But not in preamp mode, jgiannakas says you can still use external amps on any channel if they are under 1 volt sensitivity. If your amp is over 1 volt sensitivity only then there would be an advantage to the 8500?
-
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 AVR-X3700H AVR Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
But not in preamp mode, jgiannakas says you can still use external amps on any channel if they are under 1 volt sensitivity. If your amp is over 1 volt sensitivity only then there would be an advantage to the 8500?
jgiannakas
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2021
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 64
In summary:
1. If your amp requires more than 1.4 Volts for full output and you want to drive the front 2 only, then setting the x3700h to 11 channel will give you a clean 2 channel output for the front 2
2. If your amp needs more than 1.4 volts and you want to drive all your channels externally you set the x3700h to preamp mode which disconnects the internal amps for the front 2 channels from the pre amp stage.
3. If your amp needs more than 1.4 volts and you want to drive the surrounds or Center channel but not all channels with an external amp the higher denon model is for you as it lets you selectively disconnect channels
4. If your amp needs less than 1.4 volts for full output for any channel and any combination you need to do nothing. The x3700h works out of the box as the pre outs are always active and the internal amps won’t reach their limit before your external amps.
Thank you very much for that summary and for educating me on this!
Any thoughts @SEKLEM , I know you're a fan of the Niles SI-275
I've been using the on-board amplifiers of the Yamaha receiver I have and it's been plenty for me. In fact the RX-V659 has abundant clean 2 channel power according to the benchtest done by Audioholics.
I keep the Niles around because it's handy for testing.
Thanks!
Last week I bought a new first iteration of the 3700 (v1). I broke in it's DAC and amp for 120 hours - music into a 6 ohm resistor at 80v peak to peak for 60 hours, and 13hz into a 4 ohm woofer at 7 volts for another 60 hours. Half came in through the digital optical in, the other half on HDMI. I've had the second iteration (v2) for almost a month and it has at least 200 hours of playback, mostly through the HDMI inputs into an 8 ohm 7.2.2 system, sometimes in 2.0 mode with a different set of speakers for music.
I made a thread saying I was going to compare them. I'm also posting here in case people missed it. I've had a lot of experience comparing and tweaking the sound of digital and analog sources. For this comparison I used high end passive studio monitors.
The quality of sound put out by V1 and V2 is similar. But the sound is different, though not hugely.
1.) V1 is more bright than V2, with possibly a bit more resolution in the treble (not related to level/"brightness").
2.) V2's midrange is clearer.
3.) Dynamics are the same.
That's how they compare to each other. Compared to completely neutral electronics:
- V1 is a bit too bright. This can be fixed by cutting the frequencies between 10 and 20khz by about 1-1.5db. Alternately, system matching can be done, buying speakers with a softer top end is a good idea
-V2's frequency response is almost perfect. Its issue is also in the top octave, but in the other direction. Speakers with a flat frequency response would get a 1/4 to 1/2db boost for 10-20khz. Since most speakers have a bit more presence in the very top octave for "air" anyway, no equalization should be required with v2 for the most part.
I found the sound from the first version of the 3700 to be more fatiguing than the second. I didn't equalize the source (my PC with foobar2000 to HDMI) to flatten v1's response at its output so it wasn't as bright, so I'm not sure if the fatigue I experienced was from the treble, or if v1 has more (inaudible but detrimental) distortion, causing listening fatigue.
Anyway, because v2's midrange is clearer and that can't be equalized in, and less equalization is required (none in the case of my Monitor Audio Silver 6/Center/FX and rear wall/front ceiling speakers, I'm keeping the second version of the 3700 and returning the first.
Initially I felt so lucky to have found a 3700 with a 4458 because of all the dread from AKM parts not being available for the season. Turns out, Denon have released a comparable product, and this second version works better with my speakers than the first!
I made a thread saying I was going to compare them. I'm also posting here in case people missed it. I've had a lot of experience comparing and tweaking the sound of digital and analog sources. For this comparison I used high end passive studio monitors.
The quality of sound put out by V1 and V2 is similar. But the sound is different, though not hugely.
1.) V1 is more bright than V2, with possibly a bit more resolution in the treble (not related to level/"brightness").
2.) V2's midrange is clearer.
3.) Dynamics are the same.
That's how they compare to each other. Compared to completely neutral electronics:
- V1 is a bit too bright. This can be fixed by cutting the frequencies between 10 and 20khz by about 1-1.5db. Alternately, system matching can be done, buying speakers with a softer top end is a good idea
-V2's frequency response is almost perfect. Its issue is also in the top octave, but in the other direction. Speakers with a flat frequency response would get a 1/4 to 1/2db boost for 10-20khz. Since most speakers have a bit more presence in the very top octave for "air" anyway, no equalization should be required with v2 for the most part.
