No, both curves are for the 3800's pre out SINAD performance in preamp mode, that is internal amps disconnected. The blue, the better one is for channel 1, red is channel 2 as stated on the graph.
-
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-X3800H Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
No, both curves are for the 3800's pre out SINAD performance in preamp mode, that is internal amps disconnected. The blue, the better one is for channel 1, red is channel 2 as stated on the graph.
Hi Ajax. Can you help me understand how your proposed set up would work?HI Andrea,
FYI - 8 channel SOTA performance is available by combining a Topping D70 DAC with a Buckeye 8 x Hypex NC252MP, all for US$2,350 total.
Topping DM7 8-Channel DAC Review
The Japanese standards for front panel manufacturing make this look like amateur hour. I guess the machining of the switch hole is difficult as compared to casting a high accuracy plastic panel with a bazzilion holes in a front panel assembly and with mounts for the switching assemblies...
Buckeye Amps
Buckeye Amps utilizes the most advanced audio amplifier technologies available. Authorized seller for Hypex and Purifi Class D amplifiers. Based in the US. Free shipping and worldwide service!www.buckeyeamp.com
Denon AVC X3800H ReviewThis is a review and detailed measurements of the Denon AVR-X3800H 9.4 Home Theater Audio/Video Receiver. It was kindly drop shipped to me by a member and costs US $1,699.
View attachment 239676
Not much to say about the look of the unit as it is pretty much similar/same as last generations. Here is the back panel:
View attachment 239677
I had one operational problem with the unit where the Setup button would not bring up the menus anymore. A power cycle fixed it. I was happy to see solid extruded aluminum heatsink. Despite that, the top front of the of the unit (above the heatsink) got quite hot to the touch. I highly recommend ample airflow in that area. As usual, there is a fan there but it would not come on to cool the unit.
I grabbed a preliminary set of measurements from the DAC section of the 3800H and ran it by the company. Within typical margin of error, the measurements were the same as company's own.
Denon AVR-X3800H DAC Measurements
The DAC measurements and usage are made better by a global "preamplifier" mode which shuts down the amps and keeps them from overloading the unit during testing. I started my tests using Toslink optical to remove any possibility of ground loops:
View attachment 239678
I was fair bit disappointed to see the high distortion spikes which caused the unit to underperform the AVR-X3700H by some 10 dB. This naturally knocks down the positioning of the unit by good bit in our SINAD ranking:
View attachment 239679
The culprit seems to be the optimal output shifting fair bit lower in voltage:
View attachment 239680
With amps shut off, the 3700H was happy to go 2.0 volts.
So fairly large degradation here. Company explanation was that this was good enough for "99%" of the external amps out there. Be that as it may, it still doesn't explain the drop in performance at the peak level (101 dB for 3700 vs 95 for 3800).
Connecting HDMI causes a rise in noise floor but SINAD didn't change since it is dominated by distortion:
View attachment 239682
Fortunately dynamic range is unchanged from last generation:
View attachment 239683
IMD is naturally worse due to earlier saturation:
View attachment 239684
Linearity has suffered a bit:
View attachment 239685
Multitone shows the degradation we would expect:
View attachment 239686
Due to different DAC chip used (?), the filter performance is a bit worse as well:
View attachment 239687
View attachment 239688
This naturally increases the noise+distortion in our wideband measurements:
View attachment 239689
Quite poor result.
Jitter is bad but so was the last generation:
View attachment 239690
Denon AVR-X3800H Amplifier Measurements:
Let's start with analog input with and without pure mode:
View attachment 239691
This is good results.
Crosstalk is very similar to last generation and in need of some improvement:
View attachment 239692
Dashboard performance is a bit worse than last generation but not as bad as the hit in the DAC section:
View attachment 239693
View attachment 239694
HDMI input raises the noise floor:
View attachment 239695
Fortunately noise performance is the same as before:
View attachment 239696
Multitone has power supply noise in lower frequencies and rising distortion in highs:
View attachment 239701
Rest of the measurements are essentially identical to last generation AVR:
View attachment 239697
View attachment 239698
View attachment 239699
View attachment 239700
All in all, the amplifier is as performant as before.
