Denon AVR 4308CI owners... A sound quality question.

S

skishop69

Enthusiast
Sorry this is taking so long. I work a lot so getting everything built and in is taking way longer than expected. I have the electronics cabinet built, the new mantel that hides the wires is done, front speakers wired and mounts are up. I just have to run the rear speaker wires and hang them, do the setup and I'm done! Looks like today is the day!
 
L

Leemix

Audioholic Chief
Sounds good, it always takes time thats for sure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Seems like everyone has hit the right points with reset and making sure room correction Is off.

Those Denons have a great sound. Really good amplifier section. They actually sound a lot better for stereo listening than any AVR Denon currently produces.
My 2008 4308 is very neutral, just like my 2017 Denon and 2013 Marantz avp+amps, no better or worse.
 
S

skishop69

Enthusiast
So I got everything set up weekend before last and set the eq to manual (no room eq), tinkered just a bit with the center channel eq just to tone down the 'boxy' sound of the vocals and holy crap! All kinds of happy. I think a little bit of everything that people mentioned above was collective in the original issue. I kept tinkering with it every time I installed things and it kept getting better but the big thing was Audyssey. I guess I'm not as good at manual setups as I thought and it's been a decade or so since I needed to do one. I'll try to post some pics of the install and the pieces I built in another thread. Thanks for all the input guys!
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I picked up one of these a few years ago used from another forum member, and is in my workshop. Great receiver, altho when I tried running Audyssey out there (converted garage) I didn't like the results, I thought they were odd (I've got two other avrs using Audyssey, one XT and one XT32). Just didn't work in that room (I even asked the previous owner if he'd had issues). As always with Audyssey, YMMV. Will look for your diy stuff thread, always interested in seeing what people have done...
 
A

audiophool7878

Junior Audioholic
To answer your earlier question, according to S&V bench test results, the 4308 ci is one of the most powerful AVR ever measured especially into 4 ohms (298 W 2 ch driven cont. 0.1% the), probably among the top 5 iirc. You need a 200 wpc power amp to compete with it.
Sound and vision also measured the 5308 at 279wpc @ 0.1% two channels driven into 4ohms. Are you sure about that rating? That would mean the 4308 measured higher than the flagship from the same year.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Sound and vision also measured the 5308 at 279wpc @ 0.1% two channels driven into 4ohms. Are you sure about that rating? That would mean the 4308 measured higher than the flagship from the same year.
I am glad you ask. I found it hard to believe too at the time so I posted the link to the S&V review a few times before. It's probably two old now S&V no longer shows the measurements. I did save some screen shots though because again, I found it hard to believe. You are going to have hard time finding one that measured with more output. Just for comparison with a couple of power amps, take a look of the graphs below and see that it beats the Yamaha MX A5000 power Amp by a good margin, in both very low output level and at rated output.

In fact, you are going to have hard time finding a real power amp (Emotiva, Parasound Halo, Monolith, NAD, Rotel, Marantz etc.) that had done better on the S&V bench.

The one that came close to its output and THD+N did slightly better at below 1 W was the Marantz MM8003, but not the much newer MM8077.

1608812261306.png



1608811961128.png


Marantz MM8003

1608813212502.png


Here's the screenshot of the measurements page of that S&V review:

See that in the 7 channel test (8 Ohm), it was able to do 83% of its rated output at 0.05% THD. S&V typically used 0.1 and 1% for that test but they lowered it to 0.05%. For them to do that, they must be impressed with that amp's low distortion. I see your point about the 5308 did not do better, as the 5308 obviously has a much larger power supply. My educated guess is that all AVRs amp sections are also limited by the output devices that are typically rated about 15 A, so once you get to the 4308's level, larger power supply won't give you more output for short duration, but only for sustained duration.

1608813319075.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:
A

audiophool7878

Junior Audioholic
I am glad you ask. I found it hard to believe too at the time so I posted the link to the S&V review a few times before. It's probably two old now S&V no longer shows the measurements. I did save some screen shots though because again, I found it hard to believe. You are going to have hard time finding one that measured with more output. Just for comparison with a couple of power amps, take a look of the graphs below and see that it beats the Yamaha MX A5000 power Amp by a good margin, in both very low output level and at rated output.

