

I think there is some confusion between bi-amping and bridging. Bridging does mean combining two channels on the receiver into one. Bridging is much rarer as a feature.

I don't think I've ever seen bridging on a receiver, but that would certainly double the power.

I think someone told me awhile back that there are very few amps that can bridge into 4 ohms.

Actually I had two lapses in thinking:

1. In the case of disconnecting the strap and using the rear channels for bi-amping, I neglected the fact that the two speaker halves each have a larger impedance while the available rail voltage has not increased. There may still be a marginal benefit but I doubt it's of any practical significance.

2. In the case of multi-channel connected to the fronts, the speaker impedance doesn't change but the rail voltage remains the same. More current is available but without voltage there is no "pressure" to push the current out.

However, if anyone has low impedance speakers (say a couple of Ohms), both of these ways would power them very well.

So I'm glad I drew that block diagram for myself .

Onkyo-875 has that (not the 805), but they don't support 4Ohm bridged.

All the home amps I have seen that can be bridged recommend a minimum of 8 ohms in bridged mode.

Yeah, I found that out when I was looking with some interest at the Emotiva BPA-1 (I think) and going, hmm, if I get two, and bridge them... not so much.

BTW, I don't think I've told you guys that my next pre/pro and amp purchase will be separates.

Curious, why?

My buddy and I did some testing at his house with a 25 year-old Sansui and a newer Pioneer integrated receiver. The Sansui sounded "better" at the same SPL. We put his digital storage scope and programmable signal generator on both and discovered the Sansui's transient response made the Pioneer look slouchy. Maybe it was the Sansui's relatively monstrous caps that resulted in the difference we saw.

I have been leaning that way myself but the cost compared to a 3808 or similar, is a bit higher and for me that might be too much.

I suppose you can always save a little longer.

and go that much longer without all the features you are waiting for...

Boy, 37 more replies. There's nothing new about this and it's been discussed here at least ten times in the past few years. True biamping(questionable benefit for home use)requires two amplifiers, as the term implies. An amplifier basically is a power supply section connected to one or more channels of output transistors, which serve as valves to add the required amount of voltage gain(typically about 29db, about a 30-fold increase)from the power supply. The receivers which have a supposed "biamping" feature(among them most or all of the present Denons), apparently as an advertising gimmick, have only one amplifier(one power supply feeding up to seven output channels)and can't "biamplify".

Again, the amplifier always has to feed from its power supply to both the high and low frequency sections of a speaker. Funneling the same power to the speaker through two channels of output transistors(one previously unused)rather than one can't double the available power or increase it to any other degree.