Denon VS Marantz - Digital VS Analog inputs

[Kosta]

I am doing some research on home theater receivers for a new system and I was almost sold on the new denon x3700h until I found out about the 7.1 analog inputs on the Maratz receivers, even the cheaper ones, which is something only found on the top Denon models.

My intention for this system is to create the best sounding system for both music and movies (50-50), while staying within a reasonable budget which in my case is 4-5 grand (Absolute max 1500 for the receiver). I would like to avoid wasting any money on snake oil features or features that will improve the sound by 1% for an unreasonable amount of money so this is why I am in such a dilemma. I have no prior experience when it comes to things like receiver sound quality or analog vs digital quality so when I stumbled across the marantz 7013 which offered 7.1 analog inputs I didn't know If I would be getting better quality for music and if the difference in quality justifies the price difference.

My initial plan was to connect the receiver to my PC via HDMI to be able to take advantage of the HD movie audio and atmos when I am watching movies and connect my sound card to the stereo inputs of the receiver for music because I heard that analog audio is better than digital, at least when it comes to music. The thing is that this is just theory for me, in reality I don't know if I will hear the difference but if there is a different the marantz receiver will give me the option to listen to multichannel music using the analog ins.

By the way, I am aware that the denon x3700h has some nice new features such as the pre-amp mode, which I will definitely be using, compared to the 7013, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, but I heard that the new Marantz receivers will receive the same treatment so if the analog ins are worth it I will go for the new Marantz model.

I would really like to hear your opinions on this matter so I can finally make up my mind about the receiver.

Thank you in advance

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I heard that analog audio is better than digital, at least when it comes to music

This is 100% false.

Analog isn't better than digital for anything.

I used to own a 7.1 Analog HT System - allowing my Universal Player do all the sound decoding and sending the analog signal to my analog system.

The Sound Quality of AVRs vs Pre-pros vs Analog Preamps + Amps will be equally great.

But some people will agree and some will disagree. It's up to you to decide what is true.

 

[Kosta]

Holy Moly that's a massive system! I guess I should me more grateful to AVR companies for putting so much stuff in such a small package for us movie lovers

The Sound Quality of AVRs vs Pre-pros vs Analog Preamps + Amps will be equally great.

But some people will agree and some will disagree. It's up to you to decide what is true.

That's the problem... Most of the hifi stores in my country are not well equipped for me to compare equipment. A couple of them might have the denon some others the marantz but If I can't listen to them side by side it's pointless...

In any case, it's good to hear that digital and analog quality are equally good from someone who has tried both! Thank you for your reply!

If anyone else has anything to add I would really appreciate it! The more opinions I hear the easier will my choice become!

 

[lovinthehd]

It's somewhat pointless to compare informally the two avrs as well, especially those two brands being sister brands from the same owner I have a Denon with the multich 7.1 inputs and never use them, a bit limited as to what further processing you can do with that input compared to digital via hdmi. Whether the digital conversion happens in your sound card or the avr, you could try both and see if you have a preference.

I still have vinyl around but more for nostalgia than any particular sound qualities in general, haven't bought new in well over 20 years. I never got into reel to reel as digital arrived before I went that direction....I did use cassette mix tapes for my car and walkman but definitely more about convenience than any particular sound quality. The vast majority of time I'm using digital content. I still have some all analog 2ch gear but its my least used as it's the least capable.

 

[Kosta]

It's somewhat pointless to compare informally the two avrs as well, especially those two brands being sister brands from the same owner

I agree, I know denon and maratz are sister brands so this is why I am focusing more on digital vs analog rather than AVR Brand vs Brand sound.

I have a Denon with the multich 7.1 inputs and never use them, a bit limited as to what further processing you can do with that input compared to digital via hdmi.

Have you ever tried a blind test by switching from the HDMI input to the analog ones? If you did, did you notice a difference between the two? That would be very helpful in my case since the results should be similar if not the same if I did a blind test using the marantz.

Whether the digital conversion happens in your sound card or the avr, you could try both and see if you have a preference.

