# AVR Suggestions



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

So I'm in the market for a new AVR and it's been a long time since I've really done any research on them. I have a set of Acoustic Research speakers, AR1s for mains, AR2c center, AR4c surrounds and Edge Pro rears. For the last ten years I've been running them off of Panasonic class D receivers, mostly for heat output and size because my equipment was in a closet, but I really did like the sound.

I still really like my Panasonic SA-XR57K, but it only has one HDMI input and doesn't pass through 1080p or 3D video, which is a problem. The only other feature that it's missing that I'm interested in is matrixing 5.1 to 7.1 channel sound. I don't care about apple products, streaming audio through the receiver, multiple zones, on screen menus, or any other add-on features, I just want a good amp with the inputs I need. I also am going to have the equipment out in an open rack with great airflow and plenty of room, so I don't to worry about those aspects anymore, but it would be nice to have an AVR that looks really cool since people will be able to see it now.

I've been looking at the Denon 1913, and am almost ready to order a refurb from Accessories4Less, but just wanted to make sure no one had anything to point out that I'm missing since I haven't been in the market for a receiver for a long time.


----------



## ALMFamily (Oct 19, 2011)

As those speakers are pretty efficient, you should be able to drive them with just about anything. The biggest plus for the Onkyo 609 (which is the unit most suggested due to the many features) is the beefy amplification stage, but the Denon should have no issues in my opinion.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

What is your budget? I would recommend going with an Onkyo 709, its got a great amp section has pre outs for possible future addition of external amps and has Audyssey Multi EQ XT


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Seems like you're always here to help me out at a moment's notice man, I appreciate it.

Looking at the Onkyo 609 I'm seeing THX certification, more inputs (one toslink input on the denon kind of bothers me), extra speaker ports for zone 2 and line level pre-outs, and it's $50 less. That sounds awesome, but what about discrete amps? If I'm reading it right, the Denon has discrete amps for each channel, and I don't see anything about that on the Onkyo.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

discrete amps is the norm for all receivers. Im fairly certain that you cant "share" an amp with more than one channel.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> What is your budget? I would recommend going with an Onkyo 709, its got a great amp section has pre outs for possible future addition of external amps and has Audyssey Multi EQ XT


I haven't set a budget per se, but the most I've spent on an AVR in the past is $300. The 609 is available for $290 after shipping from A4L, the 709 is $180 more than that. Being realistic I really doubt I'll ever get separate amps, I love my speakers and they don't need a lot of power, and If I ever go beyond 7.1 I'm sure I'll need a new AVR by that time anyway for some reason or other, 4k or some other new ridiculous thing... I'm thinking there's nothing in the 709 that would be worth the price difference to me at this point.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Auddyessy Multi EQ XT is a big step up from EQ2 thats in the 609


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Audyssey is cool and all, but I'm more hands on with my video and audio settings anyway, I'm not one to trust an auto-correction system. Is there anything Audyssey does that you can't do on your own?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

It will adjust for phase as well as some other distance related settings that you can not adjust manually.
EQ2 gives you no eq filters on the sub channel at all.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

The price difference is more than worth it for the upgraded version of Audyssey. You will become a believer when you hear for yourself what it can do.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> discrete amps is the norm for all receivers. Im fairly certain that you cant "share" an amp with more than one channel.


That goes to show you how long it's been since I've shopped for receivers. Back in the early '00s they were still making integrated circuit receivers where the power was distributed from one amp to multiple channels based on the requirements of each channel at the time. Usually I think the main L+R speakers were in their own amps and the surrounds shared one.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

JBrax said:


> The price difference is more than worth it for the upgraded version of Audyssey. You will become a believer when you hear for yourself what it can do.


The price difference is a 62% increase... I'm not so much skeptical as I am just... well I guess I'm skeptical. I always looked at Audyssey as something along the lines of using a preset picture mode on a tv. I think it's a good starting point, but I'm still going to adjust it until it sounds the way I want it to.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

There's nothing wrong with tweaking after running Audyssey. I set all of my crossovers to 80 and ended up adjusting levels with an SPL. I was impressed how much of an improvement Audyssey made in my setup.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Well, I'm reading about Onkyo's failure rate, particularly on HDMI ports, and I'm leaning towards the Denon 1913 again. It would be nice to have the extra inputs, but practically speaking I'm unlikely to use them. I'll hook up my laserdisc player to the toslink input and probably watch something on it once, and if I have something else that needs toslink I can swap out the wire. Other than that everything I hook up will be through HDMI.


----------



## ALMFamily (Oct 19, 2011)

MrAngles said:


> Well, I'm reading about Onkyo's failure rate, particularly on HDMI ports, and I'm leaning towards the Denon 1913 again. It would be nice to have the extra inputs, but practically speaking I'm unlikely to use them. I'll hook up my laserdisc player to the toslink input and probably watch something on it once, and if I have something else that needs toslink I can swap out the wire. Other than that everything I hook up will be through HDMI.


Realize that all units have issues - I just had to send my Denon 4520 back due to a faulty HDMI board. I would say go with your first choice of the Denon - although I think you would be pleased with either unit.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

The Denon is certainly fancier looking, so that's a plus... I've been lucky enough to never have problems with receivers until after they've been in storage for a while anyway. Of course HDMI probably causes more problems than any other technology in the home entertainment industry, so I shouldn't be surprised that there are more issues lately.


