Flagship receivers = Overpriced?? (1 Viewer)

[Jeremy Hegna]

"Now, we could have had the exact same debate if someone said the flagship Yamaha is way better then the flagship Denon."
Mike,
I would assume that would have been a much better debate, seeing as how Yamaha actually has a Flagship
Jack,
Thanks for your sharing your experiences, they mimic mine and many others that have or are considering a flagship receiver. It seems Milt and Aslam have abandoned ship :rolleyes
I will say, as I mentioned earlier, but was misquoted...the Outlaw 950+amps vs. Denon/Pioneer/B&K/Onkyo flagship battle will be interesting to watch unfold. I have every intention of ordering an Outlaw, but I will wait out the pre-orders first. Hopefully one of the early 950 owners will also have one of the flagship receivers to compare it to, preferrably the Pioneer or the Denon 5803 (with the advanced DACs and THX U2). I am very interested in the pre/amp section of these flagship receivers compared to a stand alone pre/amp+amp combo in the same price range. I did mention earlier that my money is on the flagship receiver...but after reading Mr. Simon's review of the 950 it's going to be close. He favors the 950 to an MC-1 and not just because of price, being that he owns both. Some very interesting gear on the horizon to say the least.
Jeremy

 

[EricHaas]

The problem with ALL debates of this nature is that they inevitably lead nowhere. The person trying to generalize from individual experience will *always* be proven wrong, or at least be shown unable to prove that he is right. I could say that the Aiwa bookshelf unit that is now gathering dust in my garage sounds better any set of B&W Nautilus speakers. Who can say otherwise? Not only can I continue to contradict you even if you have done a direct a/b comparison, but the fact is that none of you probably have. And even if you had, I'd say, "well you just can't know how awesome the Aiwa's sound in MY room." Because, yawn, yes, you cannot compare how a component sounds in one room versus another, blah blah - and on and on goes the oft-repeated commentary that makes any meaningful communication on the subject impossible, like so many losely connected words floating through the ether.

The truth of the matter is that the intensely subjective nature of hearing allows an individual to justify *any* purchase of audio equipment. And justify we will. Regardless of what anyone else says, our own purchasing decisions will always be viewed as the superior ones. Except those who do not want to be perceived as arrogant - they will simply state that their gear is at least *as* good as any comparably priced gear, and that almost any purchasing decision is a legitimate one. Then every once in a while someone like Milt makes a bold statement, declaring one component (or combination) superior to others, and those opposing his viewpoint (the owners of the unfavorably compared gear) predictably slam the iron door of subjectivety shut upon him. And the opponents are as right as he is, of course. The door is impenetrable.

I hold a suspicion, which has grown as I have read posts here over the past several months, that most electronics actually sound quite a bit more similar than people care to admit. I often wonder what would happen if the person who hears the night and day difference between 2 preamps will know which is the Denon and which is the Sony if they are not aware of the brand while they are listening...

But then, why open the iron door? It provides as much comfort to us all as it does confinement.

 

[chung]

Eric:

I often wonder what would happen if the person who hears the night and day difference between 2 preamps will know which is the Denon and which is the Sony if they are not aware of the brand while they are listening...

There is a long, ongoing thread on DBT in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup that goes into exactly this subject. It is interesting to check out the viewpoints of both sides.

 

[MatthewJ S]

Several thoughts...

1.)must compare DAC's (as some other poster did btween 4802 & 5800)

2.)must compare quality of pre-out stage (very difficult because most rcvr mfgrs don't tell us much about them- %age of people using them is very low)

3.)must compare build quality/ parts quality (tolerances of parts for example)

4.)must compare feature set/ types of formats(etc)

5.)must consider upgradeability,(yes ,I know that no one on this forum thinks that any mfgr does it fast enough, well enough, or often enough...but if you want to get really comfortable with a piece of gear ,it might be nice for many people to not have to replace every 3 years)

