Denon AVC-A1H, special request for Gene to review and bench test this new beast!

Would you like to see the new Denon flaghsip AVR reviewed and measured by Gene, Audioholics?


  • Total voters
    46
Baff

Baff

Enthusiast
It is interesting you bring that up. There is no general acceptance of floor speakers. However in listening studies at the university of Sheffield UK, they found that front floor speakers were more important than height or ceiling speakers in creating a realistic sound field. The proviso was that the mic arrangement had to allow for that. In their studies they were using a modified Decca tree arrangement and it had to include modification to pick up floor reflections at the front of the sound field.

Jim's point remains relevant however. Whist all this is very interesting, does it really advance good audio in the home? Jim is probably right, that it has the reverse effect. I think percentage wise, there are now less homes with good audio, than there were back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Part of that is competition for funds, from Internet and computer requirements. You can't escape the fact that 15 speakers and their powering is much more costly than two that was the norm in previous generations.

I belong to the mono era and remember the introduction of stereo. The pundits thought that social resistance going from one speaker to two would be enormous. They were wrong. Stereo spread like wild fire in homes. The audio in the home, quickly become known as the "stereo". Acceptance of any multichannel audio, except sound bars has been at a snails pace compared to going from mono to stereo.
While TV speakers are pretty bad, they are far superior to what they used to be. Also the hassle of running wiring around and finding good places to sit or mount them is a lot of work. If there were reasonably priced wireless speaker sets that worked well, I am sure more people would buy them. I am not convinced that there was ever a significant percentage of people with good tv audio. Decent stereos for music? Sure. Back in the 70s/80s, I barely knew anyone with a tv plugged into their stereo system.

These days, most kids watch video on their phones or laptops. At best they will have some decent headphones.
 
Baff

Baff

Enthusiast
What opposite in that format? Be more specific....
I've said it a bunch of ways, I will try some more.

Bottom speakers=
In-floor speakers
Speakers close to the floor
Speakers below you facing upwards toward you
Speakers that aren't above you or at ear level
Normal speakers, not sub-woofers
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I've said it a bunch of ways, I will try some more.

Bottom speakers=
In-floor speakers
Speakers close to the floor
Speakers below you facing upwards toward you
Speakers that aren't above you or at ear level
Normal speakers, not sub-woofers
Okay, got it :) Not that it makes any sense.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Well most “media rooms” I’ve seen are about 13’ x 15’. So yeah how are people putting 15 speakers in there, much less 26 speakers. :D

My room is 26’ x 22’ x 14’ ceiling and I have 9 speakers in my HT room. :D
 
Baff

Baff

Enthusiast
It is interesting you bring that up. There is no general acceptance of floor speakers. However in listening studies at the university of Sheffield UK, they found that front floor speakers were more important than height or ceiling speakers in creating a realistic sound field. The proviso was that the mic arrangement had to allow for that. In their studies they were using a modified Decca tree arrangement and it had to include modification to pick up floor reflections at the front of the sound field.
Interesting, though not surprising to me since I have seen floor speakers in a few amusement parks used to decent effect.

Jim's point remains relevant however.
I don't see it as being at all relevant to my original post.
Whist all this is very interesting, does it really advance good audio in the home?
I never suggested it was.

Sorry, but the last 20 or so posts in this thread have had almost nothing to do with my original post, other than defining the work "bottom" and the Sheffield study.
 
Last edited:
Baff

Baff

Enthusiast
Well most “media rooms” I’ve seen are about 13’ x 15’. So yeah how are people putting 15 speakers in there, much less 26 speakers. :D

My room is 26’ x 22’ x 14’ ceiling and I have 9 speakers in my HT room. :D
My room is 17' x 16' x 8' and my 13 speakers are pretty distinct.

I really don't think 26 speakers is practical (for several reasons). It certainly would never work in my room. At most, I could get 16 speakers to work in my room (not counting subs). I am simply saying it is about the most speakers that would make any sense in some perfect scenario, which is what I understood the question to be.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
What opposite in that format? Be more specific....
Pretty sure dtsx supports floor speakers. I can try and dig that up. Maybe.
While TV speakers are pretty bad, they are far superior to what they used to be.

Have to disagree. Tv speakers have never been worse!!! Any decent crt or rear projector had much larger/better speakers/cabinets than the tiny little headphone driver placed in modern flat panels. It’s a joke. You’re wrong.

These days, most kids watch video on their phones or laptops. At best they will have some decent headphones.unfortunately this is true.
 
