Denon AVR-2807: Personal Observations

[kaiser_soze]

With each detent of the AVR-2807’s volume control knob while it is turned slowly, the volume changes in discrete steps of ½ dB, for a gain or reduction of 12 dB per each full rotation. If you turn it faster, the effect is accelerated, but I didn’t like having to turn it fast in order to get an appreciable change in the volume, and I didn’t like the way that it effectively stops when you cease turning it fast enough. I also did not like the slick feel of the knob, which was due to the very fine, closely spaced grooves running around the cylindrical surface. On the remote control, if you press and immediately release the volume button, the volume changes by ½ dB. In order for that press-and-release technique to be possible, it is necessary for there to be a brief pause before the volume is changed rapidly when you hold the button down. As the magnitude of the desired change becomes shorter, the pause makes up an increasingly greater percentage of the total time that you have to hold the button down. The only way that I could make small, precise changes in volume was using a succession of press-and-release actions, inserting a brief pause of my own between each successive press-and-release action.

The volume setting is numerically displayed on the front panel, but the reason that the knob itself is not marked is that the volume control is electronic and there is no fixed correlation between the position of the knob and the volume setting. From my seated position across the room and with the receiver slightly higher than eye level, the numerical display wasn’t legible, because the lower opaque part of the cover, where all the proprietary technology logos are displayed, covered up the lower part of the display where the changing volume level is shown. As such, I would have appreciated an analog graphic display of volume on the TV screen, but volume changes are not displayed on screen except for when S-video or composite video is used for the source.

In lieu of a servomotor-driven volume control, the thing that Denon uses interrupts a processor at each detent, and the processor must then adjust the volume up or down by a discrete amount. There is an inherent conflict between the need to effect a small precise change in volume and the need to a make a larger coarse change in volume. The awkward behaviors of the volume control knob and the remote control buttons, as well as the inability of the knob to reveal the volume setting, are the result of the decision to avoid the cost of a conventional analog volume control and analog circuitry.

The AVR-2807 can’t superimpose graphics over component video or HDMI video that is passed through. In the case of component video, when the setup menu is entered or when the on-screen display button is pressed, the video input is automatically switched to the S-video or composite video input from the same source in order to avoid a black screen behind the graphics. In the case of HDMI, the graphics appear over a black background unless you enable analog-to-HDMI conversion, in which case the analog video input remains the source until you go into the setup menu and deselect analog-to-HDMI conversion.

Way back when, it was normal to use a rotary switch for input source selection. Invariably, the knob had a mark on it, and the position for each source was clearly marked on the panel. Denon isn’t the only manufacturer using a rotary electronic switch for function selection, yet the Yamaha receivers that I’ve seen that do that, display the names of the various sources in a long row across the front panel display, giving you a visual indication of how far you have to turn the knob to select the source that you want. The Denon receiver simply displays the name of the source currently selected. I also don’t understand why they don’t give you the ability to remove an unused input from the list that you scroll through when you turn the function knob.

The automatic setup determines whether you have a subwoofer, and in the case where there is a subwoofer, whether the main speakers should be treated as “Large” speakers, in which case they will not be subjected to high-pass filtering. If you do it manually, if you set subwoofer to “No”, you cannot set the main speakers to “Small”, which is how it should be. If subwoofer is set to “Yes”, an additional subwoofer mode setting is enabled, which controls how the subwoofer output signal is derived. If you select “LFE+Main”, the bass from the main channels is added to the subwoofer even though that bass is not filtered out of the main speakers when they are set to “Large”. The instructions for setting the crossover frequencies state that if the main speakers are set to “Large”, the crossover frequency for them cannot be set or adjusted unless the subwoofer mode is set to “LFE+Main”. That makes sense, but the crossover setting for the main speakers should have been disabled given only that the subwoofer was set to “No”, which renders the subwoofer mode setting irrelevant. “LFE+Main” was evidently the default setting for the subwoofer mode, and in order to change it in the effort to disable the inconsistent crossover setting, it was necessary to first set subwoofer to “Yes”, then change the mode setting from “LFE+Main” to “LFE”, and then set subwoofer back to “No”.