Would the sound processor in an AVR be equal to a dedicated sound card? If not, do you believe having a dedicated sound card for the sound processing help quality-wise for music? The AVRs are so packed with features for their money that I do not know what components are cheap/low quality to bring down the cost. This is why I am always skeptical about the abilities of AVRs.

I still have vinyl around but more for nostalgia than any particular sound qualities in general, haven't bought new in well over 20 years. I never got into reel to reel as digital arrived before I went that direction....I did use cassette mix tapes for my car and walkman but definitely more about convenience than any particular sound quality. The vast majority of time I'm using digital content. I still have some all analog 2ch gear but its my least used as it's the least capable.

There is no question that digital is so much easier to use... In theory vinyls sound like a great idea but in reality they require a lot of patience and they are a pain to maintain... Same goes for AVRs! Everything you would ever need in a small package, makes life so much easier, but before I choose the easy route I want to make sure I am not sacrificing quality for quantity.

Personally, I visited someone who owned an expensive system comprising of a 100K+ turntable and 20K+ separates each. He played a couple of SACDs on his PC and some digitized vinyls (vinyls he recorded using his turntable). The SACDs sounded OK, the digitized vinyls sounded great but when he used the actual turntable the sound was on a whole different level, even my untrained ears could tell the difference. Powerful sound with authority, great image and above all, natural!

This is why got so hung up on analog quality and skeptical about how can an AVR which is a cheaper device with more features have similar quality, sound-wise, to separates and analog devices... Still that experience was pure analog so I didn't have the chance to listen to the same music using a similar in quality digital system and compare them. Also you will be right to point out that I listened to a 180K system (including the speakers) so there would be something wrong with it if it didn't sound amazing

 

[lovinthehd]

I agree, I know denon and maratz are sister brands so this is why I am focusing more on digital vs analog rather than AVR Brand vs Brand sound.

Have you ever tried a blind test by switching from the HDMI input to the analog ones? If you did, did you notice a difference between the two? That would be very helpful in my case since the results should be similar if not the same if I did a blind test using the marantz.

Not just sister brands but pretty much the same audio features so just little difference in general (whereas with some brands of avr you might get a different take on dsp/room eq programs). I've tried using the analog inputs and let my players handle the dac aspect, and while not a strict dbx test, enough to convince myself the dac conversion is well done by either unit and generally more useful to use that in my avrs. DAC implementation has been solid for a long time in most gear....



Would the sound processor in an AVR be equal to a dedicated sound card? If not, do you believe having a dedicated sound card for the sound processing help quality-wise for music? The AVRs are so packed with features for their money that I do not know what components are cheap/low quality to bring down the cost. This is why I am always skeptical about the abilities of AVRs.

Some say the environment of a computer's sound card to start with is less than desireable but many do have good results but personally I don't use the sound card of my laptop nor do I even hardwire my laptop to my audio gear....I stream via wifi. I'd suspect most sound cards are not up to the level of most avrs.

There is no question that digital is so much easier to use... In theory vinyls sound like a great idea but in reality they require a lot of patience and they are a pain to maintain... Same goes for AVRs! Everything you would ever need in a small package, makes life so much easier, but before I choose the easy route I want to make sure I am not sacrificing quality for quantity.

I've been using vinyl since the late 60s....there wasn't much choice . I still have my tt/vinyl but just don't use it much beyond nostalgia. It works well and some recordings I only have vinyl versions, too. It is a fussy medium for sure.

Personally, I visited someone who owned an expensive system comprising of a 100K+ turntable and 20K+ separates each. He played a couple of SACDs on his PC and some digitized vinyls (vinyls he recorded using his turntable). The SACDs sounded OK, the digitized vinyls sounded great but when he used the actual turntable the sound was on a whole different level, even my untrained ears could tell the difference. Powerful sound with authority, great image and above all, natural!

