Denon avr-x3900h preamp measurements

[alex.schroedsen]

You're very welcome @Marc v E sadly this frequency response graph is reproducible across multiple tests. I thought it was an anomaly too. But the 44.1khz frequency response of the x3900h seems to be degraded in this way. I think the best solution will be to use SOX resampler when playing 44.1khz content. Too bad Denon doesn't have as nice of a resampler built in...

 

[Marc v E]

You're very welcome @Marc v E sadly this frequency response graph is reproducible across multiple tests. I thought it was an anomaly too. But the 44.1khz frequency response of the x3900h seems to be degraded in this way. I think the best solution will be to use SOX resampler when playing 44.1khz content. Too bad Denon doesn't have as nice of a resampler built in...

Now that you mention this, I noticed something quite remarkable. Check these measurements from Denon avr's at ASR. Look at the sampling rate input. It correlates with bad measurements at 44.1 khz and much better at 48 khz. In case of the x6700h even for the same model.


X3700h at 48 khz

X3800h at 44.1 khz
10 db drop in performance

X6700h at 44.1 khz

X6700h updated/retest at 48 khz
Sinad improved by 10db

@amirm this may be worth checking out when testing the next Denon avr. Input signal of 44.1 khz seems to correlate with a drop of 10db in Sinad in previous tests.

 

[alex.schroedsen]

@Marc v E Very exciting correlation! I'm excited to see its effect on the reviews of this site. I got into DACs back around 2013 and have been conscious of avoiding resampling when possible and keeping an eye out for resampling related degradation in audio signal quality, but I didn't think to go through existing reviews and make this connection.

 

[Marc v E]

@Marc v E Very exciting correlation! I'm excited to see its effect on the reviews of this site. I got into DACs back around 2013 and have been conscious of avoiding resampling when possible and keeping an eye out for resampling related degradation in audio signal quality, but I didn't think to go through existing reviews and make this connection.

By the way, not all Denon avrs seem to behave this way. The x4800h and avr-a1h for example test cleanly at 44.1 khz

 

[Ruediger]

What is this phenomena? Input of 44.1khz a bad match for internal sampling rate, requiring extra handling?

 

[popej]

What is this phenomena? Input of 44.1khz a bad match for internal sampling rate, requiring extra handling?

AVR is probably doing sample rate conversion. But I don't think it is that poor. I would try to set more gain, till -1dB, which seems optimal for RMAA. Or maybe try to play test signal at 44.1 but record it at 96kHz.

 

[peng]

Now that you mention this, I noticed something quite remarkable. Check these measurements from Denon avr's at ASR. Look at the sampling rate input. It correlates with bad measurements at 44.1 khz and much better at 48 khz. In case of the x6700h even for the same model.


X3700h at 48 khz
View attachment 539812


X3800h at 44.1 khz
10 db drop in performance
View attachment 539810

X6700h at 44.1 khz
View attachment 539814

I don't think that was due to test using 44.1 kHz, it was the first sample Amir got, that apparently had some capacitors related issues.


Below is the fine print you might want to read:

I tested the 6700H a couple of weeks ago and found what I considered performance issues. I ran the subset of those measurements by Denon. They examined them and confirmed that the measurements are correct for the unit I have and is due to capacitor substitution. They provided me with this statement to share with you:

“Denon is pleased to work with ASR once again, who kindly shared his Denon AVR-X6700H measurement results with Denon engineering. The initial results ASR shared were surprising and prompted an investigation, which resulted in Denon engineering identifying measurement irregularities caused by a particular capacitor used in the initial production run to mitigate a supply issue caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The latest production units have the capacitor Denon typically uses, which does not show the same measurement results.

