Denon AVR-X3600H AV Receiver Review

[carlob]

If I understood carlob right, I think he meant for Denon to offer both. So those who want an AVR can opt for the AVR-X3600H and those who prefer a prepro only can opt for the AVC (or AVP-X3600H) priced at say $300 less. The AVP-X3600H would have the 9 amp boards and larger/heavy power supply missing. We both know Denon would never do it because Marantz would then file for divorce, and Sound United would then back off.

Exactly, I was not discussing the pre-pro market or small manufacturers costs to market an AVR, we are speaking of Denon - they have pretty much everything ready in house, if I look at the AVR-H line probably 85% of the parts are in common, same boards only differently populated, same chassis, same circuital topology etc. It would take them 5 minutes to strip the amps, stick a few xlr outs and sell it as a cheap pre-amp. They obviously won't do it because doing so it would be difficult to ripoff the consumers selling overpriced Marantz pre-pros.

I am always amazed when consumers defend big brands: they are not doing our best interest, they are only looking to make money (which is ok to the extent you are not ripping me off).

 

[peng]

Exactly, I was not discussing the pre-pro market or small manufacturers costs to market an AVR, we are speaking of Denon - they have pretty much everything ready in house, if I look at the AVR-H line probably 85% of the parts are in common, same boards only differently populated, same chassis, same circuital topology etc. It would take them 5 minutes to strip the amps, stick a few xlr outs and sell it as a cheap pre-amp.

You are right, I know for sure Denon has standardized on the same circuitry and parts (including the DAC chip) for the pre-pro section since 2016 (may be even 2015 as well but not 100%), that's from the X1400H to X6500H. Even the X8500H is the same to a large extent but it has a better DAC, full preamp mode and obviously much better power supply, layout, shielding etc. Same idea for Marantz except they did not put those HDAMs to their slimline series, so don't be surprise the Slimlines will measure the same (I mean to the 3 decimal point perhaps) as the X3600H.

 

[carlob]

If I look at the big brands there is no reason to price pre-pros so high compared to AVRs of the same brands (besides milking the cow). It's the same stuff, actually I'm buying less parts, wtf?

 

[MarcT]

My perforated right ear drum painfully detects resonance. Maybe the X32 would solve the problem. I don't know if movie theaters use room correction. It is painful for me. Not a fair comparison. My $350 Roku bedroom TV has better contrast than the last movie I saw at AMC. No wonder they are on their knees. One month interruption and need a Chapter 11.

I don't know if my right eardrum is perforated, but I do get an irritating resonance with french horns, cellos, and certain vocals. I think it's a result of my four children screaming in my ear when they were little, as well as from when I would forget to wear ear plugs at auto racing events over the years.

 

[anmpr1]

Bass management is the problem and I could come up with no way of adding bass management to my benchmark (dac3 + ahb2) without sacrificing measured noise or distortion.

The Accuphase digital crossover is rated at -121dB S/N. Of course its limited availability and price no object cost would make it a tough nut to crack in all but the most exotic systems.

http://www.accuphase.com/model/df-65.html

Benchmark recommends using the second DAC3HGC analog out for direct connection to a sub. Then adjusting the sub's crossover/level/phase. For my system (bass horn loaded speakers that naturally roll off quickly and smoothly around 80Hz) it's not a bad idea. Integration in other systems is YMMV.

I'm kind of surprised Benchmark doesn't offer a better 'solution' to the sub question. I agree that from a 'spec-wise' point there is no sense in introducing a typical external crossover into a Benchmark amplification chain.

 

[A.West]

If I look at the big brands there is no reason to price pre-pros so high compared to AVRs of the same brands (besides milking the cow). It's the same stuff, actually I'm buying less parts, wtf?

People who buy pre-pros sit on a different demand curve, are typically buying through a different channel, and are generally less cost sensitive than those buying AVRs. Thanks to Amir for showing us that in some cases people are paying more for less. Or for looks. Or non-audible differences. Or getting slightly better SINAD but losing the ability to do useful equalization. Big companies producing large runs of the same product allows cost savings via economies of scale. The sweet spot has long seemed to be upper-middle or lower-upper tier AVRs. With a few small tweaks, these machines would probably be capable of making "audiophile" pre-pros obsolete.

 

[carlob]

I would still prefer a prepro since I have better amps to use (a couple of inexpensive icepower modules would be vastly better in any case), it's easier to integrate with a separate 2-channel system and also a box with 11 amps cramped inside is no good

 

[waynel]

If I understood carlob right, I think he meant for Denon to offer both. So those who want an AVR can opt for the AVR-X3600H and those who prefer a prepro only can opt for the AVC (or AVP-X3600H) priced at say $300 less. The AVP-X3600H would have the 9 amp boards and larger/heavy power supply missing. We both know Denon would never do it because Marantz would then file for divorce, and Sound United would then back off.

Strip out the amps , add XLRs and double the price it would still be a compelling solution compared to others pre pro options

 

[Promit]

I can think of two possible reasons:

1) HDAMs add THD+N, hence slightly worse SINAD. (It may help in providing extra buffer, but it bound to add distortions, however insignificant if done right). Note: Consider the pre-amp section signal path only, the difference between the two is just the HDAM buffer stage that has a gain of 1, and is situated right at the end of the pre-amp output. The output of the HDAM is connected to the power amp input, until it is disconnected for Amir's measurements.

