Denon AVR-X5200W Dolby Atmos AV Receiver Reviewed

[gene]

The Denon AVR-X5200W 9.2 Channel Dolby Atmos A/V receiver packs a punch with a fully assignable amp section rated at 140 watts/ch x 9. It’s a moderately priced wireless networking A/V receiver that’s a jack of all trades and will accommodate all of your A/V processing needs for the foreseeable future including if you someday plan to expand into an Atmos or Auro speaker configuration. Is Atmos the greatest breakthrough in 20 years like Dolby claims? You’ll have to read our review to see how we put this Denon A/V receiver through its paces to validate this claim while also doing our usual battery of bench and operational tests.

Read our review of the Denon AVR-X5200W Dolby Atmos AV Receiver

Skip to our Bench Tests

Are you running Dolby Atmos in your home theater yet? Share your experiences here.

 

[shadyJ]

Very nice review- boy do I love to see measurements! Looks like a great receiver, and I have one question: Does the 5200 amp support a '7.1.4' type layout? In the brochure it says you need a separate amp to get a '9.1.2' or '7.1.4' configuration, but I count 11 amplified channel outputs in the back panel. Many of the other flagship receivers like the one from Marantz will do the full 7.1.4 and 9.1.2 but only by adding an amp to the pre-outs.

 

[selden]

The additional back-panel binding-post connections are for your convenience. The number of them does not tell you how many amplifiers are contained in the receiver, nor does it tell you how many channels of audio can be simultaneously processed. Several manufacturers (Pioneer is another) provide more connections than can be used simultaneously. In this case, the X5200W has only 9 internal amps. If you want to drive more speakers than that (up to 13), you'll need to provide external amplifiers. During setup you tell the receiver which binding posts are to be used. When you change the speaker configuration, whether during the initial setup or when playing different types of soundtracks (e.g. stereo or multichannel), you can hear relays switching which connect or disconnect amps and binding posts.

Most of the differences between the Denon X5200W and the Marantz SR7009 receivers are trivial. They're made by the same company, with common digital circuitry but different analog circuits. Both support up to 12 simultaneously active channels (including the subwoofer/LFE channel). Both can be configured to drive 14 channels (13 passive speakers). Different speakers are active depending on if you're using Dolby processing or DTS: Dolby Surround doesn't support Front Wides, while DTS Neo:X doesn't support rear overhead channels.

A significant difference between the Marantz SR7009 and the Denon X5200W is that the SR7009 has 7.1 multichannel analog inputs, but the X5200W does not.

 

[shadyJ]

I see, thanks for the heads up!

 

[surveyor]

What value block capacitors does the AVR-X5200W have?

 

[gene]

Very nice review- boy do I love to see measurements! Looks like a great receiver, and I have one question: Does the 5200 amp support a '7.1.4' type layout? In the brochure it says you need a separate amp to get a '9.1.2' or '7.1.4' configuration, but I count 11 amplified channel outputs in the back panel. Many of the other flagship receivers like the one from Marantz will do the full 7.1.4 and 9.1.2 but only by adding an amp to the pre-outs.

Yes you can add a 2CH amp to do a full 7.2.4 config.

I updated my review to be more clear on this as follows:

The AVR-X5200W is packed with speaker connections (11 pairs to be exact). Though you can only use up to 9 pairs simultaneously since the Denon provides nine channels of amplification. The AVR-X5200W has a full compliment of analog preouts in case you want to use external amplification on ALL of your channels or to just add a two-channel amp for the main channels while using the nine internal amplifiers to run a full 7.2.4 speaker system (that's 7 bed channels, 2 subs, and 4 height/object channels).​

 

[gene]

The additional back-panel binding-post connections are for your convenience. The number of them does not tell you how many amplifiers are contained in the receiver, nor does it tell you how many channels of audio can be simultaneously processed. Several manufacturers (Pioneer is another) provide more connections than can be used simultaneously. In this case, the X5200W has only 9 internal amps. If you want to drive more speakers than that (up to 13), you'll need to provide external amplifiers. During setup you tell the receiver which binding posts are to be used. When you change the speaker configuration, whether during the initial setup or when playing different types of soundtracks (e.g. stereo or multichannel), you can hear relays switching which connect or disconnect amps and binding posts.

Most of the differences between the Denon X5200W and the Marantz SR7009 receivers are trivial. They're made by the same company, with common digital circuitry but different analog circuits. Both support up to 12 simultaneously active channels (including the subwoofer/LFE channel). Both can be configured to drive 14 channels (13 passive speakers). Different speakers are active depending on if you're using Dolby processing or DTS: Dolby Surround doesn't support Front Wides, while DTS Neo:X doesn't support rear overhead channels.

A significant difference between the Marantz SR7009 and the Denon X5200W is that the SR7009 has 7.1 multichannel analog inputs, but the X5200W does not.

Actually I believe the SR7009 is based on the X4200W platform but with some analog upgrades.

 

[selden]

Actually I believe the SR7009 is based on the X4200W platform but with some analog upgrades.

I think one would have to open them up and compare circuit boards to answer that definitively. While the 7009's individual amps are stated to have the same power as those in the 4100, all of its other features more nearly match the 5200. *shrug* As I mentioned, just about all of the differences are trivial, and that includes the miniscule difference in wattage.

 

[gene]

I think one would have to open them up and compare circuit boards to answer that definitively. While the 7009's individual amps are stated to have the same power as those in the 4100, all of its other features more nearly match the 5200. *shrug* As I mentioned, just about all of the differences are trivial, and that includes the miniscule difference in wattage.