Even with the previous production units affected by the capacitor constraint, Denon sound masters approved the audio quality in the initial AVR-X6700H production run and we’re confident it sounds just as good as the latest production units. However, if you purchased a Denon AVR-X6700H and have concerns, please reach out to Denon customer support after August 5, 2020 and we will verify if your unit is affected and offer a replacement if merited. “

They will be sending me a newer unit without this issue for testing in the future. I will be updating this review when I get that sample and test it.

It just happened that we Amir tested the updated unit, he used 48 kHz so we wouldn't know what the difference would have been if he had done the 44.1 kHz test as well.

 

[peng]

By the way, not all Denon avrs seem to behave this way. The x4800h and avr-a1h for example test cleanly at 44.1 khz

Actually none, if you read the fine prints. None of Amir's tests show such 10 dB difference between 44.1 vs 48 kHz.

 

[peng]

Feeling a little lazy to do my own search so I resort to Gemini, and got the following response that doesn't sound too bad for an AI:

The frequency response (FR) anomaly at 44.1 kHz in the Denon AVR-X3900H measurements is likely caused by Windows resampling, software/driver mismatch, or the AVR's internal DSP resampling, rather than hardware failure. The issue occurs because the Denon natively operates at 48 kHz, forcing non-integer resampling or causing synchronization issues in RightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA). To fix this, users should enable bit-perfect exclusive mode or activate Pure Direct mode on the receiver. For more details, visit Audio Science Review. [1, 2, 3, 4]

4 sites

• Denon avr-x3900h preamp measurements | Page 3
  Jun 4, 2026 — The current signal path has mostly been Rightmark->FlexASIO->WDM-KS->digital audio into the Denon x3900h->rca to XLR cables->E1DA ...
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
  
  
  
• Denon avr-x3900h preamp measurements | Page 4
  Jun 3, 2026 — alex.schroedsen. Member. Joined: Mar 24, 2021. Messages: 19. Likes: 49. Location: Minneapolis, MN · 5 minutes ago. Thread Starter;
  
  
  
  Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
  
  
  
• Toni71 - Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
  Jun 9, 2026 — ... post in the thread Denon avr-x3900h preamp measurements with Like . Another possibility: AVR can have a short delay, when play...
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

Show all

The image shows a highly distinctive comb filtering pattern (also called a "ripple" or "picket fence" effect), characterized by deep, repeating periodic dips above 1 kHz.
In RightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA), seeing this behavior strictly at 44.1 kHz while 48 kHz remains perfectly flat is a textbook indicator of a digital clock mismatch or bad software resampling, rather than a hardware defect in the Denon AVR.

Why This Happens at 44.1 kHz

• The 48 kHz Native Hardware Constraint: Modern AV Receivers, including the Denon AVR-X3900H, process audio internally using a master DSP clock locked natively to 48 kHz (or multiples thereof).
• Bad Windows Resampling (MME / DirectSound): When running a 44.1 kHz test in RMAA through the default Windows audio mixer, Windows forces a conversion to match the hardware's rate. If Windows uses a poor linear-interpolation algorithm instead of high-quality sinc resampling, it introduces massive phase cancellations and timing offsets.
• Clock Drift and Buffer Alignment: If the computer's playback device (e.g., HDMI audio out) and the measurement interface's recording device are running on two separate internal quartz crystals, their clock rates will naturally drift by fractions of a millisecond. At 44.1 kHz, this drift misaligns RMAA’s fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis window, treating a tiny sub-millisecond delay as a reflection and outputting an artificial comb-filter curve.

How to Resolve the Measurement Anomaly

1. Bypass the Windows Mixer: Change the audio driver settings within RMAA from MME/DirectSound to ASIO or WASAPI Exclusive mode. This ensures a "bit-perfect" pipeline, forcing the hardware to handle the rate native to the test signal without OS interference.
2. Match Device Settings: Open the Windows Sound Control Panel and manually force both the playback and recording devices to identical bit depths and sample rates (e.g., 24-bit, 44.1 kHz).
3. Engage Pure Direct Mode: Ensure the Denon AVR is set to Pure Direct. This shuts down any internal bass management, speaker distance delays, or Audyssey processing that might be forcing an internal resampling step back to 48 kHz.