6.)must consider also...the amp comparison question that I don't hear many people talking about......that is, are all stand alone 5/6/7 channel amps NECCESARILY better than the 5/6/7 channel amp (also with a torroidal transformer) built into a flagship? I mean the pre-pro section in a rcvr doesn't generate much noise, nor does it suck much power, so you could certainly come up with a crappier seperates combo.....Now , while the idea of all mono-blocks or 3 IDENTICAL 2-channel amps holds some appeal to me ,space/cost/waf come into play when exploring this option...I understand the enduring value of amps, so used ones may help the cost aspect, however, I would doubt my luck in securing 3 IDENTICAL 2-channel amps, and I don't wish to ever use amps or speakers that aren't matched...

so, I like flagships for the high quality that they provide

and because it is still easier to sell a used rcvr (if neccesary) than a pre-pro...probably because the average guy(and his wife) want it all in one box...Now if there was only a pre-amp mnfgr that made a rcvr with the same pre-out stage and quality of components as they put in their pre-amp ,I'd be happy...Oh, there is! Oh, I am!!!

 

[Wes]

I would assume that would have been a much better debate, seeing as how Yamaha actually has a Flagship

You mean boat anchor?
Wes

 

[Aslam Imran]

I hold a suspicion, which has grown as I have read posts here over the past several months, that most electronics actually sound quite a bit more similar than people care to admit. I often wonder what would happen if the person who hears the night and day difference between 2 preamps will know which is the Denon and which is the Sony if they are not aware of the brand while they are listening...

Well said Eric. Your response is the only sane and sensible one in the whole thread.

 

[Aslam Imran]

Thanks Jeremy for the long cut and paste from the Denon site. I was hoping you would get into some of the theory about how the Al24+ processing with 24/196 dual differential mode DACs was improving the sound. But lets rest it at that. I am hoping at least you have done comparisons of 24/96 vs. 24/192 DACs to see a remarkable difference in sound from one vs. the other?

In any case you have convinced me that the 5803 has to sound better than the 4802. If the 5803 has so many DACs (Burr-Brown and not the plain vanilla ones) that are upsampling to 192 KHz and are stacked then all that length that the manufacturer went to in order to accomplish that has got to make the sound better. I mean cmon ( I am telling this to my self) how can I not see that this will improve the sound dramatically. I am not worthy, I am not worthy....

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"I was hoping you would get into some of the theory about how the Al24+ processing with 24/196 dual differential mode DACs was improving the sound."
Aslam, I am no scientist and I'm not an elecrical or acoustical engineer. I have no idea what you want from me. Obviously, Denon will build their flagship receivers with better offerings than their lower priced siblings.
"In any case you have convinced me that the 5803 has to sound better than the 4802."
Why the sarcasm? I never said anything about the sound being better with the 5803 vs. that of the 4802. Here is my exact quote on the 4802 comparison.
"The differences between the 4802 and the 5800 are significant as well. Both in the internal component isolation, power supply, connectibility, Alpha24 processing, etc. The upgrade for the 5800 will allow flexible bass management like the 4802, but it will also add 24/192 DACs on all channels (2 per channel), and in pure direct, it'll use 8 DACs per channel for some very good sound."
Please quit putting words in my mouth.
"If the 5803 has so many DACs (Burr-Brown and not the plain vanilla ones) that are upsampling to 192 KHz and are stacked then all that length that the manufacturer went to in order to accomplish that has got to make the sound better. I mean cmon ( I am telling this to my self) how can I not see that this will improve the sound dramatically. I am not worthy, I am not worthy...."
What's your point? Would you rather the industry remain stagnant? Do you not welcome the development of new technology? The Denon 4802 nor any other receiver in this price range have utilized this technology. But you know who has? Sony...with their new line of SACD (ES) players. In fact, the XA777ES uses a 6 DAC configuration with 3 per side...they call it the Tri-powered DAC system. This product is owned by a couple of guys here on the forum and the sound is supposedly phenomenal. It is also highly rated by Stereophile's recommended components (double or triple A, can't remember). But then again, so is the Denon 5800
If you believe that all of this technology is voodoo, you have a bit to learn and a lot of listening to do. You wanted a comparison of the DAC structure...I give it to you. Now you want my detailed experience to back up something I never said in the first place. If you have a bone to pick with me, send my a PM. I am not a member of this forum to argue meaningless subjects with you. Your silly comments and scepticism does not help the original poster's inquiries in the least.
Jeremy

