Denon AVR-X8500H AVR Review

[peng]

Hello Peng, thanks for context, I wanted to say that I do not notice an auditory improvement that makes me decide between one thing and another ... by the way since you handle sinad and it is still not clear to me I was thinking of putting a two-channel stage to see if I took advantage of the good sinad of the dac but could you tell me if normally listening at a volume of -10db on the absolute scale that sinad would take out the 8500 with the internal amplifiers? We already know that the preamp is 103db

If you are asking about the SINAD measured at the 8500's power amp (that is speaker binding posts) output, according to Amir's measurements it should be in the mid 80s. If you use to pre out with one of those hypex amp such as the Purifi amp, then I think you can expect SINAD higher than 90 dB but I am guessing. We still are waiting for Amir to measure a Denon AVR paired with one of those hypex amps that has high SINAD.

 

[peng]

This is part of the reason why I think obsessing over SINAD of good AVR's vs dedicated amps and DAC's is often meaningless in real life and blown WAY out of proportion.

No one I know, and no one I've seen post, listens at or above reference level on a regular basis. Even -10dB from reference is much louder than average from what I have seen. So who cares if SINAD drops at +5 MV? Even if it does, -85 dB is still transparent in real life, especially considering the massive levels of distortion that 99+% of all speakers will be generating at those levels. 105 dB peaks at 12 feet? I don't think any of the 100 speakers tested on this site are reference capable at 12', and we haven't even factored in eq necessary below 300 Hz.

Unless someone needs more power, I don't see any real life benefit to using standalone 2 channel DAC's and external amps, regardless of how much "more" inaudible the SINAD is.

Agreed, but some golden ears may be able to, or think they are able to, hear distortions during those rare 20 dB peaks even when listening to spl of 15 dB before reference if they have low sensitivity speakers (not too low but say 85-87 dB/2.83 V). Those would feel good about having SINAD >90 dB, or even >100 dB if they have near silent rooms.

 

[Anterantz]

Agreed, but some golden ears may be able to, or think they are able to, hear distortions during those rare 20 dB peaks even when listening to spl of 15 dB before reference if they have low sensitivity speakers (not too low but say 85-87 dB/2.83 V). Those would feel good about having SINAD >90 dB, or even >100 dB if they have near silent rooms.

Before a better sinad as denon presumes what he would have to improve is his eq..audyseey is two steps behind dirac or arc and that hurts those of us who love denon..I have been with denon for years and I see that his eq is not there the height of the flagship! Everything would improve with a more powerful eq of software for users who want an extra plus in their settings.

 

[Anterantz]

If you are asking about the SINAD measured at the 8500's power amp (that is speaker binding posts) output, according to Amir's measurements it should be in the mid 80s. If you use to pre out with one of those hypex amp such as the Purifi amp, then I think you can expect SINAD higher than 90 dB but I am guessing. We still are waiting for Amir to measure a Denon AVR paired with one of those hypex amps that has high SINAD.

But the 85 of sinad measured by amir with internal amplifiers was when the volume was exceeded 82.5 right? if you are below that you still have to have a higher sinad right?

 

[Bear123]

Before a better sinad as denon presumes what he would have to improve is his eq..audyseey is two steps behind dirac or arc and that hurts those of us who love denon..I have been with denon for years and I see that his eq is not there the height of the flagship! Everything would improve with a more powerful eq of software for users who want an extra plus in their settings.

I'm not sure where the objective proof is that ARC is better than Audysey....a few subjective opinions don't really count, which is all I've seen. If anything, I consider ARC fundamentally broken since it does not even have the basic capability of time aligning the subs and speakers, resulting in a horrible response around crossover. This alone makes it vastly inferior to Audyssey. The Audyssey app also allows a lot of control over the correction that is applied. Not sure ARC or Dirac have that capability at all.

 

[Grandzoltar]

the objective proof is that ARC is better than Audysey.

Agreed from the screen shots of step responses between Dirac ARC and audyssey in previous threads ARC was the least aligned.

 

[Anterantz]

I'm not sure where the objective proof is that ARC is better than Audysey....a few subjective opinions don't really count, which is all I've seen. If anything, I consider ARC fundamentally broken since it does not even have the basic capability of time aligning the subs and speakers, resulting in a horrible response around crossover. This alone makes it vastly inferior to Audyssey. The Audyssey app also allows a lot of control over the correction that is applied. Not sure ARC or Dirac have that capability at all.

