The impossible decision of buying an AVR/AVP!

[EdTice]

Thanks. As far as I could tell the unit wasn't touched by human hands before I got it. Looks to me that the original box may have been damaged based on some cracked styrofoam, but is pristine otherwise.
Two things: keep checking the Denon site. They were out of stock a few days after I bought mine, but then they had them again. Also if you've been looking you probably know that new versions are due, and you might ge a good deal on a non refurb or maybe get one of the new ones. Good luck!

There are other non-Denon retailers offering the same deal but from places I've never heard before so I'm always hesitant. I'm not in a hurry so maybe Denon will have another one and who knows possibly at a lower price!

 

[Kostas]

I am looking at the new denon models on their website and it looks like the new 3800H is almost a 4700h replacement minus some sound enhancement features so it looks like the best choice for me. Then I noticed the DDSC HD Digital feature on the 4800h and it got my attention. What does this feature do in real world scenarios? Denon's explanation was "better sound" which is awfully generic? Better how? If any of you had the chance to test both the 3700h and 4700h, did you notice a difference is sound quality when listening to surround content?

 

[mga2009]

The issue is, where and how do you do all your decoding?

If there were good software to integrate all the Dolby, DTS, Atmos decoding, and do all the Room EQ on a PC - it would be fabulous....

But reality is, you can only do that by spending a fortune on professional grade software from Dolby and DTS, and then running REW.... it ends up costing a heck of a lot more than an AVR/AVP!

AFAIK the only thing you can't decode (yet) on a PC is ATMOS and DTS X. Other formats are easily decoded by any video player.

EqualizerAPO + REW + RePhase + Multi-Sub Optimizer offers a TON of performance for free. It's time consuming, yes, but free (assuming the time you spend it's equivalent to the knowledge you gain, so no loss there). Or... you can spend USD$500 on the complete Dirac Suite for Windows which will do a lot of work automatically.

Performance wise, no AVR nor AVP (at almost any price) comes close to the performance of a good USB audio interface (read Motu ultralite mk5) or the Topping DM7 or the Okto Dac8. Pair these with a transparent amp (HypeX or Purifi) and you are set. All this without considering the benefits of use the PC as video player (madVR, SVP, etc.)

Anyways... I think the big problem of these PC media center, apart from the "not a one click setup"... is HDMI input... your gaming console, bluray player and nVidia Shield are all alone...

So... what is better? a SOTA 7.1 audio system or a mediocre 7.1.4 audio system? I think, it all depends...

 

[-Matt-]

AFAIK the only thing you can't decode (yet) on a PC is ATMOS and DTS X. (I.e. Almost all contemporary AV content). Other legacy formats are easily decoded by any video player.

^Fixed that for you

I agree that EqualizerAPO, REW, MSO and madVR are great; but if a PC can't even playback all of the lossless audio channels present on a 4k UHD Bluray, when an AVR can, what is the point of all the extra hassle?

My understanding is that it is the intended purpose of HDMI and HDCP to ensure that the end user never has easy access to decoded, lossless, digital audio signals (to make piracy more difficult). I think licensing and maybe compliance testing are required for devices that decode HDMI, Dolby or DTS data. I don't know why sound cards and audio interfaces that include the necessary licenses and software (perhaps restricted to analogue output) seem not to be available for purchase? Do the relavent bodies refuse to license them or is it just considered too niche? Or perhaps they are available but only at prices that limit access to professional content creators?

Is audio data treated more strictly than video? In a PC environment is there anything to prevent you from pressing print screen and grabbing full resolution stills from a bluray, or intercepting and capturing DVI-D signals sent to a monitor without HDCP? Perhaps compliant software prevents this?

 

[mga2009]

^Fixed that for you

I agree that EqualizerAPO, REW, MSO and madVR are great; but if a PC can't even playback all of the lossless audio channels present on a 4k UHD Bluray, when an AVR can, what is the point of all the extra hassle?