Conclusions
I had high hopes going into this review thinking the company had seen the advantage its superior objective measurements in the past and would try to capitalize on them. Sadly, the reverse seems to be true with the DAC section taking a large step backward. Considering that the 3800 costs $500 more than 3700H, this is very surprising to me. Yes, inflation has a lot to do with that but surely the eye needed to be focused on making sure they at least met the same level of performance as last generation.
The good news is that the amplifier seems to be same design as last generation and has only taken a small hit.
Denon had been my "goto" recommendation for AVRs and even AVPs. When anyone asked me about either, I would just say "get a Denon AVR." While subjectively the performance of this new generation may be similar, I can't accept the regression in objective measured performance.
It is with much sadness that I cannot recommend the Denon AVR-X3800H.
----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
I recently upgraded to the Denon AVC X3800H and have been using it for about a month now. Like many of you I had high hopes for the 3800H and felt disappointed and betrayed when I saw Amir test. The Denon 3700 would have been my dream receiver but it is unavailable in Iceland. Music is very important to me and good stereo playback is paramount and yes I know I am compromising when using a AV Receiver but I don’t have the space to have a good stereo setup along with the AV setup.
In the past two years I have had two Denon receivers, the AVR X1600h and the AVR X2700H, so I am in a unique position to compare them to the AVC X3800H. I had the X1600H for about 3 months before returning it and upgrading to the AVR X2700H. I wanted the 3600 but it wasn't available, so 2700H it was at the time. I had the 2700H just under two years and the dealer in Iceland agreed to upgrade to the 3800H. My plan was to try the 3800H and if it is “just” as good as the 2700H then return it and get the 2700H back.
My home setup is no high end and my living/listening room isn’t perfect. I have issues with bass response which is to high and boomy for my taste, depending on how close to the wall my speakers are. This has more to do with the room then my system. The fronts are Klipch RP 600M and I have no subwoofer.
The good, the bad and the not so good DAC
So how do these three amps compare? Before the 1600H I had the Cambridge audio Azur 540R and compared to the Denon 1600H it did not outperform the Azur. It wasn’t bad but it wasn't as authoritative as the Azur could be. Generally the Denon 1600H was fine and I could only hear the budget feeling of it when I pushed it really loud playing movies (louder then I would normally watch them). When pushed it sounded strained like it didn’t have the juice to keep with the pace. But with more normal listening settings it was fine. The main reason I returned it was comparing it to another DAC. I have the Nad T535 DVD/SACD player and I noticed when switching between analog and Digital that the sound stage changed noticeably. It had similar clarity and definition but vocals which were dead center via analog connection were wider and more spread out when the 1600H DAC did the work. This I didn’t like and traded it up for the Denon 2700H.
And how was the 2700H then?
Well it was better. I could hear the bass getting a lot tighter and more punchier. And the DAC issue was gone. Now it sounded very similar to the NAD DVD player. But I always thought that the 3600H/3700H to be the one I missed, kind of the girlfriend I always wanted but missed. So after about two years and finding out that the 2700H was vibrating my audio rack creating a low buzz at 100hz. The buzz is audible when the room is quite and can be annoying. So I turned it in. Everything was working as expected just my rack was to tight around the amp. Anyways I convinced my dealer to take the 2700H back and allow me to upgrade to the 3800H, which I must say I wasn't keen on doing since the 2700H has the AKM DAC chip and Amirs review of the 3800H wasn't exactly glowing. But I decided to give it a try.
Holy shit now comes the 3800H
So you are probably wondering how the 3800H compared to the 2700H. Well, bass sound more heavier. Something I didn’t really need but is ok. Just more bass for me to deal with. The Vibration and sound my cabinet makes is lower (all amps have some sort of vibration so the X3800H might have a better power transformer). And the extra wattage don’t mean anything. 95-105 watts is not going to make a huge difference. My biggest concern is will I hear a difference on the DAC? Comparing the same cd from the analog outs on my DVD player to the Dac in the 3800H via HDMI and after a few momenst I find out that: I can’t hear the difference. Maybe my ears are not as good as I wished. Or the Klipsch 600M are not resolving the difference well enough. But listening via Sennheizer headphones I still can’t register any difference. There is no question in my mind that what Amir is review is right. But in my small living space I can’t hear a difference. And probably my biggest take on the 3800H is that it is not worthy the upgrade from my 2700H (especialy considering the price difference). But I am going to stick with the 3800H. Maybe somday down the line I am going to get four ceiling speakers.