Hard to understand why a digital recording of the vinyl wouldn't be identical if all other aspects were same. SACD isn't particularly impressive/noteworthy, altho I do like the multichannel ones, otherwise I wouldn't bother generally, altho you might find a more carefully made recording this way but choices in what I want to listen to are quite limited. Not sure what you're calling natural, not much "natural" going on in general with most recordings. I've played vinyl where people are amazed it sounds so good, but just seems normal to me. Just less convenient and subject to wear/tear.

This is why got so hung up on analog quality and skeptical about how can an AVR which is a cheaper device with more features have similar quality, sound-wise, to separates and analog devices... Still that experience was pure analog so I didn't have the chance to listen to the same music using a similar in quality digital system and compare them. Also you will be right to point out that I listened to a 180K system (including the speakers) so there would be something wrong with it if it didn't sound amazing

Not my experience, my avrs sound just as good as my old analog 2ch gear, just a lot less useful. Mostly it's about your speakers and room, the electronics not so much.

 

[M Code]

Would the sound processor in an AVR be equal to a dedicated sound card? If not, do you believe having a dedicated sound card for the sound processing help quality-wise for music? The AVRs are so packed with features for their money that I do not know what components are cheap/low quality to bring down the cost. This is why I am always skeptical about the abilities of AVRs.

Some say the environment of a computer's sound card to start with is less than desireable but many do have good results but personally I don't use the sound card of my laptop nor do I even hardwire my laptop to my audio gear....I stream via wifi. I'd suspect most sound cards are not up to the level of most avrs.

Note that for some clients we did run various tests through the AP for certain sound cards...
Generally the sound cards performed fine, but had significantly higher noise floors compared to an AVR. I suspect this was likely due to the EMI/noise generated by the PC's PWM power supply. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of AVRs implement a conventional, linear power supply....

Just my $0.02...

 

[Kosta]

Not just sister brands but pretty much the same audio features so just little difference in general (whereas with some brands of avr you might get a different take on dsp/room eq programs). I've tried using the analog inputs and let my players handle the dac aspect, and while not a strict dbx test, enough to convince myself the dac conversion is well done by either unit and generally more useful to use that in my avrs. DAC implementation has been solid for a long time in most gear....

For me if you have to struggle to notice a difference in quality, if there is any quality difference at all, it's good enough. The Marantz usually costs 300-400$ extra so in this case the denon one sounds like a better choice. I might as well use the money I save for extending the system with some extra surround or atmos speakers.

Hard to understand why a digital recording of the vinyl wouldn't be identical if all other aspects were same. SACD isn't particularly impressive/noteworthy, altho I do like the multichannel ones, otherwise I wouldn't bother generally, altho you might find a more carefully made recording this way but choices in what I want to listen to are quite limited. Not sure what you're calling natural, not much "natural" going on in general with most recordings. I've played vinyl where people are amazed it sounds so good, but just seems normal to me. Just less convenient and subject to wear/tear.

I really don't know why the digital recording quality of the vinyl was not the same... Don't get me wrong, the recording was very impressive since the quality was much better than a standard CD/SACD. He actually had the same disk in both recorded vinyl and SACD format with the latter sounding poor in comparison.

I kind of feel the same way about the SACDs I heard so far, they are not as impressive as I thought they would be but the good ones are phenomenal. I guess in the end of the day production is everything... I mean I listened to CDs which sounded better than SACDs just because the sound engineer did something right...

When I say natural I am referring to the true timbre and realistic sound of the instruments. I am a musician so I am very familiar with the sound of some instruments. Most systems (the ones I had the chance to listen to) tend to tone down instruments and as a result they sound less aggressive, lacking in attack, to sound better to our ears, but a violin during a solo or a saxophone etc are suppose to sound aggressive. Personally I did notice a difference between the two, with the instruments sounding more authentic when the vinyl was used. There were so many variables that could have played a role though... A first pressing vinyl was played using a 100K€ turntable, I don't know if we can compare that to a digital recording being played by a DAC... It's difficult to tell what made the difference though... It could be the vinyl, the turntable, the pre-amps, the amps etc etc.. There are so many variables when it comes to HiFi

Not my experience, my avrs sound just as good as my old analog 2ch gear, just a lot less useful. Mostly it's about your speakers and room, the electronics not so much.