If you would like, I can help you with:

• Steps to configure ASIO or WASAPI Exclusive drivers in RMAA
• How to check for hidden audio enhancements in Windows

You said: so it is a windows related issue, or RMAA related issue, if you think it is not a Denon hardware issue? In ASR's own tests, there never seem to have such big difference between using 44.1 and 48 kHz when the owner Amir measured those Denon and Marantz AVRs

You are entirely correct to point out the difference between these user results and Amir's official reviews. This observation strongly confirms that the issue lies within the measurement setup, PC software, or driver handling, and is not a hardware flaw in the Denon receiver.
The discrepancy comes down to how different testing tools generate and analyze audio signals:

1. Amir's Professional Audio Precision (AP) Hardware vs. RMAA
Amir tests equipment using an Audio Precision APx555, a $30,000+ industry-standard lab analyzer.

• Synchronous Hardware Clocking: The AP system operates entirely outside the computer's standard audio pipeline. It uses its own hardware master clock to generate a test tone, passes it to the AVR, and analyzes the return signal in real-time synchronization.
• No Reliance on Software Markers: Because the AP generator and analyzer are locked to the same hardware clock, it does not matter if a receiver introduces a fractional delay when locking onto a 44.1 kHz stream. The AP tracks it perfectly, yielding the ruler-flat frequency response curves seen in Audio Science Review bench tests.

2. How RMAA Breaks on Minor Delays
RightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA) is a PC-based software package that relies on your computer's audio drivers and an external analog-to-digital converter (like an E1DA Cosmos or Focusrite interface).

• The "Initial Silence" Trap: RMAA works by playing a pre-recorded test file and recording the result. It relies on finding a specific "start marker" or sync tone to align its Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) calculation windows.
• HDMI / Handshake Latency: When initiating a 44.1 kHz stream, the Denon AVR often takes a fraction of a second longer to lock onto the signal compared to its native 48 kHz operation rate. This slight digital hesitation causes the AVR to output a brief slice of silence before the test sweep starts.
• The Math Breakdown: RMAA fails to compensate for this unexpected initial slippage. When it runs its math on a misaligned time window, the calculation treats the delayed signal as an out-of-phase reflection. This computational error results in the severe, artificial comb-filtering artifact seen in the graph.

Summary
The Denon hardware is fully capable of processing 44.1 kHz audio with a flat frequency response, as verified by Amir's lab-grade hardware. The deep dips shown in the user's graph are an artifact of RMAA's analysis engine choking on a sub-millisecond digital handshake delay, combined with how the Windows audio driver pipeline schedules the packet playback.

 

[alex.schroedsen]

I have dealt extensively with the sound blaster audigy sound cards that have a DSP that only supports 48khz. Most professional video adjacent digital audio equipment (SDI and AES) only supports 48khz. Practically all bluray and DVD video soundtracks are represented in 48khz audio. All game consoles with digital audio output (except the PS2 in PS1 mode and the PS3 if you manually select 44.1khz) use 48khz audio. The only time I've seen a flat frequency response come out of a 44.1khz measurement in this experiment was when WASAPI was resampling the output to 48khz anyway. See the initial test (post 1) for results. The reason I use FlexASIO specifically interfacing with WDM-KS is for the lack of software resampling. It would be sad if the 44.1khz performance after resampling in the Denon is this poor indefinitely, but I would not be surprised. Perhaps Denon can release a firmware update with a higher quality resampling algorithm in the future. I should mention that this x3900h has never been connected to the internet, it has not been updated and I'm not interested in doing so.