But there is a twist:
I ran audyssey and after wards listening to cd with pure direct the sound stage changed! I now had the same problem as with the 1600H. I changed to speaker preset 2 which I hadn’t used audyssey and to my surprise, the pure direct with HDMI from the DVD player and a different audyssey then to preset 1. I haven’t completely debugged this but it would appear (my first theory) when you change levels and stuff the amp will use digital processing. For example I never ran audyssey on the 2700H and it always sounded similar to the Nad DVD. On the other had I did run audyssey on the 1600H. I will probably post if I can figure this out. Maybe some one else have noticed this? For all you who like another twist, when listening on the headphones the difference disappears which makes this all the more intriguing.
Closing:
I really wanted the 3600H/3700H but now it is gone into the wind. The most important feature I needed was to be able to connect my LaserDisc player, and have the AV receiver upscale the video to HDMI. As you home cinema enthusiast know the LaserDisc is the best video format ever created.!!! End of discussion. I just don’t feel the AVC X3800H is a worthy upgrade from the 2700H. If you don’t need the extra speakers then don’t bother.
So that is my take on this. Hope this wasn't to long of a read. If you got to the end you have won a free nap to take any time today. Go a head. Enjoy that nap.
Hard to imagine that you can't get one on eBay or secondary market somehow
Narnian
Active Member
Hello!
I have owned the X3800H myself now about 45 days and a, quite happy with it, but largely because I am using it differently. Mostly I do music streaming and the occasional movie. I have tried some external DACs and confess my ears could not tell any difference so the tested issues here are below my ability to discern.
If you are not using any of the features such as the enhanced sub management, pre-outs, Aura 3D, etc. you would be just as well served by your X2700H. For me the sub management has been a tremendous help in enhancing my music experience, much more than expected. I will eventually go to a 5.2.4 setup
I would recommend to resolve the boominess of the Klipsch speakers a sub could help since you may be pushing them to get to the low frequencies they are not as well designed for. If you can try a subwoofer I recommend getting one and using the sub management and I believe you will get lower and tighter bass. If you are keeping the X3800H definitely try a sub as the Audyssey advanced X32 version will do even more ant the low end. Get even two smaller ones if you have some space. I had a small 8” sealed subwoofer but when I added the second both music and movies opened up even more.
Narnian
Active Member
Just to show you what it can do:
the left/right layout will send left channel bass to the left sub and right channel base to the right sub.
Notice the different levels for each sub.
And lastly the different distances for the subs:
So clearly the subs are largely being managed separately.
It does not mean it will get better results. I would like to see measurements that compare the two methods.
Denon AVRs have always set level and delay independently, that's nothing new. What they NEVER did was EQ each subwoofer channel independently. They now have the hardware capability to do that; but it doesn't seem Audyssey has taken advantage of it(yet, possibly). They did add the "directional bass" nonsense but I have no idea why, it's an anti-feature in most setups.
I mean we know MSO produces better results than Audyssey, so I don't see why DLBC wouldn't, same methodology with more sophistication.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 5,091
- Likes
- 4,003
That was because with 2 subs, they took the best approach, which is to treat them as one.
I know your definition of best is "worse than MSO" so yeah you're right, definitely the best.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 5,091
- Likes
- 4,003
That depends.
If your goal is the best bass at your seat, Audyssey's approach is the best.
ivo.f.doma
Active Member
Amen! 
-pekr-
Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2021
- Messages
- 25
- Likes
- 13
Thanks for your nice review. Having x3500h, considering an upgrade. Don't like its stereo performance, especially with its in-built streamer. I have an offer for x3800h, but not sure it would get better than x3500h, which still has AKM DAC (IIRC), but maybe new tech in x3800h would get me more acceptable sound tonality (I know, it's a very subjective things).
