ok, im thinkin of getting a refurb 2805 from ecost for $499usd, but im wondering is there the ability to have seperate crossovers for each channel like the harman kardan's do? cause i would like to cross my m60's over at 40 and the rest of my system at 80, is this possible with the 2805? and also when in pure direct mode is the crossover and sub still in effect? or is it pure two channel with no sub?

thnx much for any help

Denon does not allow for a seperate crossover frequency for each channel. It is one for all and all for one.

As far as sub with pure direct. . . don't know. I do know that with Onkyo, Direct has no sub involved. Just full range to the fronts.

I've got a 2105 & direct mode eliminates everything including the sub. Stereo mode keeps the crossover and sub.

I have the 2805 and the crossover is the same for all speakers, I use 80hz and all speakers set to small.

In Direct Mode or Pure Direct mode my sub works fine.

Randy

60's 150 350 4-Qs8's
2805
S97S
Z2

hmm...maybe ill hold out for an hk 635 then...most of the features are the same, except for the bass management feature, and i dunno if hk has the pure direct thing... or maybe ill just wait for the next generation of receivers so that hdmi is included...thnx for the help

The HKs don't have a name for it, but "surround off" + "DSP off" + "no tone controls" = pure direct, ie analog inputs go straight through without ever being digitized or otherwise manipulated.

Yeah, but it doesn't turn off the video circuits, so we're totally screwed. Screwed, I tell you! Our signal!

what about large and small settings for the speakers with the denon? with my yamaha right now i like how its set up as i can set the mains to large so they get the whole signal, but it still sends bass lower than 80hz to the sub as i have sub set on "both" is this possible with the denon?

I have a Denon 885/2105 and yes I can set the speakers to small or large. the sub is crossover is set at 80. It seem most of the fellows on the board do the same thing. I am not sure about the "both" part concerning the sub.

Outlaw Audio has an ICBM for bass managment I think is worth a look.

yes that is another option, but how would i get the lfe signal to the sub if the sub is plugged into that? also wouldnt that only be used if i had seperates and not a avr?

I'm not sure about the 2805, but the 3805 does have the "both" feature. Denon calls it the Subwoofer mode setting and you have a choice of LFE or LFE+Main. In the LFE+Main mode bass is sent to both the main channels set to Large and the subwoofer.

Yes, between pre and amp. (Sorry. Got lost in the conversation.) Which is what I am looking at. ICBM routes all lfe to sub.

Montclair that is exactly what my yamaha does now...hopefully the 2805 would do that also..but im still pondering if hdmi is worth the wait...

darren700, I checked the Denon website for the 2805 manual. The 2805 does have the LFE or LFE+Main option. See page 35 of the manual.

I'm using HDMI directly to my TV from my Denon DVD-2910. I like the connection, but it is occasionally a slight hassle not being to see the on-screen menus from the receiver. I've learned how to use the receiver display most of the time. HDMI would be a nice way to reduce the cluster of wires at the back of the receiver.

im just wondering if there really is a picture quality benefit vs that of component cables. thnx for looking up the manual for me too

From what I've read there isn't a real benefit/difference from using component cables vs DVI/HDMI. The latter connections simply allow copyright restrictions which is why all the major content providers (ie. Disney) are pushing hard for it. Dell used to have an awesome white paper (which they now got rid) but it basically stated there was no difference. I'm sure if you can google and perform some research yourself.

A friend sent this to me a couple months ago. Forgot which magazine it was...

Also here's an interview I found:

First, there is no qualitative difference between the signal quality of the broadcast signal and the compressed digital bitstream on the IEEE 1394 connection. They are technically identical. There is no qualitative difference between the DVI and analog video output -- they can both be full HD quality signals without degradation."

"At some point, if we were to run the DVI and analog cables for a long distance the analog component video cables would be more susceptible to interference and noise. However, this tends to be a moot point, since the maximum length of a DVI cable is 3 meters."

