Denon AVR-X3800H Review

[cdx47]

Below are the comments of a neophyte after two months of almost daily use with the Denon x3800h.

• Atmos and surround imaging post Audyssey is clearly better than my old SR60xx. Is it really the microphone?
• I had audio dropouts in ECO mode but they went away once I lowered my subwoofer trim.
• I love having a dedicated TR output but wish it was a little more configurable.
• It generates heat, but like my SR60xx, a single 4.5 inch usb fan is enough to manage it.
• The initial start up is annoying slow.
• Menu navigation has weird delays but has somewhat improved since factory reset.
• I started using Web navigation and it is great but doesn't work on my mac.
• I love having a full size LED display again.

 

[paulcc]

According to Oliver Kriete, Denon Product Manager in Europe, the DAC used in the x3800 is the Texas Instruments PCM 5102 and is the same as that used in prior models. Presumably the x3700 is included in that definition. This is curious considering the much better SINAD performance of the X3700. Does anyone have better info about why the x3800 SINAD performance is degraded?

 

[voodooless]

According to Oliver Kriete, Denon Product Manager in Europe, the DAC used in the x3800 is the Texas Instruments PCM 5102 and is the same as that used in prior models. Presumably the x3700 is included in that definition. This is curious considering the much better SINAD performance of the X3700. Does anyone have better info about why the x3800 SINAD performance is degraded?

The x3700 was initially released with AKM DACs, but later in its life cycle, it was changed to the mentioned Ti chips. So they guy only told you half the story.

 

[Bleib]

Why is it taking so long to go back to AKM? Heck, Apple dongles have better performance..

 

[paulcc]

The x3700 was initially released with AKM DACs, but later in its life cycle, it was changed to the mentioned Ti chips. So they guy only told you half the story.

So the poor SINAD performance of the 3800 that Amir saw was with the AKM or TI DACs? EDIT, Never mind, I understand now it was the 3700 that had the AKM DACS. I am curious if the later 3800 production has changed from the TI DACs.

 

[Roland68]

According to Oliver Kriete, Denon Product Manager in Europe, the DAC used in the x3800 is the Texas Instruments PCM 5102 and is the same as that used in prior models. Presumably the x3700 is included in that definition. This is curious considering the much better SINAD performance of the X3700. Does anyone have better info about why the x3800 SINAD performance is degraded?

I think it's a disgrace to use such a simple DAC chip in an AVR that isn't exactly cheap. The PCM 5102 chip may be perfectly fine on Rapberry boards for 5 - 10 €/$, but for an AVR in that price range I think it's a slap in the face. Even the simple ESS 9018 is superior in terms of sound on these simple boards.

 

[antcollinet]

Except of course any difference in sinad is inaudible in real world listening.

 

[Roland68]

Except of course any difference in sinad is inaudible in real world listening.

At the time, we compared various inexpensive boards for Raspberry and with i2s interfaces for a project, including PCM5102 and ES9018K2M. The difference we heard was clear enough and according to the two measuring technicians involved (one in the field of digital technology and one in the application development department), this could not be attributed to the Sinad values or other data in the data sheets. Of course, this could also have been due to the implementation.
However, the PCM5xxx don't exactly have a reputation as a sound miracle and they are said to be somewhat anemic.

What bothers me is that Denon is saving so much in this price range and only spends €/$10-12 on all the DAC chips available, and that is probably a high estimate.
In my opinion, significantly better ESS DAC chips would have cost around €/$20-25, probably less.
But that is just my opinion, nobody else has to share it.

 

[popej]

The difference we heard was clear enough

I guess, it is subjective opinion?

What bothers me is that Denon is saving so much in this price range and only spends €/$10-12 on all the DAC chips available, and that is probably a high estimate.
In my opinion, significantly better ESS DAC chips would have cost around €/$20-25, probably less.

DAC doesn't limit sound quality, since it is still better than power amp. Why increase costs, when it doesn't matter for the overwhelming majority of users? Not that I wouldn't like to see a better DAC inside, it is just that there is no rationale - the DAC brand probably has no greater marketing value.

 

[Roland68]

I guess, it is subjective opinion?


DAC doesn't limit sound quality, since it is still better than power amp. Why increase costs, when it doesn't matter for the overwhelming majority of users? Not that I wouldn't like to see a better DAC inside, it is just that there is no rationale - the DAC brand probably has no greater marketing value.

You can see it however you want. On the one hand, we all work in the industry and are not prone to any imagination, and on the other hand, the difference we heard was simply too big. If an application developer from measurement technology is at a loss when it comes to such a topic, then that's saying something.
But as I said, that's just my opinion, nobody has to share it and anyone who thinks this information is wrong or not important can simply ignore it.
Anyone can try it out for themselves, these boards cost almost nothing.

 

[Bleib]

I guess, it is subjective opinion?


DAC doesn't limit sound quality, since it is still better than power amp. Why increase costs, when it doesn't matter for the overwhelming majority of users? Not that I wouldn't like to see a better DAC inside, it is just that there is no rationale - the DAC brand probably has no greater marketing value.

