Answered Denon X4100W vs X5200W

Fush

Established Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
138
Reaction score
4
Points
71
Hi! Have anyone had the chance to audition both the AVR-X4100W and X5200W from Denon? How do they compare when it comes to sound and build quality? I am interested in this partially because one is manufactured in China, the other in Japan.
 
the 4100 cannot be upgraded for Auro3D and also lacks the addition processing that the 5200 has that allows the 5200 to be used as a 11.2 processor in conjunction with external amplification. The 4100 is limited to 9.1 and cannot be expanded beyond this.

A better comparison would be between the AVRX5200W and the Marantz SR7009. They are practically the same apart from the additional power associated with the 5200, but the SR7009 sells for quite a lot less than the 5200. The SR7009 makes for a better alternative to the AVRX5200 than the AVRX4100.
 
Yeah, I know that the X5200W has certain features that the X4100W doesn't. (And actually the Auro3D upgrade is available for the X4100W as well.)

In this thread I am interested in the aspects that cannot be read from a spec sheet. That is, how do the units actually sound? Are you able to tell a difference? Are there any differences in the quality of the components used? One is manufactured by Denon in Japan, the other by Inkel/Sherwood in China. Is the internal design and layout the same, or are they built on different platforms?
 
The AVRX4100 uses many of the components found onboard the higher end AVRX5200, but obviously has less power, a lower grade power supply and a diminished number of channel it can both power and or processor. All the DEnon models conform to the same fundemental designs and share componets irrespective of where they are manufactured.

They are not comparable and the AVRX4000 is purposely marketed as a lesser receiver. It will struggle to power some speakers its big brother can deal with. I'd doubt you'd get much audible improvement with the AVRX5200 in its purest sense though and doubt you'd hear much of a difference in an average sized room while powering most speakers? I'd probably still suggest the Marantz SR7009 if looking for an alternative with slightly better/different audio potential. The Main difference if that the Marantz models use an entirely different analogue board that uses proprietary Marantz HDAM circuitry. This circuitry is basically what not only differentiates the Marantz models from Denon, but also gives Marantz the edge in terms of their signature sound and music performance. If looking for something that sounds better than the AVRX4100 then you are more likely to hear it with the SR7009 than with the AVRX5200 for less plus the fact you still get some of the thrills associated with the AVRX5200 with the SR7009 that are absent from the AVRX4100. You'd still be limited in terms of power though with the SR7009. This is the weak spot with both the AVRX4100 and the SR7009.

If looking for a cheaper alternative to the AVRX5200 then I'd suggest you are looking at the wrong model and the Marantz SR7009 should be at the top of your list. THe SR7009 is probably the best value for money Atmos receiver you can currently get?

I doubt having something manufactured in Japan has the prestige it once had? It is simply more expensive to employ Japanese workers and the abilities of those workers are no less than those associated with China. China has made manufactureing goods to a high standard a science as opposed to an art. What is rather baffling is why D&M build the AVRX5200 in Japan but don't sell or market it there? I'm in the belief that the Same plant in China is responsible for the manufacture of NAD goods and NAD are hardly a concern associated with low end budget kit. You could have it built in the UK for even more money, but would that mean it was built any better than it would be in China?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, this is good information. It is a fact though, that Denon makes their high-end models (X5200W and X7200W) locally in Japan, and uses this information as part of the marketing. The lower end models (X4100W and down) are made in China in the same OEM plant as Marantz, Pioneer, H/K, Insignia, NAD and a bunch of other brands. Whether the receivers are also designed by the OEM-supplier in China, or merely assambled there, I'm not sure of.

The question is, why would Denon make a point of this distinction, if it didn't matter? If quality is the same, surely they would move all manufacturing to China?

Regarding price, these are the local prices in my country:

Marantz SR7009: £1293
Denon X5200W: £1208
Denon X4100W: £733 (limited time only, normal MSRP is £863)

So the best value Atmos receiver here would be the X4100W.
 
The designs and R&D that lead to them originated from D&M irrespective of where the goods are manufactured and by who. The goods also use the same core components and the goods are merely assempbled at the fascilities in question. The facilities are basically production lines where the products are assembled using the same core components. The AVRX4100 and the lesser models are not built under license and are still Denon products through and through.

Here in the UK we can get the SR7009 for less than £1000. I'd suggest the AVRX5200 as being the more sensible purchase where you are. It therefore boils down to the key diffeences I mentioned, that being the available power as opposed to different audio signature. I'd still suggest the AVRX4100 as not being a comparable product, but if willing to forgo the obvious difference then you're not really losing that much in terms of the receivers actual sound. The AVRX4100 will struggle more with difficult to drive loads though and is rated poorly in terms of it power when compared to similarly priced receivers.

The 4100 is still not the best value for money when you compare the onboard processing and abilities of the SR7009 and the AVRX5200 to it. It is a lower end product whichever way you look at it and actually over priced when you take into consideration its rather poor reputation for power output. Unlike the AVRX5200 and the SR7009 you can never implement a full 7.1.4 Atmos configuration with the 4100. As far as Atmos goes, the best you can ever attain with the 4100 is 7.1.2. This is not really an issue if only wanting a 5.1.4 setup though so I suppose it depends on your intended listening room and what it can accommodate?
 
Thanks again, for this information. The X5200W is rated at 140W and the X4100W at 125W. That's just a 15W difference. Is it really big enough to warrant the 64% price increase?

The receiver will only have to drive a 4.1 speaker setup. The two front speakers are specified at "4-8 ohms (easy load)" and 89 dB sensitivity.
 