So - considering the switch to Marantz Cinema 50 - similar featureset to x3800h, more expensive, but maybe better for the stereo, who knows. But - I will not buy just anything without auditioning it first, to not be eventually fooled by marketing.
I might as well consider adding a stereo amp with ht bypass capability and call it a day. E.g. Denon pma-1700ne, or Marantz 40n.
Narnian
Active Member
Room correction results for two SVS SB-1000. They are currently sitting under each L/R mains. I use the directional feature for music primarily. At some point I am going to add a third just because I have the older sub I haven’t sold yet. Very similar curves before and after likely due to placement.
I am skeptical because if "better results" means something like below as evidence, then I would like to see more evidence. If the goal is achieve what the graphs show, then I don't see anything remarkable about them versus what Audyssey+App can do.
Yes I understand the theory about the benefits of aligning multiple subs based on time delay and phase etc., but ultimately it boils down to what one hears, and measurements that corelate well to the perceived "quality", and what would be the set of measurements that can prove that MSO, and/or Dirac Live DLBC's. are better? And also, most of what I have read so far about the great MSO/minidsp benefits pertain to the 4 subwoofer scenario, here I thought the discussion is about for two subwoofers, is Audyssey's approach of time aligning and level matching two subs are good enough. Based on my experience I would say it definitely is, but may require the users to do some tweaking of their own using the $20 or $200 App and are willing to invest an hour or more. For the average AVR users, many of them will face a similar learning curve too in order to use MSO, versus using their AVR's build in RC+app anyway. I am not doubting the MSO and DLBC's approach at all, just thought to ask the question, are those things overrated? I suppose the answer will most likely be, it depends..
Multiple Subwoofers: Optimize Them With Multi-Sub Optimizer Software
The benefits of multiple subwoofers are maximized using Multi-Sub Optimizer software for lowest seat-to-seat frequency response variation and highest SPL.
www.andyc.diy-audio-engineering.org
Last edited:
Looks good, but you do know if you measure the response using something like REW and the Umik-1 mic the pictures will not look at good. However, that's the same with other RCs such Dirac and Anthem's. They only show you what the predict and use some kind of undisclosed smoothing. Also, once you have taken the actual measurements, you can use the App to flatten the 20 to 200 Hz. In my experience, to get it within +/- 1 to 2 dB isn't too difficult to achieve, would depend on how bad the room/placement is though. Then you can dial in some sort of a Harman curve if you want more bass. Dirac won't likely do better in terms of FR but it seems to do better in the impulse response consistently, again that's all just based on my own experience so ommv applies..
That's a reasonable observation.
One aspect of the sub response problem in the modal region that's not widely discussed is the difference between the drywall construction that's typical in the U.S., and hard brick construction that's often found in Europe and elsewhere. This is mentioned briefly in the last sentence of the paragraph above that image in the documentation.
MSO Documentation said:
When I first saw that result (data from the original beta tester who lives in NL) I was dismayed. I'd only ever seen data from homes with drywall construction prior to that. But such results turn out to be quite common in homes with traditional, robust construction using solid brick.
The contrast between typical responses with brick and drywall construction can be seen by comparing the result in the image above to the first image on the page, labeled "Multi-Sub Optimizer Main Window", duplicated below.
The data in the above image were taken in a home with drywall construction. You can see much smoother response. Also, the data at the cursor (56.7 Hz) show a seat-to-seat variation of about 15 dB before optimization, and almost zero afterwards. This cannot be done with conventional EQ where the same EQ is applied to all subs.
The MSO documentation is not a sales document per se, so there's no attempt to whitewash the results. All of the data shown are unsmoothed.
Narnian
Active Member
I do plan on getting REW and the better mike to verify the Audyssey results at some point. I was expecting worse results to start and was surprised at the before measurements as to how relatively good they were from what I was expecting. The room is oddly shaped and arranged which helped break up the reflections. Looking for height speakers and will likely get REW then.
Similar threads