----------



## ALMFamily (Oct 19, 2011)

MrAngles said:


> The Denon is certainly fancier looking, so that's a plus... I've been lucky enough to never have problems with receivers until after they've been in storage for a while anyway. *Of course HDMI probably causes more problems than any other technology in the home entertainment industry, so I shouldn't be surprised that there are more issues lately.*


Hit the nail right on the head IMO.....


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

MrAngles said:


> Audyssey is cool and all, but I'm more hands on with my video and audio settings anyway, I'm not one to trust an auto-correction system. Is there anything Audyssey does that you can't do on your own?


A man after my own heart. It can get a bit tedious, though. Even as a dedicated hand-tuner, I occasionally wish I could just push a button and be done with it. Audyssey might be a nice fall-back option.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Okay, so now I'm wondering what differences there are between the 1912 and the 1913. The 1913 lost the S-Video input, so if everything else is essentially the same as it appears to be, I may go with the older model.

Also wondering what's better about the CI models. I see ir input jacks, which would be nice, but I think that's the only feature that would make a difference for me.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Just be aware that the 1912/1913 will only do about 55watts per channel all channels driven and does not have a very good video processor so if you watch alot of SD video it may or may not do a good job of upconverting them. Here is a bench test of the 1913


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

I feel like an old man here saying something like "video processing is for video players." The only reason I want an S-Video input on the receiver is so I don't have to run a 50 foot S-Video cable to my projector for the one or two times I play a laserdisc. Can you turn off all the video upscaling/processing?

As far as the wattage goes, I doubt it's worse than the digital amps in my Panasonic SA-XR57, which sounds great to me with my Acoustic Research speakers. As long as it gets plenty loud and there's no distortion, what else am I looking for?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Believe it or not the SA-XR57 benched tested at 0.1% distortion at 72.6 watts all channels driven so it did better then the Denon. Its because of the class D amps in the Panasonic.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> What is your budget? I would recommend going with an Onkyo 709, its got a great amp section has pre outs for possible future addition of external amps and has Audyssey Multi EQ XT


I agree on recommending the 709!


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Believe it or not the SA-XR57 benched tested at 0.1% distortion at 72.6 watts all channels driven so it did better then the Denon. Its because of the class D amps in the Panasonic.


Wow, that's a big difference. I love how clean the class D amps in the XR line are but I just figured that the real world wattage ratings would end up being lower than most higher powered analog amps.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

MrAngles said:


> Wow, that's a big difference. I love how clean the class D amps in the XR line are but I just figured that the real world wattage ratings would end up being lower than most higher powered analog amps.


True however its all about the power supply, if its not big enough it cant supply power to all the amps at the same time. class A/B amps are not bad at all just less efficient than class D amps. The ones in the Panasonic wont be super high quality.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> True however its all about the power supply, if its not big enough it cant supply power to all the amps at the same time. class A/B amps are not bad at all just less efficient than class D amps. The ones in the Panasonic wont be super high quality.


I agree and correct me if I am wrong but when it comes to receivers the Panasonic line is not the one to go with. Panasonic tv or dvd players yes. For receivers to name a few I would choose from manufacturers like Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha, Pioneer and even Sherwood to name a few. I would go with those brands regardless of whether its class A/B or D amplifiers.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

It really makes me wonder why the whole class D thing never really took off. I realize there are a lot of guys who want a big heavy amp just because that's the way they traditionally are supposed to be, but I see things like the Marantz slimline receivers selling well and and think if more manufacturers made digital receiver lines they should do well. Now I think the only class d receivers left are in HTiBs.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Maybe you guys are going to just stop talking to me right now, but after all of this I'm kind of not wanting to spend a bunch of cash on a receiver that isn't exactly what I want and I'd rather get a cheap one that does what I want it to do and I can replace it later if I feel it's necessary (and I'm not in the middle of spending thousands of dollars finishing my basement). With that in mind, I'm looking at the Onkyo HT-R590 at A4L for $185 shipped. It looks like it was been part of a HTiB or something, but it's 7.1 and has 4 HDMI inputs that support 1080p and 3D. It doesn't have any of the fluff I don't care about like network capability, upscaling, extra zones, but it will switch between sources and will amplify audio signals, which is all I'm looking for.

I've never bought a HTiB before and I feel kind of like a tool thinking about buying a receiver from one, but it looks like it meets my needs. Am I crazy?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Class D amps if implemented correctly will preform very well against traditional A/B amps however there is much more to the circuitry in a class D amp done right and the cost is higher. Some of the high end Pioneer and Denon amps use class D amps.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Most HTIB receivers do not use class D amps Panasonic is one of only a few that do. The Onkyo one you linked to uses the normal A/B class amps.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Most HTIB receivers do not use class D amps Panasonic is one of only a few that do. The Onkyo one you linked to uses the normal A/B class amps.


I've seen so many slimline or DVD changer/receivers in HTiBs at people's houses that I just assumed they were class D. I knew that the Onkyo is obviously not class D given the size and the fact that it weighs 20 pounds. But do you think it's missing something critical here? Does the fact that it was probably originally shipped with a set of 4 ohm or 6 ohm speakers make a difference?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

If your just looking for simple the Onkyo would work fine but it would be no better than the Denon 1913/12 as far as power output.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

I expected as much, but it would be cheap. On the other hand, even cheaper would be to drop $60 at Monoprice on a matrix HDMI splitter/switch that supports HDMI 1.4 and just use the receiver I already have and enjoy. Maybe for the time being I'll just do that, and wait on a receiver until I'm more willing to spend $400-$500 on something like the Onkyo 709.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Yup, thats an option as well.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

I don't think I thought that through. Even if I split my HDMI signal, the signal going to the receiver is still going to be 1080p, and the receiver just shuts off if I do that.

