Denon AVC-A1HDA MK3 2011/12 Edition Review

[MARCD5123]

I wonder if their is any chance at all in having "ASR" do nice review for this insane model . I managed to purchase a MK3 Edition from its original owner earlier this year (2025) as it was my dream amp to own ..The vast majority of reviews were outstanding for this model as it was the very last of its kind built directly after the A1XVA and just before D&M changed hands around 2013/14.

The MK3 Edition dubbed "3D Edition" you had to send back either your baseline Edition from 2007 or the "A" Edition from 2008 back to D&M as it had a some serious upgrades done both hardware and firmware wise which was released 2011/12 and you had to pay approx £1.3K for it .

For me it was upgrade from Audyssey MultEQ XT to the full Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro software and upgrade from Denon Link 3rd Generation to 4th Generation so I can use Denon 4010UD unit ..It also had a much faster CPU fitted as well and a upgraded HDMI board..theirs some others bits as well .

Not to mention the A1HDA was the very last ever !!! Denon to use a massive "Toroidal" Section Its a marvel to look at and some breathtaking, beautiful and stunning craftsmanship and electronics the last of its kind from D&M staple I would say "old school" period after the A1XVA.

Anyhow...would be nice to have a review
I've also attached some photos of mine .

 

[Power Pop 23]

There is a chance Amir could agree to measure this discontinued AVR if a member offered to send one to him for review. Consider contacting Amir directly.

 

[peng]

I wonder if their is any chance at all in having "ASR" do nice review for this insane model . I managed to purchase a MK3 Edition from its original owner earlier this year (2025) as it was my dream amp to own ..The vast majority of reviews were outstanding for this model as it was the very last of its kind built directly after the A1XVA and just before D&M changed hands around 2013/14.

The MK3 Edition dubbed "3D Edition" you had to send back either your baseline Edition from 2007 or the "A" Edition from 2008 back to D&M as it had a some serious upgrades done both hardware and firmware wise which was released 2011/12 and you had to pay approx £1.3K for it .

For me it was upgrade from Audyssey MultEQ XT to the full Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro software and upgrade from Denon Link 3rd Generation to 4th Generation so I can use Denon 4010UD unit ..It also had a much faster CPU fitted as well and a upgraded HDMI board..theirs some others bits as well .

Not to mention the A1HDA was the very last ever !!! Denon to use a massive "Toroidal" Section Its a marvel to look at and some breathtaking, beautiful and stunning craftsmanship and electronics the last of its kind from D&M staple I would say "old school" period after the A1XVA.

Anyhow...would be nice to have a review
I've also attached some photos of mine .

Will it cost a fortune to ship though, that thing looks as heavy as today's real flagship receiver and heavier than a few so called flagship AVRs. Definitely heavier than the Marantz AV10 and Cinema 30.

I suppose it still cannot use the $20 or $200 apps but with the Audyssey Pro included that's probably fine, plus it should be able to use @OCA 's latest A1 because iirc he said it no longer require using the app. Hard to believe such an old AVP could be upgraded to XT32, that included the Sub EQ HT right? Can't remember if the AVP has two independent subouts.

 

[MARCD5123]

Will it cost a fortune to ship though, that thing looks as heavy as today's real flagship receiver and heavier than a few so called flagship AVRs. Definitely heavier than the Marantz AV10 and Cinema 30.

I suppose it still cannot use the $20 or $200 apps but with the Audyssey Pro included that's probably fine, plus it should be able to use @OCA 's latest A1 because iirc he said it no longer require using the app. Hard to believe such an old AVP could be upgraded to XT32, that included the Sub EQ HT right? Can't remember if the AVP has two independent subouts.

Hi Yes been thinking about that ..and yes it's a huge beast and ways an absolute ton just like it's predecessor A1XVA !!!!...
In order to match it in 2025 would be A10H or A1..

Yes the MK3 was the very last model of the A1HDA..and as soon it was made available for sale earlier on this year I grabbed it I did not even barter with the gentleman it was immaculate and 100% complete with everything original box packaging remotes the lot as the original seller upgraded to the current A1H.

