This site approaches the assessment of audio equipment from a particular belief set (empirical). If you ask for an opinion, the answer will be “buy the one that measures best”. So for AVRs you buy an X-3700H and an AVC-A110 just has more amps and facilities, but probably measures the same therefore it will sound the same. It’s that last presumption that worries me. Is it really true? My experience suggests that it isn’t.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Denon 3700H, 4700H, 6700H
- Thread starter GXAlan
- Start date
This site approaches the assessment of audio equipment from a particular belief set (empirical). If you ask for an opinion, the answer will be “buy the one that measures best”. So for AVRs you buy an X-3700H and an AVC-A110 just has more amps and facilities, but probably measures the same therefore it will sound the same. It’s that last presumption that worries me. Is it really true? My experience suggests that it isn’t.
Can you supply the data that supports that conclusion? It seems contradictory to the data that I have seen.
Is that experience based on proper volume leveling, blind testing? Otherwise, perceptual bias would be the likely explanation for your experience.
Certainly could be a recommendation of some, but may be a bit of a broad brush to paint with. There are actually quite a bit of differing opinions on audibility here. I think a better answer would also address...
-Listening environment (how quite is the listening environment). If your noise floor isn’t quite, getting a device measuring @ a SINAD of 115 really won’t matter
-How loudly does one listen at. If one listens @ 30 below reference, same thing, a SINAD of 115 doesn’t really matter
-Adequate room EQ (in particular below say 3-500hz
-Ability to adjust room curve (at least below 3-500hz). Ie add 3-5db of bass curve
-Is there enough power for your speakers (sensitivity and listening distance. If not, does the receiver have clean precuts with adequate voltage to add needed amplification
-Reliability
-Bug free operation. A good SINAD is moot if the unit can’t reliably work
Basically, the Denon 3700 gets recommended because it does all of the above in my opinion, and has a high SINAD. It gets bonus points because
a)Amps measure surprisingly good
b)Has a full preamp mode to use it as a processor only that exceeds the performance of stand alone processors costing 3-5K
If one hasn’t hung out here much, you could think that the SINAD chart is all that people go by. That is a snapshot of the engineering of the units, which is very important. But there are many factors that go into a purchase decision.
I don't know what you saw. I had 4700 and I know what I heard. I now have SR8015. Topping D50S and 100W power amplifier for 1000 USD declasse 4700. Even the SR8015 doesn't make me listen to stereo. I only use it for home cinema and I have a stereo separately in the same room.
i am using googletranslator
What you heard can easily be the result of perceptual bias. Improper volume leveling when doing comparisons, or confirmation bias because you can see which units you are listening to, can easily result in your experience. The following article is about DACs and headphones amps, but the problems are the same for doing personal comparisons of speaker amps
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html
Meanwhile, here are the measurements for the X4700H. It performed quite well: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/denon-avr-x4700-avr-review-updated.14493/ The amplifier section measures well enough that in many rooms (due to the room noise floor), it would likely be indistinguishable from a better performing product in a proper comparison situation.
So while you may certainly make your own purchasing decisions based upon flawed listening tests, people on ASR don't offer subjective listening tests such as yours as evidence of how an amplifier performs. It is too unreliable.
I appreciate your point about the potential for perceptual bias. My question was about the implicit and fundamental assumption here that (other things being equal) if two amplifiers measure the same, then they sound the same? If not, then empiricism is just the first step in evaluating equipment and you must then move in to the world of subjective assessment. If the answer is unequivocally yes, then job done, just buy whatever measures best. In this case, if an X-3700H provides enough power and facilities, you would not buy anything else (and certainly not additional power amps).
The analog part between the DAC and the amplifier is important on the sound and is deceived in the AV receiver. If you rely only on measurement, see. this
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/audio-amplifiers-sound
SR8015 is the first for which a squarewave was measured and only from the preamplifier. The result is terrible and is considered a good feature. When a preamplifier does this, what does an amplifier do? And now imagine it with a cheaper receiver.
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/marantz-sr8015/conclusion
Those are excellent reads, and thank you for posting the links. On the square wave thing, in my opinion, technological advances have rendered it practically irrelevant, especially on the preamp side that you are talking about, at least not really an issue for mid range gear such as the ones this thread is about. Stereophile has been doing the square wave measurements for a long time, and I don't recall JA worry much about any of those measured in practical terms. Surely some measured better than others, but the fact that we can't hear much above 20,000 Hz, let alone 30,000 Hz and higher, the difference would not likely be audible in most cases, or at least nothing so audible that can explain claims of night and day difference (not you, but I remember reading such claims on forums, probable even right here on ASR) anyway.
In one of the embedded links in the ones you posted, there is a paragraph in one of the article that I would like to quote:
The Sound of Audio Amplifiers: Can you hear a difference between Amps? | Audioholics
The possible reasons that amplifiers had specific sound characteristics were becoming a popular topic among audiophiles in the early 1970’s. There was a 1973 meeting of the Boston Audio Society that featured a presentation by a test equipment maker (I forget which) that could display the spectral characteristics of an amplifier’s THD. This was pretty heady stuff in the early 1970s. A very popular receiver at the time, the Marantz 2270, was well-known for sounding harsh if pushed too hard. At this BAS meeting, we found out why:
Even though its actual distortion rating was low (probably 0.3% THD @ rated output), the scope/analyzer showed that when it hit its clipping point, the Marantz exhibited large amounts of higher-order distortion products.
