Question on the sound of Denon vs other brands

Colin151

Prominent Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
130
Points
373
Age
51
Location
Kensington Olympia, London
I'm planning on getting a new Receiver to replace my ageing Denon 3802, largely because I want the auto Eq available on modern amps and also a more exciting sound. I use Proac speakers, which are a bit on the warm and relaxed side.

I was wondering about the general sound of Denon receivers vs Yamaha vs Pioneer vs Onkyo?

Reading around suggest that Denons generally have a warm/relaxed sound, Yamaha more neutral, Pioneer brighter and tighter sounding, and Onkyo bright and maybe a bit harsh.

I haven't compared any receivers side by side but wanted some opinions as to whether this is roughly correct (maybe from someone who has heard a few different brands recently). I am now thinking that another Denon receiver might not be best suited for my warm sounding speakers.

As for auto EQ I gather that in general people think Audyssey on the Denons is the best, followed by the YPAO system on the Yamahas. Despite the warmer house sound, I am still v attracted to the Denon amps due to the Audyssey system, and have heard various conflicting info on whether the EQ is tweakable on the latest Denons or not, without losing the time and phase alignment Audsysey does. I understand the Yamaha YPAO system is more manually tweakable but not as good in general as Audyssey.

If anyone has any info/advice on these issue I'd love to hear form you. Would be really appreciated.

Cheers,
Colin
 
Denon did have what could be termed a warm sound, but the AVRX models have a more clinical sound to them. Denon have tried to make their receivers a little more exciting after the models prior to the AVRX models were criticised for being too laid back.

Onkyo, Sony and Pioneer are all considered to be clinical in nature. Pioneer are probably the receivers to be classed as being the most clinical of these. Yamaha are warm, but not as warm as DEnon were once regarded to be so neutral would be a fair description, but they do perform better with clinical soeakers than warm natured alternatives.

Many do class Audyssey as being better than Parametric EQ correction such as YPAO or other systems used by many, but I've both a Denon and a Yamaha receiver and I personally still prefer the sound of my Yamaha receiver compared to the Denon despite the DEnon having MultEQ XT room correction. Onkyo have dropped Audyssey and will not be employing it on their new models. A lot of people regard the ARC system employed by Anthem as being the best consumer level system, but this is only employed on Anthem receivers.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for replying. That's interesting info. I guess the current top of the range Denon 4520 has a similar balance to the AVRX models. I was looking at the older 4311 on the used market (as it has Audyssey XT32) but perhaps that one is warmer sounding than the current models and might not be as good for my purposes.

If was based on the tonal balance alone I would probably go for a Yamaha to get something middle of the road. I am not too keen on a clinical sound even though my speakers are quite warm sounding. The trouble is I'm not sure the Yamaha YPAO system will EQ as well as Audyssey. The correction system is v important to me as I'm in a small room.

In the past I owned the once top of the range Yamaha DSP-A1 5.1 amp (about 15 years ago), - which I used with some other Proac speakers. Although I'm not using exactly the same speakers now they are v similar in tone, and with the Denon 3802 the sound is too warm, heavy and relaxed sounding. The older Yamaha was definitely more neutral sounding but never clinical or harsh, so if the current models are similar sounding that's definitely the sort of sound I want. Shame about the EQ issue though. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has compared the current Denon AVRX range to the Yamahas.

Cheers,
Colin
 
Last edited:
The AVR4520 predates the introduction of the new tuning associated with the AVRX models and portrays the sound associsted with the AVRxx13 models. Denon don't replace their flagship model every year so the 4520 is actually older than the AVRX models. It is a good receiver though. Maybe also look a Matantz? Marantz share many of the components associated with Denon receivers because they are both owned by the same company (D&M Holdings) and are built at the same fascilities. Marantz receivers tend to favour a more musical approach to their output, paying more attention to the analogue side of things when compared to DEnon receivers, but the like for like models are as equally accomplished as one another.

I've had older Yamaha receivers and they had much the same sound as the current models portray. Yamaha's "Neutral" badge used to be awardeded to Yamaha's higher end products, but is now associated with all of their goods. They no longer print Neutral on the fascia, but the associated signature sound is still there.
 
I've had five denon receivers in the last two years or so and still own two. The 1912, 3312, 1513, 2113 and 3313. The first two are 2011 models and the last three 2012. They all were laid back and as said they retuned a little for the 2013 models in an effort to give a bolder sound. However there have been reports that the higher end 4520 was also lacking in a bit of excitement. Whilst it's a good price at the moment I ignored it when looking for a new amp a few weeks ago.

