1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

Parasound AVC1800 compared to Denon's 5803

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Patrick vdb, Jun 6, 2002.

  1. Patrick vdb

    Patrick vdb Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In Holland the Parasound is not that much known so I will have to ask it to you guys[​IMG]
    How does the Parasound AVC1800 decoding ability perform when compared to the newer Denon 5803 (in Holland the AVC-A1SR, same amp but without the tuner)? I know that the Parasound is not able to decode the newer soundformats which the Denon can but that is not my mainconcern. I just want to know how the Parasound performs in quality.
    Thanks
    Patrick
     
  2. Dalton

    Dalton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    Real Name:
    Dalton
    Hello Patrick,
    I think the Denon would be the better choice. The Parasound AVC1800 has been around a while and i have read several complaints about various problems. You can check out some of the reviews of the Parasound unit at http://www.audioreview.com/A-V,Pream...7_2719crx.aspx
     
  3. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    patrick, the Parasound can be awkward to use at times, until you get use to it. the designated source swithes don't remember what input was assigned to it, and a couple little things like that, that get annoying to some people. Personally, I like the 1800 (even more than my dads Rotel 976, that has plenty of wierd set up problems itself). It sounds great and I don't care about going 6.1 AT ALL (2 channel and a great sounding 5.1 is much more important to me, even if I upgrade to the Rotel 1066, I won't use the 6.1)
     
  4. Patrick vdb

    Patrick vdb Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also read about the problems this Parasound had but are still willing to give it a try out (at the dealer). My main concern was indeed the performance of this rather elder pre/pro against a new topnotch receiver of Denon. The Parasound uses DAC's which are rather old compared to the one's being used now and the same goes for the processor. Does this has a negative influence in the overall sound when compared to newer products?

    best regards

    Patrick
     
  5. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They use 24 bit converters and sound very good to my ears. I think that parasounds goal was a good sounding pre/pro for a decent price, rather than all the latest electronic gadgets. teh unit is a very simple piece without "DSPs", etc... I haven't compared it to a Denon, but I am not a "reciever guy" so I have no need to. I am under the belief that the more electronics in a box, the more room for unwanted noise.

    Just my opinion
     
  6. Patrick vdb

    Patrick vdb Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DSP's and other gadgets is also not what I'm looking for. I just need a good sounding and performing pre/pro for a conventional 5.1 set-up which can decode DD and DTS. As for the newer products they almost all have DD-EX DTS-ES and tons of DSP's or other stuff inwhich I'm not interested but have to pay for when I consider buying a topnotch reciever.

    What about the locking problems, low noise level which are reported much at audioreview.com Are these common problems with this Parasound or are it just indivdual problems?

    I think I have to audit the AVC1800 a time. A dealer in Holland is selling it together with the HCA885 amp which I surely don't like (prefer the 1205 or 2205).

    Best regards,

    Patrick
     

Share This Page