Denon 2200 better than 2900 for audio

[Bevan]

hi, i'm hoping for anyones opinions on these players cd and sacd performance.

i just bought the 2900 as an upgrade over my 2200, but now i'm concidering selling the 2900 and keeping the 2200.

doing an a/b test with each player similtaniously playing the same album, the 2200 seems more open and detailed. but this could also be bright and tipped up in the trebel. the problem is that i dont know which is actually more acurate(i've not heard any other players on my system)

any opinions on which i should keep would be appreciated.(i know, i should just go on personal preference)

cheers

b

 

[Buckle-meister]

If you're using a digital connection, there'll be absolutely no difference in sound quality.

 

[tbewick]

You should get the one you prefer, but doing such a comparison isn't a particularly reliable way of finding out which performs better. In terms of measuring their accuracy quantitatively, this would be quite difficult to do. Most DAC's nowadays are at least 18-bit accurate, and assuming they are integrated in a well-designed system (power supply, master clock, jitter-reduction, etc.), most should give excellent performance.

 

[Bevan]

thanks.

i'm using analogue connections so i have to live with the differences.

what i'm worried about is choosing according to my personal preferences, only to find that some months down the line what now appears to be open and detailed is actually a bit fatiguing. thats why i'm wondering which player is in fact more "acurate". maybe i need to listen to more live music to answer that one.

cheers

b

 

[Dan Driscoll]

thanks.

i'm using analogue connections so i have to live with the differences.

what i'm worried about is choosing according to my personal preferences, only to find that some months down the line what now appears to be open and detailed is actually a bit fatiguing. thats why i'm wondering which player is in fact more "acurate". maybe i need to listen to more live music to answer that one.

cheers

b

Everybody's hearing is different, but I'd vote for the 2200 eventually becoming fatiguing. You should have some extended listening sessions with the 2200 to find out for sure.

The audio section of the 2900 is much better than that of the 2200. In fact, the audio section is really the only difference between them, they have the same video section.

 

[Duffinator]

i just bought the 2900 as an upgrade over my 2200, but now i'm concidering selling the 2900 and keeping the 2200.

Why did you upgrade in the first place? Was there something you didn't like about the 2200? Or just because you thought you would get better audio and video performance out of the 2900? Are you able to use the digital connections from both players to your receiver or just analog? While the 2900 is considered to be a better player I doubt there is a huge difference between the two. Maybe get your money back on the 2900 and buy some more CD's and DVD's to enjoy.

 

[j_garcia]

I upgraded from the 2200 to the 2900 also and I'm not sure what you are hearing, but the 2900 is a much better audio player than the 2200. The one big difference between the two is that the 2200 has one bass management feature, the +10dB offset, that the 2900 lacks and that actually makes a fairly big difference between the two due to the calibration levels. In terms of sound quality though, the 2900 is superior via analog. To me, it was more obvious with redbook than SACD and DVD-A, but I don't use it for redbook (just wanted to compare), though it ISN'T a night an day difference. I'm with Dan on this one, the video is almost identical, which was kind of disappointing, because I expected the difference to be noticable. IMO, most people who bought the 2900 probably would have been happy with the 2200 and the $400 (MSRP) price difference when new was not entirely justified.

 

[Bevan]

thanks for the input.

Duffinator, i got a pure analogue multichannnel setup. i upgraded cause i saw a 2900 for sale, used, for only $100 more than what i can get for my 2200. so i took a chance expecting slightly improved redbook and high-res.

the picture quality and bass management are not issues for me, but i goto carry this one half way around the world so the smaller player scores a few foints there.

i feel tempted to err on the side of caution and go for the less bright player, the 2900. though vocals do seem a bit more closed-in which i dont really like.

at the back of my mind is the thought that maybe i got sold a slightly defective player. this possible? could someone damage the laser or any other part of the player that might account for 2900's lack of 'openness' and perceived detail?

thanks

b

 

[Duffinator]

thanks for the input.