So why does everyone who goes to arcam or nad who have dirac not return to the Japanese? Is it an arcam or nad better internally built than a Japanese? The sources, capacitors etc are all well studied I doubt it is the great improvement that all those who love dirac say they notice ... dirac has a software program that makes things easier than xt32 since trying to modify something in the editor curve with the fingers is a torture and we do not know what we are correcting

 

[Bear123]

So why does everyone who goes to arcam or nad who have dirac not return to the Japanese? Is it an arcam or nad better internally built than a Japanese? The sources, capacitors etc are all well studied I doubt it is the great improvement that all those who love dirac say they notice ... dirac has a software program that makes things easier than xt32 since trying to modify something in the editor curve with the fingers is a torture and we do not know what we are correcting

Its possible that Dirac actually does sound better. I think its also possible that people "upgrade" to Arcam and Anthem because they are a much higher priced, higher end, more expensive "audiophile" brand. People expect it to sound better. Everyone is susceptible to this. Objective testing here has shown that, without room correction, Denon is objectively higher fidelity than most Arcam and Anthem and NAD products. Yet people claim to hear higher fidelity without even engaging room correction. With the inability to properly integrate subs and speakers, I would be really surprised if ARC would sound better in a well controlled listening test. I suppose its possible with DIRAC but I doubt we will see any reasonably good proof outside of subjective preference. Which works both ways from what I've seen.

The caveat is that users are limiting room correction to below Schroeder and eliminating the Audyssey midrange dip. From what I've seen, it would take well controlled listening tests with a large handful of listeners to fully convince me that there would be a strong preference for Dirac over Audyssey. I'm definitely not saying it isn't possible, but I'm skeptical until I see more proof than unsubstantiated subjective preference.

I agree adjusting the Audyssey curve on a smart phone with your finger is clunky at best. Would be much better if they would allow laptop control. I haven't actually tried adjusting the curve, only turning off the dip and limiting the correction range to lower frequencies:

Just wondering how much "better" Dirac or any other program can do than this. No tweaking, no adjusting. Just ran the 6 positions(8?, I forget), adjusted crossovers to 80 Hz, and ran REW to check results.

 

[Grandzoltar]

If limiting the eq to Schroeder frequency in xt32 doesn't disengaging the mid range compensation not really matter since correction doesn't reach that high?

 

[peng]

But the 85 of sinad measured by amir with internal amplifiers was when the volume was exceeded 82.5 right? if you are below that you still have to have a higher sinad right?

He included a curve that shows the distortions+noise from well below 1 W to the clipping point so your answer should be right there.

 

[peng]

Its possible that Dirac actually does sound better. I think its also possible that people "upgrade" to Arcam and Anthem because they are a much higher priced, higher end, more expensive "audiophile" brand. People expect it to sound better. Everyone is susceptible to this. Objective testing here has shown that, without room correction, Denon is objectively higher fidelity than most Arcam and Anthem and NAD products. Yet people claim to hear higher fidelity without even engaging room correction. With the inability to properly integrate subs and speakers, I would be really surprised if ARC would sound better in a well controlled listening test. I suppose its possible with DIRAC but I doubt we will see any reasonably good proof outside of subjective preference. Which works both ways from what I've seen.

The caveat is that users are limiting room correction to below Schroeder and eliminating the Audyssey midrange dip. From what I've seen, it would take well controlled listening tests with a large handful of listeners to fully convince me that there would be a strong preference for Dirac over Audyssey. I'm definitely not saying it isn't possible, but I'm skeptical until I see more proof than unsubstantiated subjective preference.

I agree adjusting the Audyssey curve on a smart phone with your finger is clunky at best. Would be much better if they would allow laptop control. I haven't actually tried adjusting the curve, only turning off the dip and limiting the correction range to lower frequencies:
View attachment 100637
Just wondering how much "better" Dirac or any other program can do than this. No tweaking, no adjusting. Just ran the 6 positions(8?, I forget), adjusted crossovers to 80 Hz, and ran REW to check results.

Did you use Ratbuddsyssey to enter the adjustments digitally? If not, try it and I guarantee you can get that curve even flatter.

 

[peng]

If limiting the eq to Schroeder frequency in xt32 doesn't disengaging the mid range compensation not really matter since correction doesn't reach that high?

Interesting question, just to be sure, I would have to take a look of my files/curves saved on my Galaxy tablet. You are probably right because it seems logical.

 

[Anterantz]

If limiting the eq to Schroeder frequency in xt32 doesn't disengaging the mid range compensation not really matter since correction doesn't reach that high?

Interesting question, just to be sure, I would have to take a look of my files/curves saved on my Galaxy tablet. You are probably right because it seems logical.

Hello, sorry for my English, I use google translator and I didn't understand what you mean. Do you say that it is better to adjust the shoorder frequency before the compensation or vice versa? By the way, my room is very small 2.50 wide by 4.00 meters long by 2.50 high, would someone tell me my shoorder frequency?