I wish this is true for me too! It would save me from a lot of trouble and above all it will save me $$$$. The first thing I learned when I wandered in the dark realm of HiFi was that budget is relative

Just my $0.02...

More like a couple of hundred $$$$ which would be the cost of the sound card I would have bought I looked into the EMI noise you mentioned and sounds like it will do more harm than good....

Thank you very much guys/gals for taking the time to help me... You can't imagine how difficult it is to pick audio equipment without listening to it first...

Leave it to the Audioholics' army to save the day

 

[lovinthehd]

For me if you have to struggle to notice a difference in quality, if there is any quality difference at all, it's good enough. The Marantz usually costs 300-400$ extra so in this case the denon one sounds like a better choice. I might as well use the money I save for extending the system with some extra surround or atmos speakers.

IMO Marantz asking for more $ is more about banking on an "audiophile" reputation from a very long time ago....marketing. Denon has a very good history too, it's possible both went a bit awry with their combination several years back....

I really don't know why the digital recording quality of the vinyl was not the same... Don't get me wrong, the recording was very impressive since the quality was much better than a standard CD/SACD. He actually had the same disk in both recorded vinyl and SACD format with the latter sounding poor in comparison.

An audio chain is only as strong as it's weakest part, so assume there was something introduced that degraded the signal, or just the way it was recorded or even just levels of playback....if he had the same offering in different formats such as vinyl vs SACD surely those would be different mixes/masters, particularly the latter.

I kind of feel the same way about the SACDs I heard so far, they are not as impressive as I thought they would be but the good ones are phenomenal. I guess in the end of the day production is everything... I mean I listened to CDs which sounded better than SACDs just because the sound engineer did something right... but a violin during a solo or a saxophone etc are suppose to sound aggressive. Personally I did notice a difference between the two, with the instruments sounding more authentic when the vinyl was used. There were so many variables that could have played a role though... A first pressing vinyl was played using a 100K€ turntable, I don't know if we can compare that to a digital recording being played by a DAC... It's difficult to tell what made the difference though... It could be the vinyl, the turntable, the pre-amps, the amps etc etc.. There are so many variables when it comes to HiFi

Keep in mind it is most often the actual recording quality as well as subsequent mixes/masters that yield impressive recordings. Media can have special requirements, like vinyl, to accommodate the limitations of the media. In playback slightly different levels matter, too; the higher one is frequently experienced as "better" let alone expectation bias issues. Shortcuts like vinyl is better because its analog lack in many ways.



I wish this is true for me too! It would save me from a lot of trouble and above all it will save me $$$$. The first thing I learned when I wandered in the dark realm of HiFi was that budget is relative



More like a couple of hundred $$$$ which would be the cost of the sound card I would have bought I looked into the EMI noise you mentioned and sounds like it will do more harm than good....

Thank you very much guys/gals for taking the time to help me... You can't imagine how difficult it is to pick audio equipment without listening to it first...

Leave it to the Audioholics' army to save the day

I'm somewhat a thrifty person as demanded in the earlier days by income/budget, but found fairly early on throwing a lot of money at audio hit diminishing returns fairly quickly, too. I much prefer a bargain over an extravagance.

And, as always, YMMV. Your preference is your own.
[/QUOTE]

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For me if you have to struggle to notice a difference in quality, if there is any quality difference at all, it's good enough. The Marantz usually costs 300-400$ extra so in this case the denon one sounds like a better choice. I might as well use the money I save for extending the system with some extra surround or atmos speakers.



I really don't know why the digital recording quality of the vinyl was not the same... Don't get me wrong, the recording was very impressive since the quality was much better than a standard CD/SACD. He actually had the same disk in both recorded vinyl and SACD format with the latter sounding poor in comparison.

I kind of feel the same way about the SACDs I heard so far, they are not as impressive as I thought they would be but the good ones are phenomenal. I guess in the end of the day production is everything... I mean I listened to CDs which sounded better than SACDs just because the sound engineer did something right...

