Denon AVR-X3700H AVR Review

[zelig]

Amir, you write the best quality reviews anywhere. I’m replacing a Marantz SR5008 that has given me fits with occasional squealing the past year. No change in wiring or setup. I’ve concluded that it’s an internal AVR issue. Probably a capacitor or something simple if there was still such a thing as an electronics repair shop.

After reading several of your reviews, it seems that the absolute best deal in the $1000 to $3000 (maybe higher) range is the Denon X3600 or X3700. Maybe I missed another review? Is there anything else in that price range that delivers such audio quality? If not, then the question is X3600 or X3700? You raved about the X3600. And while your review of the X3700 was good, it seems that you think the prior model delivered better sound. So if you had to pick between the two, which would you buy? Thanks.

My opinion based on having read all the reviews...

I don't think Amir ever "raved" about any AVR, including Denons. The choice of which Denon model you buy should primarily be driven by your needs. For instance, if you have a relatively small room and a 5.1 or 7.1/2 setup then an X2600/X2700 might be the best choice. Paying the extra for an X3600/X3700 will give you more channels, power, and features that you may never use/need.

It's a bit like buying a car with a 3.6L engine over the same car with a 2.4L engine. If you only ever have a couple of people in your car and you never need to tow a trailer then the why pay more for the 3.6L version and the extra gas it will drink? Of course, you may just like stamping on the gas from time to time and leaving others in the dust, in which case you might decide on the 3.6L.

As for the choice between the X3600 and X3700, they are basically the same thing but X3700 gives you a few more features such as support for 8K video. All things being equal, the X3700 would be the obvious choice, but if you can find the X3600 considerably cheaper than the X3700 then that could be the one for you if you want to save money. At this point though, I am not seeing the X3600 being considerably cheaper, unless you can find one in the used market.

I would also add that issues identified in Amir's audio quality tests are often not audible to most human beings. Amir normally points this out. So while the X3600 may have tested marginally better than the X3700 in some areas, in real life use there would likely be no perceivable difference between the two.

As a final point, I have found that AVS is not a place to ask people to make decisions for you. The whole point of the place is to provide you with enough data that you can make informed decisions yourself. I'm betting I know no more about AVRs than you do but after a few months of reading thru these forums I feel I am able to make better buying decisions in some areas, AVR being one. In fact, I ended up cancelling my Denon X3700 order and buying a Yamaha TSR-7850 for a fraction of the price. I am sure the Yamaha would not perform as well under test as the Denon, but it meets my needs perfectly and at a price I'm happy to pay.

 

[BsdKurt]

For me, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is a must have feature. I would not drop below 3x00 for any setup since this is not available below this level. IMO, room correction makes a huge difference in the final results. If budget is a significant concern, I would wait a bit for the x3600 to drop in price before I would give up MultEQ XT32.

 

[valerianf]

Hello everyone, have you ever tested the bi-amp function to power front column speakers? Does this mode bring an improvement? Or there may be a post that already discusses the subject? Thanks !

I did not believed in bi-amp before but it dis bring a sound improvement.
You need to test is with your equipment: it depends how is designed the Tower filter cross-over and how much current is needed for the speakers.

 

[Lattiboy]

My opinion based on having read all the reviews...

I don't think Amir ever "raved" about any AVR, including Denons. The choice of which Denon model you buy should primarily be driven by your needs. For instance, if you have a relatively small room and a 5.1 or 7.1/2 setup then an X2600/X2700 might be the best choice. Paying the extra for an X3600/X3700 will give you more channels, power, and features that you may never use/need.

It's a bit like buying a car with a 3.6L engine over the same car with a 2.4L engine. If you only ever have a couple of people in your car and you never need to tow a trailer then the why pay more for the 3.6L version and the extra gas it will drink? Of course, you may just like stamping on the gas from time to time and leaving others in the dust, in which case you might decide on the 3.6L.