My understanding is that it is the intended purpose of HDMI and HDCP to ensure that the end user never has easy access to decoded, lossless, digital audio signals (to make piracy more difficult). I think licensing and maybe compliance testing are required for devices that decode HDMI, Dolby or DTS data. I don't know why sound cards and audio interfaces that include the necessary licenses and software (perhaps restricted to analogue output) seem not to be available for purchase? Do the relavent bodies refuse to license them or is it just considered too niche? Or perhaps they are available but only at prices that limit access to professional content creators?

Is audio data treated more strictly than video? In a PC environment is there anything to prevent you from pressing print screen and grabbing full resolution stills from a bluray, or intercepting and capturing DVI-D signals sent to a monitor without HDCP? Perhaps compliant software prevents this?

Thanks for your comments.

To complement the info, what are codecs that are not supported by Windows open source media players (like VLC, MPC, MPV, PorPlayer, etc.)? Maybe there are commercial alternatives (PowerDVD?) I may be wrong, but I understand this is only applicable when reading a Bluray, and not when using the Netflix (or other Streaming) app where the audio codec does not matter as it's decoded by the app.

To your comment: "but if a PC can't even playback all of the lossless audio channels present on a 4k UHD Bluray, when an AVR can, what is the point of all the extra hassle?" I would reply it all depends to what one wants... one could say: but if an AVR can't even playback audio without exhorbitant THD+S present on a simple audio track, when a PC can, what is the point of spending the extra money?

 

[tlin]

@Kostas - I didn't go through the entire thread, FYI.

My $.02 - I was in your shoes 6 months ago and especially fed up w/ the price hikes as I was seeking a "modern" replacement for my aging AVR. So....Craigslist for me and I found a one-owner, passionate enthusiast, local-to-me Denon AVR-X4400H (which has Auro 3D) and COULD NOT BE HAPPIER.

I'm no longer analyzing or second-guessing anything. Instead, I'm frequently using our dedicated theater again and loving it.

Good luck!!!

 

[-Matt-]

To complement the info, what are codecs that are not supported by Windows open source media players (like VLC, MPC, MPV, PorPlayer, etc.)?

I'm agreeing with you that Atmos and DTS-X are sadly not supported; but pointing out that this deficiency prevents you from playing back most contemporary content in its highest quality form.

Not sure if this is up-to-date (probably not, and many may be bad movies) but you can see that most releases (especially new ones) use either Atmos or DTS-X.
https://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/every-4k-ultra-hd-bluray-disc-reviewed/45624

Netflix Premium also now offers Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision (lower quality DD+ version relative to the UHD disks I think) at least it does in my LG OLED. This can be sent from the TV to an AVR via eARC, but cannot be accessed via the windows app I believe.

Of those interested in high fidelity, I'd imagine most would also be interested in having access to source data in the highest available quality. Unfortunately, if you use a PC you are currently denied this access.

I would reply it all depends to what one wants... one could say: but if an AVR can't even playback audio without exhorbitant THD+S present on a simple audio track, when a PC can, what is the point of spending the extra money?

I suspect that the total outlay on a high performance PC based system (including software and licenses if they can be found) would far exceed the cost of a budget Atmos AVR. (You could spend more on just the GPU)!

The "exhorbitant THD+S" / THD+N / SINAD that so concerns you is likely completely inaudible whilst watching a movie.

Lets agree that, as you say, it depends what you want!

 

[GalZohar]

As far as I understand you don't lose any quality for using PC, but you are limited to only 7.1, so if you only have a 7.1 or lower configuration, from a format point of view, you don't seem to lose anything by using a PC as the player+RC. Of course there are other disadvantages, but they are not sound quality / format related if you use only 7.1 or lower (as far as I can tell).

 

[-Matt-]

As far as I understand you don't lose any quality for using PC, but you are limited to only 7.1, so if you only have a 7.1 or lower configuration, from a format point of view, you don't seem to lose anything

I agree that the quality on the 7.1 channels that you have wouldn't be degraded. But you do lose quite a lot from all the channels that are missing entirely.

My argument was about having access to the highest quality form of the source material. Nowadays that means being able to reproduce all of the available channels.