I keep looking at the favorable 1713 review, the multitude of comments from so many people about not being able to tell an audible difference between receivers regardless of the specs, and the fact that my speakers would probably put out clean sound even if they were plugged into a headphone jack. I'm not sure why I should worry about the amp power in the Denons.

Then I noticed that the 1712 is 7.1, which I had not realized before. It has an IR port, S-Video input, and your fancy Multi-EQ XT. I'm not sure how helpful the S-Video input is if it doesn't convert it to HDMI. I lose network connectivity (who cares), no-signal power off timer (which I'd like) and I think that's it.

I realize I'm being difficult but I appreciate all the input.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

You are not being difficult, you are thinking about the things that matter to you. Most people don't and then come here trying to figure out a work around.

I really do think you do not need to worry very much about the power rating of the AVR.
You have efficient speakers that are easy to drive.
In the real world you will seldom have one channel asking for 100 watts and you will never have 5 channels asking for it at the same time.
So unless you desire to listen at dance club levels you are never going to ask the AVR for more than it can give.
Keep concentrating on the features that matter to you.

I do not know if any of the AVRs will pass a standard definition signal to the HDMI output without up converting it. Upconversion is pretty much standard,.
I just looked at the 1712 manual and the S-Video connector is also labeled Dock, the illustration shows it being used with the optional iPod docking station. 
I see no information that indicates the S-Video is not passed through the HDMI. You probably have to map it and the Dock 2 channel audio, but that will be the same as any of the 'legacy' inputs.

Page 10
http://usa.denon.com/DocumentMaster/US/AVR1712 Owners Manual.pdf


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Thanks for the link to the manual, page 4 actually states that digital signals will not be converted to analog, and vice versa. Actually, when looking at the diagram, seems like it just converts S-Video to composite, which is kind of ridiculous. The receiver OSD only works over HDMI anyway, so as far as i can tell there is no reason to hook any video other than HDMI up to the AVR.









But that's not a big deal, I'll just get a long S-Video cable from monoprice, or probably not even do that and never watch a laserdisc anyway...


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

OK, I am not a Denon owner so I am not speaking from that perspective.
It does not make sense to me that any AVR would not map all inputs to the HDMI output.
Page 91 of the manual has a somewhat cryptic table that details the inputs to outputs and the way I read the table this AVR follows what I consider standard protocol and all inputs can be mapped to the HDMI output.
I don't really want to study the manual so if I am in error and this Denon does not map all inputs to the HDMI output I would pass on it.
I have been very pleased with my Pioneer, but the equivalent model is higher in the lineup than you want to be.
Maybe Pioneer would work for you.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

That table is hard to read but if I'm looking at the x's and o's right HDMI goes to HDMI, component goes to component and s-video/composite video goes to composite. The receiver doesn't have any video processing at all, so I guess there wouldn't be a way to convert analog to digital.

The thing is though that this is the very least of my concerns about a receiver. I've never felt the need to run video through a receiver in my life until HDMI became the only way to run 7.1 audio. I'd rather not pay more or lose features that I do want just add unnecessary video processing into the mix. It's all kind of a moot point anyway as all new components come with HDMI and I only have one component that doesn't have it, and I really only have it for nostalgia in the first place. If it was possible to buy a simple digital decoder/amplifier with some speaker distance/delay/crossover settings and a reasonable number of inputs, that's what I would buy.

If anything, the fact that the 1712 doesn't have any video processing would give me peace of mind that my video stream isn't being messed with,


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

My only thing with your thoughts of not wanting any video processing or upconversion is that at some point it has to be upconverted to the native resolution of the display. Generally the receiver or BD player will do the best job of it. SO I am confused as to why you dont want any video processing?


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

It's not that I don't want any video processing, it's that I don't want it in my receiver when I already have a video player whose whole purpose is to decode and process video. The idea of adding more potential steps in the video chain that mess with the video, especially when my main source of video is Blu-ray by a wide margin, makes me a little nervous, conceptually. Not conspiracy theory-level nervous, but at least nervous enough to say it out loud once.

As far as upconversion goes, the only standard definition video I watch is on my PS3, which is output at whatever I set the PS3 resolution to through who knows what type of scaling process, and it looks as good as I could expect standard definition video to look. I've seen DVDs upscaled on different players and I've seen good upconversion and bad upconversion, but I just don't think I can tell the difference between decent upconversion and great upconversion as much as a lot of the louder people online seem to be able to. I'm sure the PS3 does a good enough job for the times I decide to watch Dr Katz on my projection screen anyway.

None of this is to say that I don't understand why ANYONE would want features like video processing or networking in their AVR, just that they aren't things that I need personally.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

What BD player do you have?


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Playstation 3


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Yup, that does a good job of upconversoin. But that said your kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place because you want a good receiver without the bells and whistles, you dont have much choice if you want a good receiver. The really low end ones suffer with poor amplification and audio quality.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Well it's all relative, Luther's review of the 1713 makes it sound like it does a perfectly fine job in it's price range. I'm just not convinced that I'll hear a difference between the 1712 or 1913 and something like the Onkyo 709, and considering the $150+ price difference and concerns about HDMI boards going out after the 1 year warranty on the refurbs, I'm not sure why I wouldn't go with one of the Denons, unless I'm missing something critical here. 

