Processor or High End Receiver?

[mitch57]

I'm getting close to upgrading my Denon 3805. I'm looking for better sound stageing and steering which I've been told I can get by upgrading my receiver to a seperate processor.

Here's my current system configuration:

Denon AVR-3805
Parasound Halo A51 5 Channel Amplifier
Definitive Technology BP 7002 Front Speakers
Definitive Technology C/L/R 2500 Center Speaker
Definitive Technology BP2X Surround Speakers
Integra DPC 8.5 DVD changer
Direct TV HR10-250 HD Tivo DVR
Panasonic TH50PX50U Plasma TV

My system is used for about 60% DVD-Audio and SACD multi-channel playback and 40% movies. I rarely listen to anything but hi res multi-channel music on my home system.


I'm considering the Anthem AVM 30 which has the ability to set seperate crossover settings for the front, center, and surround speakers. It also has a built in tuner and is hardware upgradeable for future enhancements.

In my search I stumbled across the new Denon line of receivers. In particular I'm looking at the Denon AVR-4306. It has a very similar feature set to the Anthem AVM 30 plus several additional features that the AVM 30 doesn't have. Such as the new Audesy Multi EQ software for room calibration and Video upconversion through HDMI.

The Anthem AVM 30 lists for twice as much as the Denon AVR-4306 but it also has a 5 year warranty and is much more future proof. The key question here is which one sounds better.

I know, I know... only I can make this decision and I need to listen and decide for myself. The problem is I can't audition both of them on the same equipment. The Anthem dealer is 75 miles south of me and there are a couple of Denon dealers closer to where I live.

I'm willing to make the trip and I know that ultimately I will have to make the decision. I just thought I would get some opinions on what others had to say. It appears to me that some of the higher end receivers are starting to compete on a very close plane with the seperates.

I would appreciate any comments and recommendations that anyone is willing to provide.

Thanks,

Mitch

 

[AudioSeer]

If you want better bass management, try the Outlaw Audio ICBM. I have used one in both 2 channel and surround systems and it works great.

Are you using the analog 5.1 inputs for SACD? I'm not sure about your Denon, but on my Marantz it completely bypasses tone controls and bass management (thus the need for the ICBM). That's what I would want anyways for the least signal degregation.

I have had multiple high-end preamps, including a couple of Stereophile "Class A" preamps, and that's not the component that I would look to enhance the soundstage. That is mostly a speaker, speaker placement and room acoustics thing.

 

[tbewick]

If you're looking for a futureproof receiver, won't it need to support the new Dolby Digital Plus and new DTS formats designed for Blu-ray/HD-DVD?

You know that the amplifier really shouldn't add any noticeable distortion unless you're driving it at very high volumes. I think that the most reliable way of judging amplifier performance is by looking at its specifications.

If you were going for a really powerful amplifier (300 watts+), then I'd suggest separates (pre- power- amps), as this gives you more flexibility.

 

[mitch57]

If you're looking for a futureproof receiver, won't it need to support the new Dolby Digital Plus and new DTS formats designed for Blu-ray/HD-DVD?

You know that the amplifier really shouldn't add any noticeable distortion unless you're driving it at very high volumes. I think that the most reliable way of judging amplifier performance is by looking at its specifications.

If you were going for a really powerful amplifier (300 watts+), then I'd suggest separates (pre- power- amps), as this gives you more flexibility.

Thanks for the post. But as I mentioned I am already using my Denon 3805 as a Pre/Pro connected to my Parasound Halo A51 which outputs 250 Watts X 5.

Or are you talking about a seperate pre-amp for each channel?

 

[Nick250]

If you want better bass management, try the Outlaw Audio ICBM. I have used one in both 2 channel and surround systems and it works great.

Are you using the analog 5.1 inputs for SACD? I'm not sure about your Denon, but on my Marantz it completely bypasses tone controls and bass management (thus the need for the ICBM). That's what I would want anyways for the least signal degregation.

I have had multiple high-end preamps, including a couple of Stereophile "Class A" preamps, and that's not the component that I would look to enhance the soundstage. That is mostly a speaker, speaker placement and room acoustics thing.