Even more confusing is the fact that the manual says “The crossover frequency mode is valid only when subwoofer is set to ‘ON’ and when one or more speakers are set to ‘Small’”. This is clearly incorrect, i.e., if subwoofer is set to “No”, the main speakers will be set to “Large”, and the crossover frequency setting is meaningful and enabled for other speakers set to “Small”. Even more confusing is the fact that there is a crossover frequency setting enabled for the LFE channel even though the crossover frequencies for all the other channels are set independently. This setting is different from the one that allows you to apply a common crossover frequency to all speakers for which a crossover frequency is meaningful, which is useful in the case of a sub/sat system where all the speakers except for the subwoofer are identical. The manual says nothing at all about the separate LFE crossover frequency.

The change in sound quality that I was able to discern using the Audyssey automatic equalization was similar to turning up the treble and turning down the bass. My vintage sealed-cabinet speakers have useful extension down to 25 Hz, and because of the gradual, smooth slope to the roll-off, the bass response can be made reasonably flat down to 30 Hz with just a smidgen of help from a good old-fashioned tone control. The closest thing to conventional tone controls is the bass and treble controls that are implemented digitally in the surround modes processor, which is by-passed when the multi-channel analog inputs are selected, which means that the tone controls aren’t available if you listen to SACD. There is no natural affinity between tone controls and surround modes processing. According to the on-screen display and the manual, these controls give you +/- 6 dB of control, but there was no mention of the frequency at which that amount of change occurs. Subjectively, I would judge the maximum effect of the AVR-2807’s bass and treble controls at less than half of the effect of conventional tone controls, and inadequate to compensate for the overt effects of Audyssey room equalization.

The on-screen graphical depictions of the equalization settings shows the compensation at 63 Hz, 125 Hz, and doubling until reaching 16 kHz, for nine bands in total. When you perform the equalization manually, you can choose to begin by copying the automatic compensation settings. I did that and then tried increasing the compensation at 63 Hz, but the only way that I was able to produce an increase in bass in the lowest octave was by reducing the level uniformly for each of the nine available bands. That fixed the bass in the lowest octave, but it reduced the volume level from the main speakers relative to the other speakers, so I had to go into the speaker setup menu and increase the level for the main speakers, which messed up the speaker level balance for the “Audyssey” and “Flat” modes. Even with the bass in the lowest octave now corrected, it still didn’t sound as good as with the equalizer turned off, so I moderated all of the settings and turned the higher frequencies down a little. After a few hours of casual listening, I turned off the equalization, and the quality of the sound improved noticeably, albeit subjectively so. I felt that further improvement would come with some more effort, but I was questioning whether in the end it would be significantly different from what could be achieved more easily using conventional bass and treble tone controls. I also questioned whether altering the direct response of the speaker in order to flatten the room response was even a good idea. Not that a flat room response isn’t desirable, but that it might be undesirable if it is accomplished at the expense of a flat direct response, as opposed to extensive room treatment.

 

[Audioholics]

I changed the title of this thread because at first I thought you were trying to sell a "cheap" Denon receiver.

I don't agree with all of your statements (I actually like the way the digitally-controlled analogue volume system works and the bass management system is among the most comprehensive out there, even if it does take some thinking to work your way through all of the settings) but I REALLY appreciate anyone who takes the time to delve so thoroughly into a product to give their opinions.

Audyssey can yield mixed results as we're finding out and I would not expect to do any bass equalization using that system - it simply doesn't support it.

Your feedback on the input selection is a great suggestion (removing unused inputs).

In my opinion, your video processing suggestions would simply result in a more expensive product - at which point Denon would simply have too many models and the existing AVR-3806 would solve your issues.

Good stuff... as of right now I don't think anyone in the industry offers the level customization and configurability of Denon in each price point (entry level through flagship.)