I replaced my 3313 with a Yamaha 2020 and the improvement was obvious. That Yamaha has now gone but I'd happily recommend the brand to anyone.
 
The AVR4520 predates the introduction of the new tuning associated with the AVRX models and portrays the sound associsted with the AVRxx13 models. Denon don't replace their flagship model every year so the 4520 is actually older than the AVRX models. It is a good receiver though. Maybe also look a Matantz? Marantz share many of the components associated with Denon receivers because they are both owned by the same company (D&M Holdings) and are built at the same fascilities. Marantz receivers tend to favour a more musical approach to their output, paying more attention to the analogue side of things when compared to DEnon receivers, but the like for like models are as equally accomplished as one another.

I've had older Yamaha receivers and they had much the same sound as the current models portray. Yamaha's "Neutral" badge used to be awardeded to Yamaha's higher end products, but is now associated with all of their goods. They no longer print Neutral on the fascia, but the associated signature sound is still there.

Many thanks for the info about the Denon AVR4520. That's v useful to know. I had been considering it but its tone might not be ideal for me. I could go for the newer AVR-X4000 instead but I'd prefer a 11.2 capable amp if possible. (I might add all the extra speakers gradually)

Yeah the Yamaha DSP-A1 flagship amp I had many years ago was pretty neutral and I really liked the sound in general. The bass was still quite punchy and tight, which it isn't with the Denon 3802 have now, which sounds too heavy and sluggish in the bass, as well as being too warm sounding.

I could look at Marantz but if they are too warm like the Denons I suppose they are best avoided.

Thanks again for the info.
 
I've had five denon receivers in the last two years or so and still own two. The 1912, 3312, 1513, 2113 and 3313. The first two are 2011 models and the last three 2012. They all were laid back and as said they retuned a little for the 2013 models in an effort to give a bolder sound. However there have been reports that the higher end 4520 was also lacking in a bit of excitement. Whilst it's a good price at the moment I ignored it when looking for a new amp a few weeks ago.

I replaced my 3313 with a Yamaha 2020 and the improvement was obvious. That Yamaha has now gone but I'd happily recommend the brand to anyone.

Thanks too for the info. If the 4520 was reviewed as lacking excitement that's definitely not what I am looking for. It seems I should probably be looking at a Yamaha despite them not having Audyssey but I just worry about the EQ system as I have read that Audyssey EQs the bass frequencies really well, which might really help in my small room that's prone to midbass boom and uneven bass. I've read that Yamahas YPAO system generally does not do bass eqing as well as Audyssey.

I see you have an Anthem receiver now. Was that a really big step up from the Yamaha 2020? What kind of balance does it have compared to the Denons and the Yamaha?

Cheers,
Colin
 
We'll Ypao isn't bad but audyssey XT32 is regarded higher for sub EQ. You can always pick up an anti mode for 200. That's what I used with the Yamaha.

As to the reviews read the whathifi and digital trends review of the 4520. They resonated with my experience of recent denons.

The anthem wipes the floor with both of them for sound quality. Far more bold and movie like.
 
We'll Ypao isn't bad but audyssey XT32 is regarded higher for sub EQ. You can always pick up an anti mode for 200. That's what I used with the Yamaha.

As to the reviews read the whathifi and digital trends review of the 4520. They resonated with my experience of recent denons.

The anthem wipes the floor with both of them for sound quality. Far more bold and movie like.

Thanks for the info. Wow the Anthem looks really nice, and a great EQ system too. No 9.1 or 11.1 expandability but I guess it does not matter too much if the sound is a lot better than the others. Is it quite neutral sounding like the Yamaha or more towards the a Pioneer/Onkyo/Sony clinical type of sound?

I have to sort out my current subwoofer situation actually as I presently use two REL storms on their lowest filter setting coming in underneath my Proac main 3.5 main speakers (which are run full range). The subs are connected at speaker level. This mean I have to set the amp settings to "no subwoofer" to get the LFE channel routed to the main speakers and subs. The REL storms can't be run properly at the low level inputs as you unfortunately can't defeat their internal filtering like you can on more modern subs. I've asked before which might be the best amp EQ system for my current unusual situation but no one seemed to know.

I was thinking of ditching the RELs anyway and getting a newer sub with a line level input that has a deflatable filter. The RELs are also ported and I'm pretty sure I'd prefer a seal sub as I want a faster bass. Ported designs are usually slower sounding than real life in my experience, despite having good extension.
 
Yeah the ethos behind the anthem is not about heights and wides, which to me add little anyway. They dropped height support from the current range. I wouldn't define the signature tone as warm or clinical in the 710. Bold is the best adjective. It's good with music and movies.