I just wish there was a place around here I could here one, but the only places that sells this stuff around here that I can find are Best Buy (without even a magnolia) and Sears.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The "bad HDMI boards" in the709 affected a very small amount of them manufactured between November and December and I have not heard of any failing from Accessories4less.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> The "bad HDMI boards" in the709 affected a very small amount of them manufactured between November and December and I have not heard of any failing from Accessories4less.


I certainly don't want to start an argument, but I would add to that statement "so far." My concern is less about what will happen within the first few months of ownership, and more in the long term, particularly after the warranty has expired, especially on a refurbished unit. I realize that any AVR you buy has the possibility of failing at some point, but based on the reports I've read it seems much less likely that a Denon will fail vs an Onkyo.

If the Onkyo 609 had something that clearly benefited me over the Denons, or the 709 had some improvement for my application that was clearly worth a 50% price difference, I would weigh that in with the higher fail rate and maybe make a different decision, but so far I haven't seen it. I have to ask if the amps in the Denon models in this range really were not powerful enough to run a system and make it sound great, why don't I see any Denon owners complaining about the amplification stage online?

I guess there's only one way to be sure, so at this point I'm thinking that my best bet is to get the 1712 and sell or return it if it doesn't do the job.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

MrAngles said:


> I certainly don't want to start an argument, but I would add to that statement "so far." My concern is less about what will happen within the first few months of ownership, and more in the long term, particularly after the warranty has expired, especially on a refurbished unit. I realize that any AVR you buy has the possibility of failing at some point, but based on the reports I've read it seems much less likely that a Denon will fail vs an Onkyo.


Discussion is good  I personally have never had an issue with Onkyo and personally own one that had so many "dad reports" and its now going on 5 years old and no issues.



> why don't I see any Denon owners complaining about the amplification stage online?


In most cases people who buy these low end models (not just Denon owners) have no idea what distortion sounds like or care.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I looked at the 1712 manual on the computer (instead of this phone) and it certainly appears you are correct that none of the analog inputs are switched to the HDMI.
This would exclude it from my consideration because I want that connectivity. 
At one time I was very concerned about everything in the video chain processing the video too.
Fortunately this concern has turned out to be no concern at all.
Obviously I have not kept up with all the AVRs that have come out since I bought mine so things may be different in the current generation.
But most AVRs either did not process incoming HD video or the processing could be turned off.
When it comes to upconverting an old VHS or even a S-video there's not been any difference noticeable to me between going through the AVR or connecting directly to the TV. My AVR upconverts all SD video and outputs through HDMI.
You should get what you want.
The people here make recommendations based on their own perceptions of value, experience, research, performance, and care abouts.
The intent is not to argue with you, because in the end you have to live with it.
I have Pioneer, my brother has Denon. We are both happy and we both listen to each others system on a regular basis.
At the time I made my purchase my perception was Pioneer was the most reliable and had the fewest HDMI handshake issues.
These two factors were major considerations in my decision.
If you question any manufacturer's reliability pass on them.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Discussion is good  I personally have never had an issue with Onkyo and personally own one that had so many "dad reports" and its now going on 5 years old and no issues.


 I'm sure they would have recalled them if ALL of them were defective... I just don't want to gamble on it at the moment. I own an Onkyo as well that is ten years old and still going strong, I have it hooked up to my computer right now. But I will say that it, and every Onkyo I've dealt with ran noticeably hot. It sounds like heat is a pretty big factor in the hdmi board issues, so that does concern me.



> In most cases people who buy these low end models (not just Denon owners) have no idea what distortion sounds like or care.


I'd be surprised if Luther, who reviewed the 1713 has no idea what distortion like, but let me ask this. (and I realize that this reads like a challenge, and I don't know, maybe it is, but it's all in the pursuit of knowledge) Have you ever heard distortion from an AVR? How high was the volume when the distortion started? I have not, or I assume I haven't. I'm pretty sure I know what it sounds like, I hear plenty of it in bad car amps. The highest volume I've ever turned any receiver up to with these speakers is halfway.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Its probably better to say distortion is a lack of clarity and dynamics. Some may think its a compressed sound but in the end distortion happens when the receivers amps dont have enough power and loose the full smooth signwave turning into a flat top and bottom. These flat spots will cause damage to the speakers (mostly the tweeters). Its complicated but those who upgrade to either an external amp or who have enough headroom in there amps hear a difference including myself.

Again if you have easy to drive speakers (above 90db efficiency) an amp that provides 60watts of power will reach reference levels.
It was said that you will never be driving all channels to 100watts that may be true however 60 or even 80 watts is very possible with many of the action movies out nowadays. Plus if you listen to all channel stereo then if its at a decent level you could also certainly get there.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

That makes sense. I'm just basing the idea that I will have plenty of watts on the fact that I generally have the volume between 1/3 to 1/2 of the way to the limit. I figure theoretically, on a 100wpc avr like I'm used to, having the volume halfway up will only use 50 watts for each of the front channels at peak, and much less for the surround and back channels (for a movie). All channel stereo is a different story of course, but I've used that one time in my life and changed it back to regular stereo or some kind of "spatializer" mode. Anyway, let me know if that's not how the math actually works.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Volume on older receivers at 1/2 was about max output for the amps if the incoming signal was where it should be (ya, does not make sense). In todays receivers the volume control is very different and goes from -60db to +12db. most people listen to movies and music at around -15db on the display 0db is considered reference level (75db with peaks of around 100db) thats actually quite loud. 
This is where the auto room correction come into play, it automatically set all the levels correctly so you reach the correct levels in all channels at the right volume. It also EQs each channel and corrects for time delay and phase. You cant do all of this manually and it truly is a great tool.
Your room cant be perfect so the sound in the room wont be either unless you apply theses adjustments.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Right, well, I guess my point is that if I'm running the avr at -15 it's not going to be pushing 90 watts x 7, is it? I usually run my Panasonic at -30 (a couple times I remember going as high as -22 for really quiet stuff). I don't know if that's because my speakers are so efficient or if I just don't like it as loud as most people, but it's been plenty of volume for me and enough for my wife to comment that I always watch movies way too loud.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

In the end its about you being happy with what you have. Make a decision that you like and dont worry about what others say.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> In the end its about you being happy with what you have. Make a decision that you like and dont worry about what others say.