 

[Aslam Imran]

If you believe that all of this technology is voodoo, you have a bit to learn and a lot of listening to do. You wanted a comparison of the DAC structure...I give it to you. Now you want my detailed experience to back up something I never said in the first place. If you have a bone to pick with me, send my a PM. I am not a member of this forum to argue meaningless subjects with you. Your silly comments and scepticism does not help the original poster's inquiries in the least.

There you go again with your sarcasm about how I have a lot of learning to do etc.etc. I just wanted to know how the AL24 was implemented into the dual differential DACs in the 5803 and you read me the specs from the Denon site. Also just because Sony implemented a Tri-powered DAC system for good sound why does it imply that a Quad-powered DAC system will only be superior? I am only asking all this as someone earlier in this thread pointed out that people should only speak facts that they have verified themselves and not cite things that they read elsewhere. There is nothing silly about what I am asking since you seem to be quite learned in the realm of signal processing and how upsampling a 48 KHz(?) signal from a CD can be used to improve sound. Like some one once said 'there are no silly questions but only silly answers'.
And if you dont imply that the 5803 is superior to the 4802 in sound then the original posters point is moot.
Over and out.
Elvis has left the building.

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"Also just because Sony implemented a Tri-powered DAC system for good sound why does it imply that a Quad-powered DAC system will only be superior?"
When did I say that the sound of a quad powered DAC system will be superior? I didn't, that's the answer. My point was to show you other high-end component that are using this configuration. In no way have I compared the Sony SACD players to the Denon receivers.
"In any case you have convinced me that the 5803 has to sound better than the 4802. If the 5803 has so many DACs (Burr-Brown and not the plain vanilla ones) that are upsampling to 192 KHz and are stacked then all that length that the manufacturer went to in order to accomplish that has got to make the sound better. I mean cmon ( I am telling this to my self) how can I not see that this will improve the sound dramatically. I am not worthy, I am not worthy...."
If this isn't a sarcastic comment, then what is? You are the one posting sarcastic bullshit, not me. I have only posted facts when you ask for the differences.
"I am only asking all this as someone earlier in this thread pointed out that people should only speak facts that they have verified themselves and not cite things that they read elsewhere. "
No. The way to compare different components is to actually listen to them. The facts that I posted are directly from the Denon engineers. It is FACT, not stuff I made up.
"And if you dont imply that the 5803 is superior to the 4802 in sound then the original posters point is moot."
Why? Are my opinions the only ones that count? I don't think the original poster could care less about the 4802. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you re-read the initial post it doesn't metion anything about the 4802. I have never compared the sound of the 4802 to that of the 5803. Never said I did. Again, putting words into someone's mouth. You've done it several times once again in your latest post.
"Elvis has left the building"
What?
Jeremy

 

[DavidVTHokie]

It's just really hard to really talk about. It really comes down to what you like. To make a car example, I bought an Audi over a Honda, even though it costs more, and is less reliable...but I love driving it day in and day out
It also sadly comes down to the dreaded P/E ratio. A $2000 receiver has too high a ratio for me, so my next receiver will likely be in the $700 range. My boss doesn't have such hangups...

 

[Martice]

Disregard

 

[Elbert Lee]

WOW - seems like this topic is poping up with more regularity these days. Every point is valid some of the arguments are a bit off base because each person has their own set of priorities.

1) FEATURES - of course one can get the SAME amount of features as the Denon 5803 at a less price (at least in the near future) - Those who argue that a piece like the 5803 is not worth the $$$ for simply features ALONE need to temper their judgement on those who are willing to pay for a flagship product like the Denon 5803. One may argue the same point with Meridian, Krell, and even B&K owners. A Toyota Camry and a Dodge Viper can both go 60mph, comes with A/C and power door locks, and maybe, both can have leather seats too!

