Choosing between Denon X8500H, X4700H and X3700H AVRs

[bigguyca]

The power differences between the X8500H, X4700H and X3700H are about 1dB. If the requirement is for an AVR with only the internal amplifiers used, and with the number of power amplifiers that the X3700H or X4700H provide, then the lower price products provide a little cleaner power with about 1% less output. While the preamps of the X8500H are very clean, the good (actually a little disappointing), but not great distortion performance of the power amplifier channels is the limiting factor in the X8500H power amplifier performance. There is little to no reason in this use case of 100% internal power amplifier channels, to choose the X8500H unless based on features important to a specific user. This is good news. It means that there are low cost options with excellent performance.

If more power amplifier channels are required than the X3700H or X4700H provide then of course the X8500 is the obvious choice.

The real advantage of the X8500H is when the preamp outputs will be used, especially if a mix of preamp outputs and internal power amplifier channels are used. The ability to disconnect the preamps from the power amplifiers on a channel-by-channel basis is a significant advantage in this case. Purchase of say a three channel power amplifier for the L/C/R channels and driving it with clean preamp outputs while still being able to use all of the good internal amplifiers, is a very cost effective, as well a very good performing solution. External power for only a few channels is clearly much more cost effective then using external power amplifiers for all channels.

For preamp-only use, the preamp outputs of the X8500H are a bit cleaner, which is nice, but the X3700H and X4700H are still very good. Little is given up with the budget choices. It is very unfortunate that Marantz really doesn't enter much into consideration here with the non-standard reconstruction filters and HDAM distortion issues.

Of course if only the X8500H has enough preamp channels to meet requirements then it is the obvious choice.

The measurements in ASR have provided some amazingly good news for a wide variety of potential AVP and AVR purchasers.

 

[JL-F1]

Thank you for this.

I always appreciate reading your comments, here and other places.

Could you maybe add an 'In your opinion' five good reasonably priced amps for L/C/R using the RCA inputs. By reasonable I'm thining Emotiva/Monprice pricing levels.

 

[amirm]

Promoted to home page.

 

[tomstoll]

Thank you for this.

I always appreciate reading your comments, here and other places.

Could you maybe add an 'In your opinion' five good reasonably priced amps for L/C/R using the RCA inputs. By reasonable I'm thining Emotiva/Monprice pricing levels.

ive been waiting for monoprice to restock their 5x200wpc amp but its still not in stock.

im running a 3600 with JBL 3800/4500 and Revel w990s side surrounds. i have to crank it to -20 to get to decent sound levels and feel like the front 3 channels could use bit more power.

 

[DrJayDub]

ive been waiting for monoprice to restock their 5x200wpc amp but its still not in stock.

im running a 3600 with JBL 3800/4500 and Revel w990s side surrounds. i have to crank it to -20 to get to decent sound levels and feel like the front 3 channels could use bit more power.

Remember one needs double the wattage to gain 3 dB of volume. Around 10 dB increase sounds like twice as loud to human ears. Consider carefully if going from 105 watts to 200 watts is enough of an increase in power to make a difference in your situation.

 

[Ardrazzt]

Hello, I'm new but I've been following these threads with lots of interest. I come from studio pro world and it's shame there is nothing to enjoy atmos or dts-x with pro DACs or at least with the DAC of your choice.
I'm actually running my 'home theater' with PC as source, RME 802 and Lavry Da11 as interfaces, through a DAW to do the Room correction.
My LCR are Focal Solo6 Be and the surrounds(powered by the Marantz MM8003) Focal IW-1002, with the SVS Elevation as Heights that I actually upmix with reverbs and some stereo enhancers.
The thing is that I'd like to feel the real atmos or DTS-X and until now I didn't have the feel that I could buy something that was really a downgrade of what I have.
I'm in this thread dilema right now between the 4700 or the 8500.
I could get the 8500 for 2360€ exdemo from a store practically new. So it's 'only' 600€ difference to the 4700 .
Is it worth it that difference? I want to use it as a preamp/ decoder.
Congratulations for this site and forum. I've been learning a lot.
Sorry for my English.

 

[GXAlan]

@amirm, since this is promoted to the front page, maybe it’s time to test the ALPHA processing claims . That would be a differentiator between the x3700 and x4700 if both have similar SINAD but ALPHA can color 16/44 gracefully...

 

[pozz]

I'm actually running my 'home theater' with PC as source, RME 802 and Lavry Da11 as interfaces, through a DAW to do the Room correction.

Really interesting, smart setup.