He showed me the original receipt from 2012 he paid £1.3K and sent it back to D&M or all the latest hardware & firmware mods to be done essentially getting a new amp . As this is a UK/EU model and I live in London myself .

I would absolutely entertain and love to see how the A1HDA would stack up to either the current A10H or A1H .

I've also given the amp a thorough clean up inside and out so its more or less spotless .

However yes it very risky and would cost quite alot of money and insurance to send it off .

I can't afford that risk and it's my dream amp ..sadly perhaps maybe another member that lives fairly close-ish next year maybe ..

Anyways we can only pray .

Thanks everyone.

 

[peng]

Hi Yes been thinking about that ..and yes it's a huge beast and ways an absolute ton just like it's predecessor A1XVA !!!!...
In order to match it in 2025 would be A10H or A1..

Yes the MK3 was the very last model of the A1HDA..and as soon it was made available for sale earlier on this year I grabbed it I did not even barter with the gentleman it was immaculate and 100% complete with everything original box packaging remotes the lot as the original seller upgraded to the current A1H.

He showed me the original receipt from 2012 he paid £1.3K and sent it back to D&M or all the latest hardware & firmware mods to be done essentially getting a new amp . As this is a UK/EU model and I live in London myself .

I would absolutely entertain and love to see how the A1HDA would stack up to either the current A10H or A1H .

I've also given the amp a thorough clean up inside and out so its more or less spotless .

However yes it very risky and would cost quite alot of money and insurance to send it off .

I can't afford that risk and it's my dream amp ..sadly perhaps maybe another member that lives fairly close-ish next year maybe ..

Anyways we can only pray .

Thanks everyone.

The SINAD spec of the DAC used is about 106 dB, that is about the same as the AK4458 used in the early X3600 through X6700H so it likely would measure about the same as the X6700H but might get closed to the A10H, A1H too as it has better power supplies and shielding, so noise should be lower.

 

[MARCD5123]

The SINAD spec of the DAC used is about 106 dB, that is about the same as the AK4458 used in the early X3600 through X6700H so it likely would measure about the same as the X6700H but might get closed to the A10H, A1H too as it has better power supplies and shielding, so noise should be lower.

Very interesting indeed ...and thank you for sharing it's very much appreciated .

 

[peng]

Very interesting indeed ...and thank you for sharing it's very much appreciated .

It's info from the service manual that can be viewed on hifiengine.com. The DAC IC is PCM1796

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/denon/avc-a1hd.shtml

 

[Vincentponcet]

The issue with older AVRs is they used very poor input switch and volume control LSIs, which is killing the performance of the dac chip.
In the latest models, like x600/x700/x800 and the marantz AV8805 in 2018, they moved to separate chips and higher quality provided by their suppliers.

AVR-Audio Video Reciever-Build Quality: Part V - HomeTheaterHifi.com

Good News! Marantz Says No More AVR LSIs for You! You might recall my article on Audio Video Receiver Build Quality announcing the downgrade of the analog section of almost every AVR and Pre Pro coming from the major Far Eastern manufacturers. The article discussed how multi-channel audio...

hometheaterhifi.com

In this domain, I still don't understand why they don't just go to all digital and use the internal volume control of the dac chip which is necessarily better than a stack of chips. The use case of end to end analog without room correction with an AVR is quite marginal.

 

[peng]

The issue with older AVRs is they used very poor input switch and volume control VLSIs, which is killing the performance of the dac chip.
In the latest models, like x700/x800 they moved to separate chips and higher quality.

And to D+M's credit, when they did that, they standardized on that same volume control IC for their whole line up, that is, from the X3600H/SR6011 through A1H/AV10, same deal with the DSP IC, the only thing they skimmed on is that since they started using the downgraded DAC IC (after the AKM fire), they have so far only gone back to the better ES9017 that is a slight upgrade relative to the AK4458 used before the fir, for the X6800H and Cinema30, and hopefully/apparently the upcoming AV30 as well.

In this domain, I still don't understand why they don't just go to all digital and use the internal volume control of the dac chip which is necessarily better than a stack of chips. The use case of end to end analog without room correction with an AVR is quite marginal.

