# Denon AVR X4700H Review



## Soccerdude

Can not see the forest for the trees ...


----------



## DavidK442

Thanks for the overview from the perspective of the average user, though the $2000 mark is well into enthusiast territory.
Here is a technical review of the “sweet spot” AVR-X 3700. (Sad these days how you can determine the best gear by what is consistently out of stock.)
In general the objective measurements agree that Denon is a great choice. Audiosciencereview


----------



## Snausy

I have thoroughly enjoyed my x4700h for quite a while now but I got it when it first came out for only 1399.00 after asking the manager what he could do for me at a local dealer... 2k is getting up there. I could've had the x6700h for 2500.00 back then. Have they gone up in price?


----------



## DavidK442

Snausy said:


> I have thoroughly enjoyed my x4700h for quite a while now but I got it when it first came out for only 1399.00 after asking the manager what he could do for me at a local dealer... 2k is getting up there. I could've had the x6700h for 2500.00 back then. Have they gone up in price?


In Canada the X3700 retailed for $1400, then it jumped to $1700, then $1800 and for the last few months retails at $2000 and never goes on sale. Chip shortage and pandemic driven demand and shipping problems have pushed most electronics prices up.


----------



## J. Atkinson

DavidK442 said:


> Thanks for the overview from the perspective of the average user, though the $2000 mark is well into enthusiast territory.
> Here is a technical review of the “sweet spot” AVR-X 3700. (Sad these days how you can determine the best gear by what is consistently out of stock.)
> In general the objective measurements agree that Denon is a great choice. Audiosciencereview


i believe the 4700 WAS, but with all the crazy price changes it went up $500 making the 3700 more popular just due to price.


----------



## J. Atkinson

Snausy said:


> I have thoroughly enjoyed my x4700h for quite a while now but I got it when it first came out for only 1399.00 after asking the manager what he could do for me at a local dealer... 2k is getting up there. I could've had the x6700h for 2500.00 back then. Have they gone up in price?


yeah it’s MSRP has climbed $500 in the last 8 months.
😢


----------



## J. Atkinson

DavidK442 said:


> In Canada the X3700 retailed for $1400, then it jumped to $1700, then $1800 and for the last few months retails at $2000 and never goes on sale. Chip shortage and pandemic driven demand and shipping problems have pushed most electronics prices up.


exactly


----------



## imagic

DavidK442 said:


> Thanks for the overview from the perspective of the average user, though the $2000 mark is well into enthusiast territory.
> *Here is a technical review of the “sweet spot” AVR-X 3700. (Sad these days how you can determine the best gear by what is consistently out of stock.)*
> In general the objective measurements agree that Denon is a great choice. Audiosciencereview


For those looking for it, I see the AVR-X3700H in stock at Best Buy (I could even go get one today, locally). Plus Amazon has them in stock, and not just from third-party sellers, but also sold directly by Amazon.


----------



## MATTHEW PATIENT

Mark Henninger said:


> For those looking for it, I see the AVR-X3700H in stock at Best Buy (I could even go get one today, locally). Plus Amazon has them in stock, and not just from third-party sellers, but also sold directly by Amazon.


The BB near my house had 2 stacks of about 10 boxes of the 3700H right in the middle of the magnolia floor. Also had the same for the 1700H. That was last week when I went to grab my C1


----------



## truwarrior22

J. Atkinson said:


> yeah it’s MSRP has climbed $500 in the last 8 months.
> 😢


Out of luck either way, pay more later else be an earlier adopter and get a bugged 2.1 HDMI board. Hope when I upgrade my TV and source that this bugged HDMI board works properly. Seems like lots of people are still having issues with the adapter. I suppose time will tell.


----------



## truwarrior22

Summary: Substitute DACs don’t sound bad and HDMI 2.1 features work.

Meanwhile earlier adopter are spending hours trying to troubleshoot their signal issues only to be told by SU that there’s no outstanding issues and the adapter box magically fixes all their problems, unless it not a Xbox, then you’re out of luck.

Yes, I’m bitter. Mainly because my setup is not working as it should. There’s also several other people still having issues after receiving their adapter box.