 

[frabor]

I wish they would move to class D, in order to reduce the total weight and be more energy efficient (not burn to the touch). From time to time I go to Best Buy and touch all hefty receivers available, while idle. Most of them are uncomfortable to the touch, some borderline painful. Heat is the number one killer of electronics, and these units, all x...h denons and others run way too hot, forcing to install extra cooling and/ or tolerate early mortality due to excessive heat (HDMI failure like in the Onkyo). Class D may not be yet the pinnacle of audio amplification, yet with the acceptable to subpar performance of most receiver, nothing would be lost if a more efficient architecture would be used. Its kind of sad to buy a piece of equipment knowing that the digital circuitry may fail due to heat.

 

[MediumRare]

ive been waiting for monoprice to restock their 5x200wpc amp but its still not in stock.

im running a 3600 with JBL 3800/4500 and Revel w990s side surrounds. i have to crank it to -20 to get to decent sound levels and feel like the front 3 channels could use bit more power.

Could you give us a link to the amp you are referring to so we can put in our requests?

 

[Bello]

I wish they would move to class D, in order to reduce the total weight and be more energy efficient (not burn to the touch). From time to time I go to Best Buy and touch all hefty receivers available, while idle. Most of them are uncomfortable to the touch, some borderline painful. Heat is the number one killer of electronics, and these units, all x...h denons and others run way too hot, forcing to install extra cooling and/ or tolerate early mortality due to excessive heat (HDMI failure like in the Onkyo). Class D may not be yet the pinnacle of audio amplification, yet with the acceptable to subpar performance of most receiver, nothing would be lost if a more efficient architecture would be used. Its kind of sad to buy a piece of equipment knowing that the digital circuitry may fail due to heat.

Exactly my point in most of my threads, HEAT!

As I personally tested side by side the 4700 / 6700. Night and day as far as pre-amp heat test's. The 6700H was never uncomfortable to the touch after many hours of play. Just a little warm, evenly across the top. The 4700H on the other hand was noticeably HOT in one area... Running all in Pre-Amp mode, external amp. My determination was limited to a visual of both heat sink comparisons. And as I pointed out for the 4700H. The op-panel ribbon cable / metal bracket mounted directly over / on top 1/3 of the amps heat sink area. Poor designed, for heat dispensation. I believe there is unnecessary heat added to amp area. And if the HOT area is not properly ventilated, this heat will travel backward to the video area causing havoc to all of the electronics. Unlike a data server processor, errors are usually recoverable due to dust / heat. In the case of high end audio, sound, whole other bowl of wax. I believe heat will eventually introduce noise as components heat-up, deplete and or fail.. The 8500H is critical in this regard w/ heat dissipation. Not only do amps have great separation of heat sinks but if you look closely. The heat sinks have cooper plates for each mono block amp bolted to the heat sink, excellent implementation! The heat is pulled away from the amps and out of the unit quickly before anything becomes warm or hot for that matter.

 

[valerianf]

For now the 3700h is the budget cautious choice.
Let us see if some competitors (I.e. : Yamaha, Onkyo..) has something to propose in the same price range.

 

[zelig]

For now the 3700h is the budget cautious choice.
Let us see if some competitors (I.e. : Yamaha, Onkyo..) has something to propose in the same price range.

Sounds like you are saying that they don't already. What features are you specifically thinking about?

 

[KEW]

i have to crank it to -20 to get to decent sound levels and feel like the front 3 channels could use bit more power.

The -20dB SPL is established by the AVR's setup routine. If you add a 1000WPC amp it should still play the same SPL at -20dB because the setup routine will turn down the gain for the more powerful amp (or turn up the gain for less efficient speakers) so, in theory your -20 and my -20 should be the same (for most movies which are standardized in their recorded level, In contrast, the recorded level for music varies greatly so all bets are off!).

I'm not saying that you cannot need additional amplification, I am just saying that this is not a reason to conclude you do!

 

[Trouble Maker]

Remember one needs double the wattage to gain 3 dB of volume. Around 10 dB increase sounds like twice as loud to human ears. Consider carefully if going from 105 watts to 200 watts is enough of an increase in power to make a difference in your situation.

The Monoprice Monoliths do from what I understand, and IMHO any properly designed power amp should, have a big enough power supply to do all channels driven at the rated wattage. I get not doing that in a multi channel receiver, it's a compromise and a (reasonable) cost saving measure. Money not spent in one place, like on the power supply, can be spent in another place that is more useful or valuable to the customer. It seems unlikely to need all channels driven at rated wattage for most uses. Then you can design each channel for 1 channel need and the power supply for the total power need. But if you are paying $$$$ for an external amp, a device with a sole job of supplying power, the power supply should be large enough.

