Simaudio Moon CP-8 AV Processor: A Denon Receiver in Sim Clothing?

[surveyor]

Yes the Denon and Marantz AVR's can keep up with the heavyweights- easily! I hope Gene can (will) shed light on the future offerings from D&M?

I didn't realize the AIHD weighs that much!

In recent years, D&M somehow have found ways to stay fit. That is, since the 5805 and 4806, their AVR has managed to say below 40 lbs. The minor exceptions are th 4810 and 4308 that weighs just a little over 40 lbs but not near the 50 mark that the 4806 did. Even at such light(er) weights, like 10 lbs less than Onkyo and NAD's flag ships, they consistently tested equal or better than the Onkyo/NAD on the benches base on HTM, HCC and another UK site in ACD, contiunous as well as dynamic outputs, and have lower THD/IMD.

I can only think of their different heat sinking methodology, chassis design/material, and custom designed transformers as the key factors but would hope insider such as Gene, or dealers with insider connections such as AV_Nuts to shed lights on this. Until then, every now and then someone would pop up and make seemingly convincing (still just assumptions) statements that the heavier weight NAD/Onkyo are automatically and always more powerful than the D&M's counterparts regardless of the published specs.

 

[Goliath]

Sure, I measured the volume with sweeps and adjusted the levels before comparing HDMI and 7.1 analog inputs. The balance of the sound is different.

Did you use a volt meter or an SPL meter? SPL meters are not the best devices for level-matching under 1 dB.

Perhaps no difference is expected between the Oppo and AV8801 DACs and analog sections.

If the conditions were sighted then it would explain why you may have experienced audible differences between inputs, besides the level imbalance which would certainly compound matters even further.

 

[gene]

Is Marantz going to make an equivalent ie (60 lb.) AVP like the -A1HDCI?

It sounds like it though not sure it will be quite up to what the Denon was. It will definitely have higher end aspirations for audiophiles though.

 

[gene]

I didn't realize the AIHD weighs that much!

In recent years, D&M somehow have found ways to stay fit. That is, since the 5805 and 4806, their AVR has managed to say below 40 lbs. The minor exceptions are th 4810 and 4308 that weighs just a little over 40 lbs but not near the 50 mark that the 4806 did. Even at such light(er) weights, like 10 lbs less than Onkyo and NAD's flag ships, they consistently tested equal or better than the Onkyo/NAD on the benches base on HTM, HCC and another UK site in ACD, contiunous as well as dynamic outputs, and have lower THD/IMD.

I can only think of their different heat sinking methodology, chassis design/material, and custom designed transformers as the key factors but would hope insider such as Gene, or dealers with insider connections such as AV_Nuts to shed lights on this. Until then, every now and then someone would pop up and make seemingly convincing (still just assumptions) statements that the heavier weight NAD/Onkyo are automatically and always more powerful than the D&M's counterparts regardless of the published specs.

There has never been a multi-channel AV receiver built more robustly than the 5805. It had the best amp section I've ever measured in a receiver to date. Nothing will ever come close IMO b/c an AV receiver of that price range and complexity is a very niche market. At that point people would almost always prefer to go separates route even if the alternative doesn't offer better performance.

 

[RichB]

Did you use a volt meter or an SPL meter? SPL meters are not the best devices for level-matching under 1 dB.

If the conditions were sighted then it would explain why you may have experienced audible differences between inputs, besides the level imbalance which would certainly compound matters even further.

I understand the orthodoxy but my eyes remain open so I do not trip over the mic
The imaging changes slightly, so perhaps phase is altered.

Measurements were taken with the Omni-Mic I do not recall what position as I was moving the MIC that day.
I would upload a picture, but this forum keeps giving me errors.

- Rich

 

[PENG]

There has never been a multi-channel AV receiver built more robustly than the 5805. It had the best amp section I've ever measured in a receiver to date. Nothing will ever come close IMO b/c an AV receiver of that price range and complexity is a very niche market. At that point people would almost always prefer to go separates route even if the alternative doesn't offer better performance.