I have to agree with Audio Seer and I don't see how your proposed changes will improve your system in the areas you want to fine tune. IMO on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best what you are proposing things might be around a 2 while the speaker, speaker placement and room acoustics would be around 9. This is one of those areas where what I call the "toy factor" comes into play. Amps, pre amps, outboard dacs etc are neat toys. I understand this and I like toys as much as the next person. But they provide only marginal, if any, improvement. The law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly with today's technology added to the mix.

IMHO YMMV yadda, yadda

Nick

 

[indcrimdefense]

the demo avm 20 i have has a room resonance filter in the set up menu, don't know if that is in the avm 30 or not. i have not used it yet but it's in there on this demo. when it comes to video, i'm an idiot and only starting to learn the video side as im starting to shop for a flat screen. however, in comparison to using a denon 2805 as a pre/pro compared to the avm 20, the avm 20 sounds better. comparing the 2805 ext in to the avm 20 analog direct (which lacks tone controls) the avm 20 has a clearly superior sound. to me the 2805 ext in sound is sterile & lacks body. analog direct on the avm 20 has all the musical body, soundstage, whatever you want to call it i could ever want. moving th the digital side of things, the avm 20 is the only receiver or processor i have ever demoed where DSP either was not a sonic disappointment or in fact improved the sound. the thx cinema option, which can be used with dolby digital or dts, sounds fantastic, & tames the at times over the top dialogue from dvd's or cable. normally i only listen to cd's as a an analog signal from my cary DVD6, but with the avm 20 i often use a digital input to take advantage of the DSP, which are also available for analog in, and have used those as well. a surprise was the improved sound quality when watching cable, the sound of which i was never impressed with previously.

i have not heard the 4806, so cannot comment on its performance. however if your looking for improved music quality, the avm 20 sounds better than my 2805 in all formats, particularly comparing ext in to analog direct. while i have to stretch back months to my demo of the cary cinema 6 pre/pro, i would rate analog on the cary to be on par with the avm 20, however the avm 20 sounds better with a digital signal, and the avm 20 avoids the dreaded click click click of the cary when channel surfing (the cary would click each time you change channels due to the temporary loss of signal in between channels). may not sound like a big deal, but very annoying.

i looked and listened to a 3805 at the same time i purchased my 2805 on the same speakers, same cd player, etc. and could not hear the difference, so i bought the 2805.

the avm 30 has xlr inputs & outputs, which i have found reduces the noise floor, although how much depends on the amp. the difference was quite noticeable with a b&k 125.2, with xlr having a lower noise floor. with the krell the difference is less noticeable, as long as you have the shorting pins in the xlr outputs if using rca connections. w/o shorting pins difference is night & day. b&k had a xlr/rca switch per channel which the krell does not, that's apparently the purpose for the shorting pins.

it is very true that room set up and accoustics can have a substantial impact on the sound quality of a system. i have a 14x25 room that is not exactly an accoustic dream. one end of the room is effectively ruled out due a fireplace, the other end of the room has a large entryway & open window into the kitchen, one wall is filled with a bay window, and the other wall is disected by the entrance to a hallway. still searching for the optimum set up position, regardless of which equipment i am using, and have tried virtually every place i can set up the speakers, running the room longways (fronts at one end of room, or sideways with the fronts near a sidewall). what i can say is that regardless of which set up i use, or where the speakers are placed, the avm 20 sounds better. if it's better music your after, the avm 30 (which i think has more advanced processing?? than the avm 20) should fit the bill nicely. as for video, i have no clue.

 

[DaveOCP]

Anthem is going to release a version of the AVM30 and the Statement version with HDMI switching soon. Since you've already got a Halo A51, have you given thought to the matching Halo C2 or C1 SSP?

 

[ht_addict]

If your interested in a highend receiver, checkout the Denon 4806 review over at Secrets, http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/denon-avr-4806-receiver-12-2005-part-1.html
The preamp section was rated as excellent giving numbers found in highend pre/pros.