Actually we're both wrong. It's based off the 4100 platform as I just confirmed with my D&M contacts. There is not 4200 yet.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Okay, Gene, you might be able to carry "only 31 LBS" with just one arm. But for some of us, 31 LBS still requires TWO.

Awesome comprehensive review as usual.

 

[gene]

Editorial Note about Dolby Surround Upmixer Center Spread Feature
At the time of evaluating the AVR-X5200W, I was unaware of the adjustable parameter called "Center Spread" buried in the user manual on page 176. As such, I had it set in the default (off) position during all of my two-channel listening tests with the DSU engaged. If you prefer to route the center channel signal to the left/right front channels to expand the front soundstage you will want to turn it "on". With DSU engaged, you presumably do this via the OSD since user manual doesn't tell you how specifically and there is no hot button on the remote for it either. Thanks to batpig at AVSForum for pointing this out.

 

[Goliath]

Excellent review Gene. I'm very happy to see you included test measurements.

 

[nm2285]

I researched the Denon and Marantz offerings for a while because I wanted a receiver that offered Sub EQ HT and had 3 zone capability with 2 zone independent HDMI. There is some difference between the Denons and Marantz in the zone handling. If you want 3 zones, Marantz (7008 or 7009) offers the most flexibility. If you are playing all 3 zones simultaneously, the Marantz can only play in mono in zones 2 and 3. However, if only playing zones 1 and 3 or 1 and 2, zones 2 and 3 can be in stereo. The Denons, however, don't even allow you to wire zones 2 and 3 in stereo. If you have zones 2 and 3 both connected (regardless of how many zones are playing), they can only be connected in mono. This was the difference maker for me in deciding between the Denon and Marantz offerings. Ended up with an sr7008.

 

[bootman]

How are those starting to invest in the Atmos speaker layout going to integrate a Auro3D one?

What will be interesting is how best to integrate these two formats given how different the speaker layouts are.
Auro is almost a direct upgrade to those running heights and wides. Only the VOG channel is missing.
Much less "impactful" from a speaker layout for many folks.

Any guidance from Denon on how they suggest 5200 owners handle the Auro3D speaker layout along with an Atmos one?

Example: Are users expected to cut in a 5th ceiling speaker for VOG?

 

[GIEGAR]

Congratulations to Denon for making the world’s worst impedance selector switch of all time.

Hey Gene, how do you access the impedance selector switch on the X5200?

We were doing a bit of troubleshooting in another thread with a fellow who has an X4000 that's seemingly struggling to push a Carver TFM-45 amp that's hooked up to his Acoustat Spectra 33's. When asked about the X4000's impedance setting, he indicated there was no way of selecting it. For the life of me, I couldn't find reference to it the owner's manual either. But I find it improbable that the X5200 would have an impedance selector and the X4000 would not.

If you can enlighten me, that would be appreciated.

 

[selden]

I'm not Gene, but...

You probably should create a new thread describing your symptoms in detail, since it's not related to the X5200.

Normally one does not need to change the impedance setting when driving an external amp that's connected to an AVR's preamp outputs. The impedance setting limits the maximum voltage or current of the internal amps connected to the AVR's speaker binding posts.

That said, changing the X5200's impedance setting is described on page 35 of the X5200's owner's manual. It's not in the menu system: you have to press certain front panel buttons simultaneously.

 

[GIEGAR]

Hey, thanks for responding Selden.

It's not my problem... as I said, we were toubleshooting someone else's system. The thread is linked here, if you're interested. Yes, I'm well aware of the impedance setting and the issues surrounding it, however the OP in that thread may not have been (an AVR rookie), so we were attempting to identify possible causes of his problem.

Interestingly, I looked at the X5200's and X4000's manuals side-by-side, and there is in fact no equivalent instructions in the X4000 manual for changing the impedance setting. It simply says: Use speakers with an impedance of 6 – 16 Ω/ohms. That's it. So 4Ω speakers aren't officially sanctioned, the EC's aren't obliged to torture test it into 4Ω loads and therefore a "gelding switch" is not required. Brilliant!

 

[sfdoddsy]

First off, thanks for the before and after Audyssey measurements. You guys seem to be the only ones doing this.

It wasn't mentioned in the review, but it seems to me that the speakers measured better without Audyssey. They roll off below 50Hz, but are flatter and a bit of boost would be pretty easy. Above that No Audyssey looks much better. Did they sound as bright as they measured?

 

[PENG]

First off, thanks for the before and after Audyssey measurements. You guys seem to be the only ones doing this.

It wasn't mentioned in the review, but it seems to me that the speakers measured better without Audyssey. They roll off below 50Hz, but are flatter and a bit of boost would be pretty easy. Above that No Audyssey looks much better. Did they sound as bright as they measured?

That is strange. In my room/setup, Audyssey looks better than no Audyssey.

 

[gene]

First off, thanks for the before and after Audyssey measurements. You guys seem to be the only ones doing this.

It wasn't mentioned in the review, but it seems to me that the speakers measured better without Audyssey. They roll off below 50Hz, but are flatter and a bit of boost would be pretty easy. Above that No Audyssey looks much better. Did they sound as bright as they measured?

Audyssey can be hit or miss depending on mic position and how it does its setup. I've generally seen favorable results with Audyssey though sometimes to over corrects and can actually add unwanted resonances. I really wish there was a way to restrict amount of boost/cut and also the BW of correction. The editor software does give you a little control of the shape of the curve but that's only available on the pro version if you get the mic calibration kit.

I didn't find the calibration results to be harmful in my listening tests and in fact it made the A60 Atmos modules more listenable with Audyssey engaged.