Denon AVR-X4700 AVR Review (Updated)

[Helical]

What are you missing?

* Dirac Live
* HDMI 2.1 (8K60 / 4K120)
* 4 independent subwoofer outputs
* 1080p OSD (vs 480p)

Are you sure about the HDMI?

From denon: «The AVR-X4700H features an advanced HDMI section (8 in/3 out) with a dedicated 8K input that will support 8K/60Hz and 4K/120Hz video pass-through and upscaling.»

Are the HDMI-inputs/outputs on 4700 inferior in another way?

 

[connta]

Hello, first time poster, awful long time reader!

I have always trusted this site in my gear selection and it has not let me down yet. My old AVR broke and i need a replacement, got a good deal on x4700 but i read that there is a hw revision out there (70001 and above SN) that is untested and many say inferior to the original. :/ Seeing how x3800 got pretty much downgraded for a decent chunk more money i'd rather go fishing in used gear if thats the case with this "late" x4700.

The seller should be able to provide me with SN for the unit he has but i want to have a decision for him either way. If anyone can shed any insight, it would be appreciated.

 

[Dal1as]

Hello, first time poster, awful long time reader!

I have always trusted this site in my gear selection and it has not let me down yet. My old AVR broke and i need a replacement, got a good deal on x4700 but i read that there is a hw revision out there (70001 and above SN) that is untested and many say inferior to the original. :/ Seeing how x3800 got pretty much downgraded for a decent chunk more money i'd rather go fishing in used gear if thats the case with this "late" x4700.

The seller should be able to provide me with SN for the unit he has but i want to have a decision for him either way. If anyone can shed any insight, it would be appreciated.

It's actually the opposite. The original 3700s had the HDMI issue and the external boxes were buggy for some. Later revisions fixed that but due to the shortage of the original DACs replaced them with downgraded ones that which many did not like even though it will be nowhere near audible. The 3800 uses the same so called down graded DAC.

 

[RichB]

It's actually the opposite. The original 3700s had the HDMI issue and the external boxes were buggy for some. Later revisions fixed that but due to the shortage of the original DACs replaced them with downgraded ones that which many did not like even though it will be nowhere near audible. The 3800 uses the same so called down graded DAC.

Not "so called", "measured" down-grade.

The SINAD went from 98 in the X3700H to 87 in the X3800H.

That is an 11 dB decline. I won't argue auditability but will say that digital processing eats in the S/N because the signal must be attenuated for channel balance and bass management. Figures for attenuation are not published, but they exist.

ASR does not test of SINAD with processing engaged so we have no metrics.
IMO, higher SINAD is a greater requirement for an AVR/Processor due to their normal use case.

- Rich

 

[Dal1as]

Not "so called", "measured" down-grade.

The SINAD went from 98 in the X3700H to 87 in the X3800H.

That is an 11 dB decline. I won't argue auditability but will say that digital processing eats in the S/N because the signal must be attenuated for channel balance and bass management. Figures for attenuation are not published, but they exist.

ASR does not test of SINAD with processing engaged so we have no metrics.
IMO, higher SINAD is a greater requirement for an AVR/Processor due to their normal use case.

- Rich

The revised 3700h and 6700 with new DACS were never remeasured. We don't know what else changed in the 3800. Possibly more than the DAC was downgraded and likely so.

 

[Hellboy.]

The revised 3600h and 6700 with new DACS were never remeasured. We don't know what else changed in the 3800. Possibly more than the DAC was downgraded and likely so.

I have the 3600h and this is the first time i hear there were a revised version.
How i can check what version i have.

 

[ArturoKiwi]

I have the 3600h and this is the first time i hear there were a revised version.
How i can check what version i have.

The first one reviewed by Amirm was defective.
The second one was good

 

[Dal1as]

I have the 3600h and this is the first time i hear there were a revised version.
How i can check what version i have.

Sorry. I meant 3700.

 

[connta]

It's actually the opposite. The original 3700s had the HDMI issue and the external boxes were buggy for some. Later revisions fixed that but due to the shortage of the original DACs replaced them with downgraded ones that which many did not like even though it will be nowhere near audible. The 3800 uses the same so called down graded DAC.

