Denon AVR-S930H 7.2CH 4K Ultra HD Network AV Receiver Preview

[gene]

Denon recently released its newest 7.2 Channel receiver, the AVR-S930 and it is really packed with features for the price. This Full 4K Ultra HD AV Receiver boasts 90 watts/ch and like other recent Denon AV receivers comes with built-in HEOS wireless technology for connecting a wireless whole home audio system. Bluetooth, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Audyssey MultEQ Dolby Vision compatible, HDR, and 8 HDMI inputs.

With all this for under $600 this might be the receiver you've been looking for.

Read: Denon AVR-S930H 7.2CH 4K Ultra HD Network AV Receiver Preview

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Pretty good, especially if it's not intended as the main home unit. If it's the main unit, I would go for the X3000 series with Audyssey XT32, especially when Amazon or Fry's has the X3000 series on sale for $599 brand new.

 

[panteragstk]

I'm probably going to grab one of these for the living room. My old Pioneer just isn't cutting it anymore.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm probably going to grab one of these for the living room. My old Pioneer just isn't cutting it anymore.

Are you waiting for a sale on Amazon or paying $579 now?

 

[panteragstk]

Are you waiting for a sale on Amazon or paying $579 now?

Nah. I can get it for cost from my brother. He works for a dealer.

 

[alex30]

Am I right in thinking that this receiver will only support a 5.2.2 configuration ?
I can't see any pre outs that could be used to hook up to a stereo amp to give two extra height/ceiling channels which is a shame because to get a decent Atmos/DTS:X result I reckon it's pretty important to have front AND rear height speakers.

 

[panteragstk]

Am I right in thinking that this receiver will only support a 5.2.2 configuration ?
I can't see any pre outs that could be used to hook up to a stereo amp to give two extra height/ceiling channels which is a shame because to get a decent Atmos/DTS:X result I reckon it's pretty important to have front AND rear height speakers.

Personal preference. I'm only using it for 5.1 so it isn't an issue for me. You may want to check higher in the range if you need a receiver with 9 channel processing.

 

[alex30]

Personal preference. I'm only using it for 5.1 so it isn't an issue for me. You may want to check higher in the range if you need a receiver with 9 channel processing.

Hi,
If you only need 5.1 then absolutely a receiver to go with.
But I can't understand an Atmos receiver that only allows two heights. The whole point of Atmos is to place the listener in a three dimensional bubble of sound where the sound objects can move freely from front to back, left to right, up and down or any combination of those. With only two heights the continuity is broken and you are left with an incomplete and muddled soundstage. It cannot work as it should.
Popping in a pair of pre outs and building in the ability to process two extra channels would seem to be a pre requisite of any receiver that wants to call itself an Atmos receiver. Having said that I know Dolby say that a 5.(1).2 system is the minimum Atmos system but I feel that is said purely for marketing reasons and not because it will actually perform as an Atmos system should.
I do have a 9 channel receiver , the Marantz 7010 and, with the addition of an external 2 channel amp, run a 7.2.4 system in a dedicated cinema room and was looking at this amp for a second system in the lounge but, as you say, I will have to look elsewhere.

 

[panteragstk]

Hi,
If you only need 5.1 then absolutely a receiver to go with.
But I can't understand an Atmos receiver that only allows two heights. The whole point of Atmos is to place the listener in a three dimensional bubble of sound where the sound objects can move freely from front to back, left to right, up and down or any combination of those. With only two heights the continuity is broken and you are left with an incomplete and muddled soundstage. It cannot work as it should.
Popping in a pair of pre outs and building in the ability to process two extra channels would seem to be a pre requisite of any receiver that wants to call itself an Atmos receiver. Having said that I know Dolby say that a 5.(1).2 system is the minimum Atmos system but I feel that is said purely for marketing reasons and not because it will actually perform as an Atmos system should.
I do have a 9 channel receiver , the Marantz 7010 and, with the addition of an external 2 channel amp, run a 7.2.4 system in a dedicated cinema room and was looking at this amp for a second system in the lounge but, as you say, I will have to look elsewhere.

You are not totally correct. Atmos is a "3D" sound format as you said, but it can also enhance a simple 5.1 setup as well. More than one person on this forum has stated that they notice a difference between TrueHD and Atmos using a system without height speakers.

The height speakers are only part of the equation.

 

[alex30]

You are not totally correct. Atmos is a "3D" sound format as you said, but it can also enhance a simple 5.1 setup as well. More than one person on this forum has stated that they notice a difference between TrueHD and Atmos using a system without height speakers.

The height speakers are only part of the equation.

Hi,
Dolby themselves may not agree as they state that the minimum Atmos system must have two height speakers. The point I was making was that two, rather than four ceiling speakers breaks up the continuity of sound and is unsatisfying. I experienced this when I installed my system . I was without my second pair of ceiling speakers for over a week and found it poor. When I got the second pair the soundtracks started to come together and were properly coherent.
However , as Atmos sound engineering is fundamentally different than channel based mixing then I accept your point that subtle differences do exist in a 5.1 system and these could be noticeable, just as differences exist in DTS:X and Atmos, both of which are 3 D sound formats and in a similar way that some music albums sound better in one format than another due to different mastering of the material.
I must say that I have never tried playing an Atmos film purely at ground level but I am intriqued now and will certainly give it a whirl.
I actually prefer to play some Atmos films as Dolby HD with Neural X upmixing as DTS:X tends to make more use of the height speakers. For all non Atmos or DTS:X I always use DTS Neural X upmixing rather than Dolby Surround
Oddly the film that gives me the best 3 D sound experience of any (and I have watched a lot of Atmos) is Master and Commander. My version is a vanilla flavour DTS 5.1 version . I play it as DTS with Neural X upmixing and it is jaw dropping. It has very subtle sound effects and also explosive action sequences. It puts you right there on the ship with sounds all around and above you.. If you haven't got it already I would recommend it. It's a decent watch but the killer bit is the audio and you will get a lot of what it has to offer in a floor based system.
Anyway I am off to the pub now (I'm in England) and will therefore wish you all the best and enjoy your new receiver, if you do indeed pull the trigger on that one. By the way, I'm not at all jealous that you can buy at cost price. Not much !!!!!

 

[afterlife2]

Saw this on sale for less than 300 worth buying?

 

[afterlife2]

That bad huh?

 

[singhcr]

That sounds like a steal for $300!

 

[afterlife2]

That sounds like a steal for $300!

It's lower than that. I hope I can get it small issue though, but I won't get into that here. Wish me luck.