These comments are on page 24 of the July 2002 issue. I have yet to see any engineer or professional challenge his technical statements (and they most certainly would, if he was in error). This excellent article debunks many of the DVI myths, and makes a clear case that DVI is the best friend for the content providers (television studios, film studios, distribution companies, cable companies, satellite companies, and the rest). It also makes it quite clear that DVI is the consumer's worst enemy, as it will (probably) do an end-run around the Supreme Court decision of the 1980s, and let Disney and all of the others have what they wanted in the infamous Betamax case -- an elimination of home taping or recording, and a movement toward "pay per view" and a "video jukebox" standard for film, television, broadcast, cable, satellite, etc.

I used to groan everytime I would read on one of these forums that "DVI is uncompressed, so it will look better!"

Now, I just sadly laugh.

DVI will do you no good, today. Every product sold with a DVI connector does make Disney a bit happier, and Viacom a bit happier, and Paramount a bit happier, and Jack Valenti a bit happier, and Fox a bit happier. They want this to become the standard. That is why they "declared" that it would be the standard.

Do you need it?

No.

Do you want it?

"Uh, no, not really, but gee, I am so, so afraid that I might be 'left behind,' I guess that I will buy mine as an insurance policy, and surely my one leetle-old set is not really going to make any difference in the long run, now really... is it?"

These same content providers told us DIVX was going to be the standard. They had an agenda. The consumer voted, and (fortunately) won. These same content providers told us DAT was going to be the standard. They had an agenda. The consumer voted, and (fortunately) won.

However, the consumer also makes mistakes... often through fear. VHS won over Beta.

Don't be afraid.

thanks alot for that hashts but i will definatly look into this more

EDIT: seems that it really depends on your components
DVI Vs Component

Hi hashts,

Much of this confirms what I've written in features for Axiom's AudioFile monthly newsletter, as well as backing up some of my own tests of DVI vs. component video connections.

Indeed, using DVI or HDMI may actually result in a somewhat degraded signal (compared to component video) because a lot of extra data is consumed by the digital "handshake" the anti-copying software has to make with the display device before it "allows" the two devices to communicate. As our in -house engineer noted, "fewer bits allocated to the video image means possible degradation".

Consequently, component-video connection may produce a visibly superior picture.

I'm not convinced than an A/V receiver equipped with HDMI switching will enable an on-screen menu. It seems that superimposing the receiver's on-screen menu data might corrupt the HDMI signal, but I may be wrong here.

Regards,

Yes, excellent point Alan...I never thought of how they would get the On Screen Display via HDMI (might be possible tho). I currently have a 2805 and it send the OSD via the component and am VERY happy with it. Sure I would love to try out the 4806 with HDMI switching but that thing is spensive!

Haha just read the other thread with Sirquack and how he loves his setup (from component to DVI/HDMI). I'm not flaming or trolling but to each his own I guess. It all boils down to what makes you happy, whether its HDMI, component or S-Video!

This recent Audioholics article on the HDMI interface I found very interesting. The information hashts references might be older information that applies only to the IEEE 1394 connection because the Audioholics article indicates the HDMI bandwidth is quite huge. Here’s an excerpt from the article.

Audioholics HDMI Interface – A Beginners Guide
“…Interface standards like IEEE 1394 (400/800 Mbps) transfer only compressed audio-video data, thereby potentially compromising the picture quality.

A single HDMI link, on the other hand, is capable of transferring up to 24 bits of user data at 165 Mpixels per second, resulting in a massive bandwidth of nearly 4 Gbps. This is enough to support the 1080p resolutions of today’s newest high-definition displays while still leaving room to transport up to 8 channels of high-resolution audio with 24 bits of resolution and a sampling frequency up to 192 kHz – all across a single HDMI cable. This is well beyond the maximum specifications of even DVD-Audio, which tops out at 6 channels and a sample rate of 96 kHz…”

I agree with the concerns about the possible copy protection issues. I really hope sanity will eventually prevail and a reasonable use can be worked into the systems. I suspect the actual perceived picture quality benefit might depend on your display. I have a fixed pixel LCD panel so it made no sense to convert the digital signal to an analog component signal and then reconvert back to digital. However, I think the bigger reason I see a slight improvement in the HDMI connection is my Denon 2910 does the up-conversion from 480p to the display native format of 720p and it does a better job.

Excellent and informative article Montclair!

It will be very interested how everything shapes out in the next few years in terms of HD, resolutions, cabling and content. What really struck me is that if a device is compromised then they can basically lock you out and not decode the signals, basicallu rendering it useless.