 

[mitch57]

Anthem is going to release a version of the AVM30 and the Statement version with HDMI switching soon. Since you've already got a Halo A51, have you given thought to the matching Halo C2 or C1 SSP?

Yes. As a matter of fact I have considered the Halo C1/C2. However, neither one has the ability to set seperate speaker crossover settings nor will they be upgradeable to HDMI. Parasound chose to offer a separate HDMI scaler. I'm looking at Anthem because they seem to be somewhat futrue proof.

I've looked at the Denon 4806 but it's more money then the Anthem.

 

[gene]

Yes. As a matter of fact I have considered the Halo C1/C2.

For the money, I wouldn't recommend either of these processors, especially the more expensive C1 which simply adds a 5" display at a whopping markup of $2k!

You are far better off with a good Denon or Yamaha receiver and using it as a prepro coupled to your excellent Parasound amps. You can always use the receiver amps to power the back channels and another zone of audio.

 

[PENG]

You are asking one of the toughest question. It seems to me some people, such as Indcrimdefense, can hear differences between pre-amp & receivers, and power amplifiers of different make within similar price range while many others cannot.

About a year ago, when I was shopping for speakers I was able to A/B an Anthem separate system and a Yamaha RX-V2400 in a high end store. The Anthem pre-pro alone was priced at more than double that of the RX-V2400, yet I really could not hear much difference between the two. Subjectively the Anthem sounded better but I was sure I would fail a DBT. I was with at least two other persons at the time and they could not hear much difference neither. We were only playing regular CD's and the speakers used were the Paradigm Studio 60, 100, and Signature S2.

We did not hear the expected "huge" difference between the Yamaha and the Anthem but we all heard the obvious difference between the Studio 60, 100, and Signature S2.

The only safe bet, as you know already, is to find out for yourself. Based on published specifications alone, I am sure the Anthem can make your system sound better, but if you spend the same money on upgrading your speakers you will likely get even more improvements, enough for everyone to hear. One last point, you already have a Halo A51, why pay for the internal amps of any receiver if you are not going to use them. So if your final decision is still to upgrade the receiver, a prepro seems to make more sense.

 

[indcrimdefense]

as my demo period with the avm 20 is winding down, i hooked up the 2805 last night so as to be able to compare listening to the avm 20 & 2805, both used as a pre/pro. only the front speakers are hooked up, powered by krell amp, and sources are cary dvd6 and digital cable. will only use rca connections to the amp, as the denon lacks xlr connections. set up with both is using radio shack spl meter, speakers positions will remain the same, as will the rest of the system. will also measure using spl meter the volume settings b/w the avm 20 & 2805 to confirm that i'm listening at the same level between components. will post my observations in a few days.

 

[mitch57]

indcrimdefense,

Thanks for doing the comparrison for me. I really apreciate it. I will need to keep in mind that I rarely listen to stereo. I pretty much only listen to multi-channel hi res music and DVD videos.

I'm anxiously awaiting your results. I have heard however, that the Denon line doesn't do a great job on stereo material.

 

[PENG]

as my demo period with the avm 20 is winding down, i hooked up the 2805 last night so as to be able to compare listening to the avm 20 & 2805, both used as a pre/pro. only the front speakers are hooked up, powered by krell amp, and sources are cary dvd6 and digital cable. will only use rca connections to the amp, as the denon lacks xlr connections. set up with both is using radio shack spl meter, speakers positions will remain the same, as will the rest of the system. will also measure using spl meter the volume settings b/w the avm 20 & 2805 to confirm that i'm listening at the same level between components. will post my observations in a few days.

I have been using a 3805 as prepro for my front speakers in my HT setup so I am very interested in your test results. Would it be posssible for you to do a blind comparison as well?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Sleestack]

You have an excellent amp there. I use it as well. I'm actually getting rid of my C1 b/c it became unnecessary when I got my TACT TCS MKII. Personally, I don't like running any video through my processor. I understand why some people like to feature packed pre/pros, but I like a pre/pro that deals solely with audio. Although the TACT may be out of the price range you are looking at, if you have a chance to pick one up at an acceptable price, I would defintely consider it. It is modular, which allows for simple future upgradeability, and most importantly, with its state of the art room correction, it is the best pre/pro I have heard. My only gripe is that it only has balanced outs for the F/L/C channels whcih forces you to use the A51 in unbalanced mode.