----------



## EB1000

These subjective reviews are virtually useless. The X4700H was reviewed by Amir at ASR with measurements and it seems like a very decent AVR. However, with only one HDMI 2.1 input, I rather wait for the X4800H next year...


----------



## Blitzkrieg_CJH

Question about PS5 & Spiderman 2: How does the object based sound work on the PS5 + Denon, since it doesn't support Atmos? DTS?

Glad to hear they got the HDMI 2.1 bugs worked out with the newer units.


----------



## imagic

Blitzkrieg_CJH said:


> Question about PS5 & Spiderman 2: How does the object based sound work on the PS5 + Denon, since it doesn't support Atmos? DTS?
> 
> Glad to hear they got the HDMI 2.1 bugs worked out with the newer units.


PS5 does not support 3D immersive/object based audio for games, either Dolby or DTS.


----------



## Blitzkrieg_CJH

Mark Henninger said:


> PS5 does not support 3D immersive/object based audio for games, either Dolby or DTS.


Thats what I thought, that's why I was confused by this from the review:

"First came SPIDER-MAN 2 on the PS5:










*  Amazon.com: Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales Ultimate Launch Edition – PlayStation 5 : Sony Interactive Entertai: Everything Else  *
Amazon.com: Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales Ultimate Launch Edition – PlayStation 5 : Sony Interactive Entertai: Everything Else
www.amazon.com

This game was fun. The sound was impressive. Never saw any tears on the screen. Everything was perfect. How perfect? Well I was into the game quickly and kept being *impressed with how well object based sound was doing in the room*. The sound and picture were as good as I had ever seen them. It didn’t matter if it was the Samsung Q70 65 inch TV I was testing out or the LG BX 55 I normally use in my gaming system. "

Unless I am misunderstanding something......


----------



## buckchester

This review lost all credibility after the part explaining the sound differences between brand name receivers. I had a good chuckle at that one.


----------



## tenthplanet

buckchester said:


> This review lost all credibility after the part explaining the sound differences between brand name receivers. I had a good chuckle at that one.


A blind A/B test can prove they do sound different, the differences may be subtle but they are there. Music is the best test, shows you were "the bodies are buried" so to speak.


----------



## imagic

tenthplanet said:


> A blind A/B test can prove they do sound different, the differences may be subtle but they are there. Music is the best test, shows you were "the bodies are buried" so to speak.


Running (valid) blind A/B tests of AVRs with a full-on multichannel speaker system strikes me as logistically difficult. Can you point to such a test?

I’m also interested in any blind A/B test Comparing AVRs running in pure/direct mode and powering a pair of speakers, if you know of any such tests. I am definitely interested in reading more if there’s data out there.

Of course I can see how the different room correction systems will deliver different sounding results. But if we’re talking about no EQ, just whether the DACs and amps of different AVRs sound distinguishable from each other, well that’s where I’d want to see some good, thorough and well documented testing to back up any assertion of audible differences.


----------



## tenthplanet

Mark Henninger said:


> Running (valid) blind A/B tests of AVRs with a full-on multichannel speaker system strikes me as logistically difficult. Can you point to such a test?
> 
> I’m also interested in any blind A/B test Comparing AVRs running in pure/direct mode and powering a pair of speakers, if you know of any such tests. I am definitely interested in reading more if there’s data out there.
> 
> Of course I can see how the different room correction systems will deliver different sounding results. But if we’re talking about no EQ, just whether the DACs and amps of different AVRs sound distinguishable from each other, well that’s where I’d want to see some good, thorough and well documented testing to back up any assertion of audible differences.


Multichannel is impractical. Two channel all room correction off tone controls switched out if possible. No publication has any interest in doing is, receivers are written off vs.separates.


----------



## buckchester

tenthplanet said:


> A blind A/B test can prove they do sound different, the differences may be subtle but they are there. Music is the best test, shows you were "the bodies are buried" so to speak.


Is this just your opinion or do you know of any legitimate blind tests that have been done? I'm willing to bet it's the former. Otherwise, by all means enlighten us...