Thanks, but what have they done to reduce the weight of their 4311,4520 (D), 7007,7008 (M) to under 40 lbs yet the 4311 and 4520 still managed to match or better the more than 10 lbs heavey Onkyo and NAD AVRs? You may not have bench tested the Onkyo but you did do Yamaha's in the past and D&M's AVRs still beat the Yamaha's (except their RX-Z11) by clear margins in measured/verified power output to weight ratio.

I thought D&M amps are probably more efficient in their AB design, but still class AB, and the weights are mostly in the transformer, heat sinks and chassis anyway. Onkyo even uses toroidal transformers in their top AVR model, those are supposed to typically have better power to weight ratio than EI cores, yet they are still so much heavier than D&M's top models. I can see that they do have more perforated area on their enclosure but that's not enough to offset the 10 to 13 lbs difference.

If D&M won't share the information for proprietary reasons I understand, if not, then I am sure we EEs are all curious to know the tricks. I know people have suggested that their output ratings are just inflated vs Onkyo/NAD's but then how can so many test benches be wrong?

 

[RichB]

Thanks, but what have they done to reduce the weight of their 4311,4520 (D), 7007,7008 (M) to under 40 lbs yet the 4311 and 4520 still managed to match or better the more than 10 lbs heavey Onkyo and NAD AVRs? You may not have bench tested the Onkyo but you did do Yamaha's in the past and D&M's AVRs still beat the Yamaha's (except their RX-Z11) by clear margins in measured/verified power output to weight ratio.

I thought D&M amps are probably more efficient in their AB design, but still class AB, and the weights are mostly in the transformer, heat sinks and chassis anyway. Onkyo even uses toroidal transformers in their top AVR model, those are supposed to typically have better power to weight ratio than EI cores, yet they are still so much heavier than D&M's top models. I can see that they do have more perforated area on their enclosure but that's not enough to offset the 10 to 13 lbs difference.

If D&M won't share the information for proprietary reasons I understand, if not, then I am sure we EEs are all curious to know the tricks. I know people have suggested that their output ratings are just inflated vs Onkyo/NAD's but then how can so many test benches be wrong?

As you point out the weight could be from transformers and heat sinks which could translate into better performance into <8 ohms loads and heat dissipation when driving speakers with high phase angles. This is not going to show up in 1K burst or full frequency power tests into 8 ohms.
Is long term load testing done on AVRs to assess their thermal design?

Most users have all the power they need in an AVR, it would be nice to have thorough measurements of the first watt, damping factor, and slew rate, and other pertinent metrics that are often performed on integrated and stand-along amplifiers.


- Rich

 

[PENG]

As you point out the weight could be from transformers and heat sinks which could translate into better performance into <8 ohms loads and heat dissipation when driving speakers with high phase angles. This is not going to show up in 1K burst or full frequency power tests into 8 ohms.
Is long term load testing done on AVRs to assess their thermal design?

Most users have all the power they need in an AVR, it would be nice to have thorough measurements of the first watt, damping factor, and slew rate, and other pertinent metrics that are often performed on integrated and stand-along amplifiers.


- Rich

The bench tests I referred to claim "continuous". The 1K vs 20-20K makes little difference when you get the the mid range products such as the Denon 4000 series. Regardless I am comparing test data by the same lab, say pick HTM and you can see for yourselves. Better yet, you can search the AH site as I am sure they have tested some older Denon and Yamaha units and you will see the 20-20K tests also yielded results comparable to the much heavier Onkyo and NAD units. Actually in case I remember wrong I will do the search later and send you a link, no I must go out.

Regarding the first watt, yes we are full agreement but again I have seen enough data that led me to believe good results are no longer something that is so hard to achieve once we past the entry level units. I posted the following link before, but please take a look of the 1W performance of a mid range Denon AVR, do compare it with much higher price separates also tested by the same people there.