I think for featured loaded multichannel AVRs the volume control chip is needed as it obviously give them the much needed versatility, functionality and therefore flexibility in design/implementation of various features than having to rely on the DAC ICs. As such, to not use those volume chips, cost would likely increased significantly to the point marketing department (they have the final say, I guess) wouldn't allow it lol..

 

[Vincentponcet]

And to D+<'s credit, when they did that, they standardized on that same volume control IC for their whole line up, that is, from the X3600H/SR6011 through A1H/AV10, same deal with the DSP IC, the only thing they skimmed on is that since they started using the downgraded DAC IC (after the AKM fire), they have so far only gone back to the better ES9017 that is a slight upgrade relative to the AK4458 used before the fir, for the X6800H and Cinema30, and hopefully/apparently the upcoming AV30 as well.

I think for featured loaded multichannel AVRs the volume control chip is needed as it obviously give them the much needed versatility, functionality and therefore flexibility in design/implementation of various features than having to rely on the DAC ICs. As such, to not use those volume chips, cost would likely increased significantly to the point marketing department (they have the final say, I guess) wouldn't allow it lol..

It would be a simpler and cheaper more direct path to be all digital.
For digital input, you go to DSP then DAC with integrated volume control, then output stage.
For analog input, you go to the ADC then the digital path.
Integrated volume control in ESS are on 32 bits, so plenty of dynamics.

On the signal path across a range, the x6800h is very different from the x4800h
See their presentation video at 11:30

 

[peng]

It would be a simpler and cheaper more direct path to be all digital.
For digital input, you go to DSP then DAC with integrated volume control, then output stage.
For analog input, you go to the ADC then the digital path.
Integrated volume control in ESS are on 32 bits, so plenty of dynamics.

I agree direct path is better, and with 32 bit dynamics/resolutions will not likely be an issue, but I don't know enough to comment on whether it would be simpler and cheaper, but I would say not likely because without the volume IC so you may be right, or not, anyway below are the features that I think without the volume IC, D+M will have to come up with something else in addition to just using the DAC ICs:

Anyway, I hope you are right that it would cost them less to do so, as a rule I prefer fewer parts, simpler, and more direct path whether that would result in audible benefits or not, that's one reason I am still hoping Denon will come up with an AVP so there won't be a need to have the extra HDMI stage. I understand D+M decided to let Marantz take care of the "higher end" line, but Denon can always inject an AV that offers a lower price than the AV30, just by eliminating the HDAMs and the gold plated connectors, thereby not conflicting with their pricing strategy.

On the signal path across a range, the x6800h is very different from the x4800h. See their presentation video at 11:30

I would say they may be true to a point, as you can see in the linked video:

They are two different AVRs so will not likely have have identical circuitry, I simply stated that "And to D+M's credit, when they did that, they standardized on that same volume control IC for their whole line up, that is, from the X3600H/SR6011 through A1H/AV10, same deal with the DSP IC, the only thing they skimmed on is that since they started using the downgraded DAC IC" and I did mentioned that on the X3800H they used a better DAC IC, even named it, i.e. ES9017.

The block diagram for the signal path block diagram below does show they are standardized, but again if one follow the detailed schematics then expect to see other find details, the I did not and would not comment on obviously..

The ES9017 is an 8 channel DAC, so the implementation will obviously be different than that for the X4800H that uses the PCM5102A that is a 2 channel DAC, but the volume IC you previously mentioned are the same NJU72343, used across the whole D+M AVR/AVP from their midrange to flagship models.