Well I still appreciate all the input. I may not agree with you about the need for more watts, but I feel like I'm making a much more educated decision at this point regardless. 

And I may be making an even more educated decision if I try the 1712 out and decide that it doesn't have enough power. But at least I'll have some actual experience to back up the theory if that turns out to be the case.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Users making more educated decisions is what we are all about. It is fine to disagree. Not everyone has the same priorities. By sharing different perspectives, we learn.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

MrAngles said:


> Well I still appreciate all the input. I may not agree with you about the need for more watts, but I feel like I'm making a much more educated decision at this point regardless.
> 
> And I may be making an even more educated decision if I try the 1712 out and decide that it doesn't have enough power. But at least I'll have some actual experience to back up the theory if that turns out to be the case.


Everyone has their own care abouts and all any of us can do is put a good faith effort into the discussion.
If one size really did fit all this would not be nearly as interesting or fun.
After you get your new gear I would certainly like to know how well satisfied you are with it.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

I'll definitely post back with my results, unfortunately though my room will only be partially finished for what I'd guess will be the next few months, due to summer projects getting in the way. If Audyssey is able to correct the unbearable echo my room has at the moment, I will be very impressed.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

some room treatment will need to be installed to truly give you desirable results however Audyssey may help in some regard. Thats where a higher level of Audyssey is better.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

MrAngles said:


> Thanks for the link to the manual, page 4 actually states that digital signals will not be converted to analog, and vice versa. *Actually, when looking at the diagram, seems like it just converts S-Video to composite,* which is kind of ridiculous. The receiver OSD only works over HDMI anyway, so as far as i can tell there is no reason to hook any video other than HDMI up to the AVR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not really that ridiculous, since a lot of newer TVs don't have s-video anymore and s-video and composite are nearly identical and interchangeable via a simple little plug adapter. I personally like the Marantz SR5007 over a lot of other offerings at the $600 mark which is in your price range. Have you also considered the Sherwood-Newcastle R-972 which is probably the bargain of the century in the $600 price range, even at a $1,000 its a steal.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

Most say it is ok to have an avr that has more watts even of your speakers put out less however, in my case I once had an avr that blew my speakers . Anyone know why it did that if more watts on an avr is better?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You still need to know the limitations of your system. No speaker is damage proof if you over drive them or have distortion, either can damage the speakers.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

asere said:


> Most say it is ok to have an avr that has more watts even of your speakers put out less however, in my case I once had an avr that blew my speakers . Anyone know why it did that if more watts on an avr is better?


If you blew your speakers and they make a rattling noise, then it was the result of not enough power. When an amplifier cannot meet the demands for a pair of speakers, it will stop producing a sine wave and the signal starts to deform in to a block or square wave. When that happens your speakers blow. More powerful amplifiers are going to be less prone to square waves at the same volume level compared to less powerful one. 

The only thing you need to worry about with an amp that has more power than the speakers are rate for, is speakers that over heat which causes burned voice coils and distortion. But if you are listening to music loud enough to burn a coil, then you probably won't have any hearing left.

To sum it all up, the old phrase goes: you can never have too much amplification. MORE POWER! :hsd:


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

MrAngles said:


> I'll definitely post back with my results, unfortunately though my room will only be partially finished for what I'd guess will be the next few months, due to summer projects getting in the way. If Audyssey is able to correct the unbearable echo my room has at the moment, I will be very impressed.


No EQ is going to affect echoes, but the echoes will definitely affect the EQ in a very negative manner.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

8086 said:


> If you blew your speakers and they make a rattling noise, then it was the result of not enough power. When an amplifier cannot meet the demands for a pair of speakers, it will stop producing a sine wave and the signal starts to deform in to a block or square wave. When that happens your speakers blow. More powerful amplifiers are going to be less prone to square waves at the same volume level compared to less powerful one.
> 
> The only thing you need to worry about with an amp that has more power than the speakers are rate for, is speakers that over heat which causes burned voice coils and distortion. But if you are listening to music loud enough to burn a coil, then you probably won't have any hearing left.
> 
> To sum it all up, the old phrase goes: you can never have too much amplification. MORE POWER! :hsd:


At the time I had a Pioneer that was rated at 100 watts per channel and the salesman told me that 50 watt speakers would work. End results they blew! Was the Pioneer to blame?


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

The Pioneer you had may have been low budget unit with inflated power ratings. It would be nice to know which speakers and receiver model you had. Also, there is a lesson to be learned here: Never completely trust what a (best buy) salesman says. I do make an exception here for dealers that specialize in high end and custom installs.