When I say natural I am referring to the true timbre and realistic sound of the instruments. I am a musician so I am very familiar with the sound of some instruments. Most systems (the ones I had the chance to listen to) tend to tone down instruments and as a result they sound less aggressive, lacking in attack, to sound better to our ears, but a violin during a solo or a saxophone etc are suppose to sound aggressive. Personally I did notice a difference between the two, with the instruments sounding more authentic when the vinyl was used. There were so many variables that could have played a role though... A first pressing vinyl was played using a 100K€ turntable, I don't know if we can compare that to a digital recording being played by a DAC... It's difficult to tell what made the difference though... It could be the vinyl, the turntable, the pre-amps, the amps etc etc.. There are so many variables when it comes to HiFi



I wish this is true for me too! It would save me from a lot of trouble and above all it will save me $$$$. The first thing I learned when I wandered in the dark realm of HiFi was that budget is relative



More like a couple of hundred $$$$ which would be the cost of the sound card I would have bought I looked into the EMI noise you mentioned and sounds like it will do more harm than good....

Thank you very much guys/gals for taking the time to help me... You can't imagine how difficult it is to pick audio equipment without listening to it first...

Leave it to the Audioholics' army to save the day

If you would like some good reading, Audioholics have some great articles.

In addition, The Audio Critic has archives on the web that might open up some eyes wide open. If you want the extremely short version of The Audio Critic - amps, preamps, DACs, CD Players, Wires/cables don’t have a sound signature of their own - they pretty much all sound about the same within reasons and specs - IOW any difference will be relatively insignificant unless you have “golden ears” which most people equate to “Yeah Right Whatever”.

Speakers and Processors (EQ, DSP) will sound differently.

For electronics, most people will focus on reliability, heat production, features, compatibility, EQ - auto room EQ software and manual parametric EQ capability, and cost.

 

[PENG]

I agree, I know denon and maratz are sister brands so this is why I am focusing more on digital vs analog rather than AVR Brand vs Brand sound.



Have you ever tried a blind test by switching from the HDMI input to the analog ones? If you did, did you notice a difference between the two? That would be very helpful in my case since the results should be similar if not the same if I did a blind test using the marantz.



Would the sound processor in an AVR be equal to a dedicated sound card? If not, do you believe having a dedicated sound card for the sound processing help quality-wise for music? The AVRs are so packed with features for their money that I do not know what components are cheap/low quality to bring down the cost. This is why I am always skeptical about the abilities of AVRs.



There is no question that digital is so much easier to use... In theory vinyls sound like a great idea but in reality they require a lot of patience and they are a pain to maintain... Same goes for AVRs! Everything you would ever need in a small package, makes life so much easier, but before I choose the easy route I want to make sure I am not sacrificing quality for quantity.

Personally, I visited someone who owned an expensive system comprising of a 100K+ turntable and 20K+ separates each. He played a couple of SACDs on his PC and some digitized vinyls (vinyls he recorded using his turntable). The SACDs sounded OK, the digitized vinyls sounded great but when he used the actual turntable the sound was on a whole different level, even my untrained ears could tell the difference. Powerful sound with authority, great image and above all, natural!

This is why got so hung up on analog quality and skeptical about how can an AVR which is a cheaper device with more features have similar quality, sound-wise, to separates and analog devices... Still that experience was pure analog so I didn't have the chance to listen to the same music using a similar in quality digital system and compare them. Also you will be right to point out that I listened to a 180K system (including the speakers) so there would be something wrong with it if it didn't sound amazing

It doesn't seem like you are comparing apple to apple. If you are, for a $20k system, sound quality should be dictated by the quality of the recording, and the speakers, not the format, definitely not the electronics as long as the speakers are not being under powered.

 

[M Code]

For me if you have to struggle to notice a difference in quality, if there is any quality difference at all, it's good enough. The Marantz usually costs 300-400$ extra so in this case the denon one sounds like a better choice. I might as well use the money I save for extending the system with some extra surround or atmos speakers.