As we know, harmonic distortion is the unintended signal products generated by an audio device such as a speaker or amplifier that are whole number multiples of the original signal. For example, if an audio device is tasked with trying to reproduce a 40 Hz signal, and instead produces 40 Hz and a small amount of 80 Hz, the 80 Hz product is called harmonic distortion. Small amounts close in multiples (lower-order) to the original signal are barely audible; larger amounts of distortion in greater multiples away from the original signal (higher-order) are grossly objectionable to the human ear. (Remember the harmonic structure of Western music is based on octaves and 3rds, so 2nd and 3rd-order distortion is harmonically-related to the music in a way that we do not find dissonant or audibly offensive. Lower-order THD has to be pretty significant before we notice it in a negative way.) The sum total of all harmonic distortion products is usually expressed as a percentage of the original signal, or % Total Harmonic Distortion (% THD).
On the scope, we could clearly see that the Marantz produced large amounts of 4th-, 5th- and 6th-order harmonics when it was pushed into clipping. A Pioneer receiver there for comparison was better behaved and its distortion was composed mostly of 4th-order and lower components. An AR receiver showed by far the best distortion behavior, with most of its harmonics being very benign-sounding 2nd- and 3rd-order products. Now, finally, there was a concrete, repeatable, tangible explanation for why some amplifiers sounded better than others when pushed into clipping.
The hearsay about Marantz being "warm" and "musical" sounding was likely due to receivers and amps in the late 60's to 70's when it is rare to find SINAD higher than 90 dB, my SC-7 and SM-7 were close but still below 90 dB. The popular 22X0 receivers, as the article alluded to, had their THD specified in the range of 0.3 to 0.5% (the 2230 for example). So yes, they could sound different enough to be labelled with all sorts of sound signature, I guess.
Today's gear, such as the Marantz models measured by ASR, all have much lower THD+N, so as long as you keep them well below their output limit, you shouldn't have to worry about their bad (and different) behaviors pass their clipping points that the above article referred to.
Square waves, like damping factor, amount of negative feedback, TIM distortions are really not that relevant any more in most cases. If they were, I am sure Amir would include them in his measurements (I would welcome that even if he would only consider it, but it's probably too work for him..).
Finally I got yesterday my new 3700
Respect to my previous 3500 I have the impression of a tighter and more controlled bass.
I ran Audyssey EQ by the app, but have a doubt: should I leave the Mid-range compensation on (it makes a dip around 2 kHz)?
Finally I got yesterday my new 3700
Respect to my previous 3500 I have the impression of a tighter and more controlled bass.
I ran Audyssey EQ by the app, but have a doubt: should I leave the Mid-range compensation on (it makes a dip around 2 kHz)?
I turn off midrange compensation for a flat frequency response. The Denon Audyssey app is a great tool. It offers much more flexibility than just using the receiver for Audyssey EQ. I have several different EQ setups saved on the iPad that I can load onto the Denon 4700 for different setups. Here are some examples of what you can do with the Audyssey EQ app.
1. Turn off midrange compensation.
2. Set which frequencies will be corrected.
3. Create your own house curve.
4. Save a copy of an existing EQ session and customize it.
5. Easily load any of these Audyssey settings back to your 3700.
Audyssey EQ app is one of the best features of the Denon 3700.
Actually, I disagree. It's not necessary to move to a subjective assessment when one knows that it is likely to be unreliable.
Improperly volume leveled, sighted comparisons of amps/DACs do not become more reliable, despite whatever you believe about the reliability of the independent measurements.
I use AudioTools (Studio Six Digital) and a calibrated Dayton IMM-6 microphone on my iPad. Seducing everything to equalize the volume is childish.
I don't know anything about that software. Does it overcome sighted bias?
I don't know what that means. I have never tried to "seduce" an amp. lol
It is if you want to select the equipment that sounds best to you, because you can’t rely on measurement.
My issue is still that the empirical conclusion would be that an X-3700H sounds as good, if not better than a Denon PMA-2500NE, because it measures as well and is more powerful. Is this true? If not, then measures are inadequate for evaluating the sound quality of amplifiers when driving speakers and we need other measures to capture the difference between the two. Fundamentally this is all about circuit design, power supply and capacitors. Sound quality is all about an amps ability to deliver current to the speaker for transients and you don’t get this measuring SINAD.
Just because you don't have measurements to access, that doesn't make your subjective evaluations any more reliable.
That being said, one can certainly base their purchasing decisions on that if they want. But claims about how an amp sounds are unreliable.
If the speakers being driven can reach the listener's preferred listening volume with headroom for dynamic peaks, without distortion from clipping, then likely yes.
The ability to deliver current that the speakers need for transients is of course important but it is not the only important point either, SINAD is also important. That's why ASR's measurements cover not only SINAD, but also the current capability, among many other things they measure. However, just because (assuming it is) the X3700H measured better than the PMA-2500NE on current capability and SINAD, it does not mean it would "sound better" because a) may be both measured good enough for them to be audibly transparent, b) if a) is true, then "sound quality" in terms of better or worse would become highly subjective, such that you need to do the test "blind" to remove bias.
I agree entirely, once you’ve established that measurements can’t help you choose, the best way to subjectively assess which amplifier sounds best is a blind test. However, if you’re unable to do this you have rely on others’ subjective opinions, which is where the mainstream hifi press comes in.
Similar threads