At 21:30:

As to the volume chip I mentioned before, below is the link to the datasheet:

https://www.nisshinbo-microdevices.co.jp/en/pdf/datasheet/NJU72343_E.pdf

 

[Vincentponcet]

I agree direct path is better, and with 32 bit dynamics/resolutions will not likely be an issue, but I don't know enough to comment on whether it would be simpler and cheaper, but I would say not likely because without the volume IC so you may be right, or not, anyway below are the features that I think without the volume IC, D+M will have to come up with something else in addition to just using the DAC ICs:

View attachment 499722


View attachment 499721



Not quite true, but true to a point, as you can see in the linked video:

I am not saying they have identical circuitry, I simply stated that "And to D+M's credit, when they did that, they standardized on that same volume control IC for their whole line up, that is, from the X3600H/SR6011 through A1H/AV10, same deal with the DSP IC, the only thing they skimmed on is that since they started using the downgraded DAC IC" and I did mentioned that on the X3800H they used a better DAC IC, even named it, i.e. ES9017.

The block diagram for the signal path block diagram below does show they are standardized, but again if one follow the detailed schematics then expect to see other find details, the I did not and would not comment on obviously..

The ES9017 is an 8 channel DAC, so the implementation will obviously be different than that for the X4800H that uses the PCM5102A that is a 2 channel DAC, but the volume IC you previously mentioned are the same NJU72343, used across the whole D+M AVR/AVP from their midrange to flagship models.

https://www.nisshinbo-microdevices.co.jp/en/pdf/datasheet/NJU72343_E.pdf

My point is for 6800 the PCB and the topology is very different from the 4800.
So instead of using external ICs for input switching and volume control, the input switching could be done in the digital domain so no loss and the DSP could control the volume control of the ess dac instead of the analog NJU chips.
That would make the volume control logic different in the DSP code, but saving a ton of chips and PCB area.
I think they used the conservative way by staying in the analog domain.
It will probably move toward full digital in the next version. Analog switching and volume control doesn't make sense when the 99% use case is digital (HDMI) and the audio path loss probably 10db vs reference DACs using similar chips.

 

[peng]

It would be a simpler and cheaper more direct path to be all digital.
For digital input, you go to DSP then DAC with integrated volume control, then output stage.
For analog input, you go to the ADC then the digital path.
Integrated volume control in ESS are on 32 bits, so plenty of dynamics.

More direct path is a good thing, but I am not sure about it would be cheaper as I don't know enough about the details but I do know the DAC IC alone, whether it be the PCM5102A or ES9007 has all the features (I don't mean, all, but the obviously necessary ones for most users), see below from the data sheet:

8-CHANNEL ELECTRONIC VOLUME ■ GENERAL DESCRIPTION ■ PACKAGE OUTLINE The NJU72343 is a 8-channel electronic volume that controlled independently. It has a 2-input selector for 4 of 8-channels. Functions are controlled via two-wired serial bus. The NJU72343 is well-suited for multi-channel audio systems such as AV amplifiers, DVD receivers and others. ■ FEATURES  Operating Voltage Dual power supply: ±4.5 to ±7.5V Single power supply: +9.0 to +15.0V  2-wired Serial BUS Control  Selectable 2-Chip Address Available for using two chips on same serial bus line  Volume +31.5 to -95dB/0.5dB step, Mute  Zero-cross Detection  CMOS Technology  Package Outline SSOP32

On the signal path across a range, the x6800h is very different from the x4800h
See their presentation video at 11:30

Not quite true, but true to a point, as you can see in the linked video:

I am not saying they have identical circuitry, I simply stated that "And to D+M's credit, when they did that, they standardized on that same volume control IC for their whole line up, that is, from the X3600H/SR6011 through A1H/AV10, same deal with the DSP IC, the only thing they skimmed on is that since they started using the downgraded DAC IC" and I did mentioned that on the X3800H they used a better DAC IC, even named it, i.e. ES9017.

The block diagram for the signal path block diagram below does show they are standardized, but again if one follow the detailed schematics then expect to see other find details, the I did not and would not comment on obviously..

The ES9017 is an 8 channel DAC, so the implementation will obviously be different than that for the X4800H that uses the PCM5102A that is a 2 channel DAC, but the volume IC you previously mentioned are the same NJU72343

View attachment 499721

 

[peng]

View attachment 499717

My point is for 6800 the PCB and the topology is very different from the 4800.
So instead of using external ICs for input switching and volume control, the input switching could be done in the digital domain so no loss and the DSP could control the volume control of the ess dac instead of the analog NJU chips.
That would make the volume control logic different in the DSP code, but saving a ton of chips and PCB area.
I think they used the conservative way by staying in the analog domain.
It will probably move toward full digital in the next version. Analog switching and volume control doesn't make sense when the 99% use case is digital (HDMI) and the audio path loss probably 10db vs reference DACs using similar chips.