Baff

Baff

Enthusiast
Pretty sure dtsx supports floor speakers. I can try and dig that up. Maybe.
Please do. I haven't looked close at the specs in a few years.
Have to disagree. Tv speakers have never been worse!!! Any decent crt or rear projector had much larger/better speakers/cabinets than the tiny little headphone driver placed in modern flat panels. It’s a joke. You’re wrong.
Heh, I could certainly be wrong about that. It has been 15 years since I last heard them. I really don't listen to new tv speakers either.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I just completed my Marantz Amp 10 bench test and its chock full of stuff you won't find anywhere else. It's under peer and I hope to have it posted by early next week with a Youtube video to follow.
 
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
I don't mean that kind of bottom. I mean speakers supplying sound from below. Yes, I understand that is pointless with the 2.5 dimensional sound that exists now. My post is about theoretical, rather than practical though. I don't ever expect to have or need 26 speakers. Outside of an amusement park or a lab, I would be surprised if any such thing ever exists.


I don't disagree with that. "Lucky" for me too that my wife is also understanding. With a little less luck, I would have a lot more money in the bank.
That would be a "Bass Shaker" or "Tactile Transducer" - a type of speaker which is fitted to your couch, and provide the vibration via the furniture.... the sound from the bottom ;)
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I just completed my Marantz Amp 10 bench test and its chock full of stuff you won't find anywhere else. It's under peer and I hope to have it posted by early next week with a Youtube video to follow.
Thank you Gene, it must have taken a lot of time to test such an amp. Is Matthew still going to review/measure the Denon A1H, or Denon wouldn't send one to AH? I guess it would be understandable if Masimo didn't want to send out $20K worth of gear (for all 3 pieces) for you to bench test.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
It is interesting you bring that up. There is no general acceptance of floor speakers. However in listening studies at the university of Sheffield UK, they found that front floor speakers were more important than height or ceiling speakers in creating a realistic sound field. The proviso was that the mic arrangement had to allow for that. In their studies they were using a modified Decca tree arrangement and it had to include modification to pick up floor reflections at the front of the sound field.

Jim's point remains relevant however. Whist all this is very interesting, does it really advance good audio in the home? Jim is probably right, that it has the reverse effect. I think percentage wise, there are now less homes with good audio, than there were back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Part of that is competition for funds, from Internet and computer requirements. You can't escape the fact that 15 speakers and their powering is much more costly than two that was the norm in previous generations.

I belong to the mono era and remember the introduction of stereo. The pundits thought that social resistance going from one speaker to two would be enormous. They were wrong. Stereo spread like wild fire in homes. The audio in the home, quickly become known as the "stereo". Acceptance of any multichannel audio, except sound bars has been at a snails pace compared to going from mono to stereo.
What many people tend to discount about stage-forward stereo now is, that many of us learned how, what and where to implement in which to hear what studio techs intended, from the studio techs themselves. It's definitely how I got hooked on near field, 2-channel listening. I've certainly had enough opportunity, influence and exposure in which to change it up, but never have been missing anything from what I use in which to improve upon the methods.

What has improved the most for me is, speakers are better and more predictable now. After nearly 50 years of mastering 2-channel, the biggest mysteries about speakers have been resolved with measurements. But up until then, the uncomplicated nature of 2-channel with getting the most out of the least, ended up teaching us the most about rooms, bass, EQ, headroom, and scale with regard to 'life-sized' sound.

Granted, music is the main focus of my system, which tends to disclude me from much of the concerns or benefits (or opinions) of complete surround sound. OTOH, I don't understand the benefit of hearing something over my shoulder or behind me without being able to look back and see it. In other words, there should also be surround video as well. Otherwise, a pair of speakers with a good center image and the ability to realistically and seamlessly pan sound from one side to the other tends to be adequate with a single forward screen and still comes across as 3D.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Marantz is sending me the AV10 and AMP10 next week so I will be bench testing those. I may request an A1H sent to Matthew Poes which he can bench test for us and also test out the bass routing stuff they offer. Anthem wants us to bench test the AVM90. So many products, so little time. I wish I had someone local that could do this for me with my AP.
Hey Gene, I understood Anthem wanted you to bench test the AVM 90 but obvious you have too little time to cover all ground. Just heads up, your friend on on ASR has just done it for you:D:D:

(1) Anthem AVM90 AV Processor Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

Obviously for the great results (about the same as the AV10 in most tests), he put it on his recommended list.

It looks like a tough choice between the though, but AV10 has Dirac Live and Audyssey, costs more with the licenses, but imo it is worth it. ARC Genesis is okay but, can't wait to see your review complete with measurements (REW plots), are you still planning on doing a full review on ARC G soon?
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top