As for the choice between the X3600 and X3700, they are basically the same thing but X3700 gives you a few more features such as support for 8K video. All things being equal, the X3700 would be the obvious choice, but if you can find the X3600 considerably cheaper than the X3700 then that could be the one for you if you want to save money. At this point though, I am not seeing the X3600 being considerably cheaper, unless you can find one in the used market.

I would also add that issues identified in Amir's audio quality tests are often not audible to most human beings. Amir normally points this out. So while the X3600 may have tested marginally better than the X3700 in some areas, in real life use there would likely be no perceivable difference between the two.

As a final point, I have found that AVS is not a place to ask people to make decisions for you. The whole point of the place is to provide you with enough data that you can make informed decisions yourself. I'm betting I know no more about AVRs than you do but after a few months of reading thru these forums I feel I am able to make better buying decisions in some areas, AVR being one. In fact, I ended up cancelling my Denon X3700 order and buying a Yamaha TSR-7850 for a fraction of the price. I am sure the Yamaha would not perform as well under test as the Denon, but it meets my needs perfectly and at a price I'm happy to pay.

to second this, I’ve owned the 3500, SR6012, and now 3600. There was no significant audible difference between the three of them, even though the testing is much better for the 3600. The reason I ended up getting the 3600 was for future proofing and the amp assignment/disconnect feature. Both the 3500 and SR6012 got HOT(!), whereas the 3600 doesn’t get uncomfortably warm even after multi-hour listening sessions.

I’m using primarily as a DAC/preamp, with the 3600 driving the center speaker for multi channel listening and an Onkyo M-504 driving my Infiniry Renaissance 80s.

 

[zelig]

For me, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is a must have feature. I would not drop below 3x00 for any setup since this is not available below this level. IMO, room correction makes a huge difference in the final results. If budget is a significant concern, I would wait a bit for the x3600 to drop in price before I would give up MultEQ XT32.

It's not as if the lower models don't have room correction. XT may not produce as good results in all situations as XT 32 (I assume) but its there and it works. And Yamaha have YPAO of course.

 

[Daniel0]

It's not as if the lower models don't have room correction. XT may not produce as good results in all situations as XT 32 (I assume) but its there and it works. And Yamaha have YPAO of course.

You can't really compare XT32 and XT despite their naming similarities:
XT vs XT32
And to be honest I wouldn't even put the most advanced YPAO against Audyssey XT since there are leagues between them especially in the most important metric: bass correction.
And Audyssey does have more features like dynamic eq which many people use regularly.

 

[Chuchu]

Amir, you write the best quality reviews anywhere. I’m replacing a Marantz SR5008 that has given me fits with occasional squealing the past year. No change in wiring or setup. I’ve concluded that it’s an internal AVR issue. Probably a capacitor or something simple if there was still such a thing as an electronics repair shop.

After reading several of your reviews, it seems that the absolute best deal in the $1000 to $3000 (maybe higher) range is the Denon X3600 or X3700. Maybe I missed another review? Is there anything else in that price range that delivers such audio quality? If not, then the question is X3600 or X3700? You raved about the X3600. And while your review of the X3700 was good, it seems that you think the prior model delivered better sound. So if you had to pick between the two, which would you buy? Thanks.

If you're talking about pure digital true to source audio, Denon X3700/X3600 is good.
If you're talking about music enjoyment, step up to Arcam AVR with Live Dirac.

 

[Chromatischism]

If you're talking about pure digital true to source audio, Denon X3700/X3600 is good.
If you're talking about music enjoyment, step up to Arcam AVR with Live Dirac.

I enjoy music with my X4500.

If you take Floyd Toole's research and advice and use speakers that measure well on and off-axis, and only correct to 300-500 Hz, and use one or more subwoofers (all things you should be doing), Audyssey is generally better.

 

[bobopich]

I enjoy music with my X4500.

If you take Floyd Toole's research and advice and use speakers that measure well on and off-axis, and only correct to about 300 Hz, and use one or more subwoofers (all things you should be doing), Audyssey is generally better.