Report

 

[RichB]

The bench tests I referred to claim "continuous". The 1K vs 20-20K makes little difference when you get the the mid range products such as the Denon 4000 series. Regardless I am comparing test data by the same lab, say pick HTM and you can see for yourselves. Better yet, you can search the AH site as I am sure they have tested some older Denon and Yamaha units and you will see the 20-20K tests also yielded results comparable to the much heavier Onkyo and NAD units. Actually in case I remember wrong I will do the search later and send you a link, no I must go out.

Regarding the first watt, yes we are full agreement but again I have seen enough data that led me to believe good results are no longer something that is so hard to achieve once we past the entry level units. I posted the following link before, but please take a look of the 1W performance of a mid range Denon AVR, do compare it with much higher price separates also tested by the same people there.

Report

Thanks. Some interesting results. Can people hear 3'rd order harmonics at -40 DB?

I suppose a heavier product might have a better thermal design but I suspect that the folks driving AVR's into protection would do it to any of them

- Rich

 

[gene]

The bench tests I referred to claim "continuous". The 1K vs 20-20K makes little difference when you get the the mid range products such as the Denon 4000 series. Regardless I am comparing test data by the same lab, say pick HTM and you can see for yourselves. Better yet, you can search the AH site as I am sure they have tested some older Denon and Yamaha units and you will see the 20-20K tests also yielded results comparable to the much heavier Onkyo and NAD units. Actually in case I remember wrong I will do the search later and send you a link, no I must go out.

Regarding the first watt, yes we are full agreement but again I have seen enough data that led me to believe good results are no longer something that is so hard to achieve once we past the entry level units. I posted the following link before, but please take a look of the 1W performance of a mid range Denon AVR, do compare it with much higher price separates also tested by the same people there.

Report

HTM only tests at 1kHz.

See the following article:
The All Channels Driven Amplifier Test Controversy | Audioholics

 

[gene]

Thanks, but what have they done to reduce the weight of their 4311,4520 (D), 7007,7008 (M) to under 40 lbs yet the 4311 and 4520 still managed to match or better the more than 10 lbs heavey Onkyo and NAD AVRs? You may not have bench tested the Onkyo but you did do Yamaha's in the past and D&M's AVRs still beat the Yamaha's (except their RX-Z11) by clear margins in measured/verified power output to weight ratio.

I thought D&M amps are probably more efficient in their AB design, but still class AB, and the weights are mostly in the transformer, heat sinks and chassis anyway. Onkyo even uses toroidal transformers in their top AVR model, those are supposed to typically have better power to weight ratio than EI cores, yet they are still so much heavier than D&M's top models. I can see that they do have more perforated area on their enclosure but that's not enough to offset the 10 to 13 lbs difference.

If D&M won't share the information for proprietary reasons I understand, if not, then I am sure we EEs are all curious to know the tricks. I know people have suggested that their output ratings are just inflated vs Onkyo/NAD's but then how can so many test benches be wrong?

I haven't bench tested the latest Onkyo or NAD myself to compare to the Denon's so I can't comment. However Denon/Marantz latest AVR's don't have the robust amp section previously found on the 5805. The 5805 had a much larger power supply and 4 high power output devices per channel. It was a different beast.

 

[RichB]

I haven't bench tested the latest Onkyo or NAD myself to compare to the Denon's so I can't comment. However Denon/Marantz latest AVR's don't have the robust amp section previously found on the 5805. The 5805 had a much larger power supply and 4 high power output devices per channel. It was a different beast.

Would this difference be shown in the measurements conducted by HTM or would it measure similarly but be more capable of driving a more difficult load?

- Rich

 

[PENG]

Thanks. Some interesting results. Can people hear 3'rd order harmonics at -40 DB?