----------



## truwarrior22

buckchester said:


> Is this just your opinion or do you know of any legitimate blind tests that have been done? I'm willing to bet it's the former. Otherwise, by all means enlighten us...


Go to a store and switch between a Denon and Marantz. There’s a fairly obvious difference in the lower mids and highs. If you don’t notice it at first, try a couple different tracks. For a even greater noticeable difference, switch between a Denon and Yamaha. Next, go to another store and see if you get the same noticeable results.

Cant tell you which ones “better”, that comes down to personal preference and speaker pairing.


----------



## buckchester

truwarrior22 said:


> Go to a store and switch between a Denon and Marantz. There’s a fairly obvious difference in the lower mids and highs. If you don’t notice it at first, try a couple different tracks. For a even greater noticeable difference, switch between a Denon and Yamaha. Next, go to another store and see if you get the same noticeable results.
> 
> Cant tell you which ones “better”, that comes down to personal preference and speaker pairing.


I have Marantz and Yamaha receivers. Without any processing, staying within their power limits, there is no way I could tell a difference reliably in a blind listening test.

For what it's worth, I also have some Outlaw Audio monoblocks, which also sound no different than the receivers. Of course, the receivers will start clipping sooner, which could be noticed. But I think I'd go deaf before that happened.


----------



## truwarrior22

buckchester said:


> I have Marantz and Yamaha receivers. Without any processing, staying within their power limits, there is no way I could tell a difference reliably in a blind listening test.
> 
> For what it's worth, I also have some Outlaw Audio monoblocks, which also sound no different than the receivers. Of course, the receivers will start clipping sooner, which could be noticed. But I think I'd go deaf before that happened.


Probably not, you would need to be able to switch back and forth reasonably fast while staying in the same position. The faster the better. I doubt most are able to do that at home. Assuming I pick the song and use the same song, I’m pretty confident I can reliably pick the AVR after switching back and forth.

Kinda makes sense, different components, different engineers, etc.

Now if a song I’m not familiar with is playing and I walk into the room, I doubt I would be able to tell in most cases.


----------



## buckchester

truwarrior22 said:


> Probably not, you would need to be able to switch back and forth reasonably fast while staying in the same position. The faster the better. I doubt most are able to do that at home. Assuming I pick the song and use the same song, I’m pretty confident I can reliably pick the AVR after switching back and forth.
> 
> Kinda makes sense, different components, different engineers, etc.
> 
> Now if a song I’m not familiar with is playing and I walk into the room, I doubt I would be able to tell in most cases.


I agree that if there are differences, to have any chance of noticing them in any reliable fashion, you would have to instantaneously switch back and forth. But if that's the case, those differences may be rather immaterial.

I tend to think if the frequency response is the same, the receivers will sound the same. Any any well made receiver or amp should be transparent and flat in it's frequency response, so the only time you may hear a difference is when and how they clip.


----------



## ToddDavid

EB1000 said:


> These subjective reviews are virtually useless. The X4700H was reviewed by Amir at ASR with measurements and it seems like a very decent AVR. However, with only one HDMI 2.1 input, I rather wait for the X4800H next year...


As are the reviews at ASR for the most part. Does Amir test 11 channel performance? Does he test actual HT performance through room correction? Does he test the different listening modes? Does he test at _normal listening volumes_? No, he tests the system like an engineer would rather than a daily HT listener— it’s all 2 channel, with the volume virtually maxed out to levels unreasonable & unlistenable to 90% of us. Case in point— he loves himself some Denon, and dogs Marantz…. but at normal listening volumes, the 6014 produces the same SINAD as the 3700/4700. The Yamaha 1080 that he poorly reviewed? It was tested at a volume of 0 dB, yet most of us couldn’t care less about pushing a unit that hard. How does it perform at normal listening levels?
I noticed for me that Audyssey sounds a bit weak unless Dynamic EQ is enabled and it’s set to 0 [but YMMV], so how do the others systems’ own modes compare? I would probably trust a subjective review of an 11+ channel AVR over scientific results that omit key components.