Arcam + Dirac is not a step up, i’ve tried it for 2 years untill i switched to x3600 and audyssey app. You just need minidsp if you have more than 2 subs and room modes are not fixed to 300hz it depends on the room in my case it is around 500hz.

 

[Chromatischism]

Arcam + Dirac is not a step up, i’ve tried it for 2 years untill i switched to x3600 and audyssey app. You just need minidsp if you have more than 2 subs and room modes are not fixed to 300hz it depends on the room in my case it is around 500hz.

If we're referring to the "transition frequency", it ranges from 150-300 Hz. Smaller room = higher. My 17x11 room transitions around 250-275 Hz. Large rooms are closer to 150 Hz.

At 500 Hz you must be in a closet

 

[bobopich]

If we're referring to the "transition frequency", it ranges from 150-300 Hz. Smaller room = higher. My 17x11 room transitions around 250-275 Hz. Large rooms are closer to 150 Hz.

At 500 Hz you must be in a closet

I agree in most cases but my room is not proportional and I have some open spaces so not easy to work with. Here is what my center channel looks like without correction. Which frequency would you choose for the curtain ?

 

[peng]

I agree in most cases but my room is not proportional and I have some open spaces so not easy to work with. Here is what my center channel looks like without correction. Which frequency would you choose for the curtain ?View attachment 78594

600 Hz at the minimum!! That's above the transition frequency but so what? (I know you know that, just saying..) Floyd Toole's remarks about the merits of correcting above the RTF often get taken out of text. He did not say it had no value, or bad, he just pointed out the fact that measurements above RTF would not be reliable, hence the "correction" may not be reliable. So if I understood correctly, for REW users who would take the time to verify the results after each Audyssey run and/or editing with the App and then take further actions, correcting up to 600 Hz or even higher may be fine.

 

[Chromatischism]

600 Hz at the minimum!! That's above the transition frequency but so what? (I know you know that, just saying..) Floyd Toole's remarks about the merits of correcting above the RTF often get taken out of text. He did not say it had no value, or bad, he just pointed out the fact that measurements above RTF would not be reliable, hence the "correction" may not be reliable. So if I understood correctly, for REW users who would take the time to verify the results after each Audyssey run and/or editing with the App and then take further actions, correcting up to 600 Hz or even higher may be fine.

Actually he says the correction may not be reliable because the measurement isn't reliable - the same kind of measurement we're doing with REW.

 

[peng]

Actually he says the correction may not be reliable because the measurement isn't reliable - the same kind of measurement we're doing with REW.

haha that's funny. He used similar measurements too to assess speaker performance to frequencies well above Schroeder's except he measured listening windows. That can be done with REW too to verify the results.

 

[BsdKurt]

It's not as if the lower models don't have room correction. XT may not produce as good results in all situations as XT 32 (I assume) but its there and it works. And Yamaha have YPAO of course.

I could have phrased my response better. Yes there is room correction below the 3x00 series but it doesn’t work well enough. That’s why I wouldn’t recommend anything that doesn’t have MultiEQ XT32. In fact I’d buy a used x3400 before going without XT32 if budget was driving my decision.

My last living room upgrade was from the 1910 with MultiEQ to the x3400h with MultiEQ XT32. Subjectively the improvement was substantial enough that MultiEQ XT32 is a must have feature for me.

 

[Chromatischism]

haha that's funny. He used similar measurements too to assess speaker performance to frequencies well above Schroeder's except he measured listening windows. That can be done with REW too to verify the results.

It can, but how many people take their system outside to measure?

 

[zelig]

I could have phrased my response better. Yes there is room correction below the 3x00 series but it doesn’t work well enough. That’s why I wouldn’t recommend anything that doesn’t have MultiEQ XT32. In fact I’d buy a used x3400 before going without XT32 if budget was driving my decision.