It's hard to say with out having the equipment present, what was to blame for the failure. But you could have safely run the speakers off a 400 watt stereo amplifier.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

8086 said:


> The Pioneer you had may have been low budget unit with inflated power ratings. It would be nice to know which speakers and receiver model you had. Also, there is a lesson to be learned here: Never completely trust what a (best buy) salesman says. I do make an exception here for dealers that specialize in high end and custom installs.


The pioneer was the vsx d509s model. I cannot remember the speakers they were radio shacks rca brand.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

asere said:


> The pioneer was the vsx d509s model. I cannot remember the speakers they were radio shacks rca brand.


I know what you had... I remember those with the Lineaum dipole Tweeter. I believe they were RCA-PRO-LX550, my neighbor sold me his for real cheap before he moved out of town to find new work. They were hot selling items back in the day, fun little low budget speakers, but didn't have very bass or vocals. They were 50 watts RMS and 100w Peak. They were selling in 1999 back when you bought your receiver at Radio Shack who was selling quite a bit of Pioneer stuff which was re-branded as Optimus (or what ever) and RCA.

I never had issue running them on 100-110 watts. I cannot say why yours failed.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

8086 said:


> I know what you had... I remember those with the Lineaum dipole Tweeter. I believe they were RCA-PRO-LX550, my neighbor sold me his for real cheap before he moved out of town to find new work. They were hot selling items back in the day, fun little low budget speakers, but didn't have very bass or vocals. They were 50 watts RMS and 100w Peak. They were selling in 1999 back when you bought your receiver at Radio Shack who was selling quite a bit of Pioneer stuff which was re-branded as Optimus (or what ever) and RCA.
> 
> I never had issue running them on 100-110 watts. I cannot say why yours failed.


I don't know why either that's why I'm afraid of getting an avr with more watts.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

asere said:


> I don't know why either that's why I'm afraid of getting an avr with more watts.


With most modern receivers, you decrease the volume or gain settings on each channel; so your speakers won't face the full wrath of your amplifier. I think my Integra goes back to -12 or -15 DB (pre-amp) per channel. On top of that you can use a volume limiter or Intelivolume in Onkyo speak.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

8086 said:


> With most modern receivers, you decrease the volume or gain settings on each channel; so your speakers won't face the full wrath of your amplifier. I think my Integra goes back to -12 or -15 DB (pre-amp) per channel. On top of that you can use a volume limiter or Intelivolume in Onkyo speak.


Can we say it is safe if we leave it where Audyssey sets it?


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

asere said:


> Can we say it is safe if we leave it where Audyssey sets it?


Yes, but I use intellivolume on my receiver to prevent clipping.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

8086 said:


> Yes, but I use intellivolume on my receiver to prevent clipping.


On Denon its called source level. What level should it be on from 0?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Doesn't the Denon have a "volume limit" setting in the user setup menu?


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> Doesn't the Denon have a "volume limit" setting in the user setup menu?


I believe so I need to look. What level should I set it to? Do I even need to set it even if I listen around 35 to 50db?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

if you ran Auddyssey correctly then 0db will be reference level so try dropping the volume limit to -10.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

The actual limit will depend on the specs and capabilities of your equipment.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

Thanks I will look into it tonight.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> Doesn't the Denon have a "volume limit" setting in the user setup menu?


I already set the volume limit to -10....Thank you!


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

With mismatched subs what is better manually calibrate them or is Sub Eq Ht better for that? I ask because I was told that if the subs are mismatched Audyssey would calibrate the superior sub to the level of the inferior sub and I do not know if that is a good thing or not when manually it might be better since you can maybe match it close enough to each other.

My subs sound nice now but been contemplating on the Sub Eq Ht but I am not sure if its worth the upgrade.


----------



## ALMFamily (Oct 19, 2011)

asere said:


> With mismatched subs what is better manually calibrate them or is Sub Eq Ht better for that? I ask because I was told that if the subs are mismatched Audyssey would calibrate the superior sub to the level of the inferior sub and I do not know if that is a good thing or not when manually it might be better since you can maybe match it close enough to each other.
> 
> My subs sound nice now but been contemplating on the Sub Eq Ht but I am not sure if its worth the upgrade.


You may want to start a new thread for that discussion as we have gotten off the OP's original question.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

I'm still here, taking it all in! I will say that we could probably use an Audessey thread, if it's as essential as everyone seems to think, I'm sure I'll need a place to ask questions about it.

The 1712 should arrive tomorrow, and I'll probably get some carpet on the floor and put my speakers in the room this weekend, so I may have some feedback on it soon.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

ALMFamily said:


> You may want to start a new thread for that discussion as we have gotten off the OP's original question.


Yes indeed, I apologize!


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Well my AVR arrived yesterday, unfortunately through an error on my part or accessories4less, I got the 1912 instead of the 1712. On the bright side I guess, I can try it out to see if I'm happy with the amplification prior to sending it back. I'm going to run all my speaker wire tonight and hopefully still have time to put on 3:10 to Yuma or something else that will give a 7.1 system a workout.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

If they are letting you keep the 1912 I would as it has more features, The amp section is identical.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

They are the same price, but I wanted the 1712 because of MultiEQ XT and the IR ports. I really don't have any use for the network features, I'm sure I'd use the remote app once for fun, but that's it.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

MrAngles said:


> Well my AVR arrived yesterday, unfortunately through an error on my part or accessories4less, I got the 1912 instead of the 1712. On the bright side I guess, I can try it out to see if I'm happy with the amplification prior to sending it back. I'm going to run all my speaker wire tonight and hopefully still have time to put on 3:10 to Yuma or something else that will give a 7.1 system a workout.