I suppose a heavier product might have a better thermal design but I suspect that the folks driving AVR's into protection would do it to any of them

- Rich

I think some people can, under certain circumstances. Note that you were looking at very high output level, well beyond the amps rated power. The Pass Lab X150.5 did not do any better in 3rd at high output level either.

http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download2007/reports/feb07/passlabs_x1505.html

 

[PENG]

I haven't bench tested the latest Onkyo or NAD myself to compare to the Denon's so I can't comment. However Denon/Marantz latest AVR's don't have the robust amp section previously found on the 5805. The 5805 had a much larger power supply and 4 high power output devices per channel. It was a different beast.

I know, and I do hope you will eventually test one of their heavy weight such as the NR-TX5010.

 

[fuzz092888]

I know, and I do hope you will eventually test one of their heavy weight such as the NR-TX5010.

I'm coming from a 3009 and I can say that it is one heck of a receiver.

 

[AV_Nut]

Thanks, but what have they done to reduce the weight of their 4311,4520 (D), 7007,7008 (M) to under 40 lbs yet the 4311 and 4520 still managed to match or better the more than 10 lbs heavey Onkyo and NAD AVRs? You may not have bench tested the Onkyo but you did do Yamaha's in the past and D&M's AVRs still beat the Yamaha's (except their RX-Z11) by clear margins in measured/verified power output to weight ratio.

I thought D&M amps are probably more efficient in their AB design, but still class AB, and the weights are mostly in the transformer, heat sinks and chassis anyway. Onkyo even uses toroidal transformers in their top AVR model, those are supposed to typically have better power to weight ratio than EI cores, yet they are still so much heavier than D&M's top models. I can see that they do have more perforated area on their enclosure but that's not enough to offset the 10 to 13 lbs difference.

If D&M won't share the information for proprietary reasons I understand, if not, then I am sure we EEs are all curious to know the tricks. I know people have suggested that their output ratings are just inflated vs Onkyo/NAD's but then how can so many test benches be wrong?

Hi Peng,

Much of the preamp section weight loss over the years have been combined chips with more features. So instead of buying 8 total DAC's, now you have an 8 DAC chip (all in one). DSP's have more MIPS so they don't need to use as many etc. They also shed legacy technology (SVIDEO etc).

I would also say they have followed what the market has demanded and that is price. A guy walks up to a showroom in BB and sees all kinds of brands. Not knowing a thing, he starts to compare DSP modes and sees how many "watts per channels" they claim to have. Then whoever is cheaper he buys. But the other higher quality seeking guy goes a step further and looks at the THD spec rolleyes and sees that the better model has a lower number. That's all the proof he needs. So he splurges for that extra $120. Research complete! It's time to go home and hook it up wrong with the left and right speaker next to the corner fireplace. Nirvana! So D&M has to be aware of the big box type shopper. They are not as knowledgeable. But better quality may only make you more expensive and therefore lower sales. Receivers are heavily price driven and they need to cut costs every way on the sub $1K price point without gutting it out too much.

The reason why the AVP was such a heavy weight is because they didn't worry about how much they over engineered. I propose back that NO product has spent as much on their prepro (I am talking about the BOM). Imagine how much Levinson would have charged to undertake such an endeavor with it's user friendliness. It was a statement piece in 2008. IMHO, they OF COURSE have learned a good deal more since then. One reason is because Kevin is the man behind the curtain (he is a HUGE prepro fan and put his neck out there when he released the Marantz 8801) and the D&M engineering teams merged.

Back to the AVP...Wanting for it to be upgradeable to a certain level, they went down the card approach. So under the hood, you will see all kinds of slide in cards with connectors galore (even more burred underneath) analogous to a computer. Meanwhile the 8801 is more analogous to a laptop (lot's of features built on the same "motherboard"). Of course you will consume more power using card slots / modularity and you better have a beefier power supply. So when you add it all up, their is a lot of stuff inside. Now a counter argument is that when you use this card approach, you violate KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). When you have an expensive piece, people want the jewelry to match. So the manufacture spends that extra $100 on the thick heavy faceplace and the rest is history.

