Denon X6700H audio cutting out and changing inputs after upgrade?!!

[olddog]

I feel the same as the unit was 18 days out of warranty. I just remembered I have not tried to replace the HDMI cable yet??

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yep the price of a used X3700H plus a Buckeye AVR amp would be about the same as a New X6800H Denon. Which is about the price I paid for my Denon X6700H 3 years and 5 months ago.

If you get the X6800, I would not get an external amp.

I feel the x6800 has plenty of power on its own.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I feel the same as the unit was 18 days out of warranty. I just remembered I have not tried to replace the HDMI cable yet??

Try everything

 

[TLS Guy]

If you get the X6800, I would not get an external amp.

I feel the x6800 has plenty of power on its own.

You don't know that, as they only spec, one and two channels driven, and the two channel spec per channel is already dropping. I have to say that having power supplies not able to power the connected loads is way less than ideal. Which means you should plan for a good three channel amp to power the front, and two channel amps for the rest. Good design practice would dictate enough power to power all amps at the specified power. That is a design practice I have always adhered to. That is not only for optimal results, but for longevity. Sagging power lines is actually an amp stressor.

I know this is difficult, but optimal practice is an AVP and amps able to deliver rated power under all conditions. I do realize that for most that is a tough hill to climb. In a way this makes the case for better options for two and three channel systems.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You don't know that

In fact I do know that since MILLIONS of people simply use ONLY their $500 - $1,000 AVR in their 7.1 - 9.2 systems since FOREVER.

MILLIONS of people have been using their $500-$1,000 AVRs for the past 50 years.

The Denon X6800 is a $3,700 AVR with more power than most AVRs.

Only you apparently don't know that.

 

[TLS Guy]

In fact I do know that since MILLIONS of people simply use ONLY their $500 - $1,000 AVR in their 7.1 - 9.2 systems since FOREVER.

MILLIONS of people have been using their $500-$1,000 AVRs for the past 50 years.

The Denon X6800 is a $3,700 AVR with more power than most AVRs.

Only you apparently don't know that.

All I can tell you is that it is not optimal design practice and you have no way of really tracking the failure rate. I can tell you is that sagging power lines is not optimal design practice. What you say about the X6800 is true, but still not optimal practice. This is a problem we never had before a ton of channels were added, which is why there are so many vintage two channel receivers are in good working order.

So, as in all things you have to put cost in your design equation. However, not having power sag per channel as you increase power, is optimal design practice which is undeniable. I won't deny that eliminating the problem is very costly and difficult to design into a domestic living situation.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

All I can tell you is that it is not optimal design practice and you have no way of really tracking the failure rate. I can tell you is that sagging power lines is not optimal design practice. What you say about the X6800 is true, but still not optimal practice. This is a problem we never had before a ton of channels were added, which is why there are so many vintage two channel receivers are in good working order.

So, as in all things you have to put cost in your design equation. However, not having power sag per channel as you increase power, is optimal design practice which is undeniable. I won't deny that eliminating the problem is very costly and difficult to design into a domestic living situation.

So your AV7705 and AV7706 AVP's + all your ACD amps were "Optimal" vs AVR?

What's the definition of Optimal?

Just like how the AV10 (2024) engineering has improved over the AV7706 (2020), perhaps the engineering of the X6800H (2024) has also improved over the x6700 (2020).

So perhaps "Optimal" is more about technology/engineering and less about AVP vs AVR.

And if you want to discuss the Audioholics articles about ACD, here it is.

The All Channels Driven (ACD) Amplifier Test

This article explores the All Channels Driven power test popularized by some print magazines and manufacturers. It discusses its relevancy and real world implications.

www.audioholics.com

So the ACD is entirely invalid?
The answer to this question is a qualified "It depends." ACD can be thought of as a conditionally valid test to determine if an amplifier is capable of instantaneously consuming all of the power from the wall outlet. In the best case scenario, it can reveal the absolute capability of the amplifier's power supply. If the amp has a robust power supply then you will simply be testing for line voltage sag on an unregulated line up to the fuse limit of the amplifier.

The problem however (as documented in our previous article: The All Channels Driven Test Controversy) is that many budget products are designed for real world performance and must make trade offs for safety and heat dissipation reasons. As a result, they design their amps to be dynamic, but limit the total output capability of the product with a limiter that activates if more than three channels are driven at full power. The result of driving more than three channels at full power is reduced power delivery to all channels to satisfy the heat dissipation requirements of UL, as well as the manufacturer's requirements for dependability and reliability. Thus, when a publication does the classic ACD test into 5 or 7 channels, the reader can get the wrong impression that the amplifier isn't very capable at delivering power despite the fact it exceeds manufacturers specs with flying colors with only one or two channels driven continuously, and also satisfies the old FTC mandate for rating power into two channels.

So What Have We Learned?

• Most of the ACD power figured in magazines and/or in manufacturers product literature are highly conditional, vary from publication to publication, and are usually not product representative. These ratings are typically taken using the 1kHz Psweep test for 8 ohms at amplifier clipping and almost never done at 4 ohms for all channels.
• The ACD test is NOT representative of normal program material.
• Compromises in budget gear must be incorporated to produce dynamic amps while meeting stringent UL/CSA heat dissipation requirements under continuous loading conditions.
• Despite many manufacturers' boasts to the contrary, most multi-channel amplifiers' ACD power ratings are, at best, a highly conditional rating.
• The ACD test isn't a clear indication of the power capabilities of an amplifier designed for dynamic power delivery as a primary metric.

If ACD Doesn't Matter, Then What Does?

The following metrics can provide a far more insightful view of real world amplifier performance:

• Amplifier Bandwidth Linearity
• Output Impedance
• Amplifier Distortion + Noise at Various Power Levels
• Signal to Noise Ratio
• Channel to Channel Isolation
• Amplifier Stability under reactive load testing
• True continuous undistorted power delivery into one or two channels under various loading conditions
• Amplifier power stability with multiple channels driven at reduced power while the primary one or two channels are driven at full rated power.

 

[TLS Guy]

So your AV7705 and AV7706 AVP's + all your ACD amps were "Optimal" vs AVR?

What's the definition of Optimal?

Just like how the AV10 (2024) engineering has improved over the AV7706 (2020), perhaps the engineering of the X6800H (2024) has also improved over the x6700 (2020).

So perhaps "Optimal" is more about technology/engineering and less about AVP vs AVR.

And if you want to discuss the Audioholics articles about ACD, here it is.

The All Channels Driven (ACD) Amplifier Test

This article explores the All Channels Driven power test popularized by some print magazines and manufacturers. It discusses its relevancy and real world implications.

www.audioholics.com

So the ACD is entirely invalid?
The answer to this question is a qualified "It depends." ACD can be thought of as a conditionally valid test to determine if an amplifier is capable of instantaneously consuming all of the power from the wall outlet. In the best case scenario, it can reveal the absolute capability of the amplifier's power supply. If the amp has a robust power supply then you will simply be testing for line voltage sag on an unregulated line up to the fuse limit of the amplifier.

The problem however (as documented in our previous article: The All Channels Driven Test Controversy) is that many budget products are designed for real world performance and must make trade offs for safety and heat dissipation reasons. As a result, they design their amps to be dynamic, but limit the total output capability of the product with a limiter that activates if more than three channels are driven at full power. The result of driving more than three channels at full power is reduced power delivery to all channels to satisfy the heat dissipation requirements of UL, as well as the manufacturer's requirements for dependability and reliability. Thus, when a publication does the classic ACD test into 5 or 7 channels, the reader can get the wrong impression that the amplifier isn't very capable at delivering power despite the fact it exceeds manufacturers specs with flying colors with only one or two channels driven continuously, and also satisfies the old FTC mandate for rating power into two channels.

So What Have We Learned?

• Most of the ACD power figured in magazines and/or in manufacturers product literature are highly conditional, vary from publication to publication, and are usually not product representative. These ratings are typically taken using the 1kHz Psweep test for 8 ohms at amplifier clipping and almost never done at 4 ohms for all channels.
• The ACD test is NOT representative of normal program material.
• Compromises in budget gear must be incorporated to produce dynamic amps while meeting stringent UL/CSA heat dissipation requirements under continuous loading conditions.
• Despite many manufacturers' boasts to the contrary, most multi-channel amplifiers' ACD power ratings are, at best, a highly conditional rating.
• The ACD test isn't a clear indication of the power capabilities of an amplifier designed for dynamic power delivery as a primary metric.

If ACD Doesn't Matter, Then What Does?

The following metrics can provide a far more insightful view of real world amplifier performance:

• Amplifier Bandwidth Linearity
• Output Impedance
• Amplifier Distortion + Noise at Various Power Levels
• Signal to Noise Ratio
• Channel to Channel Isolation
• Amplifier Stability under reactive load testing
• True continuous undistorted power delivery into one or two channels under various loading conditions
• Amplifier power stability with multiple channels driven at reduced power while the primary one or two channels are driven at full rated power.

I was referring to the amp powering as optimal. All channels are able to pull all the power from the amps should they need to. There is no power sag, as all channels are able to provide their full rated power at all times. Loading any channel or many will not affect the power available to any other. That is what I am referring to as optimal, which it is.

 

[Squishman]

Most audiophiles wouldn't buy a used 10 year old AVR or AVP because DSP technology has changed. Perhaps current DSP technology won't radically change much from here on out. We can hope anyway, that is if our current units can last years into the future. I got my RZ50 28 months ago and a three-channel amp 5 or 6 months ago. I like to think that the amp will add to the lifespan of the Onkyo. I don't know if it's true, but it's not illegal to think it might.