2) As an amp - for those arguing that the AMP in the 5803 is simply not worth the $4000 ($3400 street) price, you are correct. But, do you think that 5803 owners purchased the unit for the amp alone?

The REAL topic in this issue is how DENON decided to package the product as a SELF CONTAINTED UNIT without the need for a separte amp. I agree that the amp section is probably the most controversial portion of this product (not the preamp) and I can see why B&K 307 owners can appreciate their receivers because, from what I understand the B&K's internal amp closely resembles the established 5 channel separate amp design. My PERCEPTION is that the B&K 307 is a better balanced flagship receiver because it SEEMS to have a more robust AMP section. I can concur that, if Denon were to integrate a truly a convincingly high end amp in the 5803, it might suceed in dispelling some of the preconceptions about such a high profile "somewhat" large Japanese manufacturer. (It probably would have been better for Denon to produce a line of separates and then base their 5803 off the same line)

3) PREAMP - the 5803's preamp section is truly remarkable and, had Denon priced the unit at $3500 as a stand alone pre/pro, without the amp section, I'm willing to bet that there would be a lot less to debate about. It's funny how those who base their judgements almost entirely on FEATURES alone don't go argue their points against products made by Meridian, Theat, Lexicon, Integra, MARANZT (first to come out with a $4500 receiver that offers even less than the Denon)

After speaking to CE industry insiders (long time dealers, product reps, engineers, and hobbyiest) all have agreed the the 5803 is built with similar quality, parts, and audiophile design principals as the higher end products. Audiophiles in the past have had no problem paying THOUSANDS for this quality of craftsmanship in a simple 2 channel PREAMP, so there is a market for a quality piece like the 5803.

Traditionally, audiophiles have scoffed at the idea of receivers simply because of the inherint disadvantages in housing an amp, tuner, and pre/pro section in one chasis. In addition, manufacturers didn't feel the need to have build them with the same quality materials, parts and assembly as the boutique manufacturers. Now that they ARE, there is some resistance to the idea that these large manufacturers are INCAPABLE of building a solid product that can compete with some of the smaller high end manufacturers.

I applaude Denon for pushing boundaries of features and attempting to diversify their product line for past customers looking to upgrade.

Elbert

 

[James Bergeron]

After reading this VERY long thread I just want to add a few comments.
Since the thread went off on a tangent of sort I would like to address the original question. Although it is subjective to everyone it all depends on a persons opinion so there is NO answer to the question!
But I would also like to say, that in my opinion if one is striving for excellent performance that will last a long time (hence a good investment) one should invest in seperate AMPS no mater what!
Use seperate AMPs on your Sony ES receiver and it sounds great, ah next year TONS of new features come out, buy the new receiver or buy a pre/pro or something. Whatever, but the AMPS will not change and this is usually the more costly portion of the setup!
You can always sell your pre/pro or receiver and get funds back making the upgrade a financially responsible one!
If you have money to burn then do whatever you please
There are solely my opinions!
For the record I use a Denon 4800 and an extern amp a Denon POA-5200.
I bought the 4800 because I couldn't afford the 5800, the 4800 was on sale for 1/2 price and well, my current processor was a middle of the road JVC that pailed in comparison when I brought it home. Bringing it home is the key and part of some ppl's arguments here. Honestly at the store, I thought my JVC was better, but when I brought the denon home at least 1000 times better.
And I wasn't happy having to drop the dough on the receiver but I couldn't return after I heard the difference!

 

[Tomoko Noguchi]

All I can say is that my new Yamaha flagship receiver (although to be a receiver it must have a tuner--more a integrated amplifier) is the best one I have heard for a while. I have it connected to my Parasound 2205 and am using it as a preamplifier. Beautiful!