In fact, you are going to have hard time finding a real power amp (Emotiva, Parasound Halo, Monolith, NAD, Rotel, Marantz etc.) that had done better on the S&V bench.

The one that came close to its output and THD+N did slightly better at below 1 W was the Marantz MM8003, but not the much newer MM8077.

View attachment 42933


View attachment 42930

Marantz MM8003

View attachment 42934

Here's the screenshot of the measurements page of that S&V review:

See that in the 7 channel test (8 Ohm), it was able to do 83% of its rated output at 0.05% THD. S&V typically used 0.1 and 1% for that test but they lowered it to 0.05%. For them to do that, they must be impressed with that amp's low distortion. I see your point about the 5308 did not do better, as the 5308 obviously has a much larger power supply. My educated guess is that all AVRs amp sections are also limited by the output devices that are typically rated about 15 A, so once you get to the 4308's level, larger power supply won't give you more output for short duration, but only for sustained duration.

View attachment 42936
Interesting. I owned a 4308 before the 5308 that I currently own. I believe the 5308 has some better features such as dacs and fancy binding posts for instance so Im still happy I made the upgrade. But it is a shcck to the system to hear the 4308 was more powerful.

As a side note, do you have any idea how many transistors (or output devices) the 5308 has per channel? That stuff isn't listed anywhere, and the transistors are buried so deep in the chassis there is no was to get a good look by popping the top.
 
A

audiophool7878

Junior Audioholic
One more thing Peng if you will indulge me. You seem understand the actual math behind a lot of these stats so I'd love to pick your brain on this.

Denon lists in their manual, the 5308 power specs as follows:
Amplifier Output Details
150 Watt - 8 Ohm - 20 - 20000 Hz - THD 0.05% - 7 channels (surround)
170 Watt - 6 Ohm - at 1 kHz - THD 0.7% - 7 channels (surround)

Audioholics (and S&V) have rated the 5308 as follows:
Denon AVR-5308CI Power output: < 0.1% THD + N

  • 1CH, 8 ohms: 160watts
  • 2CH, 8 ohm, 150wpc
  • 1CH, 4 ohms: 240wpc
  • 2CH, 4 ohm 220wpc
Sound and vision rates the 5308 as follows:
two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 207.0 watts and 1 percent distortion at 235.5 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 279.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 339.2 watts.
So as a layman, at first glance these three sets of data seem logically incoherent. If we are assuming accuracy from people at Audioholics, S&V and Denon, then how can we make sense of these three sources of data?


Denon says 160w @ 6ohm with 0.7% thd 2chd
Audioholics says 220w @ 4ohm with 0.1& thd 2chd
Sound and Vision says 279w @ 4ohm with 0.1%thd 2chd

Why such a variance across the board from these three distinct sources of data? And how can an amp that is capable of outputing at least 220w @ 4ohm with 0.1% thd 2chd, also somehow only put out 160w @ 6ohm with 0.7% thd 2chd? What gives?



One mo
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Interesting. I owned a 4308 before the 5308 that I currently own. I believe the 5308 has some better features such as dacs and fancy binding posts for instance so Im still happy I made the upgrade. But it is a shcck to the system to hear the 4308 was more powerful.

