Big news coming from Sound United in 2023!

[lc6]

No hate here!

What was the power rating of your previous Yamaha? Which model was it?

RX-V2095, rated 5x100 Wpc. It is a DD/DTS 5.1-ch AVR, with extra 2 front-effect channels of 25 Wpc. The back plate specifies rated power consumption of 480 W (for reference only; let's not go again into a long discussion of AVR power ratings, please).

I think this is the first time you mentioned the power handling capability of your speakers (you haven't given us much information to go on). You did say, I think, that you don't listen too loud, but more recently mention 85dB during workouts which is rather loud. Power requirements also depend on the size of the room (again, not much info).

A major differentiator between Denon AVRs: 3x00, 4X00, 6X00, 8X00 etc is the power per channel. It is possible that you would have been better served by one of the higher power ones but we can only guess unless you give details of the speakers and room.

Even if that turns out to be the case, I still don't think it gives a valid basis for a review saying that the 3800 lacks bass. It would rather be a case of selecting an inapproriate amplifier for large speakers. Many users with smaller speakers (the 3800 is intended for modest setups) would have no such problem.

As I mentioned, the front L/Rs have a sensitivity of 90 dB; the specs claim they can be driven just fine by a 50 Wpc amp. After measurements, Audyssey set them at -2 dB. (In fact, all also set all other speakers quite low, especially the center at -7.5 dB.) So the 3800H must be assuming the average speaker sensitivity to be lower than that in my system.

Most of the time, I listen at low levels (perhaps even in the low 50s dB at night, out of environmental considerations) to moderate levels, but I wanted to estimate the entire volume range in my usage pattern. Perhaps 85 dB was a tad too high but let's go with that level at the regular listening position, which is approx. 11 ft = 3.3 m away from the front L/Rs (as measured by Audyssey). The speakers are spec'ed to produce 90 dB SPL at 1 W at 1 m, so 85 dB SPL at 1 m would require 0.32 W. The SPL falls by 6 dB for each doubling of the distance. To still produce the same 85 dB at 3.3 m would require 10.4 dB = ~11x more power, or about 3.5 W, which should be well within the capabilities of any decent AVR (I hope I got these calculations right!).

If you are still interested in trying to improve the bass:
...It sounds as though you are still insisting on using LR bypass which is actively preventing Audyssey from being able to improve the response of your mains. I'd use the Audyssey reference setting instead.

After the 8-position Audyssey measurement, I have been using the Reference setting and occasionally trying the Flat one; the L/R Bypass and Off only as temporary references.

Please also confirm that settings which are intended to reduce bass (Low Frequency Containment) or reduce dynamic range (Dynamic Volume) are turned off. Also Eco mode off.

Yes, after each set of measurements, I made sure only the DEQ was on. Also, I tested at all three ECO settings; when in Auto, it switches to Off as soon as the volume control goes from 50.0 to 50.5 on the default 0-98 scale.

Also, we may have a slight terminology mismatch! You complain that there is not enough bass but also dislike the low thumping sounds. Most of the measures suggested here have been aimed to increase sub-bass (which most of us want). It seems that this may not be to your taste and that perhaps what you want more of is more mid-bass? Please clarify. It would be easy to see such a failing if you could plot a frequency response graph (cheapest way of getting this is with the $20 app).

Let me explain: In one of the previous tests (after the 3- but before the 8-position measurement) I noticed that on some streamed stereo test tracks there were these strange "pulsating" sounds, so I had to pause the playback to see if they were perhaps coming by another source. But they were not, so I attributed them to a peculiar processing in the AVR, as if it made most of the bass, say, from 40 to 200 Hz, diminished but boosted in the frequencies below that range.