 

[Anterantz]

Its possible that Dirac actually does sound better. I think its also possible that people "upgrade" to Arcam and Anthem because they are a much higher priced, higher end, more expensive "audiophile" brand. People expect it to sound better. Everyone is susceptible to this. Objective testing here has shown that, without room correction, Denon is objectively higher fidelity than most Arcam and Anthem and NAD products. Yet people claim to hear higher fidelity without even engaging room correction. With the inability to properly integrate subs and speakers, I would be really surprised if ARC would sound better in a well controlled listening test. I suppose its possible with DIRAC but I doubt we will see any reasonably good proof outside of subjective preference. Which works both ways from what I've seen.

The caveat is that users are limiting room correction to below Schroeder and eliminating the Audyssey midrange dip. From what I've seen, it would take well controlled listening tests with a large handful of listeners to fully convince me that there would be a strong preference for Dirac over Audyssey. I'm definitely not saying it isn't possible, but I'm skeptical until I see more proof than unsubstantiated subjective preference.

I agree adjusting the Audyssey curve on a smart phone with your finger is clunky at best. Would be much better if they would allow laptop control. I haven't actually tried adjusting the curve, only turning off the dip and limiting the correction range to lower frequencies:
View attachment 100637
Just wondering how much "better" Dirac or any other program can do than this. No tweaking, no adjusting. Just ran the 6 positions(8?, I forget), adjusted crossovers to 80 Hz, and ran REW to check results.

I have had marantz sr7010 / sr7013 / av7705 + basx-700 emotive stages for atmos and surround and a pm8005 that I used in bypass mode for the front and then I tried an arcam avr390 with dirac and I did not notice that great improvement that everyone talks about ..taken out of the box it sounded very good and with dirac too but there was no difference night and day or I did not find them and I returned it after 10 days .. when it is said that these brands are more audiophile, let me explain if those pieces / capacitors etc that uses arcam are exclusive, does anyone else have them? How bad are the engineers of the Japanese brands?

 

[Bear123]

If limiting the eq to Schroeder frequency in xt32 doesn't disengaging the mid range compensation not really matter since correction doesn't reach that high?

Good question, and Im not entirely sure of the answer, so I suppose I disable it "just in case". Maybe limiting correction range kicks it out of the loop anyways. I suppose the "predicted response" would hopefully be accurate enough to determine the answer.

 

[Bear123]

Did you use Ratbuddsyssey to enter the adjustments digitally? If not, try it and I guarantee you can get that curve even flatter.

I have not. I've heard of it but don't know much about it. Do you suggest I try it? Getting ready to be off for ten days around the holidays. I should play with things a bit more. I think I have some optimization I could do around crossover. I'm hoping to play around with some new subwoofer drivers too.

 

[Grandzoltar]

By the way, my room is very small 2.50 wide by 4.00 meters long by 2.50 high, would someone tell me my shoorder frequency

It's easier to identify the Schroder frequency with measurements. Taking your room dimensions and using wave length formulas is a bit difficult. Generally speaking 300-500 ymmv

 

[Anterantz]

It's easier to identify the Schroder frequency with measurements. Taking your room dimensions and using wave length formulas is a bit difficult. Generally speaking 300-500 ymmv

Hello, I have to eat my words, there is an improvement in favor of putting the curtain at 500hz, the sound has become more natural and balanced and I can turn up the volume more without disturbing it.

 

[peng]

I have not. I've heard of it but don't know much about it. Do you suggest I try it? Getting ready to be off for ten days around the holidays. I should play with things a bit more. I think I have some optimization I could do around crossover. I'm hoping to play around with some new subwoofer drivers too.

If you want to be able to "look" at a flatter curve then yes it is worth it. Just that I am not sure if you can hear a difference, and if you can, not sure which one you would prefer. If you are going to do it, I have a thread on AH where you can see what others were able to do with the App/Rat combo.

 

[peng]

Hello, I have to eat my words, there is an improvement in favor of putting the curtain at 500hz, the sound has become more natural and balanced and I can turn up the volume more without disturbing it.

It is not going to be the same for everyone. While it may be true that most people could do worse for letting Audyssey/or Dirac to EQ above the Schroeder frequency, some may benefit from it as it mainly depends on how how the data collected by the mic/positions are reliable for use by the software. According to some experts, such as Dr. Toole, it is sort of hit and miss, so if it is more of a hit, then in theory it may work well. I think Dirac's recommendation is to try to see if it works for you, while Audyssey seems to suggest you should just do it full range.