As a side note, do you have any idea how many transistors (or output devices) the 5308 has per channel? That stuff isn't listed anywhere, and the transistors are buried so deep in the chassis there is no was to get a good look by popping the top.
The difference in the power output measurements were so closed that I would say are within the margin of error. You can repeat the tests many times and and depending on the methodology I bet the difference would be statistically meaningless. The 5308 clearly has a larger power supply so it would do better in the 5 and7 channel driven tests. The more powerful ones are the 5805, and Yamaha's RX-Z11. According to my record, the top 10 measured (output into 8/4 ohm, 2/5/7 channel driven..) AVR by S&V were:

Ranking based on 2 channel driven into 4 ohms, 0.1% THD S&V bench tests (that's if I had made no typo, no guarantee):

Onkyo TX-SR805
Integra DTR-8.8
Denon AVR-5805
Yamaha RX-X11
Denon AVR-4308
Pioneer VSX-94THX
Denon AVR-5308
Denon AVR-4810
Integra DTR-9.9
Yamaha RX-A2040

Some of those did not do well pass two channel driven, most likely means nothing other than the overly sensitive protection system. The top 7 did very well in the 7 channel driven tests.

The Denon 5805 and the Yamaha RX-Z11 likely have the best DAC/preamp performance, followed by the 5308
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
One more thing Peng if you will indulge me. You seem understand the actual math behind a lot of these stats so I'd love to pick your brain on this.

Denon lists in their manual, the 5308 power specs as follows:
Amplifier Output Details
150 Watt - 8 Ohm - 20 - 20000 Hz - THD 0.05% - 7 channels (surround)
170 Watt - 6 Ohm - at 1 kHz - THD 0.7% - 7 channels (surround)

Audioholics (and S&V) have rated the 5308 as follows:
Denon AVR-5308CI Power output: < 0.1% THD + N

  • 1CH, 8 ohms: 160watts
  • 2CH, 8 ohm, 150wpc
  • 1CH, 4 ohms: 240wpc
  • 2CH, 4 ohm 220wpc
Sound and vision rates the 5308 as follows:
two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 207.0 watts and 1 percent distortion at 235.5 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 279.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 339.2 watts.
So as a layman, at first glance these three sets of data seem logically incoherent. If we are assuming accuracy from people at Audioholics, S&V and Denon, then how can we make sense of these three sources of data?


Denon says 160w @ 6ohm with 0.7% thd 2chd
Audioholics says 220w @ 4ohm with 0.1& thd 2chd
Sound and Vision says 279w @ 4ohm with 0.1%thd 2chd

Why such a variance across the board from these three distinct sources of data? And how can an amp that is capable of outputing at least 220w @ 4ohm with 0.1% thd 2chd, also somehow only put out 160w @ 6ohm with 0.7% thd 2chd? What gives?



One mo
I can think of a few reasons for such slight variations for the power output measurements but the following should be obvious.

  1. Different bench may use different instrument, S&V and AH both used the AP, but likely different models.
  2. Different methodologies, that could yield slightly different results even if the same standards and similar procedures were used.
  3. Whether the power supply used for the tests were held constant, as Gene noted back then, "...We do NOT hold the line voltage constant like some publications do, as we believe in testing for real world conditions............."
Anything I would like to mention is that different amps (even if the duts are both class AB types) may have very different power output vs THD curve shape, at the "clipping" point, one amp may have a much steeper curve than the other, and one amp may have much lower than 0.1% THD between 1 W and rated output while the other being compared may have comparable rated output at 0.1% but much higher THD at below rated output.

Take a look of the following examples based on soundandvision.com's on two ex-flagship avrs.:

1608910245393.png


1608910277434.png
 
A

audiophool7878

Junior Audioholic
I can think of a few reasons for such slight variations for the power output measurements but the following should be obvious.

  1. Different bench may use different instrument, S&V and AH both used the AP, but likely different models.
  2. Different methodologies, that could yield slightly different results even if the same standards and similar procedures were used.
  3. Whether the power supply used for the tests were held constant, as Gene noted back then, "...We do NOT hold the line voltage constant like some publications do, as we believe in testing for real world conditions............."
Anything I would like to mention is that different amps (even if the duts are both class AB types) may have very different power output vs THD curve shape, at the "clipping" point, one amp may have a much steeper curve than the other, and one amp may have much lower than 0.1% THD between 1 W and rated output while the other being compared may have comparable rated output at 0.1% but much higher THD at below rated output.