----------



## buckchester

ToddDavid said:


> As are the reviews at ASR for the most part. Does Amir test 11 channel performance? Does he test actual HT performance through room correction? Does he test the different listening modes? Does he test at _normal listening volumes_? No, he tests the system like an engineer would rather than a daily HT listener— it’s all 2 channel, with the volume virtually maxed out to levels unreasonable & unlistenable to 90% of us. Case in point— he loves himself some Denon, and dogs Marantz…. but at normal listening volumes, the 6014 produces the same SINAD as the 3700/4700. The Yamaha 1080 that he poorly reviewed? It was tested at a volume of 0 dB, yet most of us couldn’t care less about pushing a unit that hard. How does it perform at normal listening levels?
> I noticed for me that Audyssey sounds a bit weak unless Dynamic EQ is enabled and it’s set to 0 [but YMMV], so how do the others systems’ own modes compare?  I would probably trust a subjective review of an 11+ channel AVR over scientific results that omit key components.


I happen to think Amir's reviews are excellent. Yes, he does introduce some bias in his subjective evaluations (at times), but I would argue any day that he tries and succeeds at being more objective than most. And the data that he is putting our there is second to none. He is doing a great service to the community with just that, even if you take issue with him in any way. He is smug.

But I really wanted to say that I agree with you on DEQ. Most things I seem to read recommend against it. But I love it too.


----------



## ToddDavid

buckchester said:


> I happen to think Amir's reviews are excellent. Yes, he does introduce some bias in his subjective evaluations (at times), but I would argue any day that he tries and succeeds at being more objective than most. And the data that he is putting our there is second to none. He is doing a great service to the community with just that, even if you take issue with him in any way. He is smug.
> 
> But I really wanted to say that I agree with you on DEQ. Most things I seem to read recommend against it. But I love it too.


Cant disagree with any of this… but your post and mine can both be true.


----------



## ToddDavid

buckchester said:


> I agree that if there are differences, to have any chance of noticing them in any reliable fashion, you would have to instantaneously switch back and forth. But if that's the case, those differences may be rather immaterial.
> 
> I tend to think if the frequency response is the same, the receivers will sound the same. Any any well made receiver or amp should be transparent and flat in it's frequency response, so the only time you may hear a difference is when and how they clip.


My 6014 makes my Dynaudio Contour 20’s sound noticeably more forward & lively [enjoyably so] with Audyssey on and DEQ enabled & set to 0 than in Pure Direct. Use that info however you will, but I think you can deduce a few logical questions from it. For starters it makes me ask how flat the response truly is when room correction’s job is to tweak the sound. Pure Direct sounds nothing like Audyssey with DEQ, for me at least. Secondly it makes me wonder how a superior room correction like Dirac sounds by comparison. The room correction is better but does that translate to a better sound than Audyssey with DEQ? Do any receivers with weaker room correction like Yamaha have modes that make them sound as good as or better than D/M w/ Audyssey? … or is it the room correction itself that’s performing the trick rather than whatever mode is running in conjunction with it? … or is it a combination of the two? The scientific data in 2-channel Pure Direct is nice and all, but it doesn’t tell the entire story by a long stretch and it’s still up to the listener’s own subjective interpretation of what he hears. 


I initially bought into that SINAD stuff, but much of it is just for show IMO. I’ve heard hobbyists far smarter than myself tell me that most of us can’t discern audible differences beyond the 80’s, and until recently I was apprehensive to believe him. Then I purchased a nice Purifi amp with a SINAD of around 108….and I couldn’t make out any difference between it and my inexpensive Parasound 2125v2. I just couldn’t. I wanted to…. but I couldn’t. So I sold the Purifi a week later. It’s nice to nitpick and fawn over some of these scientific measurements if you’re an electrical engineer searching for bragging rights and engineering perfection, but to what extent does it actually pertain to our ears? In a double blind will you be able to correctly identify the Denon over the rest in class as it pertains to distortion?