Check your invoice and credit card statement. See if you were billed for a 1712.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

8086 said:


> Check your invoice and credit card statement. See if you were billed for a 1712.


They are the same price. I think I know what happened though, when you add the 1712 to your cart it pops up a message telling you what features you gain by "upgrading" to the 1912, and I probably accidentally clicked ok there.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Meh, A4L got back to me and said to return it not only would I have to pay to ship the receiver back but they would charge me the $20 they paid to ship it to me in the first place, even though I got free shipping. Oh well. I had doubts about MultiEQ XT in the first place and an IR jack isn't worth $30-$0 in shipping, so now I'm a proud owner of a Denon 1912. At least it will convert S-video to HDMI, that will be nice.


----------



## Bob R (Apr 21, 2013)

asere said:


> Most say it is ok to have an avr that has more watts even of your speakers put out less however, in my case I once had an avr that blew my speakers . Anyone know why it did that if more watts on an avr is better?


Interesting question. and just the last two pages have the whole range of thoughts.

A long time ago i was worried about this. I had 60W speakers and a 100 wpc receiver. I never blew one speaker.

Now I have five Paradigm studio 20's. The owners manual says that the more powerfull amp, the better.

So, I just replaced my 90 wpc Onkyo NR 708 with a Yammy RX-V773 at 95 Watts.

And blew my center 20 !!!

Go figure. :dontknow:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Bob R said:


> So, I just replaced my 90 wpc Onkyo NR 708 with a Yammy RX-V773 at 95 Watts.
> 
> And blew my center 20 !!!
> 
> Go figure. :dontknow:


The 708 is able to output about 85watts per channel all channels driven. The RX-V773 is only rated to do about 65watts per channel all channels driven. Chances are you were actually causing distortion and that will damage speakers even more than too much power.


----------



## Bob R (Apr 21, 2013)

tonyvdb said:


> The 708 is able to output about 85watts per channel all channels driven. The RX-V773 is only rated to do about 65watts per channel all channels driven. Chances are you were actually causing distortion and that will damage speakers even more than too much power.


I'm sure you are right.

Plus cranking Blue Man Groups Audio DVD-A really loud, might be a contributor. :R

I felt the hair on my head move when it let go. 

Oh, well, it's now my right surround speaker and is behaving, so far.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Bob R said:


> I'm sure you are right.
> 
> Plus cranking Blue Man Groups Audio DVD-A really loud, might be a contributor. :R
> 
> ...


Most modern recordings have volume levels that are waay to high and can contribute to a failure somewhere in your system. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Okay I have carpet and a couch in my room which have tamed the echo a lot, have all my speakers hooked up and played a bunch of 5.1 and 7.1 material to test out the receiver, and I'm very pleased. The first thing I noticed was that I had to turn it up quite a bit more than I am used to, whether that's due to the larger room or the lesser amp I'm not sure, but I find that I'm playing movies at around -13 when my wife is in the room, and up to -2 to really let the system rip. Even at -2 though I didn't notice any distortion, everything was very clean and precise.

I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about with Audyssey MultiEQ. It set the distances and delays for each speaker and set crossover points for my satellites vs sub channel, but this is all stuff I'm used to fine-tuning manually with my previous receivers, so unless I'm missing something, it still just seems like a time-saving function. Not that I don't appreciate the option, but with all the talk about it how important it is, I expected more.

Anyway, I'm very happy with the 1912, and would recommend it to anyone with reasonably efficient speakers.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

When Audyssey is setting the distances its also adjusting for delay and for phase (something you cant do yourself) If you reset the distance setting particularly on the sub to "actual" measured distance" you are actually messing up much more than just distance and should be left as it set it.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> When Audyssey is setting the distances its also adjusting for delay and for phase (something you cant do yourself) If you reset the distance setting particularly on the sub to "actual" measured distance" you are actually messing up much more than just distance and should be left as it set it.


What's the difference between distance and delay? The satellite distances were all pretty much spot on, which is not surprising since they are all a matched set, and I realize that the sub is a bit slower, so it gets set at a further "distance" than the rest, but it's still just a distance setting that can be manually set.

The AVR switches phase though? I did get a "speaker phase warning" from Audyssey, but I just assumed it meant I needed to flip the phase switch on my center channel. If that's something that the AVR can do, it's kind of stupid that they don't allow you to manually switch that...


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

MrAngles said:


> it's kind of stupid that they don't allow you to manually switch that...


 Or I could just switch the wires I suppose, not sure why I didn't think of that...


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

Oh, there is one thing that Audyssey did for me that I wasn't able to do on any of my older receivers, it set the crossover for my main L+R speakers to 40 hz, my center to 60hz and the rest to 80hz. I don't know if that's a function of MultiEQ or of the AVR itself, but that was a nice improvement to the traditional clunky "Large/Small" settings.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

MrAngles said:


> What's the difference between distance and delay? The satellite distances were all pretty much spot on, which is not surprising since they are all a matched set, and I realize that the sub is a bit slower, so it gets set at a further "distance" than the rest, but it's still just a distance setting that can be manually set.
> 
> The AVR switches phase though? I did get a "speaker phase warning" from Audyssey, but I just assumed it meant I needed to flip the phase switch on my center channel. If that's something that the AVR can do, it's kind of stupid that they don't allow you to manually switch that...


Distance is measured in Feet or Meters
Delay is measured in Time: Seconds, Millisecond (ms, millionth), Nanosecond (ns, billionth).