 

[Frank Frandsen]

As for myself....Over the last 10 years in home theater 4 receiver/pre-amp changes have occurred. I started with a pioneer dpl receiver and was happy..A few years later I changed to a Yamaha receiver for the higher quality and various DSP modes and felt it was worth while. 3 years later( 3 years is a common upgrade date point) I ventured into dolby digital/dts with another yamaha (2095) and was pleased with the results.

But all was not right. While the new formats were pleasing my ears were noticing the overly bright/low headroom amps in the Yamaha. This model seemed to have lower quality amps than my first yamaha.

To test my theory I purchased a 3 channel Acurus amp for the front. sure enough I noticed the improvement. I got another acurus for the rear and I was again happy.

Then dpl 2 was gaining ground. I wanted it and thought of getting another Yamaha receiver and use the Acurus amps. After a deep thought process the idea was shelved. The pre/pro was my new goal. After a extensive research junket the Integra RDC-7 seemed cool because of it's upgradeability . I purchased it and upgraded my acurus amps to 2 5channel Sherbourns.

I use to wondered why people spent huge sums of money on separates. It is because a receiver is a compromise. Now I am not 1 to talk about a sonic miracle but lets say the RDC-7 and the sherbourns have reduced my ear fatigue great. Not only the extra power but extra depth lacking with a receiver. It is subtle but it is there and I am not going back

FF

 

[Mark Larson]

Bottom line is, the Sony must be lacking something for it to cost so much less.

Sigh...

 

[Mark Larson]

A Toyota Camry and a Dodge Viper can both go 60mph, comes with A/C and power door locks, and maybe, both can have leather seats too!

Yeah but a Viper doesn't come with an Automatic transmission!

 

[Dave Moritz]

I will agree to on thing and that is now a days there are some very good mid priced receivers that can perform as good as the flagships. If you add a good solid power amp to them. Now in the case of the Denon AVR-5800 it has more options than the Sony DA5ES or any other mid level receiver. I have a Yamaha RX-V995 and the Denon has more than my receiver does. Its has better DAC's (192khz dacs), triple zone, more digital inputs that are asignable, 160w/ch x 6, a docking station for the remote that makes it a rf remote, dual 8.1 inputs not 5.1 or 6.1, and the newer AVR-5803 has that and more power and all the updated surround - Prologic2, Ultra Thx 2, DTS-ES, DD-EX and other audio modes. I may even forgot a few things but this flagship model has alot built into it. This is why I am seriously considering buying this unit. Because it would be the last receiver I would buy for at least 10 years! I researched this receiver against Pioneer, Sony ES, Onkyo Integra, Kenwood, B&W, Harman Kardon and a few others. The salesman pitch nor there b.s. played any part in my decision on purchasing this unit. The Denon 5800/5803 sold itself on pure audio quality and HT processor quality. And listening to DVD-A thru this receiver was a true joy. If I do not buy this receiver I will add some good performing amps to my Yamaha RX-V 995 which has DTS & DD 5.1 already and has a 5.1 input for DVD-A. It may not be as fancy as the Denon but it is a top notch receiver in it own right. Now if you want to talk about super flagship receivers or flagship pre/turner pros. Then nothing Sony ES, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo Integra, Harman Kardon Citation, Yamaha, Denon or even B&K. Can touch the pure audio quality of a McIntosh or its equivalent. This is the equipment that is about performance and the best of all parts. Yes some people buy them to brag but the equipment blows the doors off any mid priced model. Is there a need for mid priced models, oh yes. Am I knocking mid priced models, no. Some people can not afford high end models, some do not care for them, some do not appreciate them. The bottom line is if you are happy with what you have it should not matter what the Jones have in there HT system. That is why we have such a large selection of equipment. And I am glad that quality has gone up in the past 5 to 6 years. Most people can have a sound system that rivals the local theater. And that is the coolest thing of all. So all you HT owner out there, Enjoy!

Dave M.

 

[Elbert Lee]

Agreed. There's a receiver and preamp for everyone. They won't build a product if there's no market for it.