Take a look of the following examples based on soundandvision.com's on two ex-flagship avrs.:

View attachment 43030

View attachment 43031
But wait Peng that really doesnt address the discrepencies I cited. First of all, for Denon who has every motivation to rate their amp as highly as possible to record their product as doing 160w into 6ohm at 0.7% thd, and for unbiased reviewers to state that the same amp does 279w at FOUR OHMS with 0.1% thd is not a small or negligable difference. It also makes no sense at all. How can the same amp that can only output 160w at 6ohm with 0.7% thd also output 279w into FOUR OHMS at 0.1% thd? So that same amp is doing 120 more watts into a lower impedance load while registering 700% less thd. None of this makes sense Peng.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
But wait Peng that really doesnt address the discrepencies I cited. First of all, for Denon who has every motivation to rate their amp as highly as possible to record their product as doing 160w into 6ohm at 0.7% thd, and for unbiased reviewers to state that the same amp does 279w at FOUR OHMS with 0.1% thd is not a small or negligable difference. It also makes no sense at all. How can the same amp that can only output 160w at 6ohm with 0.7% thd also output 279w into FOUR OHMS at 0.1% thd? So that same amp is doing 120 more watts into a lower impedance load while registering 700% less thd. None of this makes sense Peng.
It didn't make sense to you because you seem to be mixing/comparing "specs" and "measurements". You can't do that unless the manufacturers had specified the test conditions fully.

Here's Denon's spec for the 5308CI:

Audio section
• Power amplifier
Rated output: Front:
150 W + 150 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz ~ 20 kHz with 0.05 % T.H.D.)
170 W + 170 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

If you look at S&V's graph, at 0.7% THD, the 5308's output would be about 205 W, that's into 8 ohms, so it could be about 220 W into 6 ohms, compared to the specified 170 W.

That's quite typical based on S&V's measurements on other Denon models, that is, their bench measurements always show higher output than specified, by a good margin.

So again, let me emphasized, you can always compare spec between brands/models, or compare measurements between brands/models, but NOT between specs and measurements and between brands/models as it would not be "apples to apples".

Now take a look of the NAD T758 V3:

At 0.1% THD, the graph shows the output into 8 ohms is about 101 W.
The NAD specs say 110 W 8 ohms at rated THD (whatever that means??)

So the NAD's measurements by S&V would show that NAD specified 110 W was optimistic, whereas Denon's (you will find that the same applies to most Yamaha and Marantz' higher range models) specs would seem very conservative in comparison.

I mentioned this because there seem to be some die hard myths that NAD, Arcam, Anthem, the kind of boutique branch (add HK back 10 years ago) published power output specs that tended to be conservative, relative the Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, Sony's etc., when in fact if you look at the bench measurements from S&V, AH, HCC (no longer exist), and now ASR, you will see that the opposite it true. That is, D+M, and Y's are actually much more conservative, so much so that if you compare their specified outputs to bench measurements, they would in fact not make any sense to you.

NAD T758 V3 A/V Receiver Review Test Bench | Sound & Vision (soundandvision.com)

1609002747355.png



I hope this is now clearer to you, why those numbers don't make sense to you.
 
S

Snowpuppy

Audiophyte
Interesting. I owned a 4308 before the 5308 that I currently own. I believe the 5308 has some better features such as dacs and fancy binding posts for instance so Im still happy I made the upgrade. But it is a shcck to the system to hear the 4308 was more powerful.

As a side note, do you have any idea how many transistors (or output devices) the 5308 has per channel? That stuff isn't listed anywhere, and the transistors are buried so deep in the chassis there is no was to get a good look by popping the top.
If you can get your hands on the service manual you can figure that out without taking it apart. The service manual for the AVR-4308 is available online for free, I couldn’t find a free copy of the 5308, but I think you can purchase one for a nominal fee.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
If you can get your hands on the service manual you can figure that out without taking it apart. The service manual for the AVR-4308 is available online for free, I couldn’t find a free copy of the 5308, but I think you can purchase one for a nominal fee.
There's a service manual for the 5308 at hifiengine.com....plus parts lists and schematics....
 

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