My wishlist for any new flagship product is to forget the card slot approach. The reality is "upgradeability" has been a huge failure. Use the K.I.S.S. approach and save $'s to boot.

Speaking of KISS, B&K had a REF70 (and forgetting the bugs) was my favorite sounding piece ever. Their approach was to shed much of the analog preamp section, no longer have OP amps/no analog bypass, shed the signal caps (DC bias), and use a light switching power supply. So they followed "KISS" and that product was airy and dynamic sounding. It won 1st place in a couple of our group of 15 shootouts. They bad news was no cable box or TV vendor bothered to make sure their product handshaked correctly with the REF 70. Ed at B&K was busy buying a bunch of boxes to patch their code to cover their errors to make it work with those popular brands. They fell short. 25% came back because of HDMI issues (and lock-ups) and took down a once successful company. I loved that original group of guys. But small audiophile companies are one bad design away from going bankrupt.

 

[PENG]

Hi Peng,

Much of the preamp section weight loss over the years have been combined chips with more features. So instead of buying 8 total DAC's, now you have an 8 DAC chip (all in one). DSP's have more MIPS so they don't need to use as many etc. They also shed legacy technology (SVIDEO etc).

I would also say they have followed what the market has demanded and that is price. A guy walks up to a showroom in BB and sees all kinds of brands. Not knowing a thing, he starts to compare DSP modes and sees how many "watts per channels" they claim to have. Then whoever is cheaper he buys. But the other higher quality seeking guy goes a step further and looks at the THD spec rolleyes and sees that the better model has a lower number. That's all the proof he needs. So he splurges for that extra $120. Research complete! It's time to go home and hook it up wrong with the left and right speaker next to the corner fireplace. Nirvana! So D&M has to be aware of the big box type shopper. They are not as knowledgeable. But better quality may only make you more expensive and therefore lower sales. Receivers are heavily price driven and they need to cut costs every way on the sub $1K price point without gutting it out too much.

The reason why the AVP was such a heavy weight is because they didn't worry about how much they over engineered. I propose back that NO product has spent as much on their prepro (I am talking about the BOM). Imagine how much Levinson would have charged to undertake such an endeavor with it's user friendliness. It was a statement piece in 2008. IMHO, they OF COURSE have learned a good deal more since then. One reason is because Kevin is the man behind the curtain (he is a HUGE prepro fan and put his neck out there when he released the Marantz 8801) and the D&M engineering teams merged.

Back to the AVP...Wanting for it to be upgradeable to a certain level, they went down the card approach. So under the hood, you will see all kinds of slide in cards with connectors galore (even more burred underneath) analogous to a computer. Meanwhile the 8801 is more analogous to a laptop (lot's of features built on the same "motherboard"). Of course you will consume more power using card slots / modularity and you better have a beefier power supply. So when you add it all up, their is a lot of stuff inside. Now a counter argument is that when you use this card approach, you violate KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). When you have an expensive piece, people want the jewelry to match. So the manufacture spends that extra $100 on the thick heavy faceplace and the rest is history.

My wishlist for any new flagship product is to forget the card slot approach. The reality is "upgradeability" has been a huge failure. Use the K.I.S.S. approach and save $'s to boot.

Speaking of KISS, B&K had a REF70 (and forgetting the bugs) was my favorite sounding piece ever. Their approach was to shed much of the analog preamp section, no longer have OP amps/no analog bypass, shed the signal caps (DC bias), and use a light switching power supply. So they followed "KISS" and that product was airy and dynamic sounding. It won 1st place in a couple of our group of 15 shootouts. They bad news was no cable box or TV vendor bothered to make sure their product handshaked correctly with the REF 70. Ed at B&K was busy buying a bunch of boxes to patch their code to cover their errors to make it work with those popular brands. They fell short. 25% came back because of HDMI issues (and lock-ups) and took down a once successful company. I loved that original group of guys. But small audiophile companies are one bad design away from going bankrupt.