 

[lc6]

My new power meter arrived, so last night I conducted some measurements which I hope others will find helpful. Measured mains supply was 122-123 V at 60 Hz.
- After first switching on the power to the receiver, for a long while it settled on 44 W (real power) with a power factor (PF) of 0.69, to later go into standby at 1.2 W with PF = 0.33.
- Subsequently, powering it on with the remote control resulted in the recorded high consumption of 139 W; this may not have been the actual peak since the meter seems to sample only once per second.
- Then the power consumption settled at about 85 W with PF = 0.7, while the TV was still off.
- After TV was turned on but without any sound yet, power went to 79 W with PF = 0.7.
- I then switched to the Amazon Fire Stick HD source on the AVR, still with no sound, and the power was 78 W with PF = 0.7. ECO was set to Off; setting it to on reduced the power to 48 W.
- I streamed a number of stereo test tracks and adjusted to volume so that the peaks reached various SPL levels (C-weighted with slow averaging, so not catching absolute peaks) at the primary listening position. At ~60 dB SPL, the high power consumption was 79 to 89 W. At 66 dB SPL, it reached 102 W. I could not go any higher for environmental considerations.
- I noticed that subsequently the idle power consumption with ECO Off gradually fell to 72 W as the AVR warmed up.

This is is a photo of the TV screen in 3800H setup mode showing the power consumption bar in ECO Off at about 72 W:

And this is the same with ECO On at about 44 W:

Edit:
Those who are interested can graphically estimate the max. power consumption of this AVR from these bar graphs, assuming they are reasonably accurate and linear. I estimate (7 9/ 2) * 72 W = 324 W, which seems way too low. At the observed PF = 0.7, this would translate into 463 VA. So perhaps this bar widget is not accurate, or is just for orientation purposes, or is nonlinear.

I would also like to report another malfunction I observed last night: After I conducted the initial measurements, I paused playback and pressed the Setup button on the remote to get to above ECO setting screen. This caused the TV to display a black screen followed by a message several seconds later that the source connected to the AVR HDMI port was gone. Pressing a Back button on the remote (to exit setup) would restore the original Fire Stick screen. I tried this several times and the results were the same. The only fix was to power-cycle the AVR. So this is yet another "glitch" that might have been caused by a problem in early-production hardware or by a software bug. If I see more of such malfunctions, I will report them, as other owners may experience them as well.

 

[-Matt-]

Concentrating on the two channels driven specs, Yamaha quoted them at a lower distortion level which probably indicates that the Yamaha did have a bit more and cleaner power:

Yamaha RX-V2095:

Denon AVR-X3800H:

I'm still highly sceptical that such a difference in power could lead to the sound difficulties that you are experiencing.

Looking through the manual of the Yamaha RX-V2095 I notice that there were several controls hiding under its flap for adjusting bass as well as DSP sound modes.

I don't suppose there is any chance that you got used to listening to it tuned like this one:

 

[lc6]

Concentrating on the two channels driven specs, Yamaha quoted them at a lower distortion level which probably indicates that the Yamaha did have a bit more and cleaner power:

Yamaha RX-V2095:
View attachment 235401

Denon AVR-X3800H:
View attachment 235402

I'm still highly sceptical that such a difference in power could lead to the sound difficulties that you are experiencing.

Looking through the manual of the Yamaha RX-V2095 I notice that there were several controls hiding under its flap for adjusting bass as well as DSP sound modes.

View attachment 235404

I don't suppose there is any chance that you got used to listening to it tuned like this one:
View attachment 235406
View attachment 235408

On the RX-V2095, I am not using the Bass Extension (it produces way too much bass), and the tone controls are both at zero (there is a tactile notch in that position), so Tone Bypass has no audible effect.

 

[Jon AA]

Basically the total filter boost of the range you are EQing will always be 0. If you boost the entire range (doesn't matter by how much, I used 10db just as an example, but 1db would have same issue), you get zero boost. If you boost most of the range, you actually get a much lower boost, and then an appropriate cut on the other part of the range you EQ, for total of 0.

That's just not what it's doing though, with the main channels. Here is one with a bass shelf centered at 400 Hz, but the EQ limited to 80 Hz:

You can see I am getting boost, and the entire filter is above zero. Increase the curtain to 20K:

And the level does change slightly (because my boost affects 400+ Hz), but again, the filter is almost entirely positive. More extreme (this speaker needed more boost):

A pretty massive amount of positive boost in the filter. Change the EQ limit to 20K:

It would make no sense to basically set levels for the main channels based upon making the filter sum to zero. It's quite common in real rooms for each speaker to need significantly different corrections--if your right front is in a corner and gets massive bass reinforcement, your left speaker will need tons of boost to make them the same. If that meant your left speaker was down several dB in the 500-2K frequency range, they would image like garbage.