You posted before I edited my for better clarity. Clearly we are not making the same points lol...

 

[peng]

Just one more point, if they use the DSP to do volume control, including the obviously need mute, remote control etc., futures just to name the obvious ones, that will increase the loading on the existing single DSP chip that spears to have stretched to its limit, having the deal with 19 channels processing (AV10, AVR-A1H) and also the newly added Dirac ART. If, only if that is the case, then they would have to do another DSP upgrade or just add one additional chip. Also there will be additional costs on the software side.

Again, I hope you are right, because if not, we will not likely see such a change anytime soon.

 

[Vincentponcet]

Just one more point, if they use the DSP to do volume control, including the obviously need mute, remote control etc., futures just to name the obvious ones, that will increase the loading on the existing single DSP chip that spears to have stretched to its limit, having the deal with 19 channels processing (AV10, AVR-A1H) and also the newly added Dirac ART. If, only if that is the case, then they would have to do another DSP upgrade or just add one additional chip. Also there will be additional costs on the software side.

Again, I hope you are right, because if not, we will not likely see such a change anytime soon.

The ESS DAC has an integrated 32 bits volume control. No load on the DSP.
Either you have the microcontroller controlling the analog volume control chip or the one of the ESS DAC, I don't see a massive différence here.

 

[peng]

The ESS DAC has an integrated 32 bits volume control. No load on the DSP.
Either you have the microcontroller controlling the analog volume control chip or the one of the ESS DAC, I don't see a massive différence here.

Interesting, and I like the idea. One slight concern, I suspect my minidsp devices such as the Htx might not have separate vol chip (I asked them the question but the for some reasons, they answered all my other questions except that one. but their RCA outs are limited to 2V max., so I wonder if D+M skips the vol chip that can do about 4.2 to 4.4 V (info from service manuals and ASR measurements), would they be capped at 2 to 2.2 V as well without adding opamps behind? Currently they do use opas behind the vol chips but for some reasons only for the front L/R channels. It would be easier for Marantz to keep the 4 V max, double for the AVP xlr outs, as they can do it via the HDAMs easily.

2V is generally high enough but for those like me who use amps with 25 dB or lower gain, 4 V max will give a better feeling.

 

[Vincentponcet]

Interesting, and I like the idea. One slight concern, I suspect my minidsp devices such as the Htx might not have separate vol chip (I asked them the question but the for some reasons, they answered all my other questions except that one. but their RCA outs are limited to 2V max., so I wonder if D+M skips the vol chip that can do about 4.2 to 4.4 V (info from service manuals and ASR measurements), would they be capped at 2 to 2.2 V as well without adding opamps behind? Currently they do use opas behind the vol chips but for some reasons only for the front L/R channels. It would be easier for Marantz to keep the 4 V max, double for the AVP xlr outs, as they can do it via the HDAMs easily.

2V is generally high enough but for those like me who use amps with 25 dB or lower gain, 4 V max will give a better feeling.

The post dac output stage brings you to any volt you want, most opamps can deliver 15V.
Look at plain DACs with volume control.

 

[peng]

The post dac output stage brings you to any volt you want, most opamps can deliver 15V.
Look at plain DACs with volume control.

That what I said, it is a matter of adding opamps and they already exist on the front left and right channels final stage but not the other channels. Glad to know you agree on this one.

 

[Vincentponcet]

That what I said, it is a matter of adding opamps and they already exist on the front left and right channels final stage but not the other channels. Glad to know you agree on this one.

What do you mean opamps exists only on front left and right ?
All channels are equals on Denon AVRs (except the 4th sub output on the x6800h, which is handled by one TI5102A like the ones on x3800h/x4800h).
You have a post dac opamps on most implementations, except the cheapest ones which uses a dac which embedded voltage driven output stage.