Regarding the cost difference between comparable Marantz and Denon AVRs... This is not due to major circuit/component changes but rather basic economics.. Denon AVR sales are 8X those of Marantz, also Marantz's distribution channels through AV specialists require higher markup and $ profit margins.

IMHO..
If one did a well managed Denon vs. Marantz blind listening test with comparable positioned AVRs there would be little if any audible differences.. My comment may trigger further debate but is just my opinion. Maybe we should have Amir run the subject test..

Just my $0.02...

 

[lovinthehd]

Regarding the cost difference between comparable Marantz and Denon AVRs... This is not due to major circuit/component changes but rather basic economics.. Denon AVR sales are 8X those of Marantz, also Marantz's distribution channels through AV specialists require higher markup and $ profit margins.

IMHO..
If one did a well managed Denon vs. Marantz blind listening test with comparable positioned AVRs there would be little if any audible differences.. My comment may trigger further debate but is just my opinion. Maybe we should have Amir run the subject test..

Just my $0.02...

Didn't realize Denon outsold Marantz like that....is that because Denon was a longer toothed brand in Asia particularly? Or mostly a result of price point sales technique to deliberately keep Marantz at a "higher" level?

 

[M Code]

Denon has a much broader distribution system world-wide including dealers and distributors.. Also they have a wider price range for each product category..
About ( 7) years back Denon had some serious brand setbacks when they tried to expand their market share and the AV specialists dropped the line due to lack of profitability.....
However over the last (4) years Denon has rebounded nicely by segmenting their respective product lineup for big box, internet and AV specialists, plus having the HEOS products has helped alot.. Basically they have adopted the successful Yamaha business, brand distribution product segmentation model....

For certain reasons the Marantz brand has suffered some serious marketing setbacks, in my opinion it is difficult to market (2) competing product/brands, however United Audio appears to be mastering the challenge quite well....

Just my $0.02...

 

[CajunLB]

Regarding the cost difference between comparable Marantz and Denon AVRs... This is not due to major circuit/component changes but rather basic economics.. Denon AVR sales are 8X those of Marantz, also Marantz's distribution channels through AV specialists require higher markup and $ profit margins.

IMHO..
If one did a well managed Denon vs. Marantz blind listening test

Didn't realize Denon outsold Marantz like that....is that because Denon was a longer toothed brand in Asia particularly? Or mostly a result of price point sales technique to deliberately keep Marantz at a "higher" level?
[/QUOTE
with comparable positioned AVRs there would be little if any audible differences.. My comment may trigger further debate but is just my opinion. Maybe we should have Amir run the subject test..

Just my $0.02...

Didn't realize Denon outsold Marantz like that....is that because Denon was a longer toothed brand in Asia particularly? Or mostly a result of price point sales technique to deliberately keep Marantz at a "higher" level?
[/QUOTE
Marantz is better for music because it’s got more Chocolately mids because of H DAM and is tuned by their artistic engineers.

 

[Kosta]

I'm somewhat a thrifty person as demanded in the earlier days by income/budget, but found fairly early on throwing a lot of money at audio hit diminishing returns fairly quickly, too. I much prefer a bargain over an extravagance.

And, as always, YMMV. Your preference is your own.

This should be a golden rule for every beginner audiophile.. Thankfully I learned that before wasting any money on crazy expensive electronics. For example, the first time I went to a local hifi store they recommended me 1500€ stereo amps and 2500€ stereo integrated amps. The recommendations were good but considering my budget they ended up recommending me speakers between 500-1500€ instead of doing the exact opposite. I found out later that I should invest most of my budget on speakers rather than electronics but If I wasn't a careful buyer and didn't spend a ridiculous amount of time on research I would either be looking for new speakers by now or I would have been crying in a corner over my bad choices...

If you would like some good reading, Audioholics have some great articles.