People seem to have a huge bias against Atmos (probably because they don't want to have to upgrade their current system).

Maybe there are a few oddballs here who would prefer to reproduce stereo content through a single mono speaker with SINAD of 150dB than to have a decent stereo system with a SINAD of 100dB. It doesn't seem very logical to me!

 

[mga2009]

I agree that the quality on the 7.1 channels that you have wouldn't be degraded. But you do lose quite a lot from all the channels that are missing entirely.

My argument was about having access to the highest quality form of the source material. Nowadays that means being able to reproduce all of the available channels.

People seem to have a huge bias against Atmos (probably because they don't want to have to upgrade their current system).

Maybe there are a few oddballs here who would prefer to reproduce stereo content through a single mono speaker with SINAD of 150dB than to have a decent stereo system with a SINAD of 100dB. It doesn't seem very logical to me!

No bias from me at least! I would love to have a proper ATMOS system! But I think it's also true that the difference between mono and multichannel is not the same as multichannel and Atmos.

Dynamic and Sound quality wise, cheap Atmos system is in no way comparable to a good 5.1 system (meaning good speakers, correct room correction, good electronics). And a good 5.1 system is less expensive than a cheap Atmos system.

 

[-Matt-]

...a good 5.1 system is less expensive than a cheap Atmos system.

This part, at least, is probably true.

For me, in the AV sphere, I think it makes most sense to first strive for a system that fully supports all of the latest features and media formats (4k, 120Hz, HDR, Atmos, DTS-X, eARC, etc). It is something of a miracle that you can get this all in one box for the cost of a lower-mid range AVR. Of course this system must include suitable (not necessarily supremely expensive) speakers for all channels (including heights). I.e. Satellite type speakers for surrounds and heights rather than full range ones. I regard this as the minimum specification for basic functionality in a modern home cinema system.

Once this has been achieved, investing time and money into measurements, EQ and room treatments will likely have the next largest effect on sound quality. This step includes adding multiple subs etc. (EQ and careful choice of crossover point to subs can do a lot to help even fairly poor satellite speakers).

Only after the above are practically perfect does it make sense to start worrying about upgrading surrounds and heights to larger full range speakers or extracting the last few dB of SINAD with separate processors, external power amps, custom PC based systems with outboard multichannel dacs, active crossovers, etc, etc.

Of course, I understand that we each get to choose our own order of priorities and many prefer to go for a smaller channel count and higher quality speakers first. It just seems to me that if you do it this way round it will take you much longer to reach the "basic functionality" mentioned above.

 

[GalZohar]

I agree that the quality on the 7.1 channels that you have wouldn't be degraded. But you do lose quite a lot from all the channels that are missing entirely.

My argument was about having access to the highest quality form of the source material. Nowadays that means being able to reproduce all of the available channels.

People seem to have a huge bias against Atmos (probably because they don't want to have to upgrade their current system).

Maybe there are a few oddballs here who would prefer to reproduce stereo content through a single mono speaker with SINAD of 150dB than to have a decent stereo system with a SINAD of 100dB. It doesn't seem very logical to me!

What I meant is it depends on if you actually have those speakers. Obviously one shouldn't use a PC if they have height speakers. But if one doesn't have them, then a PC becomes a less problematic choice (although it has other disadvantages as well, but not directly related to sound quality).

 

[dlaloum]

Latest Dolby Surround Decoder version (DSU2?) apparently includes support for both width and height speakers....

Obviously the AVR manufacturers (or software developers...) have to provide for it.

Not likely to happen on PC, but will most likely be available on midrange and up AVR's of the next generation.

As of 10 or so years ago, people observed that setups that supported width and height - width speakers had greater overall impact on the quality of immersion than height did...

But within the next couple of years we may well see 7.2.4 systems where the 7 is 5 front speakers and 2 surrounds - and that will most likely be superior to the current trend for the 7 to be L/C/R with Surrounds and Rear Surrounds.... at this point PC's need not apply for this series of developments.

 

[Vacceo]

I'm not sure if this question belongs here or in a Genelec thread, but here it goes.