I'd be wary with 4ohm loads with the 4100 and the sensitivity of your speakers isn't so good as to rule out issues with powering them. How big is your room? You might get away with it in a smaller room? Its actually the improved dynamic power and associated headroom where you'd benfit most from the AVRX5200.

Why the desire for an Atmos enabled receiver if only wanting to fascilitate a 4.1 configuration? Is it purely a matter of these receivers being available in stores now and you wanting a Denon receiver of a certain calibre?
 
The room is of medium size, but difficult regarding speaker placements (the sub has to go in a corner etc) and lack of dampening. The main feature for me therefore is the Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

The X4100W clearly states that it's able to run 4 ohm speakers, so that should't be much of a problem, right? That's one of the upgrades over the X4000W.
 
Feedback does seem to suggest that Denon have been rather liberal with their interpretation of the specifications they've given. Both the AVRX4100 and the SR7009 are often portrayed as lacking power by many who use them. The AVRX4100 may have now received a 4ohm rating, but it uses the exact same PSU as that employed onboard its predecessor and its predecessor has the exact same power rating of 125 watts (8 ohm, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, 0.05% 2ch Drive). In fact this is the same PSU and rating associated with my AVR3313 that predated the AVRX4000 that replaced it. I can't say that I'm overly confident of the power output of my AVR3313 and I've a relatively small room and all my speakers have an 8ohm nominal impedance.

Not really an issue in small rooms whilst power 8 or 6ohm loads, but could be an issue in larger rooms whilst powering 4ohm and lower impedance speakers?
 
Last edited:
What kind of feeback are you referring to here? Do you have any links?
 
Hard to point you directly at any one instance, but trawl a few threads either here or on other boards and you will come across instances where Denon's ratings are questioned. As said, I've the forerunner to both the AVRX4000 and the 4100 and this uses the exact same PSU and I'd have to agree with the sentiment that these receivers aren't the best when it comes to their power output. I'd not slate the AVRX4100, but I would advise caution if wanting to power low impedance speakers to reference level in a moderately large room. As I said, this is D&M's weak spot not only with the AVRX4100, but also in relation to the SR7009. THey've been slated for this for a few years now so maybe that's why the sudden appearance of the 4ohm rating despite there not actually being a different PSU employed? The rating itself is an odd one, given that it is stated on the reverse of the receiver, but not stated on Denon's own site within the receiver's specs?
 
but no rating as such for a 4ohm load.

Go to Yamaha's site for example and they rate each and every one of their receivers in relation to a 4ohm load. I'm at a loss as to why D&M can't do likewise unless there's something to hide? Also note "Down to" which isn't to say they are suggesting the recever can power 4 ohm speakers which can have a nominal impedance that dips below 4ohm.
 
Last edited:
Hard to point you directly at any one instance, but trawl a few threads either here or on other boards and you will come across instances where Denon's ratings are questioned. As said, I've the forerunner to both the AVRX4000 and the 4100 and this uses the exact same PSU and I'd have to agree with the sentiment that these receivers aren't the best when it comes to their power output. I'd not slate the AVRX4100, but I would advise caution if wanting to power low impedance speakers to reference level in a moderately large room. As I said, this is D&M's weak spot not only with the AVRX4100, but also in relation to the SR7009. THey've been slated for this for a few years now so maybe that's why the sudden appearance of the 4ohm rating despite there not actually being a different PSU employed? The rating itself is an odd one, given that it is stated on the reverse of the receiver, but not stated on Denon's own site within the receiver's specs?

the 7008 did pretty well all channels output in the Sound and Vision review a while back - so I'd expect the 7009 to do very well too.

heck even the recently reviewed 5009 did very well on the power output all channels driven

I think the 7009 actually has 2x15,000uF capacitors as part of the overall PSU which I am not sure how compares to the 5200

the 7009 has the HDAMs in the pre-amp stage

with the 7009 cheaper by nearly a couple of hundred quid in the UK for me its a quite easy decision and I'm prob going to put in an order for a 7009 - but if the prices were the other way round - not sure which I'd go for

I'd say they are both excellent though - so can't really go wrong :)
 
I'd say they are both excellent though - so can't really go wrong :)
You're talking about the X5200W vs the SR7009 here? I am mostly interested in the X4100W, because of the highly attractive price point. The question is if it will be able to drive my speakers in a convincing way. I never go to reference levels while watching movies. I am rarey above -20 dB.
 
Regarding power, I just came across this tool from Harman: Amplifier Power Required Calculator

If I enter my values:
  • Listener distance: 4m
  • Loudspeaker sensitivity: 89 dB
  • Desired dBSPL: 80
  • Amplifier headroom: 3 dB
The tool claims that an amplifier power of 4 watts will be sufficient. So with 125W in the X4100W, that would be plenty more, right? Or is that not how the tool should be used?
 
I'd go check your speakers specifications. I doubt that the manufacturer is recommending any less than 20 watts as a minimum requirement? Also does that calulator take into consideration that you are powering at least 4 speakers and that the 125 watt rating of your receiver only relates to 2 channels driven? In the strictest of terms then yes, the calculator is correct, but there are other factors to take into consideration. For instance, the 125 watt rating is in relation to a 8ohm load, but you have 4ohm speakers. This actually means the output is closer to double 125 watts in relation to that load. This at first glance looks favourable because you are getting more power, but the issue is that the receiver is more likely to overheat at higher volume levels while trying to keep up with the increased power output.

I think you'll be okay with the AVRX4100, but you'd be better off with the AVRX5200 if you've a large room and if wanting to listen to audio at relatively high levels close to reference levels.
 
The manufacturer recommends a high quality amp with 50 to 200 watts of power.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom