
Adam
Audioholic Jedi
My hat's off to you.It took 2-1/2 hours to post this but the spelling is impeccable.![]()
Too bad that they don't carry Denon receivers.AH will price match 6th Ave.![]()
My hat's off to you.It took 2-1/2 hours to post this but the spelling is impeccable.![]()
Too bad that they don't carry Denon receivers.AH will price match 6th Ave.![]()
That could be a problem.Too bad that they don't carry Denon receivers.![]()
Just for the price I was considering EE - 6ave had a 25% off coupon but it expired before he could get on it, and we didn't think of price matching with 6ave - that is definitely worth a shot.Would you recommend 6ave over Electronics Expo? You mentioned that your dad was considering getting the 4310 from EE, right?
I can understand. I was moving from the Rotel, which had no room correction/E.Q. of any kind, and I had one HDMI connection wired through my ceiling to my projector with 4 HDMI devices, so I really needed the switching capability, and the Monoprice switch just wasn't cutting it. It was an easier decision for me for sure.I'm seriously conflicted on buying the 4310. As much as I'm enticed by the idea of connecting with HDMI, I'm not convinced that it's going to sound any better than my Pioneer.
Another excellent point.Order the 4310 before it is no longer on sale![]()
.
Don't exaggerate now, you know it will only be about $7 cheaper.Another excellent point.Anyone else want a 4310? Wait until I order it, and then Amazon will have them for about $1.50.
BTW, can anyone really be overly analytical?![]()
Heehee! I got a big chuckle out of that.Don't exaggerate now, you know it will only be about $7 cheaper.
Woah. Other engineers are telling you that? Yeah, that's trouble right there.IDK, my engineer wife and my engineer dad both say I am an over-analytical bastard, so I assumed it was possible.![]()
Are you suggesting that your ears are accustomed to the imperfections of your current gear or are you suggesting that the 4310 is designed to a substandard level of audio transparency. Or is it that you fear audio transparency? What would make you think the 4310 would sound worse?Part of my hesitation is the thought that maybe my system will sound worse to me with a new receiver. After all, I like how it sounds now.
Just stare at the Denon AVP for a little bit, and the 4310 will seem normal again.I have to admit - I like my receivers to have a little junk in the trunk. I don't know if the 4310 has too much for me, though.
![]()
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there, Dave. The auto room correction and EQ systems in modern receivers are designed to do the opposite. While perhaps all modern receivers could sound the same with all processing/EQ shut off, my decision on which one to buy is driven in part by that processing and EQ. I know that I like MCACC, and while I expect to like Audyssey, I've read some posts here where people preferred to have it turned off (I think that it had to do with dialogue).Electronics play a relatively minor role in audio reproduction and even then, only if it is not functioning properly or not well designed in the first place. Electronics should be transparent and not impart their own sonic signature into the output sound.
Oh, I stared at that for a bit this past weekend.Just stare at the Denon AVP for a little bit, and the 4310 will seem normal again.![]()
With all the available parameters to tweak, like distance, individual channel eq and other options, I would be very surprised if you couldn't find some combination of settings to make any good quality receiver the perfect receiver for you.I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there, Dave. The auto room correction and EQ systems in modern receivers are designed to do the opposite. While perhaps all modern receivers could sound the same with all processing/EQ shut off, my decision on which one to buy is driven in part by that processing and EQ. I know that I like MCACC, and while I expect to like Audyssey, I've read some posts here where people preferred to have it turned off (I think that it had to do with dialogue).
Hey Adam. I had a problem with my dad's Audyssey AVR-1909 (he didn't have that long before he upgraded to 3808) calibration when I first ran it. He has a really awful room shape, and I found Audyssey's 6 measurement point locations to be really finicky. The first few times, the dialogue was muffled and pretty terrible in general. I had to run it 4 times before it sounded good to me, (and much better than his 3803 with no room correction). I was actually one of the ones in a thread recommending turning it off until I got it dialed in.I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there, Dave. The auto room correction and EQ systems in modern receivers are designed to do the opposite. While perhaps all modern receivers could sound the same with all processing/EQ shut off, my decision on which one to buy is driven in part by that processing and EQ. I know that I like MCACC, and while I expect to like Audyssey, I've read some posts here where people preferred to have it turned off (I think that it had to do with dialogue).
Oh, I stared at that for a bit this past weekend.Just too pricey for me.
Who's we? Have you got a mouse in your pocket?... until we get you on an amp.
I like Advanced MCACC on my SC-07 much better than the Audyssey MultiEQ that was on my Marantz SR-8001. But I also like to watch golf, so ymmv.I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there, Dave. The auto room correction and EQ systems in modern receivers are designed to do the opposite. While perhaps all modern receivers could sound the same with all processing/EQ shut off, my decision on which one to buy is driven in part by that processing and EQ. I know that I like MCACC, and while I expect to like Audyssey, I've read some posts here where people preferred to have it turned off (I think that it had to do with dialogue).
Oh, I stared at that for a bit this past weekend.Just too pricey for me.