Denon vs. Pioneer

[Dorfineer]

Ok, this one is probably more of a preference question than anything, but anyone have any good input on which of these two receivers is a better buy?

Denon AVR-590
Pioneer VSX-919AH-K

I'm leaning towards the Denon because it's what I've bought before, and I know what I'm getting (it's also a little bit cheaper!).

The Pioneer seems comparable, almost a hair nicer, but I've never owned a Pioneer and can't speak to it's quality.

Facts? Opinions? Alternatives?

 

[Seth=L]

Both receivers have 3 HDMI ports as well as two optical and one coaxial digital input. Both receivers support the latest audio codecs over HDMI. I would wager that power output will be quite similar as they use the same topology (class A/B) and are in the same weight and power consumption class.

The similarities pretty much stop there.

The Pioneer has more overall inputs for analog sources as well as a couple more video inputs as well. Out of the box the Denon is only 5.1 capable, but it has preouts to support surround back so you can connect it to a stereo amplifier to get 7.1 surround sound where as the Pioneer is 7.1 and doesn't require an additional amplifier. The Pioneer VSX-919 one ups the Denon's ability to transcribe all video inputs to HDMI by also performing some video processing (but it's highly likely that the display that it's connected to can scale better than this receiver). The Pioneer is ready to connect and interface with any iPod or iPhone available today, unlike most receivers that require you by an accessory which usually costs more than $50 to allow the receiver to interface with an iPod. The Graphic User Interface on the Pioneer is quite intuitive and works well with the iPod as well. The Pioneer also has Zone 2 capability.

A more directly comparable model (similar in almost every way) would be the Pioneer VSX-819 receiver. The VSX-819, like the VSX-919, will interface with an iPod out of the box with a GUI and has Zone 2 capability.

If none of those features above that the Pioneer has that the Denon doesn't are necessary or even wanted I'd say the Denon is a fine choice, but if you want the biggest bang for buck and future expandability I'd choose Pioneer.

 

[Seth=L]

I did miss one detail, the Denon AVR-590 has an Audyssey MultEQ room acoustic measurement and correction system, which is arguably a better auto calibration system then Pioneer's proprietary MCACC auto calibration system.

 

[Dorfineer]

Thanks! I had a feeling the 819 was probably closer, but I was looking more at price, which isn't always an apples to apples comparison. I like the Pioneer, but a lot of the functions that it has I don't use (I don't have an Ipod mostly).

That said, here's another question to bounce off you:

Denon AVR 590 vs. AVR 1610

Other than the obvious A/B zones that the 1610 has over the 590, is there any appreciable difference? I don't need multi-zones as my house is tiny, and I'm set on a 5.1 setup because I feel like it's the most affordable and effective setup for a someone like me who is an recreational enthusiast rather than an all out buff.

 

[Seth=L]

Other than the obvious A/B zones that the 1610 has over the 590

That's the only difference.

I'm set on a 5.1 setup because I feel like it's the most affordable and effective setup for a someone like me who is an recreational enthusiast rather than an all out buff.

Then why not go with the Pioneer VSX-819 for a little less?

 

[moodyda]

I did miss one detail, the Denon AVR-590 has an Audyssey MultEQ room acoustic measurement and correction system, which is arguably a better auto calibration system then Pioneer's proprietary MCACC auto calibration system.

That is purely subjective, as many prefer MCACC on it's simplicity alone. It all depends on your ears!!

 

[GSXR_Rider]

I'm set on a 5.1 setup because I feel like it's the most affordable and effective setup for a someone like me who is an recreational enthusiast rather than an all out buff.

I used to feel the same about 5.1 vs 7.1......until I finally broke down and picked up a good pair of dipole speakers. I literally just wired the side surround speakers up yesterday as my carpenter ran the wires through the wall so they were invisible (the biggest headache to adding the side surrounds).

Last night I popped in "The Dark Knight" Bluray as a reference dvd that I am familiar with to see if I could tell a difference between 5.1 vs 7.1.

Trust me there is an appreciable difference and you really may wish to leave that door open to upgrade to in the future which would make the Pioneer receiver a better choice. Maybe on older movies the 7.1 is less noticeable but I would guess newer releases are mixed and mastered to take advantage of 7.1 as it is becoming more of a "standard".

7.1 created better ambience and really completed the experience of feeling like you are enveloped in sound better than 5.1 did.....and I do not think it was my ears playing tricks on me either. I asked my wife to test out the system during a 10 min action sequence and even to her untrained/skeptical ears she was able to tell the difference immediately.

The 7.1 upgrade doesn't have to cost a lot either. I picked up a pair of The Speaker Company wall mount dipole speakers for $108 shipped (dual 1" tweeter and alum 5.25" woofer).

 

[Seth=L]

That is purely subjective, as many prefer MCACC on it's simplicity alone. It all depends on your ears!!

I did state that as a subjective statement, hense the word "arguably".

 

[sealkojac]

I've got a Denon 890 receiver and the auto setup program performed very poorly. I had to redo everything manually. I've owned Pioneer and Onkyo receivers and the auto calibration worked perfectly. I recently setup a Pioneer 819 receiver and that was simple and straightforward. With the Denon your going to want the on screen display to setup the receiver.