Can someone explain to me what the heck an HDAM does?

 

[RichB]

Strip out the amps , add XLRs and double the price it would still be a compelling solution compared to others pre pro options

Also, strip out obsolete a analog video and FM/AM radio. Then, add USB DAC and Roon.

- Rich

 

[carlob]

give me an hdmi switcher with all the codecs/formats, that's the only thing I need

 

[peng]

Also, strip out obsolete a analog video and FM/AM radio. Then, add USB DAC and Roon.

- Rich

They already added Roon, all the way to the 2016 models if I understood correctly.

 

[Bear123]

Can someone explain to me what the heck an HDAM does?

Although I'm certain this doesn't answer your question, from Marantz:

"HDAM
Marantz developed its own discrete circuit boards to replace standard IC's. These HDAM's consists of discrete surface mount components with short mirror image L/R signal paths. Those devices are doing exactly the same thing as the Op-Amps, but outperform the regular IC Op-amps dramatically in terms of the Slew Rate and reduced noise level, resulting in a much more dynamic, accurate and detailed sound. Over the years Marantz developed different types of the HDAM to improve quality and to fit to the special requirements of a product category like CD or amplifier."

 

[amirm]

It's really hard to comprehend how this receiver at half the price of the Marantz AV7705 pre-processor reviewed recently (with 9 amps thrown in for good measure) can have a SINAD in pre-out mode of 99 vs 75. It just shows every model release that was re-engineered in some way has a chance of a good or bad result. Probably down to the individuals in the teams assigned to the development and their abilities. You would think though that there would be and over arching testing/release protocol to ensure consistency across the price ranges??

I think the target output for Marantz was a much lower output from the DAC and they did not care how it overloaded with higher outputs. They paid attention to that in this Denon.

 

[RichB]

Although I'm certain this doesn't answer your question, from Marantz:

"HDAM
Marantz developed its own discrete circuit boards to replace standard IC's. These HDAM's consists of discrete surface mount components with short mirror image L/R signal paths. Those devices are doing exactly the same thing as the Op-Amps, but outperform the regular IC Op-amps dramatically in terms of the Slew Rate and reduced noise level, resulting in a much more dynamic, accurate and detailed sound. Over the years Marantz developed different types of the HDAM to improve quality and to fit to the special requirements of a product category like CD or amplifier."

Mostly marketing word salad. CD’s, tell me more about their special requirements over other digital audio.

HDAM boards do look nice with all the boards neatly arranged.

- Rich

 

[Dj7675]

They already added Roon, all the way to the 2016 models if I understood correctly.

Roon works but it is Airplay 2 and not a Roon native RAAT endpoint.

 

[RichB]

Roon works but it is Airplay 2 and not a Roon native RAAT endpoint.

Is there any cost to this approach?

- Rich

 

[amirm]

Is there any cost to this approach?

- Rich

Airplay truncates 24-bit to 16 bit. So not good for high-res audio.

 

[RichB]

Airplay truncates 24-bit to 16 bit. So not good for high-res audio.

Roon endpoint seems like a lightweight protocol so it sounding not be difficult for Marantz/Denon to include.

Heos is reported to support Hi-Res audio (96/24). So, perhaps they don’t want to compete with their own products.
Do D/M products support multi-channel via Roon?

Unfortunately, the new round of 16 channel products don’t (yet).

- Rich

 

[peng]

Can someone explain to me what the heck an HDAM does?

It is basically a discrete opamp.

In terms of the claimed benefits, I'll let Marantz give you their marketing hype.
https://www.acehomeaudio.com/single-post/2017/10/14/What-is-HDAM-and-why-does-it-matter

What they said may sound good, but the benefit claim is not logical, it may be fine in their high end integrated amps but not in their AVRs and AVPs. That's because they added them at the end of the preamp's signal path. Denon did not adopt them, and Marantz did not bother adding them to their slimline, probably tried to save room and cost. That's a good thing, because adding an extra unity gain opamp at end would add distortions logically speaking. Even the best IC opamp has distortions, no matter how low, let alone discrete. I quoted Dr. Rich's comments on the measured d he made in the HTHF's review on the AV8805. He cited the possibility that I have been wondering too all along.

Its a long read, but you can fast forward to the last paragraph just before the Conclusions. He said "It is possible the HDAM discrete circuits past the new analog ICs are the dominant distortion source. "

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/receiver-processor/processors/marantz-av8805-processor-review/

Obviously for practically minded users, HDAM/higher distortions or not, it is academic because while the AV8805's THD+N is much higher than the X3600H's, we are talking about the difference between THD+N of 0.002728% (AV8805) vs 0.001192% (AVR-X3600H), that's more than 2:1, but still in the 3rd decimal place. The trouble is, the Marantz costs 4X more. That why some of us want Denon to remove the power amps, add XLR and lower the price by a few hundred dollars to make it one of the most affordable high performance AVP.