Also, it's not just on a per channel basis, but you are adding that new larger power supply to then one that is already in the AVR. So if you add a 3 or 5 channel power amp for the bed channels, plus the AVR powering the rest of the channels, in this example you'll go from about 500 watts of total power capability to 1500 watts of total power capability.

 

[Trouble Maker]

I wish they would move to class D, in order to reduce the total weight and be more energy efficient (not burn to the touch).

While I completely agree that it would be nice to see class D in everything, my guess is that good implementations of class D is still to expensive on a per channel basis to put in anything at these price points. If they can do another amplifier topology cheaper, for a given price point that is another feature they can add. If a customer is shopping 2 of these side by side, and they have the same power, but one has class D and less features which one do you think most people are going to pick? I think we will continue to see innovation driving price points down in new amplifier technologies and we will start to see them in receivers that us mere mortals can afford soonish. The reduced size, heat and increased efficiency will sure be nice!

 

[ririt]

As I personally tested side by side the 4700 / 6700.

Get your message about heat! But what about the sound quality? Any noticable difference between the 2?

 

[frabor]

It is true that many consumers will go to the flashy specs and cost ratio without considering anything else. By that reasonings Onkyo should own the market of receivers, as they tend to beat all competition is price per specs; but they don't.

Energy efficient is a must nowadays. Inefficient receiver need bigger power supplies with more copper, use more electricity, generate a higher heat load ( more HVAC cost) and they tend to have a shorter lifespan due to thermal aging and failure thus requireing an early retirement; basically they have a higher cost for the user and the environment.

Receivers remind me of plasma tv. They were a great tech, but somehow much less efficient than the LCD screen, about 100 watts more per screen. So someone got a spreadsheet out and calculated that if the USA would have 100 million screen (and we have probably close to billion) that 1e8 plasma x 100 watt or 10 million kilowatt extra power over lcd. And the plasma was written off . Similary many products have been redesigned or outlaw (incandescent bulb)

It would be great that the industry will get up and modernized itself before legislation is passed to reduce standby losses and mandates a minimum efficiency. It's comming.

 

[Pepperjack]

I wasn’t clear on the negative effects of combining the preamp with internal amps on the lower cost units. I recall it adds some distortions from the review but never really understood how significant an issue that was.

 

[KEW]

While I completely agree that it would be nice to see class D in everything, my guess is that good implementations of class D is still to expensive on a per channel basis to put in anything at these price points. If they can do another amplifier topology cheaper, for a given price point that is another feature they can add. If a customer is shopping 2 of these side by side, and they have the same power, but one has class D and less features which one do you think most people are going to pick? I think we will continue to see innovation driving price points down in new amplifier technologies and we will start to see them in receivers that us mere mortals can afford soonish. The reduced size, heat and increased efficiency will sure be nice!

You make good points here.
Another factor is how slow people are to embrace change. Many people here are quick to jump on the Class D band wagon because we have the extra knowledge to recognize that it can be done well. However, many buyers are of the opinion that Class D is audibly inferior to Class A/B (and, indeed, there are many that will argue that Class A/B is inferior to Class A) and it takes time for people to adapt to new realities.
Additionally, Pioneer came out with Class D AVR's that were problematic. Here is what Audioholics has to say in a 2008 review of one of the Pioneer class D AVR's:

Although the SC-07 didn't fare well on the bench when tested with 4-ohm loads, it proved to hold up quite well on real world 4-ohm speaker systems driving musical content instead of continuous test tones and only gave up some of its composure as the volume levels were increased. As a result, I'd cautiously recommend using this receiver with highly efficient 4-ohm speakers. With some component tweaks and upgrades, I believe the ICE module could be a worthy contender against traditional linear amplifiers implemented in similarly priced receivers and could also be advantageous in higher power delivery due to its greater efficiency. However, as implemented in this design, it's not quite there yet

https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/pioneer-sc-07/sc-07-conclusion
This units was $2200 and I am sure there were people upset after spending that kind of money when they found out it was not able to drive their demanding 4 ohm speakers.
My point is I think AVR manufacturers are dragging their feet partly out of concern that if they committed their production to Class D, their sales would be lost to the other companies that continue to use "good ole" class A/B amps.
Sites like this are helping the transition by measuring Class D units like Hypex and establishing that they are second only to the very expensive Benchmark amp.