Many thanks for such details, but sorry I know the point raised was about prepro but I started thinking about the diet on AVRs so I actually was asking about AVRs. So in short, my question is about how D&M (yes even Marantz and before they merged with D) managed to squeeze that much measured outputs and still weighs 12 lbs less than Onkyo and NAD's equivalent models?

Again, I am thinking more along the line of their perhaps more efficient designed class A/B, custom designed/built transformers, efficient heat sink/enclosure/chassis design etc., but that's just my educated guess, and hope to be confirmed by some insiders. I am not complaining about weight, in fact I prefer light weight provided the power output and SQ remains competitive with other heavier products. I can linked those published lab measurements but they have been linked many times by me and others in the past so unless asked I wouldn't bother.

 

[PENG]

I'm coming from a 3009 and I can say that it is one heck of a receiver.

It absolutely is, 55.1 lbs (unpacked) so actually 18 lbs heavier than the Denon 4520 and 15 lbs heavier than my Marantz MM8003 power amp. It has almost identical specs as the 5009, same weight but the 5009 has a toroidal. Toroidals are typically more efficient than EI core so I guess that's why for the same weight they were able to rate the 5009 5W (negligble I know..) more per channel. So assuming the weigh specs are accurate, I have to assume most of the weigh difference would come from the different transformer and heat sink/enclosure design and at least a good part would be due to the more powerful transformer in the Onkyo. Then I would further assume the larger transformer does not translate into much measureable output power when compared to the Denon 4311/4520 due to the lower overall efficiency of the Onkyo and that could be why the Onkyos are known (allegedly) to run warmer. Even if I am right about their poorer efficiency being the reason, the Onkyo 300X/500X models still have the best specs on paper among all current AVR on the market IMHO.

 

[surveyor]

The 4520 is rated at 150 WPC vs 145 WPC in the heavier Onkyo's. This would be a good shootout!

It absolutely is, 55.1 lbs (unpacked) so actually 18 lbs heavier than the Denon 4520 and 15 lbs heavier than my Marantz MM8003 power amp. It has almost identical specs as the 5009, same weight but the 5009 has a toroidal. Toroidals are typically more efficient than EI core so I guess that's why for the same weight they were able to rate the 5009 5W (negligble I know..) more per channel. So assuming the weigh specs are accurate, I have to assume most of the weigh difference would come from the different transformer and heat sink/enclosure design and at least a good part would be due to the more powerful transformer in the Onkyo. Then I would further assume the larger transformer does not translate into much measureable output power when compared to the Denon 4311/4520 due to the lower overall efficiency of the Onkyo and that could be why the Onkyos are known (allegedly) to run warmer. Even if I am right about their poorer efficiency being the reason, the Onkyo 300X/500X models still have the best specs on paper among all current AVR on the market IMHO.

 

[3db]

It absolutely is, 55.1 lbs (unpacked) so actually 18 lbs heavier than the Denon 4520 and 15 lbs heavier than my Marantz MM8003 power amp. It has almost identical specs as the 5009, same weight but the 5009 has a toroidal. Toroidals are typically more efficient than EI core so I guess that's why for the same weight they were able to rate the 5009 5W (negligble I know..) more per channel. So assuming the weigh specs are accurate, I have to assume most of the weigh difference would come from the different transformer and heat sink/enclosure design and at least a good part would be due to the more powerful transformer in the Onkyo. Then I would further assume the larger transformer does not translate into much measureable output power when compared to the Denon 4311/4520 due to the lower overall efficiency of the Onkyo and that could be why the Onkyos are known (allegedly) to run warmer. Even if I am right about their poorer efficiency being the reason, the Onkyo 300X/500X models still have the best specs on paper among all current AVR on the market IMHO.

Onkyo's may have the best specs but I will avoid them like the plague based on their very poor post sales customer service and poor quality control. Hopefully, the new line was engineered with proper thermal dissipation in mind, something that was sadly lacking in their other models.