I'm one of those guys that likes to have everything the same brand - hence I have 3 HK units in my cabinet. Well the DVD player went out and I purchased a Denon. Today I also purchased the Denon DCM380 and now I am eyeing a AVR-3801 for about $500 shipped.

Do you guys think the 3801 is a downgrade from my HK AVR520?

I know H/K is known for more accurate power ratings - Are Denon's as accurate? supposedly the 3801 is 105watts but will this drop to 60-70 when all 5 channels are driven?

I've done some research and some review the 3801 as a THX receiver without the stamp on it. Others have said that the build quality is better than the 3803...

Any Denon users have opinions?

thanks,

Steve

Steve, audio components are quite congenial; your new Denon components won't mind a bit that they're working with an HK. About the only thing I see where the 3801 would have an advantage is the 7 channels of power, while the 520 has 5, but with pre-amps for 7. This might not be significant to you if you don't plan for 7.1. The 520 has Logic 7 processing, which many consider to be superior. So far as the power, there's no significant difference in real-world operation. In particular, all channels driven simultaneously at full power for an extended period is a condition that exists in the test lab, but not in the home. Far too much attention is sometimes paid to it. Both receivers are fine, there's no good reason for you to change.

If you do feel like changing anyway, feel free to ship your old H/K stuff to me. My wife mentioned that we should have a receiver in our computer room...

I guess I have just got a case of upgrade-itis. I replaced my speakers with Axioms, then my DVD needed replacing...

Once one starts on this dark path, it's hard to turn back!

Steve, the 3801 is several generations old. I'm not sure how that translates into features, etc. But the 3803 was recently replaced by the 3805. I'm not sure I'd be inclined to change.

Well, the 520 is a couple generations old, too. It was replaced by the 525, which was replaced by the 630 (?).

I got the 520 as a gift a few years back, so my investment is minimal. I was looking at the 3803 & 3805 too. The criteria I am judging things mostly by power handling. My room will not accomodate 6.1 or 7.1 so Dolby EX and DTS EX are a waste of money.

Thanks for the input

-Steveo

How do you like the DCM-380? I was thinking of getting that player for my dad. Does anyone know how that player would compare to the NAD 521i? All of this would of course, be through analog inputs.

The DCM is a nice unit. I got it for $150 (A-Stock) from a dealer in Valencia, Calif. Since I listen to more music now, I thought It would complement my system. The mechanism has very good response time and is quieter than my H/K

It's a quasi-upgrade from a H/K CDR-30 which I have never used for making CD's.

What about the all important sound quality? I like the fact that the player has a 5 disc changer in it and it's also a Denon which will match with my dad's reciever. But if the NAD is superior then I will go with the NAD.

ecost has the DCM for $89.95. However, they also have the Denon DVM-4800 for $319 (MSRP is $1199). I bought one of these 4800 beauties last year from ecost and I'm still thrilled about it.

It is their top of the line 5 disc CD player. However, it ALSO acts as a progressive scan DVD player. I bought it primarily for CDs because of the price, it's a Denon, it wasn't much more than less featured models I looked at and it is a BUCKETFULL of DACs for audio. This thing is a tank and it produces wonderful audio.

For the price, I could have gotten a mid-range 5 disc CD player. The DVD capability is a bonus. Here's the neat part - the PQ is as good as my DVD-1600. Sometimes I just sit in the family room at stare at the thing and enjoy feeling smug at my choice to buy it .

In reply to:

---

I bought one of these 4800 beauties last year from ecost and I'm still thrilled about it.

---

Heh, I bought a 5800 almost 2 years ago now, but if i would be able to do it over, I'd go 4800. Funny thing is that mine is RATED to put out more power, but yours has significantly more TRUE power when all channels are driven.

Um. I think he's talking about a DVD player...

Haha, that's what I get when I'm half-asleep and only read the word numbers 4800 - heh. But yea, the AVR-4800 from Denon is better than the AVR-5800, as I found out the hard way... [as irrelevent as that fact is to this conversation]

Hey, well, you're (should be?) doped up on painkillers right now anyway. And I really, really shouldn't argue with someone who curls 60 lbs. Yeek!

In reply to:

---

And I really, really shouldn't argue with someone who curls 60 lbs.

---

Make that tries to curl 60 lbs, and hurts himself, while making a fool out of himself at the gym for trying those weights and not being able to handle them - heh. I don't even know why I tried 60's again. I usually end my routine with 50's or 55's.

Did I miss a post about weight-lifting somewhere?

(Oh, and 60 shmixty. )

In reply to:

---

(Oh, and 60 shmixty. [tounge] )

---

Out of curiosity, what is it that you curl? I'm only 5'8", so for my height it's a very good amount. If I am not mistaken, you are very tall, correct?

Heck, I'd think for anyone of any height who is only on creatine and protein shakes, 60 lbs per arm is a pretty high number on free weights. (Obviously the machines, when put to "120 lbs," don't count, as they usually aren't accurate.)

I see people at the gym curling some 70-80 lbs sometimes, and I can only wonder how much Androstenedione/diol they are using. I also can only laugh at how they will have so many hormonal problems as they stop taking them due to their usage of prohormones now - heh.

I was just "yankin' yer chain" -- so to speak. 60 is pretty impressive, especially for a shortie like you. .

I'm 6'4", but I don't curl freeweights. My workout routine is purely for maintenance (and cholesterol reduction), not building. But I can tell you that when I worked out for the basketball team in high school, I wasn't curling that much.

Ah. And yea, I'm very short - heh. I guess that is why I do lifting and Muay Thai Boxing. (a bit of the o'le Napoleon Complex)

In reply to:

---

But I can tell you that when I worked out for the basketball team in high school, I wasn't curling that much.

---

Want to know what I curled when I was in high school? Sheesh - when I was in high school, I was so scrawny that I thought 35's were too heavy for more than 15 reps total.