As for asking AI, I am impressed that it actually listed this thread as a source. It's getting better. Though I've seen AI confidently double down on a wrong answer until it is confidently refuted, the same happens with humans. That could be me right now. I'd rather be wrong and have a better performing Denon receiver. With the video adjacent digital audio industry focusing on 48khz audio rather than 44.1khz audio, I have a hunch that Denon is focusing on the video and game related 48khz sampling rate content and just like with the sound blaster, 44.1khz is being neglected.

 

[Marc v E]

You could be right @peng
That's why I said correlation, not causation.
You could also not be right.
Test setup could be needing a change or the Denon resamples 44.1 quite poorly in its software (not hardware).
Ai agents always say you're right btw.

 

[peng]

You could be right @peng
That's why I said correlation, not causation.

Thank you for your response, I understood you did not say causation, but where did you see correlation? As I pointed out the X6700H examples used did not support such correlation because the lower SINAD was due to substituted capacitors (we don't know which caps), not due to the used sampling frequencies. The other examples was based on X3700H vs X3800H, those have different DAC ICs and different implementations so we can't say there was "correlation".

You could also not be right.

Of course I may not be right about everything but in this case, I never said I was right about anything to begin with so while your point is well taken, it really would not apply in this case.

Test setup could be needing a change or the Denon resamples 44.1 quite poorly in its software (not hardware).
Ai agents always say you're right btw.

With AI, I tend to ask my questions very carefully and no, in my experience they did not "always" say I am right". If I stated something clearly wrong, to my knowledge, they would in fact tell me I was wrong, you can try it yourself. Yes, their answers are not always right, and they quote audio forums such as ASR quite often, you might want to ask them from start to not give answers based on hearsay on forums, and they may comply Lol..

 

[Marc v E]

I love AI, haha

[Edited for clarity:] I asked chatGPT:

In this thread, does it show a correlation between using 44.1 khz input and 10db worse sinad in Denon avrs? If necessary search reviews of Denon avrs on audiosciencereview.com. Post in thread 'Denon avr-x3900h preamp measurements' https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...x3900h-preamp-measurements.71682/post-2620803

It answered:

Yes, there does appear to be a pattern in ASR measurements that 44.1 kHz input often measures noticeably worse than 48 kHz input on several Denon AVRs, but I would not conclude from that thread alone that there is a universal 10 dB penalty across all Denon models.

The evidence is:

In ASR discussions of the X3600H/X3700H/X3800H generation, members have repeatedly noted that SINAD is better with 48 kHz test signals than with 44.1 kHz. One commenter specifically referenced the X3600H measurements as being "even better with 48kHz content."

The X3800H generation was measured by ASR as having lower overall SINAD than some earlier Denon models, and community discussions around those measurements focused heavily on sample-rate-dependent performance and DAC implementation differences.

In the post you linked, the discussion is centered around pre-out performance and SINAD behavior at different operating modes and output voltages. However, from the material I could verify, there is no explicit demonstration in that post itself that "44.1 kHz = exactly 10 dB worse SINAD."


My interpretation is:

There is correlation between 44.1 kHz input and reduced measured performance on several Denon AVR generations.

The magnitude is model- and measurement-dependent.

The commonly discussed explanation is that Denon AVRs internally process audio at 48 kHz, so 44.1 kHz material undergoes sample-rate conversion, introducing additional artifacts that show up in SINAD measurements.

Based on ASR measurements I've seen over the years, the degradation is often in the range of several dB and in some cases approaches about 10 dB, but it is not a fixed 10 dB rule for every Denon AVR or every measurement condition.


So if the question is:

> Does that thread show a correlation between 44.1 kHz input and roughly 10 dB worse SINAD in Denon AVRs?



My answer would be:

Yes, it is consistent with a broader ASR-observed trend that Denon AVRs tend to measure better at 48 kHz than at 44.1 kHz, and the difference can be on the order of ~10 dB in some cases. However, the thread does not by itself establish a universal or exact 10 dB penalty.