What Auydyssey is doing is trying to make that average level (400Hz to 2K or so) in the "After" curve zero, whether you're correcting there or not. That's the only way the speakers will sound balanced.

So for the main channels, you can pretty much do whatever you want below 400 Hz without affecting the level above that. Here's a flat, massive bass cut and massive bass boost down where they usually are:

With a lower EQ limit:

Yes, if you increase the boost to a very high frequency, you will see it act much more as the sub acts, by adjusting the entire level:

But what's the common factor among all those curves? If you look at the "After" curve at 1K Hz, it's right at zero. It has to be for the speakers to sound balanced and image properly. And so yes, if you boost a bunch well into the 400-2K range, changing the EQ limit will change the overall level because you're changing the average of the "After" curve in that range when you move the curtain.

So when you say "It doesn't work that way with speakers", are you just asserting this, or have you done some investigation of your own? Can you show some measurements showing an overall boost to the limited EQ range?

Yup, for years. While the app gives you some idea of what's going on, MQX really lets you see things in a precise manor so you can figure out what it's doing. This is helpful to keep you from chasing your tail (for things like the sub level needing to be increased) because you can see exactly what's going to happen.

Again, I very much appreciate your suggestion to use MultEQ-X, but from my perspective that would add several hundred dollars to the price of this AVR with no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome (your confidence notwithstanding). Also, assuming that the claims that Dirac Live is so much better than Audyssey (presumably, even the MultEQ-X version) are true, then next spring I would have to pony up yet another several hundred dollars for a new room correction software and throw away the MultEQ-X. So, I'd rather apply the cost of MultEQ-X + its calibrated mic toward a future upgrade of my height speakers or a purchase of rear surrounds (which I currently do not have).

You know, in the time you've spent writing these long descriptions of what you think you hear, what you think might be causing it, most likely with the App and certainly with MQX, we could have figured out for sure what is actually happening and fixed it to your liking. You have been led to water, we can't make you drink.

 

[GalZohar]

I didn't mean total filter to 0, I meant the total target-curve-related boost/cuts to 0, of course if you have a strong bass boost it should cut it to flat (or to whatever the target curve has set). But if you boost the entire range that you are trying to EQ, it seems to apply no boost at all (compared to a flat curve).

I don't understand exactly what you did there (what exactly is the target curve for each graph?). I can guess, but again what I was seeing is different than what you describe.
Can you show the results of a specific speaker, once with flat curve and once with a 400Hz shelve filter with 5-10db boost, when the EQ is limited to 200-300Hz? Or specify which 2 graphs show that. That will make it easier to see if what you're saying is correct or if what I was seeing is a real problem. I remember it was driving me crazy why I don't get the bass boost I was setting, and even when setting it to a very large number I was still getting almost no boost, until I later tried on my android app with/without limiting the EQ frequency and saw a big difference in the resulting bass boost (using the same target curve).

 

[just1n]

My previous AVR


Yes - apparently DLBC will not go away - instead the range will look like

Dirac Live (limited range)
Dirac Live (full range)
Spatial Room Correction (limited range) - AKA DLBC
Spatial Room Correction (full range) - AKA SRC

And from the comments - it appears that full SRC may be limited to flagship models, which is sad, as the required processing power exists in the X3800

As the new owner of an x3800, I’d have buyer’s remorse if the x4800 got SRC.

 

[GXAlan]

As the new owner of an x3800, I’d have buyer’s remorse if the x4800 got SRC.

With the current state of the supply chain, you can probably sell your X3800 next year with minimal loss.

 

[dlaloum]

With the current state of the supply chain, you can probably sell your X3800 next year with minimal loss.