I put up a thread on here a few months ago about which is the best AVR currently available and the Anthem was the clear winner amongst the people here. Reading reviews the 710 is widely regarded as the best one box available, not least on this site which has awarded it reference status and the box by which all others have to be judged.
 
Yeah the ethos behind the anthem is not about heights and wides, which to me add little anyway. They dropped height support from the current range. I wouldn't define the signature tone as warm or clinical in the 710. Bold is the best adjective. It's good with music and movies.

I put up a thread on here a few months ago about which is the best AVR currently available and the Anthem was the clear winner amongst the people here. Reading reviews the 710 is widely regarded as the best one box available, not least on this site which has awarded it reference status and the box by which all others have to be judged.

Thanks a lot for the info re the Anthem 710. Sounds ideal but the trouble is it's a bit over budget for me. Are previous Anthems pretty good too? (Maybe I can find a used one).

Another quick question is, - does anyone know some of the technical specs of the power amp sections in these amps? (the Denons, Yamaha and Anthems), - like how many output transistors per channel and what types? (Bipolar, Mosfet etc). I am guessing they all probably have 2 output transistors per channel but was wondering...

Some of these modern amps are also suspiciously lightweight. My old Yamaha DSP-A1 weighed 23kg yet only had amplification for 5 channels in class AB, suggesting a healthy power supply. Surprisingly it quickly ran out of steam in a medium-big room (and I had to draft in a more powerful stereo power amp for the main channels). Some of these new amps weigh an awful lot less compared to my old Yammy, when they have 7 or even 9 channels of class AB amplification on board. The Anthem itself is only 14kg. The Denon X4000 is only 12kg. I guess with some of the new amps with Class D power amps on board (like the Pioneers) the lighter weight is much more understandable, but not for the Class AB designs.
 
I recently replaced an ageing Pioneer 2011 with a Denon X4000.
Been very happy with it - wonderfully detailed but music not too clinical. Still a nagging doubt that I should have stepped up to the 4520 but with my sub-sat package (B&W MT30) decided the speakers not up to demonstrating the difference between the 2.
 
I recently replaced an ageing Pioneer 2011 with a Denon X4000.
Been very happy with it - wonderfully detailed but music not too clinical. Still a nagging doubt that I should have stepped up to the 4520 but with my sub-sat package (B&W MT30) decided the speakers not up to demonstrating the difference between the 2.

Many thanks for the info. Yes the Denon X4000 is looking like quite a good option, as its quite cheap (available for around £600 now), is supposedly more neutral than older Denons and has the latest Audyssey XT32 system on it. It doesn't do 11 channels (only 9) but 9 is probably more than enough. (I'm only using 7 at the moment). I would definitely draft in a heavyweight 2 channel power amp to drive my main channels so the slight lack of power compared to a bigger receiver like the 4520 would not matter. To get a Yamaha that did 9 channels I'd be looking at a 2030 or 2020, and they are quite a bit pricier than the Denon X4000, and they don't have Audyssey either.

On the X4000 can you adjust/tweak the EQ at all after Audyssey has run?, or it is simply a question of either having it on, or off?

According to what other people have said, you might have found the older (but still current) Denon 4520 not as neutral as the X4000. I had been considering the 4520 myself until I was told it had the older style warmer/rich Denon sound. Its no good if you have warm sounding speakers.
 
The AVRX4000 will process up to 9.1, but is only a 7.1 AV receiver. You'd need to add external power amplification for the additional 2 channels if wanting 9.1. Maybe also consider the Marantz SR7008 which will give you everything associated with the AVRX4000 plus the inbuilt amplification for 9.1.

Audyssey allow you to manually adjust the EQ curves, but only in relation to a Flat response and not in relation to the full XT32 curves.

Also note that Yamaha have there own interpretation of audio above 7.1 and this will not give you the same type of options as Dolby's PLIIz or Audyssey's DSX as found on the Denon or Marantz receivers. Yamaha employ a system of presence speakers as opposed to additional dimensions such as height.
 
Last edited:
The AVRX4000 will process up to 9.1, but is only a 7.1 AV receiver. You'd need to add external power amplification for the additional 2 channels if wanting 9.1. Maybe also consider the Marantz SR7008 which will give you everything associated with the AVRX4000 plus the inbuilt amplification for 9.1.

Audyssey allow you to manually adjust the EQ curves, but only in relation to a Flat response and not in relation to the full XT32 curves.

Also note that Yamaha have there own interpretation of audio above 7.1 and this will not give you the same type of options as Dolby's PLIIz or Audyssey's DSX as found on the Denon or Marantz receivers. Yamaha employ a system of presence speakers as opposed to additional dimensions such as height.