----------



## buckchester

ToddDavid said:


> My 6014 makes my Dynaudio Contour 20’s sound noticeably more forward & lively [enjoyably so] with Audyssey on and DEQ enabled & set to 0 than in Pure Direct. Use that info however you will, but I think you can deduce a few logical questions from it. For starters it makes me ask how flat the response truly is when room correction’s job is to tweak the sound. Pure Direct sounds nothing like Audyssey with DEQ, for me at least. Secondly it makes me wonder how a superior room correction like Dirac sounds by comparison. The room correction is better but does that translate to a better sound than Audyssey with DEQ? Do any receivers with weaker room correction like Yamaha have modes that make them sound as good as or better than D/M w/ Audyssey? … or is it the room correction itself that’s performing the trick rather than whatever mode is running in conjunction with it? … or is it a combination of the two? The scientific data in 2-channel Pure Direct is nice and all, but it doesn’t tell the entire story by a long stretch and it’s still up to the listener’s own subjective interpretation of what he hears.
> 
> 
> I initially bought into that SINAD stuff, but much of it is just for show IMO. I’ve heard hobbyists far smarter than myself tell me that most of us can’t discern audible differences beyond the 80’s, and until recently I was apprehensive to believe him. Then I purchased a nice Purifi amp with a SINAD of around 108….and I couldn’t make out any difference between it and my inexpensive Parasound 2125v2. I just couldn’t. I wanted to…. but I couldn’t. So I sold the Purifi a week later. It’s nice to nitpick and fawn over some of these scientific measurements if you’re an electrical engineer searching for bragging rights and engineering perfection, but to what extent does it actually pertain to our ears? In a double blind will you be able to correctly identify the Denon over the rest in class as it pertains to distortion?


If you don't use DEQ, then you will have to compensate for it manually I believe. I don't have dirac, so I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet most of the room correction techs are "good enough" e.g. Dirac, arc, audessey...

The thing anout DEQ is it raises the bass at below refence levels, on a scale the higher you go. This is good.

Make sure you limit your EQ to below the room transition frequency. ~<500Hz

Good loudspeakers and multiple subs with room correction below the room transition frequency = audio bliss.


----------



## ToddDavid

buckchester said:


> If you don't use DEQ, then you will have to compensate for it manually I believe. I don't have dirac, so I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet most of the room correction techs are "good enough" e.g. Dirac, arc, audessey...
> 
> The thing anout DEQ is it raises the bass at below refence levels, on a scale the higher you go. This is good.
> 
> Make sure you limit your EQ to bow the room transition frequency. ~<500Hz


Thx. Do you know if Yamaha offers a DEQ of their own? … or if Dirac does [curious about the new Pioneer/Onk]? I would hate an AVR without it.


----------



## buckchester

ToddDavid said:


> My 6014 makes my Dynaudio Contour 20’s sound noticeably more forward & lively [enjoyably so] with Audyssey on and DEQ enabled & set to 0 than in Pure Direct. Use that info however you will, but I think you can deduce a few logical questions from it. For starters it makes me ask how flat the response truly is when room correction’s job is to tweak the sound. Pure Direct sounds nothing like Audyssey with DEQ, for me at least. Secondly it makes me wonder how a superior room correction like Dirac sounds by comparison. The room correction is better but does that translate to a better sound than Audyssey with DEQ? Do any receivers with weaker room correction like Yamaha have modes that make them sound as good as or better than D/M w/ Audyssey? … or is it the room correction itself that’s performing the trick rather than whatever mode is running in conjunction with it? … or is it a combination of the two? The scientific data in 2-channel Pure Direct is nice and all, but it doesn’t tell the entire story by a long stretch and it’s still up to the listener’s own subjective interpretation of what he hears.
> 
> 
> I initially bought into that SINAD stuff, but much of it is just for show IMO. I’ve heard hobbyists far smarter than myself tell me that most of us can’t discern audible differences beyond the 80’s, and until recently I was apprehensive to believe him. Then I purchased a nice Purifi amp with a SINAD of around 108….and I couldn’t make out any difference between it and my inexpensive Parasound 2125v2. I just couldn’t. I wanted to…. but I couldn’t. So I sold the Purifi a week later. It’s nice to nitpick and fawn over some of these scientific measurements if you’re an electrical engineer searching for bragging rights and engineering perfection, but to what extent does it actually pertain to our ears? In a double blind will you be able to correctly identify the Denon over the rest in class as it pertains to distortion?