I don't think an AVR can switch phase. I assume it's hardwared in to the AMP design. But, it is possible to audibly detect and measure a speaker running out of phase.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Sorry I should have been more clear about Phaze, Its not reversing polarity it will do slight adjustments to correct for how the sound reaches the listening position reducing cancellation of frequencies known as Nulls. If you tweak these "distance" settings from what Audyssey does you will cancel what it thinks is best and is usually correct.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

8086 said:


> Distance is measured in Feet or Meters
> Delay is measured in Time: Seconds, Millisecond (ms, millionth), Nanosecond (ns, billionth).
> 
> I don't think an AVR can switch phase. I assume it's hardwared in to the AMP design. But, it is possible to audibly detect and measure a speaker running out of phase.


Reading more about it I'm seeing that you're correct, Audyssey does not adjust phase at all, so again, all it's doing is adjusting the distance/delay, which yes are measured in different terms, but from an AVR's perspective are the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I think Audyssey is very cool, but if it's just a time saving tool for dialing in the settings that I'm used to setting manually, I don't see that as being worth more than $20 or so, and not worth all the hype it gets about the various upgraded versions that are available.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Sorry I should have been more clear about Phaze, Its not reversing polarity it will do slight adjustments to correct for how the sound reaches the listening position reducing cancellation of frequencies known as Nulls. If you tweak these "distance" settings from what Audyssey does you will cancel what it thinks is best and is usually correct.


I agree with you that the distance settings shouldn't be adjusted the actual linear feet from the listening position, the point isn't the actual physical distance of course, it's the amount of time that the sound takes to get to you. When I set the distance manually I start with a tape measure, but I fine tune it based on the response of each speaker. In the end though, it's still just a simple "distance" setting in the AVR that adjusts for delays, not magic Audyssey voodoo.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

MrAngles said:


> Reading more about it I'm seeing that you're correct, Audyssey does not adjust phase at all, so again, all it's doing is adjusting the distance/delay, which yes are measured in different terms, but from an AVR's perspective are the same thing.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think Audyssey is very cool, but if it's just a time saving tool for dialing in the settings that I'm used to setting manually, I don't see that as being worth more than $20 or so, and not worth all the hype it gets about the various upgraded versions that are available.


A speaker running out of phase will sound a little more bass heavy. I suspect Audyssey is also compensating for that in the EQ. Fix your wiring and run the setup again.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

MrAngles said:


> When I set the distance manually I start with a tape measure, but I fine tune it based on the response of each speaker. In the end though, it's still just a simple "distance" setting in the AVR that adjusts for delays, not magic Audyssey voodoo.


Thats the wrong approach, by doing it manually with a tape measure you are bypassing alot of what Audyssey does in the Time domain. it is far more than just what you see in the user menu but to each their own you can do what you like. But I can promise that Audyssey will do a better job than you can do by ear.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Thats the wrong approach, by doing it manually with a tape measure you are bypassing alot of what Audyssey does in the Time domain. it is far more than just what you see in the user menu but to each their own you can do what you like. But I can promise that Audyssey will do a better job than you can do by ear.


I think you're misunderstanding me, I understand that the "distance" settings are not referring to physical distance, and that Audessey in effect "does it by ear" by measuring delays. I only mentioned the tape measure because that's a good place to start when doing manual calibration, not that that's what I use for my settings.

I have not adjusted Audessey's distance settings at all because they sound great. However, your wording seems to indicate that if I were to adjust them by 0.1 feet that it would erase some other mystery settings that Audyssey has going on in the background, and I just don't see that being the case.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

MrAngles said:


> However, your wording seems to indicate that if I were to adjust them by 0.1 feet that it would erase some other mystery settings that Audyssey has going on in the background, and I just don't see that being the case.


It can, Audyssey takes multiple readings and should be done with the mic placed in different spots even if you only move it a foot to either side of your main listening position. You room is not perfect and reflections will make a huge difference. You cant possibly adjust by ear what Audyssey does internally. Your ears are not located in the same position so thats why there is much more going on under the hood than you think.


----------



## MrAngles (May 1, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> It can, Audyssey takes multiple readings and should be done with the mic placed in different spots even if you only move it a foot to either side of your main listening position. You room is not perfect and reflections will make a huge difference. You cant possibly adjust by ear what Audyssey does internally. Your ears are not located in the same position so thats why there is much more going on under the hood than you think.


I guess what I'm asking is if I adjust the distance manually, what (other than the delay) is it changing, and why in world would it? Moving the mic around just gives you more points to average out to make a larger sweet spot (which is great by the way, but still nothing more than averaging numbers and making adjustments to level and distance settings).

Their website is full of stuff that is great for marketing, but I haven't found anything there yet that actually explains what Audyssey does. I know that it adjusts level, distance and sub/satellite x-over frequencies, because the AVR told me that. Nothing I found on the website even went into as much detail to explain that it does that. It's full of great statements like "MultEQ corrects the subwoofer in every seat providing precise bass reproduction." Corrects it in what way?

The most perplexing is this one: "MultEQ filters are specifically designed to address these time domain problems and concentrate most of the signal energy in the direct sound (referring to reflections as indirect sound)" Unless I'm severely misunderstanding, it's claiming that it somehow not only has control over the signal energy in reflections, but it's reducing that energy in favor of concentrating more signal energy out of the *speaker itself.*. In my old-school way of thinking, all amps concentrate ALL signal energy into the "direct sound."

I realize that it's all marketing doubletalk anyway, but I haven't seen anyone actually explain what Audyssey does beyond saying it "corrects" everything.


----------