My last living room upgrade was from the 1910 with MultiEQ to the x3400h with MultiEQ XT32. Subjectively the improvement was substantial enough that MultiEQ XT32 is a must have feature for me.

But the current lower Denon models (X1.../X2...) have MultEQ XT while the 1910 has MultEQ. Unless you've auditioned a lower model in your home I suggest it would be impossible for you to have an informed opinion on the relative performance of the technologies. You are not alone. I see a lot of people raving on the various forums about XT32 but I don't see a lot of those people saying "I tried both XT and XT32 and the difference was <insert hyperbole here>". Of course I would expect XT32 to be better than XT, but I think ruling out an X2700H, say, because it has XT rather than XT32 could be poor decision, expecially if the X2700H would meet you needs in every other way. Same goes for YPAO. Depending on your choice of speakers, your room layout, seating positions, and the color of your walls, any of these might do a good job or not make much of a difference at all.

 

[BsdKurt]

But the current lower Denon models (X1.../X2...) have MultEQ XT while the 1910 has MultEQ. Unless you've auditioned a lower model in your home I suggest it would be impossible for you to have an informed opinion on the relative performance of the technologies. You are not alone. I see a lot of people raving on the various forums about XT32 but I don't see a lot of those people saying "I tried both XT and XT32 and the difference was <insert hyperbole here>". Of course I would expect XT32 to be better than XT, but I think ruling out an X2700H, say, because it has XT rather than XT32 could be poor decision, expecially if the X2700H would meet you needs in every other way. Same goes for YPAO. Depending on your choice of speakers, your room layout, seating positions, and the color of your walls, any of these might do a good job or not make much of a difference at all.

I don't see a valid argument above that supports MultiEQ XT is good enough. Please make a rational argument that it is (preferably on another thread).

My opinion that MultiEQ XT32 is a must have feature has been formed from my personal experience as well as reading what the technical experts and major contributors to AVS have said about it. I suggest you read the Audyssey Room EQ Review thread where you will see that people have done before and after measurements of MultiEQ XT where it fails to do an adequate job. I don't claim to be an expert, however I don't see any reason to think they are wrong and you are right.

 

[bobbooo]

I don't see a valid argument above that supports MultiEQ XT is good enough. Please make a rational argument that it is (preferably on another thread).

My opinion that MultiEQ XT32 is a must have feature has been formed from my personal experience as well as reading what the technical experts and major contributors to AVS have said about it. I suggest you read the Audyssey Room EQ Review thread where you will see that people have done before and after measurements of MultiEQ XT where it fails to do an adequate job. I don't claim to be an expert, however I don't see any reason to think they are wrong and you are right.

What's really needed is a direct comparison of in-room measurements pre- and post-EQ with both XT and XT32 in identical conditions to see how big the difference is in practice. I'm not aware of any such measurements having been done.

 

[Lattiboy]

But the current lower Denon models (X1.../X2...) have MultEQ XT while the 1910 has MultEQ. Unless you've auditioned a lower model in your home I suggest it would be impossible for you to have an informed opinion on the relative performance of the technologies. You are not alone. I see a lot of people raving on the various forums about XT32 but I don't see a lot of those people saying "I tried both XT and XT32 and the difference was <insert hyperbole here>". Of course I would expect XT32 to be better than XT, but I think ruling out an X2700H, say, because it has XT rather than XT32 could be poor decision, expecially if the X2700H would meet you needs in every other way. Same goes for YPAO. Depending on your choice of speakers, your room layout, seating positions, and the color of your walls, any of these might do a good job or not make much of a difference at all.

I have actually done this! My living room setup has an SR5006, standard Audyssey. The 3600H has dramatically superior bass management, BUT it isn’t even a fair comparison because the multi eq app adds so many features. EQ frequency limiting, curve editing, etc. So, yeah, it’s a big step up.

I don’t know why you’re so stuck on this. The psychos on this board wouldn’t even bother with a practically unadjustable DSP when relatively cheap receivers offer a superior version.