For a definitive answer on the X3900H specifically, I would want to inspect the actual graphs/images in that ASR post, because the numeric delta (e.g., 6 dB vs 10 dB vs 12 dB) is usually visible directly in the FFT or dashboard measurement rather than stated in the text.

 

[Marc v E]

I think we better stick to testing in the physical world.
@popej gave a good suggestion in post #66

 

[peng]

I love AI, haha


In this thread, does it show a correlation between using 44.1 khz input and 10db worse sinad in Denon avrs? If necessary search reviews of Denon avrs on audiosciencereview.com. Post in thread 'Denon avr-x3900h preamp measurements' https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...x3900h-preamp-measurements.71682/post-2620803


Yes, there does appear to be a pattern in ASR measurements that 44.1 kHz input often measures noticeably worse than 48 kHz input on several Denon AVRs, but I would not conclude from that thread alone that there is a universal 10 dB penalty across all Denon models.

The evidence is:

In ASR discussions of the X3600H/X3700H/X3800H generation, members have repeatedly noted that SINAD is better with 48 kHz test signals than with 44.1 kHz. One commenter specifically referenced the X3600H measurements as being "even better with 48kHz content."

The X3800H generation was measured by ASR as having lower overall SINAD than some earlier Denon models, and community discussions around those measurements focused heavily on sample-rate-dependent performance and DAC implementation differences.

In the post you linked, the discussion is centered around pre-out performance and SINAD behavior at different operating modes and output voltages. However, from the material I could verify, there is no explicit demonstration in that post itself that "44.1 kHz = exactly 10 dB worse SINAD."

There are going to be difference between different measurements made in different times/environment, we can agree on that, but as you said it's not going to be 10 dB difference if the only variable if the test signals sampling rate of 44.1 vs 48 kHz, I would say perhaps 1-3 dB difference may be possible.

My interpretation is:

There is correlation between 44.1 kHz input and reduced measured performance on several Denon AVR generations.

The magnitude is model- and measurement-dependent.

But I asked, where did you get that? You shouldn't keep linking to that particular post any more because I have given reasons why that post show the difference:

a) it compares two different X6700H, one has substituted caps that Denon said was the reason, not because of the 44.1 sampling rate used in the tests.

b) the X3700H and X3800H were compared, that X3700H has the AK4458 DAC IC that has more than 10 dB (13 dB iirc) difference in the SINAD spec, so again the poorer SINAD measured in the X3800H was not because of the 44.1 kHz used.

My answer would be:

Yes, it is consistent with a broader ASR-observed trend that Denon AVRs tend to measure better at 48 kHz than at 44.1 kHz, and the difference can be on the order of ~10 dB in some cases. However, the thread does not by itself establish a universal or exact 10 dB penalty.

No, you have not shown a single supporting review/measurement that shows such major difference of up to 10 dB that is due to the 44.1 vs 48 kHz, the examples you keep citing were due to other factors that I have already mentioned and don't really want to repeat the same, so if you insist on your point then I will just agree to disagree with you. My point is not based on my personal belief but more based on objective evidence from the ASR review/measurements. It is not about I am right or wrong either as you alluded to earlier, it is not a personal thing at all and if I am wrong then I am wrong. This is Audiosciencereview forum, so to me, focus is more on science, not so much on opinions such as your quoted "members have repeatedly noted that SINAD is better with 48 kHz test signals than with 44.1 kHz.", though I do respect member's opinions, including yours, obviously.

 

[Marc v E]

There are going to be difference between different measurements made in different times/environment, we can agree on that, but as you said it's not going to be 10 dB difference if the only variable if the test signals sampling rate of 44.1 vs 48 kHz, I would say perhaps 1-3 dB difference may be possible.



But I asked, where did you get that? You shouldn't keep linking to that particular post any more because I have given reasons why that post show the difference:

a) it compares two different X6700H, one has substituted caps that Denon said was the reason, not because of the 44.1 sampling rate used in the tests.

b) the X3700H and X3800H were compared, that X3700H has the AK4458 DAC IC that has more than 10 dB (13 dB iirc) difference in the SINAD spec, so again the poorer SINAD measured in the X3800H was not because of the 44.1 kHz used.