 

[gene]

I am sure the Anthem can make your system sound better, but if you spend the same money on upgrading your speakers you will likely get even more improvements, enough for everyone to hear. One last point, you already have a Halo A51, why pay for the internal amps of any receiver if you are not going to use them. So if your final decision is still to upgrade the receiver, a prepro seems to make more sense.

Don't forget about room acoustics which play even a larger role than the speakers themselves. Most of the budget should be allocated towards speakers and room acoustics if your primary concern is audio.

As for NOT using the internal amps of a receiver, thats not the point. The reason receivers make such cost effective pre/pros is the fact that the manufacturer included the amp section so they can sell higher quantities and get manufacturing costs lower. If for example Yamaha was to produce the Z9 as a pre/pro only (with no amps), the product would either cost the consumer the same price as the equivalent receiver, or more!

Personally, I would use the internal amps to power a second or third zone system. Or 3-4 years down the road when it obsoletes, you can throw it into another room for a 2nd surround theater and use all of the amps then. So there really isn't any waste.

 

[Sleestack]

Don't forget about room acoustics which play even a larger role than the speakers themselves. Most of the budget should be allocated towards speakers and room acoustics if your primary concern is audio.

As for NOT using the internal amps of a receiver, thats not the point. The reason receivers make such cost effective pre/pros is the fact that the manufacturer included the amp section so they can sell higher quantities and get manufacturing costs lower. If for example Yamaha was to produce the Z9 as a pre/pro only (with no amps), the product would either cost the consumer the same price as the equivalent receiver, or more!

Personally, I would use the internal amps to power a second or third zone system. Or 3-4 years down the road when it obsoletes, you can throw it into another room for a 2nd surround theater and use all of the amps then. So there really isn't any waste.

For those of use who are limited by WAF on what we can do with our space, room correction is key. In fact, I see room correction as THE most important feature that should be available on future pre/pros b/c so few people will ever have anything close to an ideal acoustic environment.

While I have no problem with inegrated receivers, it would be nice to see Denon or Yamaha do a pre/pro only and add things such as balanced outputs or discrete digital outputs, or just add those things to their flagship models.

 

[Nick250]

Don't forget about room acoustics which play even a larger role than the speakers themselves. Most of the budget should be allocated towards speakers and room acoustics if your primary concern is audio.

You know, I have been making note of this issue almost daily and aside from Mtry and a few others the tone on this board has been a lot of "my system sounds bad, what amp should I get to fix it". Then a whole lot of posts about how XYZ receiver for only $1000 mated with $500 ABC amp will make your $500 dollar surround system really sing. I know I am exaggerateing some, but it's really helpful to have someone of Gene's credibility weigh in on this topic (which he has done from time to time in the past).

 

[Buckle-meister]

'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

 

[majorloser]

Don't forget about room acoustics which play even a larger role than the speakers themselves. Most of the budget should be allocated towards speakers and room acoustics if your primary concern is audio.

As for NOT using the internal amps of a receiver, thats not the point. The reason receivers make such cost effective pre/pros is the fact that the manufacturer included the amp section so they can sell higher quantities and get manufacturing costs lower. If for example Yamaha was to produce the Z9 as a pre/pro only (with no amps), the product would either cost the consumer the same price as the equivalent receiver, or more!

Personally, I would use the internal amps to power a second or third zone system. Or 3-4 years down the road when it obsoletes, you can throw it into another room for a 2nd surround theater and use all of the amps then. So there really isn't any waste.

The only thing I'd like to weigh in on with using a receiver as a pre-pro is extra heat. A receiver does crank out considerably more heat than a pre/pro. The amp section of a receiver will just be sitting around doing nothing but cranking out heat. Obviously if you are already running separate amps I would hope you already took that into consideration.