In addition, The Audio Critic has archives on the web that might open up some eyes wide open. If you want the extremely short version of The Audio Critic - amps, preamps, DACs, CD Players, Wires/cables don’t have a sound signature of their own - they pretty much all sound about the same within reasons and specs - IOW any difference will be relatively insignificant unless you have “golden ears” which most people equate to “Yeah Right Whatever”.

Speakers and Processors (EQ, DSP) will sound differently.

For electronics, most people will focus on reliability, heat production, features, compatibility, EQ - auto room EQ software and manual parametric EQ capability, and cost.

I read quite a few Audioholic's article but I haven't read anything by the Audio Critic. Thank you for the recommendation! I will get right on it!

Personally I am not into EQs but I wouldn't mind a good DSP. What do you think about the quality of the DSPs inside receivers within the price-range of the denon x3700h, are they any good?.

Regarding the cost difference between comparable Marantz and Denon AVRs... This is not due to major circuit/component changes but rather basic economics.. Denon AVR sales are 8X those of Marantz, also Marantz's distribution channels through AV specialists require higher markup and $ profit margins.

Oh, I see, this is good to know! In my mind, since Denon and Marantz are the same I thought the extra $$$ translated to either better sound or component quality.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Personally I am not into EQs but I wouldn't mind a good DSP. What do you think about the quality of the DSPs inside receivers within the price-range of the denon x3700h, are they any good?.

Many audio experts believe you should not EQ (Auto or Manual) any frequency above 200Hz anyway.

So if I EQ, it’s only for the bass below 100Hz.

As for DSP, the only DSP I would use are the Surround Sound Up-mixers from Dolby (DSU/ Dolby Surround Sound) and DTS (NeuralX). Some might use 7CH or 11CH Stereo mode. But that’s it. Most DSP’s don’t sound good to me on any AVR or processor, not just Denon.

 

[PENG]

Regarding the cost difference between comparable Marantz and Denon AVRs... This is not due to major circuit/component changes but rather basic economics.. Denon AVR sales are 8X those of Marantz, also Marantz's distribution channels through AV specialists require higher markup and $ profit margins.

IMHO..
If one did a well managed Denon vs. Marantz blind listening test with comparable positioned AVRs there would be little if any audible differences.. My comment may trigger further debate but is just my opinion. Maybe we should have Amir run the subject test..

Just my $0.02...

Wow, 8X, who could have guessed that? I thought it would be more like 2 to 3X. They both made integrated amps, media players, streamers, AVRs and AVPs (Denon only make the AVP on the pro side), hard to believe 8X!!

 

[PENG]

Oh, I see, this is good to know! In my mind, since Denon and Marantz are the same I thought the extra $$$ translated to either better sound or component quality.

You are right to some extent, at least if you ignore the slimline models that are virtually identical to Denon's equivalents except their form factors there are obviously different.

For AVRs though, Marantz's production cost has to be higher, even if you compare their exact equivalent models.
An example is, if you compare the AVR-X4500H to the SR7013, the Marantz have the additional cost for the following:

- 7.1 analog inputs
- 13 HDAMs, including the two subwoofer outputs.

Denon has their unique digital features such as their AL32 and DDSC but those are software based and has been around for a long time there is no additional cost as such. On the hardware side they have the Denon Link, and should not cost more than $1 or 2, I guess.

So even if each HDAM channel cost only $5 (just a guess), that's $65), before mark up, and that's not insignificant.
They don't, won't, shouldn't make Marantz sound different because they are unity gain buffer amps, not equalizers, not tone controls so unless you use external amps with low gain and very low input impedance, HDAM could actually make things a touch worse as they bound to introduce a little more distortions and noise.

 

[roadwarrior]

I am doing some research on home theater receivers for a new system and I was almost sold on the new denon x3700h until I found out about the 7.1 analog inputs on the Maratz receivers, even the cheaper ones, which is something only found on the top Denon models.

No current Denon receiver offers multi channel analog inputs that I'm aware of. I'd just save some money and make use of one of the Direct modes instead on the Denon if you want to bypass the internal DAC and DSP.