Well said.

I've bought amps and dacs always wanting to hear the difference. But once the "shiney new toy" syndrome wore off, that's when I started.y testing. Most instances, no difference worth fussing about whatsoever.

Biggest difference for me of all time was when I bought a pair of Revel f208 speakers and a/b'd them agaimst a pair of GE Triton Twos. I was surprised by how quickly I recognized the superiority of the Revels...

And I agree with you on the SINAD. Axoim did a study of their own where I think it was down to the 40s before people could reliably distinguish a difference.


----------



## buckchester

ToddDavid said:


> Thx. Do you know if Yamaha offers a DEQ of their own? … or if Dirac does [curious about the new Pioneer/Onk]? I would hate an AVR without it.


YPAO. But it's definitely not as good as the others.


----------



## J. Atkinson

Blitzkrieg_CJH said:


> Thats what I thought, that's why I was confused by this from the review:
> 
> "First came SPIDER-MAN 2 on the PS5:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  Amazon.com: Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales Ultimate Launch Edition – PlayStation 5 : Sony Interactive Entertai: Everything Else  *
> Amazon.com: Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales Ultimate Launch Edition – PlayStation 5 : Sony Interactive Entertai: Everything Else
> www.amazon.com
> 
> This game was fun. The sound was impressive. Never saw any tears on the screen. Everything was perfect. How perfect? Well I was into the game quickly and kept being *impressed with how well object based sound was doing in the room*. The sound and picture were as good as I had ever seen them. It didn’t matter if it was the Samsung Q70 65 inch TV I was testing out or the LG BX 55 I normally use in my gaming system. "
> 
> Unless I am misunderstanding something......


You’re absolutely right. It’s just normal Dolby Surround. I made a mistake while listening.

What that says to me is the game has damn good sound, which is incredibly clear and detailed on the Denon.


----------



## ToddDavid

buckchester said:


> YPAO. But it's definitely not as good as the others.


YPAO is the name of Yamaha’s room correction, right? Are you meaning that Yamaha does have a Dynamic EQ mode of their own within YPAO that operates with the similar or same purpose as Audyssey’s DEQ?


----------



## J. Atkinson

ToddDavid said:


> YPAO is the name of Yamaha’s room correction, right? Are you meaning that Yamaha does have a Dynamic EQ mode of their own within YPAO that operates with the similar or same purpose as Audyssey’s DEQ?


I know YPAO does on SOME models. Like the flagship.


----------



## J. Atkinson

ToddDavid said:


> YPAO is the name of Yamaha’s room correction, right? Are you meaning that Yamaha does have a Dynamic EQ mode of their own within YPAO that operates with the similar or same purpose as Audyssey’s DEQ?


just check the Yamaha I have for review and it’s called YPAO Volume. It works rather well. I just did a quick test at low volume and it sounded much better than without.


----------



## ToddDavid

With Audyssey + DEQ, my Contour 20’s really come to life. They’re already amazing speakers but this makes their personality sound closer to that of the Confidence line IMO— sound stage grows more expansive; they project further into the room; imaging feels better layered. It’s just a more open & lively presentation, like a thin veil is lifted. I won’t even listen to music in Pure Direct anymore. I can’t imagine buying one of these expensive integrated amps or pre’s without RC and additional tweaks to preference. I also have to take some of the ASR measurements w/ a grain of salt bc they’re all done in 2 channel Pure Direct. Granted, Amir is invaluable to forcing greater accountability upon the industry, so he deserves mad respect for that.


----------



## imagic

truwarrior22 said:


> Probably not, *you would need to be able to switch back and forth reasonably fast while staying in the same position. The faster the better. *I doubt most are able to do that at home. Assuming I pick the song and use the same song, *I’m pretty confident I can reliably pick the AVR after switching back and forth*.
> 
> Kinda makes sense, *different components, different engineers, etc.*
> 
> Now if a song I’m not familiar with is playing and I walk into the room, I doubt I would be able to tell in most cases.


A few quick thoughts...

- The only way to know the answer is to actually go through with the test. But it is certainly the case that a properly conducted blind A/B test is how one would find out if there is an audible difference or not.