I found the sound from the first version of the 3700 to be more fatiguing than the second. I didn't equalize the source (my PC with foobar2000 to HDMI) to flatten v1's response at its output so it wasn't as bright, so I'm not sure if the fatigue I experienced was from the treble, or if v1 has more (inaudible but detrimental) distortion, causing listening fatigue.
Anyway, because v2's midrange is clearer and that can't be equalized in, and less equalization is required (none in the case of my Monitor Audio Silver 6/Center/FX and rear wall/front ceiling speakers, I'm keeping the second version of the 3700 and returning the first.
Initially I felt so lucky to have found a 3700 with a 4458 because of all the dread from AKM parts not being available for the season. Turns out, Denon have released a comparable product, and this second version works better with my speakers than the first!
Last edited:
When you say “V2 frequency response is almost perfect” and the “V1 is a bit too bright”, do you have measurements showing this. Frequency response is something measurable. It would be very interesting for @amirm to review one with the substitute DACS. Or is this just listening to it by ear that you are making these claims?
Guenselmann
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 31
- Likes
- 31
Availability in Germany of X3700H has been even worse recently.
I see one German retailer writing on their page that "Item is not current anymore" and "sold out and will not be re-ordered":
https://www.audioforum-berlin.de/de...rral&utm_source=idealo.de&utm_campaign=idealo
Maybe X3700HA is coming?
I see one German retailer writing on their page that "Item is not current anymore" and "sold out and will not be re-ordered":
https://www.audioforum-berlin.de/de...rral&utm_source=idealo.de&utm_campaign=idealo
Maybe X3700HA is coming?
When claims of sound differences come out comparing the Denon 3700 AKM vs ESS it will be important to know exactly how each receiver was configured. Direct, Pure modes used? Audyssey engaged? midrange altered? DEQ enabled? Audyssey app used? There are so many different setting options available on the Denon 3700 that any one of them can easily make two identical Denon 3700 receivers sound quite different.
How would you even know what chip is installed without opening AVR? Is s/n different for ESS and AKM?
Agreed, the test conditions should always be stated clearly but he might have clarified that in his other thread/post. I would also add that such claims are just claims unless the results were from controlled tests including following some sort of DBT (or at least SBT) protocol.
Last edited:
All by ear, myself and one other person. I didn't do measurements - will be doing some soon, maybe this weekend or next week. Depends on free time and how easy the software is to figure out.
All listening was done with the receivers in direct mode. Pure direct sounds the same as direct, at least this model.
Given a choice, I would rather see a REW 20k to 20khz chart of the difference between the ADC/ESS Denon 3700 versions in Direct mode. It would tell you if there is actually a frequency response difference. No human guessing.
Last edited:
If I remember right, he open thing up enough to see those 8 PCM5102A chips.
I have done that sort (probably not exactly what you have in mind though)of plots to compare dacs, preamp and amps, there are no differences visible with say 1/24 smoothing that could be considered exceeding margin of errors (not sure if that's the right term).
DBT may be the only way to have any chance of convincing those who only trust their ears, clearly they wont go by measurement and they have their reasons.
No, just two 5100s on the top board. The board with the other DACs is buried.
Almost every amplifier measures flat from 20hz to 20khz, same with DACs. But they sound different, even ones with flat responses and similar SNRs. Why? I think it's because music is not a single tone. And in the case of amplifiers, speakers are reactive loads
When I measured the Denon 4700 vs the Hegel H90 with the BMR I saw that too. The REW frequency response was almost identical between the two but the sound was smoother and offered more mid bass punch with the Hegel H90. There's obviously something else in play.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 4,809
- Likes
- 3,749
If you are hearing something different (actually hearing, not imagining), then it will show up in the frequency response. Otherwise, something about the test or measurement is not adequate.
Okay then, so we still don't know if the x3700h has the PCM5102A for the main channels. I am still hopeful that they are using something more comparable to the AK4458.
I don't disagree, I was just responding to amper42.
However, I think the "music is not a single tone" part is overrated. Well designed devices such as D+M's midrange AVR is not going to be bothered by the fact that the signal is not a single pure tone. It is a very matured technology, designed to amplify music signal to begin with.
Last edited:
May be, but if you knew which one you were listening to, and if not totally level matched, all test conditions identical etc., then all bets are off. Not saying the H90 is not smoother as that could be.
I think they are using something comparable - I said the sound quality is similar but different.
Consider that some DACs here are tested with multitone signals and no amplifiers are. It'd only take a second to test an amplifier while it's hooked up - I wonder why it's not done.
If I get the measurement software working well, I'll be doing comprehensive testing of V1 and V2 of the 3700. Multitone through the DAC and amplifier (together and separately) at 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 watts into two loads: my 6 ohm clump of resistors and my relatively easy to drive speakers (sealed 8 ohms). Should be revealing.
I've seen some DACs tested here (multitone), with some tones coming out + or - 5db from where they should be. You'd expect them to be relatively flat (like their frequency response is), but they're not.