Yeah i actually asked for this "late" generation of x4700. Ones with serial above 70001, is there any info as to how downgraded they are compared to original (measured)?

 

[peng]

Yeah i actually asked for this "late" generation of x4700. Ones with serial above 70001, is there any info as to how downgraded they are compared to original (measured)?

It should be comparable to that of the AVR-X3800H, the X4800H is now more similar to the X6700H. Edit: I had it 3700 that was a typo, I meant to say 6700.

Denon AVR-X3800H Review

This 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. 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...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[connta]

Thanks, thats what i was looking for.

 

[connta]

Managed to get a SN from the seller for the unit i have available, it is DBCT06228345. By what i read anything below 70001 on the last digits should be old stock. Am i reading it correctly that this is in fact original model or the newer one?

 

[Brambo67]

It should be comparable to that of the AVR-X3800H, the X4800H is now more similar to the X3700H.

Denon AVR-X3800H Review

This 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. 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...

www.audiosciencereview.com

@peng; what is the rationale behind this assumption? For what it is worth a 4700v2 could even test better on SINAD than a 4800.

 

[peng]

@peng; what is the rationale behind this assumption? For what it is worth a 4700v2 could even test better on SINAD than a 4800.

Sorry, and thank you! Fixed, thanks to the edit feature. My comparison of the 4800 to the 6700 is more about the board layout. And for the preamp/dac boards, we can only compare it to the 6700 TI DAC version.

 

[connta]

@peng; what is the rationale behind this assumption? For what it is worth a 4700v2 could even test better on SINAD than a 4800.

Ok so from what i read further 4700v2 could indeed measure a better SINAD score since the new DAC is actually capable of it if implemented correctly? If DAC itself is a "bottleneck", it should be fine, since it would provide its max speced SINAD of 95 (or that ballpark) i believe?

 

[peng]

Ok so from what i read further 4700v2 could indeed measure a better SINAD score since the new DAC is actually capable of it if implemented correctly? If DAC itself is a "bottleneck", it should be fine, since it would provide its max speced SINAD of 95 (or that ballpark) i believe?

In my opinion, if v2 means one that has the TI DAC, a better SINAD than the 4800 would be highly unlikely. If it has the AKM then yes and it would almost be a guarantee that it will have higher SINAD. The fact is, we all know the TI chip's SINAD spec is 93 dB. The 4800 achieved that and actually higher, so regardless of whether you have the 4700 or 4800, if it measures as good as the 4800's you should be very happy as it would indicate Denon has done a great job in implementing the DAC board. The reason why if implemented well, the pre out SINAD could exceed the specs is that all ICs(aka chips) have tolerances for their specs., so in this case, 93 dB is the typical value for the TI5102A, the maximum SINAD (or minimum THD+N) could be a few dB higher, or lower.

 

[Brambo67]

In my opinion, if v2 means one that has the TI DAC, a better SINAD than the 4800 would be highly unlikely. If it has the AKM then yes and it would almost be a guarantee that it will have higher SINAD. The fact is, we all know the TI chip's SINAD spec is 93 dB. The 4800 achieved that and actually higher, so regardless of whether you have the 4700 or 4800, if it measures as good as the 4800's you should be very happy as it would indicate Denon has done a great job in implementing the DAC board. The reason why if implemented well, the pre out SINAD could exceed the specs is that all ICs(aka chips) have tolerances for their specs., so in this case, 93 dB is the typical value for the TI5102A, the maximum SINAD (or minimum THD+N) could be a few dB higher, or lower.

Based upon previous 'evidence' one could assume Denon doing a good job on putting TI DAC's to work properly and even be able to 'outperform' spec's. Even the 3800 produces higher SINAD, be it in different power level (0,7V vs. 2,0V) Still, that could be also due to the fact Amir conducted his tests not in the same way as with the 4800. We just don't know. And stating anything about the 3700 and 4700 on SINAD performance I wouldn't be doing without testing these machines. Still, I own the 4700 with TI-DAC's and it sounds great, for my 'old' ears equally as good as the AKM in my Topping E30 or the ESS in my Argon Solo. By the way; also Pioneer/Onkyo in their 'new' boxes outperform TI's spec's. Not needing 4 subs, nor DIRAC or 'monolith' amps, I belief the 4700 is far better value for money. I you would want to run your fronts + center on an external amp with low sensitivity, then the Advanced Pre Amp function kicks in.