- The main reason you would be doing blind test comparisons of AVR's, is to find some characteristic that does not show up in measurements of what is otherwise a device that is designed to offer ruler flat frequency response (any deviation from which would be like baking in tone controls) and exhibiting inaudible levels of distortion. Of course once one gets into amplifier clipping there are going to be clear differences in terms of capability between different AVR's, but it seems the question of whether there is an audible difference between AVR's that are not clipping is largely unanswered. 

- Regardless of what the answer is, I thought about that "different components different engineers" notion, and although analogies usually fail to rise to the task, what it brings to mind is the following: Camera manufacturers will market the qualities of their cameras and their lenses. But, I challenge anyone to identify what kind of camera took what photo they're looking at as they browse the Internet on a daily basis. For the most part it's mission impossible, as a general rule, Today's cameras take pictures that transparently enough convey the subject whereby you cannot reliably identify what brand camera took the photo. Yes, you can tell the difference between a cellphone photo and a DSLR photo, but you can't look at a collection of professional images and say "That one was shot with a Nikon, that one... shot with a Canon, that was shot with a Sony." And if there is somebody who can do this trick, I want to meet them.

- *Even if audible differences between AVRs were found to exist, would those characteristics really still be there after room correction?*

- Why would an entire brand have (and how could it consistently achieve) a characteristic sound for _all_ its gear? If the differences are attributable to different components and engineers, then an entry level AVR from one company should sound as _different_ from that same company's flagship AVR as it does from another company's AVR.

- If each company has a signature sound, how come this cannot be expressed in an EQ compensation curve? What is someone who just wants accurate music reproduction to do, if the goal of audio engineers is anything other than neutral transparency?


----------



## truwarrior22

Mark Henninger said:


> A few quick thoughts...
> 
> - The only way to know the answer is to actually go through with the test. But it is certainly the case that a properly conducted blind A/B test is how one would find out if there is an audible difference or not.
> 
> - The main reason you would be doing blind test comparisons of AVR's, is to find some characteristic that does not show up in measurements of what is otherwise a device that is designed to offer ruler flat frequency response, any deviation from which would be like baking in tone controls, and inaudible levels of distortion. Of course once one gets into amplifier clipping there are going to be clear differences in terms of capability between different AVR's, but it seems the question of whether there is an audible difference between AVR's that are not clipping Is largely unanswered.
> 
> - Regardless of what the answer is, I thought about that "different components different engineers" notion, and although analogies usually fail to rise to the task, what it brings to mind is the following: Camera manufacturers will market the qualities of their cameras and their lenses. But, I challenge anyone to identify what kind of camera took what photo they're looking at as they browse the Internet on a daily basis. For the most part it's mission impossible, as a general rule, Today's cameras take pictures that transparently enough convey the subject whereby you cannot reliably identify what brand camera took the photo. Yes, you can tell the difference between a cellphone photo and a DSLR photo, but you can't look at a collection of professional images and say "That one was shot with a Nikon, that one... shot with a Canon, that was shot with a Sony." And if there is somebody who can do this trick, I want to meet them.
> 
> - *Even if audible differences between AVRs were found to exist, would those characteristics really still be there after room correction?*
> 
> - Why would an entire brand have (and how could it consistently achieve) a characteristic sound for _all_ its gear? If the differences are attributable to different components and engineers, then an entry level AVR from one company should sound as _different_ from that same company's flagship AVR as it does from another company's AVR.
> 
> - If each company has a signature sound, how come this cannot be expressed in an EQ compensation curve? What is someone who just wants accurate music reproduction to do, if the goal of audio engineers is anything other than neutral transparency?


Audible differences after room correction is a great question. I like whatever it is a Denon does to the highs, such as cymbals. I’m not sure what I would call it, maybe sparkle or air comes to mind, but I ONLY hear it with Denon. Can I notice it on all cymbals? Probably not, but on some tracks, would what I like be removed after room correction?

Some times I just like to listen in pure direct which is why I only compared products with pure direct enabled.