No, you have not shown a single supporting review/measurement that shows such major difference of up to 10 dB that is due to the 44.1 vs 48 kHz, the examples you keep citing were due to other factors that I have already mentioned and don't really want to repeat the same, so if you insist on your point then I will just agree to disagree with you. My point is not based on my personal belief but more based on objective evidence from the ASR review/measurements. It is not about I am right or wrong either as you alluded to earlier, it is not a personal thing at all and if I am wrong then I am wrong. This is Audiosciencereview forum, so to me, focus is more on science, not so much on opinions such as your quoted "members have repeatedly noted that SINAD is better with 48 kHz test signals than with 44.1 kHz.", though I do respect member's opinions, including yours, obviously.

That was the answer chatGPT provided. I was just making a point that we can't take evidence from ai. We should doublecheck.

I shall edit my post for clarity

 

[peng]

That was the answer chatGPT provided. I was just making a point that we can't take evidence from ai. We should doublecheck.

I shall edit my post for clarity

I did not rely on AI alone, but apparently you did, and that's why you ended up referring to that same post#62 and #64 that are not valid for the topic being discussed. As I mentioned, with AI, one has to word their questions carefully. There are many reasons, but I don't want to side track too much. Again, agree to disagree may be a good way to end this.

 

[Toni71]

Hi Alex, thank you for your time taking these measurements. That's greatly appreciated.

Besides al the technical information, are you happy with this unit? In daily usage performance, using and listening to the sound coming from the X3900H. You mentioned you were not happy with the X3700H. Just curious.

Best regards, Toni.

 

[alex.schroedsen]

Hi @Toni71, you're very welcome! It has been so fun being involved in some testing and learning from members what I can do to improve my testing method. I just started listening to the Denon x3900h a couple days ago and I am very excited about the way it sounds! I am having that experience of hearing new things in recordings I've listened to many times. The goosebumps are running wild as I experience new things in the content I already love!


Something interesting I've found so far is that it tends to keep the mixing preset that you select even if there is a more optimal preset available. For instance, I was streaming TrueHD Atmos content to the receiver, but had it set to stereo with Dolby surround upmixing enabled. Instead of instantly railroading the mixing preset to Atmos, the mixer kept using the Dolby surround upmixer. I had to change the mixer preset to Atmos, which then decoded as it should have. This is an interesting change from the x3700h which would automatically decode Atmos content with the atmos mixer preset. It could be seen as an inconvenience, but I see it as the system trusting me to set a mixing preset that I enjoy and experimenting to find what I enjoy. It seems that you can even choose to listen to just the TrueHD bed channels if you so desire.


I've included a walkthrough of the rest of my systems signal path below if interested.


I have one 10 channel (5.1.4) path for proprietary formats such as Dolby Atmos, DTS:X. The other path is 5 Topping D30 stereo DACs that provide direct discrete-channel accessibility to height channels (and all other channels) through some Lynx AES16 sound cards that I have in a couple of my computers. I use extron MVX VGA and MAV Plus 1616 switchers to switch all of the AES connections. 6 channels per VGA connection and a set of 12 channels over 2 VGA connections per source. The 1616 works as a 32 in 32 out patchbay, for sources from stereo to 5.1.4. It works literally flawlessly for me, not a single hiccup since the day I started using them.


The Topping D30 path is used for playing older (directsound 3d and openal supported) games using OpenAL Soft with ambisonic decoding using the IEM Suite and JACK2 for windows for audio transport. I also buy some spatial recorded music from TRPTK and can play their native 5.1.4 recordings this way, though only up to 192khz, which is plenty for me.