Is there any AVP that sends the channel signals in digital?

Let's say you want to build a Genelec-based multichannel setup for home theatre. Each speaker has a DAC, so is there any AVP that sends a digital signal or all of them send an analogue one?

I'm aware Genelecs in particular can take analogue signals too, but is it even possible to keep it digital (and with Atmos and DTS signal decoding)?

 

[FrantzM]

I'm not sure if this question belongs here or in a Genelec thread, but here it goes.

Is there any AVP that sends the channel signals in digital?

Let's say you want to build a Genelec-based multichannel setup for home theatre. Each speaker has a DAC, so is there any AVP that sends a digital signal or all of them send an analogue one?

I'm aware Genelecs in particular can take analogue signals too, but is it even possible to keep it digital (and with Atmos and DTS signal decoding)?

Yes, There are a few, I know specifically of 3 , the DataSat RS20i, Storm Audio ISP Elite MK3 and the Trinnov Altitude 32 . These would cost you, a lot, upward of $25,000.oo for 16 AES/EBU channels. Storm Audio and Trinnov were favorably reviewed here by Amir... I don't know if those versions were with digital outputs , seems to be optional for both... You are looking at closer to $30K than 25K seems like ..
Not on the market for such .... but if one decides to build an end game HT/Audio system ... Those + Genelec or Neuman Monitors ( say the KH420 ) coupled with some serious subwooferS (plural as in at least 4) .. would be the ticket...

Dreaming

Peace.


P.S. It would be very remiss of me not to pass on that information from @Weeb Labs . If one feels adventurous, and has the required skills...
Adding post-DSP SPDIF outputs to AVRs

 

[-Matt-]

Is there any AVP that sends the channel signals in digital?

Meridian started using digital connection to its active speakers long ago, reviewed by Amir here, (although the measurements seem to focus on the analogue outputs).

Dolby or DTS decoding would still be done in the processor but there are some ways to send digital signals to the speakers (possibly with limitations placed on the allowed bit depth and sampling rate, eg 24bit, 48kHz IIRC).

The more recent equivalent would be to use Dante AV or maybe AES/EBU to carry digital signals to the speakers. I think there were options for this from Trinnov and JBL Synthesis and possibly others. It is apparently quite common to want to do this in a professionally installed dedicated home theatre room, especially if there are longer cable runs back to a control room. This is not something I have direct experience of, so hopefully someone else can elaborate further on this.

Edit: @FrantzM beat me to it!

 

[Vacceo]

And perhaps it would be interesting to ask about the advantages of keeping the signal digital. Are there any?

Sure, a Trinnov will provide a great processing, but strictly speaking, are there advantages keeping the processed signal digital and letting the active speakers do the transition to analog?

 

[-Matt-]

I am looking at the new denon models on their website and it looks like the new 3800H is almost a 4700h replacement minus some sound enhancement features so it looks like the best choice for me. Then I noticed the DDSC HD Digital feature on the 4800h and it got my attention. What does this feature do in real world scenarios? Denon's explanation was "better sound" which is awfully generic? Better how? If any of you had the chance to test both the 3700h and 4700h, did you notice a difference is sound quality when listening to surround content?

Back to the OP... I think one of those new 800 series Denons would serve you very well. (Maybe with a paid upgrade to Dirac further down the line).

You did well to hold out long enough but I hope you have been saving to increase your budget in the meantime, as prices keep going up.

 

[-Matt-]

And perhaps it would be interesting to ask about the advantages of keeping the signal digital. Are there any?

Besides the use for long cable runs mentioned above, I think there are potentially other advantages to the installer.

I.e. They just run network cable to the speakers - no need to worry about AWG.

They can use networks switches I.e. I don't think every speaker has to have a direct wire back to the processor.

I think I saw it mentioned that they can more easily monitor or diagnose problems by packet sniffing the network.

So the advantages are not so much in terms of audio quality, rather installer convenience and system reliability.

(Also dreaming here)!

 

[Vacceo]

So that is essentially what the KEF LS active do but on a larger scale.