New Denon AVR 5805 with 10.3 channels! plus Denon new lineup of DVD players. (1 Viewer)

[Robert Cowan]

to answer a few questions...

from my understanding from the denon meeting i had a few months ago:

10.3 will be for dual surround sound system, OR, multi zones, OR, bi-amping (still up in the air as of now) but it will be able to do 2 surround sound systems at once, or at least that was the intention.

the 2910 is a replacement for BOTH the 2200 and 2900. the 3910 will be a "replacement" for the 5900, but dont expect it to be better, it will just have more features.

denon replaces higher end dvd player with lower end ones all the time. the 5900 replaced the 9000, which was $3k. the claim was all the performance for $1k less. this promise holds mostly true (the 9000 is still a bit better in a few arenas).

the 5900 may still remain current for some retailers as the flagship. a $1300 player in the universal market is hardly considered flagship.

as far as the lower end dvd players, since the 910, 1200, and 1600 have been discontinued, and the 2200 will be replaced, im sure there will be a couple in the $300-$500 range. they may or may not be universals. there is no word of this. but, this isnt exciting news, as the 910 wasnt announced, it just showed up to replace the 900, as well as the 1200... these arent their bread and butter, nor do they really get many people excited. BUT, a $400 or so universal from denon would be a nice product to have out there.

and it sucks, im JUST upgrading my 2200 to the 2900, maybe ill wait a month and see if the 2910 is worth it intstead!

 

[terence]

Finally the flagship AVR-5805 $6,000.00 due out in October. It is 90 pounds and 12 inches high, 10 built-in amplifiers and 16 channels @ 170 WPC/ 8 ohms each. Actually 10.3 channels, Jeff promises multiple subwoofer outputs.


WHAT A MONSTER!!!!!





Denon just raised the bar again! Looks the other guys are have to bring their "A" Game to top this baby.

 

[RajeeK]

Damn....look at that thing.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Well, you can't be sure,and I found that fact that Denon would release a better player for cheaper in following year is entirelly believable since that's exactly what's been going on for years in the consumer electronics business,just like the PC industry,and that's the way it should be.Look foreward never back.

 

[Thomas P.]

As a 5900 owner I was upset but I'm learning to live with remorse because I'm finally coming into accpetance that electronics is always and will always evolve. I do feel good knowing that I owned one of the best DVD player money could buy for a year. The 5900 has brought me countless hours of viewing joy and it will still be one of the best DVD players on the market once the 3910 is released. That has got to mitigate the price difference a little, doesn't it?

 

[Octavio]

Folks:

For those of you that can read Japanese, there is plenty of information of new Denon DVD models 3910,2910 and 1910 at Denon japan website

http://denon.jp/company/release/dvdx910.html

¿Does someone knows the difference between current models 2200 and 2900? Does it worth to pay the $400 price difference?

Thanks

Octavio

 

[Owen Bartley]

Man, that thing is almost a CUBE!

 

[John Garcia]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...highlight=2900

 

[Jack Briggs]

I am impressed. One might want to consider separates when it comes to assessing this all-out assault by Denon on the A/VR state of the art. It's sort of the A/VR equivalent of motorcycling's Honda GL1800 GoldWing touring bike: It's certainly a marvel of technology and cushiness -- but it's so close to being a car on two wheels that one wonders why its rider is even bothering with a motorcycle in the first place.

Same thing here. I stand in admiration of this technological tour de force; it's the most extreme A/VR ever conceived. But wouldn't separates be more practical at this price- and technology point?

I want to go see this thing in the metal, though.

 

[Luis M]

"Wouldn't separates be more practical at this price- and technology point?"

I agree.

 

[Kenneth Harden]

Well, for those 10 channels, I can really see using them.

What if a client (or you) has a BIG HT room, and needs to have a larger surround setup? You would have 7 channels to use for surrounds. Hell, what about a TOP fill speaker!!!

A receiver that did bi-amping would be awesome!

As for the receiver vs. seperates debate, I guess some people want a all-in-one solution. I think a mega-receiver offers more flexability in a easier to use package, without sacraficing quality.

 

[Lewis Besze]

As biker myself must point out that your analogy is quiet false.Gold Wing is for people who can no longer "handle" the roughness of a V-Twin engine,and in a meantime like to go touring for long distances.Most GW owners area also over 50 years old.Still GW's are much more fun then driving a "cage".

 

[Jack Briggs]

Actually, it's not a false analogy. And I'm speaking from the perspective of a sportbike enthusiast. Yet I respect the GoldWing (having watched it evolve from a 1,000cc flat four to an 1,800cc flat six ).

Same thing here. Oh, there's no doubting the quality of this product, and maybe for some, it is a "practical" all-in-one home-theater solution.

Yet, when the dust settles, is there really anything at all "practical" about a 90-pound mega-receiver like this?

 

[LanceJ]

Personally speaking, no. The word "decadent" kept going through my mind as I read this thread.

 

[brentl]

Should have been a seperate pre-amp and amp combo. The thing is ugly as hell, and if you can get it in silver it will look very much like this.

Sony 9000es



B

 

[Jack Briggs]

Any of you remember the stereo receiver power wars of the late 1970s? Technics fired the first salvo with a 160-watt-per-channel unit in 1977. Then Pioneer fired back with a 180-watt-per-channel behemoth. Others weighed in — literally — with mega-receivers when, finally, Sansui outdid them all with a 220-watt-per-channel receiver. It was so big and heavy that the tuner/preamp and the power amp were built on detachable chassis.

Separates, in other words, sold as a "receiver."

After this, the fad died a swift death and serious audiophiles of the era pursued separates.

Then, throughout the 1980s and early '90s, it seemed as if the "receiver" as a component category was dying out altogether.

And along came home theater and the need for multichannel surround-sound processing and amplification. The receiver was snatched from the jaws of death and given new life in the brave new world of home theater.

Now receivers are more popular — and needed — than ever. But these crazy exercises in excess with the top-of-the-line models may or may not be a good thing. I keep remembering that super-powered receiver fad of the late '70s.

 

[Lewis Besze]

It is.Gold Wing was never attempted to mary an automobile to a motorcycle,though it might looks that way,but riding one as oppose to drive a car is a far cry to one another.The Denon on the other hand clearly wants to "marry" the preamp/amp/tuner into one,and frankly the differences between a flagship receiver and separates won't rival of the difference of driving a car or ride a motorcycle even the GW.I see where you coming from but I simply dissagree with it.

 

[Kenneth Harden]

I tried to race a Yamaha YZF-R1 in my Camry, but it didn't work so well

Maybe the simple fact receivers get more recognition that seperates is the cause. No idea.

 

[GregoriusM]

Since when does our passion of HT run on pure practicality?

The 5800/5803 sold a good number of pieces with the same argument coming when that model came out.

Two 5.1 setups from one receiver? I can see many people going that route. Not everyone likes tons of equipment around the home. Add a decent RF remote and you're cookin'.

Greg

 

[Edgar Christian]

Thanks Octavio for the denon.jp link!