 

[peng]

Based upon previous 'evidence' one could assume Denon doing a good job on putting TI DAC's to work properly and even be able to 'outperform' spec's. Even the 3800 produces higher SINAD, be it in different power level (0,7V vs. 2,0V) Still, that could be also due to the fact Amir conducted his tests not in the same way as with the 4800. We just don't know. And stating anything about the 3700 and 4700 on SINAD performance I wouldn't be doing without testing these machines. Still, I own the 4700 with TI-DAC's and it sounds great, for my 'old' ears equally as good as the AKM in my Topping E30 or the ESS in my Argon Solo. By the way; also Pioneer/Onkyo in their 'new' boxes outperform TI's spec's. Not needing 4 subs, nor DIRAC or 'monolith' amps, I belief the 4700 is far better value for money. I you would want to run your fronts + center on an external amp with low sensitivity, then the Advanced Pre Amp function kicks in.

Do you know which dac chip those Pioneer/Onkyo used? If the sample Amir measured is from the early batches, there is a good chance it may have the AK4458, but we don't really know which chip they used to replace the AKM chip do we? Not that it matters, just about knowledge, and curiosity.

 

[Brambo67]

Do you know which dac chip those Pioneer/Onkyo used? If the sample Amir measured is from the early batches, there is a good chance it may have the AK4458, but we don't really know which chip they used to replace the AKM chip do we? Not that it matters, just about knowledge, and

Do you know which dac chip those Pioneer/Onkyo used? If the sample Amir measured is from the early batches, there is a good chance it may have the AK4458, but we don't really know which chip they used to replace the AKM chip do we? Not that it matters, just about knowledge, and curiosity.

Yes we do know; it is the PCM1690 for main channels and two PCM5101A for secondary channels. This is translated text from AV269.com:
Surround decoding pre-stage part, the top layer is a digital circuit board, it can be seen that it uses a Cirrus Logic CS49844A DSP chip, responsible for digital audio processing and AccuEQ automatic testing and other functions. Furthermore, the main channel of the digital conversion circuit uses a 32bit 8-channel DAC chip TI PCM1690, and the secondary channel uses two two-channel DAC PCM5101A for decoding. After the DAC chip, the main component used for small signal amplification is a low-noise dual OP Amp JRC NJM4580
(This is for the Onkyo 6100)

For the Onkyo TX-RZ50 they use two PCM5101A's for secondary channels. Same for the Pioneer siblings. I assume AKM never was engineered for these boxes. Implementation of the PCM1690 in the Onyko 50 and the Pioneer 505 was very good if you look at SINAD performance, amp's however different story.

 

[peng]

Yes we do know; it is the PCM1690 for main channels and two PCM5101A for secondary channels. This is translated text from AV269.com:
Surround decoding pre-stage part, the top layer is a digital circuit board, it can be seen that it uses a Cirrus Logic CS49844A DSP chip, responsible for digital audio processing and AccuEQ automatic testing and other functions. Furthermore, the main channel of the digital conversion circuit uses a 32bit 8-channel DAC chip TI PCM1690, and the secondary channel uses two two-channel DAC PCM5101A for decoding. After the DAC chip, the main component used for small signal amplification is a low-noise dual OP Amp JRC NJM4580
(This is for the Onkyo 6100)

For the Onkyo TX-RZ50 they use two PCM5101A's for secondary channels. Same for the Pioneer siblings. I assume AKM never was engineered for these boxes. Implementation of the PCM1690 in the Onyko 50 and the Pioneer 505 was very good if you look at SINAD performance, amp's however different story.

Thank you, with that info, we can take a look of the data sheets and see the possible reasons for the RZ50's higher SINAD:
So by the look of it, the Onkyo's 1690's SINAD is only 1 dB better than D+M's 5102A but those are specified as "Typical". From the graphs, if both are implemented well, the 1690 could potential do better, up to a little higher than 96 dB.

People are quick to say it's not the DAC chip that matters most, it's implementation, but the fact is, all else being equal, the chip itself matters a lot. Not audibly speaking obviously, but in terms of measured performance.

PCM1690