That's pretty much my approach at the moment - very happy with my Integra DRX 3.4 (and external power amps) - but I expect to be selling it on when something with SRC comes along.... which could be from the house of Onkyo, or from the house of D&M... not many other serious contenders likely to be within my budget!

 

[WHQL]

I have been following this thread with interest as I am looking to replace a Marantz AV8801 prepro with an up to date receiver and the new Denon X3800/X4800 have many features I am looking for at what I consider to be a reasonable price. I use a NAD M25 7 channel amplifier and would continue to use that in addition to the receiver’s onboard amplification to enable ATMOS and other surround sound formats using more channels. System usage is 40% HT/20% Gaming/40% music, most of which is digitized multi-channel SACD, DVDA and Blu-ray. I am looking at these receivers because of their cost and I like the potential of being able to downsize or possibly eliminate the need for a separate amplifier in the future.

One of the things I am curious about is the DAC used in the X3800/4800 (PCM5102A) and how it compares to the one used in the 8801 (TI PCM1795). While I like the overall sound of my 8801 with digital sources, when I compared it with a Khadas Tone Board (ES9038Q2M), I preferred the sound of the Tone Board over the internal DACs of the 8801. Similarly, I slightly preferred the sound of a DacMagic 100 (Wolfson WM8742) over the 8801, but not as much as the Tone Board. I see that the new AVC-A1H will have the ES9018K2M, but that will be more than I want to spend on this purchase.

I know there is a lot more to the sound quality then just the DAC's used, however I am interested in thoughts on whether moving from the Marantz 8801 to the X3800/X4800 plus M25 and potentially minus the M25 in the future would be a step up, down or about the same in audio sound quality from digital sources.

 

[peng]

I have been following this thread with interest as I am looking to replace a Marantz AV8801 prepro with an up to date receiver and the new Denon X3800/X4800 have many features I am looking for at what I consider to be a reasonable price. I use a NAD M25 7 channel amplifier and would continue to use that in addition to the receiver’s onboard amplification to enable ATMOS and other surround sound formats using more channels. System usage is 40% HT/20% Gaming/40% music, most of which is digitized multi-channel SACD, DVDA and Blu-ray. I am looking at these receivers because of their cost and I like the potential of being able to downsize or possibly eliminate the need for a separate amplifier in the future.

One of the things I am curious about is the DAC used in the X3800/4800 (PCM5102A) and how it compares to the one used in the 8801 (TI PCM1795). While I like the overall sound of my 8801 with digital sources, when I compared it with a Khadas Tone Board (ES9038Q2M), I preferred the sound of the Tone Board over the internal DACs of the 8801. Similarly, I slightly preferred the sound of a DacMagic 100 (Wolfson WM8742) over the 8801, but not as much as the Tone Board. I see that the new AVC-A1H will have the ES9018K2M, but that will be more than I want to spend on this purchase.

I know there is a lot more to the sound quality then just the DAC's used, however I am interested in thoughts on whether moving from the Marantz 8801 to the X3800/X4800 plus M25 and potentially minus the M25 in the future would be a step up, down or about the same in audio sound quality from digital sources.

Obviously the PCM1795 has much better SINAD than the PCM5102A, but from my own experience, I am quite sure the X3800/4800H, even with the PCM5102A will be quieter based on the measurements of the X3700/4700H. The 8801 has much better build quality but they just didn't measure near as good as the X3700, 4700H AVRs. I don't think you will be disappointed with such as "downgrade", though if you want to have the best DAC you will have to go with the A1H that has the real reference class ESS chip, that is rare in AVR/AVPs.

 

[Newman]

Anyone here if the Marantz AV10 release date is around the same time as the Denon A1H? Also find it strange I can't find any photos of the rear of the AV10 except by pausing the video on their website.

Can perhaps someone who is deeply familiar with the AV8805 list the advances in the AV10 over the 8805A, please?

 

[peng]

Can perhaps someone who is deeply familiar with the AV8805 list the advances in the AV10 over the 8805A, please?