Once the audio is converted to analog by either the Denon x3900h or the Topping D30 DACs, it goes into a set of two Radial SW8 machines to be switched to a single output. The Denon x3000 series have a trigger out that I use to automate the switching. When the Denon turns on, the Radial SW8 machines click to the input which is connected to the Denon. I used a single pole, dual throw relay to convert the 12v trigger into a normally open signal path (closes when trigger is active) to emulate the Radial SW8 “foot switch” for its 6.35mm TS port. The Radial SW8 can be connected to additional SW8 units, so I was able to achieve 16 channel switching.


After the switching, I had been using a Emotiva UMC-1 for volume control (channels 9-10 controlled through the zone2 function) for the last 13 or so years. I recognized that this was a bottleneck in my system and have just recently upgraded to the Motu 16A for volume control. The difference is phenomenal. The Emotiva had a forced signal floor where anything below some decibel level was dropped off. When listening to C418's “Key” in a previous iteration of my sound system which was redesigned to use JBL 308P MK3 speakers (currently use ELAC DB63), I found that the subtle, gradient rise and fall of the volume of content was reduced to cutting in when the volume was above a threshold and falling to silence below that threshold. Ever since that moment of discovery, I had been looking for a new volume control device. The Motu 16A has met my expectations and hopes as a practically unlimiting quality volume control device for 16 channels of audio (-114dB THD+N). Yes, it introduces another AD-DA round trip, but the alternative was the SPL MC16, which is far too rich for my current income (for a single function) and lacks an automation interface. I am still working on automating the Motu 16A, but it is supposed to be controllable by JSON over HTTP, basically editing an online text file to change settings in the Motu 16A unit. Once this is working, I'll pair it to my existing UMC-1 remote control using a FLIRC IR device and mini computer.


After volume control, the signal goes through a set of Radial LX8 line level splitters. The direct output goes to amplifiers (Pioneer VSX-59TXi [I know this is another bottleneck, but it is a project for another year] and Dayton Audio APA150 for channels 9-10) and the auxiliary output goes to a pair of Rolls RM82 mixers that are currently bonded into one 16 channel mono mixer for the sub. My sub is an old Paradigm Cinema-CT. But the future plan is to un-bond the Rolls RM82 mixers for stereo subs. I'll probably be getting a pair of Dayton Audio CS800 subs in a year or so. I created this signal chain because I wasn't satisfied with how my original receiver handled mixing for the sub woofer with my system. I like to play psychological horror and survival horror games, the bass content is very important to the suspense and shock of the scenarios. Akira Yamaoka's soundtracks of the Silent Hill titles just don't have as much force when the sub is idle.


I am now excited to say that I've reached my new benchmark of audio performance in my audio system. The spatial cues in the Elden Ring soundtrack (specifically “Caelid” and “Catacombs”) are exciting to experience in their new, improved precision. I've only listened to music for 8 or so hours so far, but I am thrilled at the possibilities for new content unlocked with every song I'll listen to.


Thanks for reading about my system setup. (anyone)Let me know if you have any comments or questions about anything in this walk through, I'd be happy to read and or answer them.


Alex

 

[peng]

I shall edit my post for clarity

Thank you very much for taking the time editing, that helps. As I said before it is fine to agree to disagree so I won't continue on that discussion but would like to suggest something that one could try, when fact checking AI, in this case using that same ChatGPT session you have had, if you ask a follow up question such as: please cite or link the specific thread/posts that claimed 10 dB difference when using 48 kHz sampling rate vs 44.1 kHz sampling rate for the frequency response test, and do not refer to forum post claims that did not include actual measurements, as i could not find any such post. If you do that, I can guarantee ChatGPT will change its tune.

Again, this has nothing to do with the topic we discussed, but it just convenience to use it as an example on how, if we want to make good use of AI on something like this, we have to, and you clearly agreed, that we have to "double check" them. If we just ask a question and take their answer, we may or may not get too far with facts based answers from them but push back and insist on facts based response, we may/could get closer.