----------



## ToddDavid

My Contours are mostly neutral, with maybe a touch of warmth. Pure Direct is supposed to be neutral, right? But then with room correction on and Dynamic EQ enabled, my speakers take on a different personality, even in 2.1. So, when we venture beyond Pure Direct in all of these AVRs, how do their altered personalities compare? The AVR with the best scientific measurements in 2 channel PD _might not_ still be the best sounding. Maybe Yamaha or Anthem projects the most engaging soundstage or creates the most immersive bubble, who knows. Unfortunately no data from ASR can tell us anything like that at the moment.


----------



## imagic

ToddDavid said:


> My Contours are mostly neutral, with maybe a touch of warmth. *Pure Direct is supposed to be neutral, right?* But then with room correction on and Dynamic EQ enabled, my speakers take on a different personality, even in 2.1. So, when we venture beyond Pure Direct in all of these AVRs, how do their altered personalities compare? The AVR with the best scientific measurements in 2 channel PD _might not_ still be the best sounding. Maybe Yamaha or Anthem projects the most engaging soundstage or creates the most immersive bubble, who knows. Unfortunately no data from ASR can tell us anything like that at the moment.


Pure direct is supposed to be flat, sure. But neutrality, insomuch as it is achievable in a residential setting with consumer speakers, comes from judiciously applying room correction, especially below the transition frequency (Schroeder frequency).

Unless a room has tremendous acoustic treatments and the speakers are truly A-class performers, in terms of deviation from flat response, the room is going to be the big influence on the sound, followed by the speakers, and not immeasurable differences in ruler-flat output from various AVR DACs, preamps and amps. That's why room correction is such a big deal, because for any given listener the room itself is a constant, the speakers are pretty much a constant (but if freestanding, there is toe-in and repositioning to work with), and the amps and DACs are going to be constants. But how the room correction system tackles the room, and then how the user customizes the result... that's where the rubber hits the road.

For Denon and Marantz that means Audyssey XT32, which once the app came out (letting you tweak the result and save various optimizations) has IMO largely matched what DIRAC offers and is effective enough to clean up the sound of any speaker/sub system I've had in my living room. They both get me a lot closer to neutral than not using room correction.

Anyhow, IMO the high-end audio notion of every component having a distinguishable "character" is an odd thing to transpose onto AVRs. I don't see why output that deviates from flat and neutral would be sought by any designer of an AV device that would see home theater duty. Unlike some audiophiles and esoteric 2-channel stuff, nobody in the home theater realm is asking for added distortion or coloration in their sound.


----------



## bareyb

Thanks for the review! A LOT of people really loving the 4700 around here and I can see why. Power is right. Price is right. Features are right. Looks cool and is easy to use... I think that Denon will probably be my next AVR upgrade.


----------



## head_unit

Mark Henninger said:


> If each company has a signature sound, how come this cannot be expressed in an EQ compensation curve?


Hey maybe we can get Bob Carver to make a receiver with little trim pots to emulate the sound of Denon, NAD, Sony, Pyle


----------



## head_unit

Mark Henninger said:


> Audyssey XT32, which once the app came out (letting you tweak the result and save various optimizations) has IMO largely matched what DIRAC offers


Does Dirac have any tweakability?


----------



## imagic

head_unit said:


> Does Dirac have any tweakability?


Yes, Dirac is highly configurable and has the more granular interface for applying post-correction adjustments. That was what I was getting at about the Audyssey app, it helped close that gap with Dirac by delivering similar options in terms of tailoring the result.


----------



## esdwa

Guys, 
I have been a Yamaha receiver user for over two decades (started with DSP-AX2 and few others later) but I always had an itch for a Denon.

Now the time has come to upgrade receiver again and with latest Aventage Yamaha lineup winning ugliness contest, I am seriously considering getting X4700H.

The major feature which I absolutely love in Yamaha and use almost always are various DSP modes... more for music than for film. Especially watching concerts on disks or listening YT music videos over my multichannel setup, often spatial DSP modes is what I need and enjoy the most. 

Considering the above, should I switch?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Stinkyonion66

Wow. Ive always had Yamaha receivers for 20 years and never used dsp. Seemed fake. I want the music as it was intended. Different strokes for different folks.


----------