I don't have either, but we don't know already that the AV10 has at least the following advantages:

- 4 independent subwoofer outputs vs the AV8805's 2
- Dirac Live support (supposedly "full support" whatever that means, via FW upgrade/update
- Reference class near flagship ESS DAC IC, ES9018k2M vs the original AV8805's ex flagship AKM AK4490 and the newer after factory fire AV8805's average class ES9010K2M
- ALL inputs supporting 8K / 60Hz and 4K / 120Hz
- improved HDAM version (same version number, but improved, same as those in the SR8015), note that the SR8015 is the only Marantz that measured almost as good as the Denon AVR-X8500H even in non preamp mode.

Others will hopefully add to the list.

 

[WHQL]

Obviously the PCM1795 has much better SINAD than the PCM5102A, but from my own experience, I am quite sure the X3800/4800H, even with the PCM5102A will be quieter based on the measurements of the X3700/4700H. The 8801 has much better build quality but they just didn't measure near as good as the X3700, 4700H AVRs. I don't think you will be disappointed with such as "downgrade", though if you want to have the best DAC you will have to go with the A1H that has the real reference class ESS chip, that is rare in AVR/AVPs.

Thanks for the input. For about the same price as the Denon X4800H, the Yamaha RX-A6A AV receiver has the ES9026PRO DAC and more powerful amplifiers. However past Yamaha receivers have not measured well and I prefer to have Audyssey or Dirac RC over YPAO although I do not have experience with the latter.

 

[GXAlan]

Thanks for the input. For about the same price as the Denon X4800H, the Yamaha RX-A6A AV receiver has the ES9026PRO DAC and more powerful amplifiers. However past Yamaha receivers have not measured well and I prefer to have Audyssey or Dirac RC over YPAO although I do not have experience with the latter.

The A6A has a bad error where the center channel has low SINAD. The front channels are competent.

I am really seriously considering the A8A and measuring it. YPAO RSC has the equivalent of Trinnov for sound field mapping even though it’s actual EQ and control is rudimentary.

I had the Sherwood Newcastle R972. I am sure SINAD is low but the 3D sound field made up for it

 

[peng]

Thanks for the input. For about the same price as the Denon X4800H, the Yamaha RX-A6A AV receiver has the ES9026PRO DAC and more powerful amplifiers. However past Yamaha receivers have not measured well and I prefer to have Audyssey or Dirac RC over YPAO although I do not have experience with the latter.

For the longest time Yamaha has better dac chip because of the es9026pro but no longer the case now that the new Denon flagship has the es9018k2m that has much lower distortion specs.

May be the next Yamaha flagship will have a chip upgrade too, have to wait and see.

 

[WHQL]

The A6A has a bad error where the center channel has low SINAD. The front channels are competent.

I am really seriously considering the A8A and measuring it. YPAO RSC has the equivalent of Trinnov for sound field mapping even though it’s actual EQ and control is rudimentary.

I had the Sherwood Newcastle R972. I am sure SINAD is low but the 3D sound field made up for it

Interesting. I wonder if it has to do with the lower spec chip (ES9007S) being used for the A6A surround channels. A8A uses 2 ES9026PRO.

 

[WHQL]

For the longest time Yamaha has better dac chip because of the es9026pro but no longer the case now that the new Denon flagship has the es9018k2m that has much lower distortion specs.

May be the next Yamaha flagship will have a chip upgrade too, have to wait and see.

I can't help but wonder how much more it would have cost Denon to implement a better DAC in the X3800 or maybe the X4800. Has to be a strategic decision, but in this price range, I don't think having the better DAC in their A1H is going to push X38/48 buyers all the way up to an A1H. Like me, it may have them considering other brands.

 

[delta76]

A6a was supposed to be a direct competitor to x6700h iirc. So now with x4800h steep price hike it suddenly competes with an older higher tier product.

 

[ryanosaur]

I can't help but wonder how much more it would have cost Denon to implement a better DAC in the X3800 or maybe the X4800.

Tangentially: I've been curious why not go back to AKM? Perhaps AKM isn't ready to meet demand for large production runs, yet? Last recent news I saw is that they were operational and had released some new product as well...

Any insiders have an AKM update?