Thanks a lot for the info. Yes I knew the Denon X4000 only had 7 power amps on board, but I assumed it would matter in my case as I would draft in a much more powerful 2 channel power amp to driver my main channels anyway. I assume the Denon internal power amps could then be used to drive all the other 7 channels? Would it work OK like that or do I need an extra two channel of amplification to specifically drive extra effects channels for 9.1 channel operation?

Thanks for the info on the Maranatz. I had not really considered it but its well worth as look anyway as its not that much pricier than the Denon.

Its a real pain that the Audyssey XT32 curves are not tweakable. From what I read was that its possible manually copy the auto EQ starting from flat (and adjust it as so desired) but you lose the phase and time aligment advantages that come with Audyssey. Apparently if buy the Audyssey pro kit for about £600, it will give you more manual adjustment? Bit pricey though.

Yes I suspected Yamaha's implementation of 9 or 11 channel sound was going to be different from the Audyssey type. Have you any ideas which is preferred in general? (no worries if not)
 
The X4000 would not allow you to reassign the onboard amplification associated with the front channels in order to fascilitate power of an additional pair of speakers with. The only way to get 9.1 is if using the pre outs designated for the additional two channels themselves.

Audyssey Pro wouldn't expand upon the manual adjustment options. What you copy is the response curve results associated with a flat response, not a flat EQ that can then be adjusted. You can only copy Audyssey's flat resonse curves and not the curves that are associated with the XT32 curves that resulted from the calibration. Both the Flat and the XT32 curves are post calibration results, but the Flat curves are not as refined as those associated with XT32. . If you want to tweak then Anthem and its ARC system would be a better option.

The opinion seems to favour Audyssey's DSX and width as opposed to Dolby's height and PLIIz. Height in its present incarnation is considered by many to be nothing more than a gimmick, but this may change with the advent of new formats that actually start to include dedicated channels as opposed to processing that creates pseudo effects? If wanting a more immersive experience then either Audyssey's DSX width or Yamaha's presence speakers would be my preference. The Audyssey width speakers do require a lot of room space though so may not be possible within your listening room? Yamaha front presence speakers can be located above existing front speakers while Audyssey width speakers need to be located to either side and slightly forward of existing front speakers.
 
Last edited:
The X4000 would not allow you to reassign the onboard amplification associated with the front channels in order to fascilitate power of an additional pair of speakers with. The only way to get 9.1 is if using the pre outs designated for the additional two channels themselves.

Audyssey Pro wouldn't expand upon the manual adjustment options. What you copy is the response curve results associated with a flat response, not a flat EQ that can then be adjusted. You can only copy Audyssey's flat resonse curves and not the curves that are associated with the XT32 curves that resulted from the calibration. Both the Flat and the XT32 curves are post calibration results, but the Flat curves are not as refined as those associated with XT32. . If you want to tweak then Anthem and its ARC system would be a better option.

The opinion seems to favour Audyssey's DSX and width as opposed to Dolby's height and PLIIz. Height in its present incarnation is considered by many to be nothing more than a gimmick, but this may change with the advent of new formats that actually start to include dedicated channels as opposed to processing that creates pseudo effects? If wanting a more immersive experience then either Audyssey's DSX width or Yamaha's presence speakers would be my preference. The Audyssey width speakers do require a lot of room space though so may not be possible within your listening room? Yamaha front presence speakers can be located above existing front speakers while Audyssey width speakers need to be located to either side and slightly forward of existing front speakers.

Thanks again for the info. Real shame you can't reassign the power amps on the Denon X4000. In that case I might be looking at the Marantz instead if its tonally similar.

Its also a pain concerning the the limited manual adjustibility of Audyssey. Might be a good idea to save for the Anthem instead.

I swear that I read that Audyssey pro was more adjustable, - will have another read around. Though I also read that Audyssey XT32 is better than Audyssey pro anyway.

Thanks for the info on different 11 channel operations. You are right it might be hard to accommodate Audyssey width channels in my room. The Yamaha front presence might be a much easier option. Front presence has long been on Yamaha amps, - even my old DSPA1 had them (which means I was wrong earlier, - the DSP-A1 had 7 channel of amplification (not 5) and weighed 23kg. Still heavier than most amps these days (and it ran out of steam like I mentioned, though I was driving my front two main channel full range (which most people don't do) and hence putting more strain on the Yamaha power supply).

I only just realised the other 2 extra channel in a Yamaha setup are rear presence, - is that any good?, - seems like an awful lot of speakers at the back!
 