That's simply not true. Way back in the early 2000's me and my buddy compared a Denon DVD 2900 with his brand new Benchmark DAC1, the latter completely blowing the Denon out of the water.
I also have a few dirt cheap USB DACs that I would never use daily, they sound muddy.

 

[EWL5]

I think it's a disgrace to use such a simple DAC chip in an AVR that isn't exactly cheap. The PCM 5102 chip may be perfectly fine on Rapberry boards for 5 - 10 €/$, but for an AVR in that price range I think it's a slap in the face. Even the simple ESS 9018 is superior in terms of sound on these simple boards.

The 3800 and 4800 share the same DAC despite an $800 difference in retail price! Shouldn't the complaints be directed at the 4800?!!!

 

[popej]

That's simply not true. Way back in the early 2000's me and my buddy compared

I'm talking about x3800h and its measurements.

 

[BDWoody]

You can see it however you want. On the one hand, we all work in the industry and are not prone to any imagination,

So, you didn't bother with controls...

You believe you are immune to bias?

If an application developer from measurement technology is at a loss when it comes to such a topic, then that's saying something.

It certainly is.

 

[BDWoody]

That's simply not true. Way back in the early 2000's me and my buddy compared a Denon DVD 2900 with his brand new Benchmark DAC1, the latter completely blowing the Denon out of the water.
I also have a few dirt cheap USB DACs that I would never use daily, they sound muddy.

Let me guess... Uncontrolled/sighted comparisons all around?

 

[Roland68]

So, you didn't bother with controls...

You believe you are immune to bias?



It certainly is.

For us, the first instance of such tests is a completely blinded test, in which not only is the volume level meticulously adjusted, but great care is taken to ensure that all other conditions are as identical as possible.
Only after such a test do we decide whether and how to proceed, because if there is absolutely no audible difference, there is no need to put in too much effort.

For testing circuit boards, we use standard housings that are indistinguishable from the outside. For devices, we have identical covers that you can simply put over them because they are open at the bottom and back and have a strip of opaque glass in the front so that you can use the remote control. Sometimes we also work with a very thin silk-like material that is illuminated from behind and is therefore completely opaque.
We established very strict rules and procedures over 20 years ago, including a standardized workaround, after we had fallen into different traps for 2 years.
For us, this has been sufficient so far.

 

[peng]

For us, the first instance of such tests is a completely blinded test, in which not only is the volume level meticulously adjusted, but great care is taken to ensure that all other conditions are as identical as possible.
Only after such a test do we decide whether and how to proceed, because if there is absolutely no audible difference, there is no need to put in too much effort.

For testing circuit boards, we use standard housings that are indistinguishable from the outside. For devices, we have identical covers that you can simply put over them because they are open at the bottom and back and have a strip of opaque glass in the front so that you can use the remote control. Sometimes we also work with a very thin silk-like material that is illuminated from behind and is therefore completely opaque.
We established very strict rules and procedures over 20 years ago, including a standardized workaround, after we had fallen into different traps for 2 years.
For us, this has been sufficient so far.

If I remember right, you mentioned "implementation", did you use those demo boards the manufacturer's supplied? And am I right to assume those blind tests were done with everything else the same except just the DAC boards? Thanks.

 

[Bleib]

The 3800 and 4800 share the same DAC despite an $800 difference in retail price! Shouldn't the complaints be directed at the 4800?!!!

Both

 

[Oddball]

That's how they design them and if you want a step-up then need to go to 6800H. Not uncommon that performance comes at cost. 911 is pretty expensive as it, but gets progressively more expensive for the upper S, GT, Turbo etc. models. Looking at it from a different perspective, they need to provide incentive for people to buy the upper line models, which would be diminished if they used the same DACs and design across the line.

There are very few people that would ever be able to tell the difference between 6800H and 3800H though. Not many golden elven ears around.

 

[peng]

The 3800 and 4800 share the same DAC despite an $800 difference in retail price! Shouldn't the complaints be directed at the 4800?!!!

Good arguments on both sides. Given a budget to hit/stay within, choices have to be made. On the other hand, it is true that dac ics (implementation's pretty standard so likely no difference in costs there practically) are relatively cheap so why not go for the better ones such as the ES9018, or at least the ES9010K2M, or the PCM/TI ones that D+M used before, e.g. PCM1796, 1795, 1791 etc.?

So, my logic based guess is, D+M somehow got a great deal on the old/low end PCM1502 chips, probably costed them next to nothing....., or they had a huge inventory of those for whatever reasons. Regardless, the X1800H through Cinema 40 (lowest to higher models that use the PCM1502A) are going to sound the same in pure direct mode, DBT session, that's my belief/bet. Everything else are for feeling better, not hearing better, and I do wish they had used the better DAC IC and all would have been happy paying a few dollars, or even $20 more. Those who believe, will gladly pay, those who don't likely wouldn't know it costed them more because the better chips were used, won't feel bad obviously.