Duffinator, i got a pure analogue multichannnel setup. i upgraded cause i saw a 2900 for sale, used, for only $100 more than what i can get for my 2200. so i took a chance expecting slightly improved redbook and high-res.

What equipment are you using? Is it DD and DTS capable?

 

[j_garcia]

Same here, I sold my 2200 for a decent price and paid around $100 more to get a used 2900. The +10dB offset is a very important feature for hires, and is basically my one and only complaint about the 2900.

It is possibe there is something wrong with the 2900 because you never know what you're going to get with a used player. I'd be sure to check all the settings in the player's setup menus or try to reset the player to factory defaults. The player I picked up looked terrible on my screen at first and I thought the same as you, until I started looking at the config and found a large number of settings that were what I consider to be incorrect. Once I adjusted them (many back to the factory default) I was more impressed with this player. That's for video though, there aren't too many settings for audio that might cause what you are hearing. Pretty much the only things you can set, IIRC, are speaker size and levels - there's no EQ or bass/treble adjustment.

 

[tbewick]

I really can't believe there would be that much difference between CD audio performance of the two players. I'd be surprised if one player was defective. If it were, it would probably click and stutter when playing discs.

It also confuses me the point about using analogue connections. Why don't you use a Toslink connector?

The whole point of digital audio is that it is meant to be entirely transparent. However complicated the distortions that occur on playback, on good quality equipment, they would only have the result of increasing the noise level. Considering that in the best playback system you'd probably only get 85 dB of possible dynamic range, I'd doubt whether a slight increase in background noise would be very noticeable. Other types of distortion - like monotonicity, distortion affecting harmonics - I doubt exist in any CD player nowadays.

 

[j_garcia]

Different DACs are used in each player, and that alone will impart a slight difference in sound. The 2200 uses a standard Burr-Brown DAC, while the 2900 has one that was specifically designed for that player. The construction of the 2900 is improved over the 2200, isolating the audio and video sections, sheilding them from each other; presumably to reduce system noise.

You cannot use a digital connection for hires audio with either of these players.

 

[tbewick]

Using different DAC's will result in different performances technically, but I very much doubt that there will be much audible difference. Such subjective nonsense when comparing things like CD players or amplifiers really is very unreliable.

When talking about noise level, I am referring to quantisation noise, noise due to jitter, etc. which will all be extremely low compared to the signal noise. True, the 2900 probably is designed better/uses better components, but the system noise on audio CD over a Toslink/digital electrical cable will be extremely low (I'd bet greater than 90 dB) on either player. Many recordings will have signal-to-noise ratios much worse than that. I've never heard a CD recording that even has such a large dynamic range to exploit the high S/N available.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

It also confuses me the point about using analogue connections. Why don't you use a Toslink connector?

SACD and DVD-Audio can only be passed over analog connections. CD audio can be passed over the digital connection, but there's a good chance that the audio DACs and op-amps in the 2900 are better than what eh has in his receiver.

The whole point of digital audio is that it is meant to be entirely transparent. However complicated the distortions that occur on playback, on good quality equipment, they would only have the result of increasing the noise level. Considering that in the best playback system you'd probably only get 85 dB of possible dynamic range, I'd doubt whether a slight increase in background noise would be very noticeable. Other types of distortion - like monotonicity, distortion affecting harmonics - I doubt exist in any CD player nowadays.

You're thinking Dolby Digital and DTS, which are lossy, compressed formats. High resolution audio, such as SACD and DVD-Audio, are completely different formats, with much greater dynamic range and frequency response.

 

[j_garcia]

We aren't talking about digital though. When using a digital connection, the player's DACs aren't being used, so the differences should be minimal - because the receiver's DACs are being used in both cases, removing that possible difference from the equation.

I've owned both of these players and I'm just telling you what I actually heard. Have you listened to either or both?