Last edited:
Audyssey Pro is an extension of any implementation of Audyssey MultEQ room correction. Only receivers with the inbuilt capability to use pro can implement it. All current XT32 equipped AV receiver can utilise the Pro aspect of Audyssey. Pro is the installation calibration as opposed to a consumer level implementation of Audyssey. The additional modification to the curves relates more to the mid range than to the LFE and lower frequencies. The main difference will be the number of sample positions used during the calibration. The filters used are the exact same filters used for the basic XT32 and are already in operation within the receiver. The basic XT32 can use up to 8 while Pro will allow up to 32 points. You also get a pro grade mic and preamp with the pro kit as well as a mic stand. You may be better off paying someone who has Pro certfication to do the calibration as opposed to buyingthe kit yourself and doing it?

MultEQ Pro is the software and calibration kit that can be used with any installer-ready product. A full list of current models can be found here. The MultEQ Pro calibration produces filters that fix the acoustical problems in your room. The filters must run on the same processor that is available to run the standard MultEQ XT (or XT32) that comes with the AVR and so the filter resolution is the same as what the AVR version already offers. However, the MultEQ Pro software and calibration kit gives the following advantages for both MultEQ XT and XT32:

1. Professional mic that is individually calibrated

2. The ability to take more measurements (up to 32)

3. The ability to save and re-load measurements

4. The ability to make adjustments to the target sound using a graphical interface

MultEQ Pro vs MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 : Ask Audyssey

XT32 is still a consumer level product while Pro is upgradable to a higher level via software updates. Audyssey updated it to surpass XT32 after introducing XT32. Only certified installers have access to the upgrades.
 
Thanks a lot for the info and clarification. If the pro version only offers more tweaking in the mid and treble than the basic XT32 its probably not worth it. Will have to have a read up on it. Thanks for the links.

The trouble is, it seems when you buy an amp with Audyssey on it like a Denon or Marantz it's really Russian roulette as to whether you will like the results of Audyssey or not, and you can't tweak it manually without disabling the time and phase alignment.

I am a bit stuck as ideally want the tone of the neutral/slightly warm Yamahas, but I ideally want the better Audyssey EQ system on the Denons (but most Denons are too warm sounding with the Proacs). Tough choice. I am also half tempted to try a more clinical Pioneer or Onkyo with the warm Proacs, - maybe if I can find a nice used one that I can resell if I don’t like it. Will have to have a think though perhaps a Yamaha is the best/safest compromise even if I am missing out on some of the features of Audyssey. I will at least be able to compare the tone to my ageing Denon 3802.

Cheers,
Colin


Audyssey Pro is an extension of any implementation of Audyssey MultEQ room correction. Only receivers with the inbuilt capability to use pro can implement it. All current XT32 equipped AV receiver can utilise the Pro aspect of Audyssey. Pro is the installation calibration as opposed to a consumer level implementation of Audyssey. The additional modification to the curves relates more to the mid range than to the LFE and lower frequencies. The main difference will be the number of sample positions used during the calibration. The filters used are the exact same filters used for the basic XT32 and are already in operation within the receiver. The basic XT32 can use up to 8 while Pro will allow up to 32 points. You also get a pro grade mic and preamp with the pro kit as well as a mic stand. You may be better off paying someone who has Pro certfication to do the calibration as opposed to buyingthe kit yourself and doing it?



MultEQ Pro vs MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 : Ask Audyssey

XT32 is still a consumer level product while Pro is upgradable to a higher level via software updates. Audyssey updated it to surpass XT32 after introducing XT32. Only certified installers have access to the upgrades.
 
Last edited:
The X4000 would not allow you to reassign the onboard amplification associated with the front channels in order to fascilitate power of an additional pair of speakers with. The only way to get 9.1 is if using the pre outs designated for the additional two channels themselves.

It seems this statement was incorrect. Just had a look at the Denon X4000 manual (pages 182 and 183) and am glad I did. It looks like it is actually possible to choose which channels you want an external 2 channel power amp to amplify, which must also mean it must be possible to reassign the 7 internal amps to cover the other channels you want working up to 9.2 operation, - centre, and main surrounds are mandatory, but you can choose the others effects channels). That's quite good for my purposes, though the Marantz 7008 also looks pretty good for not much more money. I think I would probably prefer the sound of a Yamaha 9.2 amp, but the Denon or Marantz are certainly worth trying for considerably cheaper money and have Audyssey XT32 on board.

It does however sound from the Marantz 7008 review that it might have a warm, subtle sound, similar to the older range of Denon amps like the 4520. If the Denon X4000 has a livelier/more neutral sound I would probably prefer that with my particular speakers. Might try to get some demos.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

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