 

[kaiser_soze]

Clint,

Thanks for changing the title appropriately. Different opinions are necessary in order to give consumers a balanced perspective. The reason that I wrote the review is that I felt that the information on Denon that was readily accessible to me, did not tell the whole story. Individual manufacturers can be differentiated by where they choose to balance the conflicting engineering objectives of cost containment and value. Being more familiar with Yamaha and after experiencing the Denon, I could not avoid the feeling that Denon’s philosophy tilts too far to the side of cost containment. Tone controls are implemented digitally in the surround processing, and the volume control gives every indication that it as well is implemented digitally. Not that I have anything against digital processing of audio, which I do not, but from a usability perspective, I just don’t feel that these things ought to be implemented this way.

I expect that many people, like you, are comfortable with the volume control working as it does, and it is good for people who feel that way to point that out. But I couldn’t help thinking that many people, like me, would find that behavior inexplicable, yet in the various commercial reviews of Denon receivers that I had browsed, nothing that I had read gave any hint of that peculiar behavior. With my Yamaha receiver, which uses a servomotor-driven volume control, the change in the volume is simply proportional to how long I hold down the button, and depends only on how far I turn the knob, not on how quickly I turn it. It is precise and immediate, with no dual-stage behavior and no perceptible hysteresis effect. Since it is not lacking in any way, it is difficult for me to understand why anyone would intentionally introduce dual-stage behavior and hysteresis effect into the volume control. To me, it defies common sense, and the only way that I was able to make any sense of it was to understand it from the perspective of cost management.

The errors in the implementation of the user configuration interface for setting the crossover frequencies were genuine as I described them, and the same goes for the erroneous and confusing statement in the user manual. The underlying behavior seemed correct, but those errors still point to sloppy workmanship, which I don’t think should be tolerated in a product of this sort which costs $1100. Also, it is not acceptable to me that the equalization not be effective in the lowest octave. The only explanation I have for that is that Audyssey assumed that the vast majority of users will use a subwoofer and to heck with the people who don’t. Given that oversight, the only workaround was to reduce the level at all the available frequencies, which required that the level be adjusted to restore the balance across the various speakers, and that of course messed up the speaker balance for the automated Audyssey and Flat modes.

I haven’t had an opportunity to experiment with similarly-priced new gear from the likes of Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer and Harman, so I can’t speak knowledgeably on whether it is true that the bass management that they offer is not the equal of that offered by Denon. But you expressed an opinion to that effect, so I think that it is fair to ask you to provide a comparison, pointing out exactly how they differ. I’m not asking this just for the sake of the argument; I’m sincerely interested in understanding this better because I still want to find another receiver. To my way of thinking, the Denon did not do anything exceptional in the way of bass management, and in fact, it fell short of my expectations. To wit, there was nothing in the user manual that suggested or hinted that the LFE channel coming in to the receiver, either in the analog multi-channel input or the digital multiplexes, would be mixed with the main “Large” speakers in the absence of a subwoofer. I recently read an article on bass management in one of the popular magazines, which said that they had tested a variety of receivers and verified that they generally did not mix the LFE signal into the main channels in the absence of a subwoofer. Had I not read that, I would naively have assumed that the Denon did that and that the manual just failed to mention it. The only way that anyone could be confident that it does that is through careful experimentation. To my way of thinking, that is the acid test of bass management. Without that, you have independent user-settable crossover frequencies for each speaker that is set to "Small", with the bass filtered from those input channels being applied to the subwoofer output if there is a subwoofer, or to the main channels if there is not one. There is additionally the ability to enhance the subwoofer output by combining the bass from the main channels without filtering out of the main channels, but that is not a capability that I would take advantage of even if I had a subwoofer. In the absence of a subwoofer, I would find it useful for the LFE input signal to be mixed with the main, large stereo speakers. In fact, unless that specific adaptation can be performed in the source component, I regard that as essential. My DVD player does that for the discrete analog outputs at least, but I am uncertain whether the speaker configuration defined at the DVD player will influence the digital outputs of the player, and I know that this capability does not exist in my HD cable tuner. So it seems that this is the essential shortcoming in the bass management capability of most A/V receivers, and I do not have any information that suggests that the Denon does not share that shortcoming.