 

[Dan Driscoll]

Using different DAC's will result in different performances technically, but I very much doubt that there will be much audible difference. Such subjective nonsense when comparing things like CD players or amplifiers really is very unreliable.

I'm something of a skeptic myslef. I don't buy into what I consider the 'cable myth', I don't use a green pen on the edges of my CD's and I think a lot of what passes for "High End" equipment is really nothing more than "High Cost".

OTOH, personal experience has proven to me that when using the analog outputs there is an audible difference between various digital players, receivers/processors and yes, even solid state amplifiers. Even more importantly, how these components work with each other can have a very audible effect on what comes out of the speakers.

When talking about noise level, I am referring to quantisation noise, noise due to jitter, etc. which will all be extremely low compared to the signal noise. True, the 2900 probably is designed better/uses better components, but the system noise on audio CD over a Toslink/digital electrical cable will be extremely low (I'd bet greater than 90 dB) on either player. Many recordings will have signal-to-noise ratios much worse than that. I've never heard a CD recording that even has such a large dynamic range to exploit the high S/N available.

The OP asked about CD and SACD playback. Neither the 2200 or the 2900 have ever been considered more than decent as CD players, their strong suits are as high resolution players for SACD and DVD-Audio. Your points simply don't apply WRT to high resolultion audio, if for no other reason than the fact the digital transmission isn't possible for most high rez players, including the 2200 and 2900.

 

[MACCA350]

Not sure if you guys are aware of this, but the 2200 was built after the 2900. It was made to give people the guts of the 2900 in a smaller cheaper chassis.
With the difference in the audio, if you look at the DAC's used:

2900-> Burr-Brown 24-bit, 192-kHz DSD-1790

2200-> Burr-Brown 24-bit, 192-kHz DSD-1791

The 2200 uses the next model DAC up from the 2900, and going by Texas Instruments inventory the higher the number the better the DAC(I found the tech specs on the 1791 but not the 1790(since these were only contracted to Denon, you'd have to get them off Denon), so I cant compare the two directly)

Either way the differences will be minute and probably inaudible if you take into account the tolerance of speakers.

cheers

 

[Buckle-meister]

SACD and DVD-Audio can only be passed over analog connections.

SACD and DVD-A can be passed digitally over an i-link or equivalent cable as long as both the player and receiver support this type of connection.

 

[ZoFo]

Where did you find a 2900???

I spent a couple of weeks looking all over the net & local BM shops for this player new, used or refurbished and could not locate it!

I finally gave up and tried the 2910 but was not overly impressed and then found out that the Pioneer Elite DV-59AVi can be found online for the same price so I retured the 2910 and should get the 59AVi on Friday, for $30 less than the 2910.

The 59AVi has a firewire connection that I will not use because I have an Outlaw 990 Pre/Pro and it does not support it, in fact I think only the Pioneer Elite AVR's have firewire. Too bad this technology did not take off, here it was Hollywood that killed it because of the bandwith and the fact that they could not copy protect over firewire.

 

[j_garcia]

SACD and DVD-A can be passed digitally over an i-link or equivalent cable as long as both the player and receiver support this type of connection.

That's correct, but I think he was getting at the fact that these two players do not support digital feeds for hires audio. The 2910 and 3910 do.

Not sure if you guys are aware of this, but the 2200 was built after the 2900. It was made to give people the guts of the 2900 in a smaller cheaper chassis.

It was a more recent model than the 2900, but it was also a lower model of the same generation. It does not have the guts of the 2900, and the chassis is definitely not as well built - the 2200 is almost half the size and weight of the 2900. I've OWNED both at the same time, I'm telling you the differences from first hand experience.

The 2200 uses the next model DAC up from the 2900, and going by Texas Instruments inventory the higher the number the better the DAC(I found the tech specs on the 1791 but not the 1790(since these were only contracted to Denon, you'd have to get them off Denon), so I cant compare the two directly)

That's a pretty big assumption and an incorrect one.